Bush Republicans...what does it take to give up on Bush ?

[Mr.Svinlesha]

xtisme:

I obviously totally disagree. While tragic, in cold numbers more folks die a year in automobile accidents in a large city than have died in Iraq so far. I just don’t see it as a major issue except for people who were already against Bush anyway.

Hmmm…find me a town in the US with a population between 135000 and 150000 that suffered more than 700 traffic fatalities over the last year.

Simon X and Sample the Dog are examples of people for whom the situation in Iraq is a major issue, even though they weren’t originally against Bush. Another is this columnist with the Kansas City Star (registration required), who writes:

**I’m ashamed to say it, but I almost cannot bear to read each morning’s news from the war, or look at the photographs — images of vehicles on fire, of wrecked buildings, and of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians carrying their dead and wounded away….

So I do not linger long over the day’s news. I read as much of it as I am able, then put it aside, although as I’ve said I’m ashamed of doing it.

But the truth is, I have worse than that to be ashamed of.

I’m ashamed of believing that Saddam Hussein was worth the price of this thing we’re now caught up in.

And ashamed of my credulity in believing the false reasons given for undertaking it.

I’m ashamed of the suffering our mistakes have cost, and of the way in which we have so cavalierly alienated our friends and allies in the world.

I’m ashamed of having accepted, so willingly, the illusions about how this operation would end, when it is now clear the architects of it themselves had no understanding of the difficulty and no sensible plan.

All this is hindsight now. There’s no remedy for the regret. Except as a guide for the future, regret is useless. There’s but one constructive thing left to do, and I will do it again when the opportunity presents itself.

I will vote.**

So I’m not sure you’ve convinced me yet. I agree that the economy is also an important consideration, but I doubt the election can be reduced to a single issue.
pervert:

But try to look at the situation from another angle if you can. If you assume that the evidence for the list of “mistakes” you gave is pretty clear cut, your position is fairly reasonable. But what if the evidence is not so clear cut. What if, in fact, much of it is quite suspect. If you assume that the mistakes you blame Bush for are not mistakes at all, (or did not happen) then your valuation of him versus Kerry would certainly change.*

Well, not to be condescending, but that’s fairly obvious. I think Rashak is wondering what it would take to get “Bush Republicans” to realize that Bush is either inept or willfully mendacious, since there is such an extensive body of evidence for this assertion.

Specifically I (and perhaps they) take offence at the suggestion that support for President Bush is a result of stupidity, nefarious intent, or credulity. There is little evidence that such is the case. Unless you take a few things for granted, namely that he is not, in fact, doing a fine job.

Consider this recent poll, Most see Iraq link to al-Qaeda (registration also required):

** A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein gave “substantial support” to al-Qaeda before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.

In addition, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that “clear evidence” was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. Thirty-eight percent believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and 22 percent believe he had a major program for developing them.

There is no known evidence to date that these statements are true….

Despite that record, many Americans continue to believe that the threat from Iraqi weapons and its alleged links to terrorism justified the war. That conviction correlates closely with support for the war and President Bush, the poll found.

For example, among those who say most experts agree that Iraq had banned weapons, 72 percent plan to vote for Bush.

Assertions by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and its alleged links to terrorism helped shape public perceptions, said Steven Kull, the director of the program.**

Well, you used the words “stupidity, nefarious intent, or credulity.” Although I’m not completely comfortable with that characterization in all cases (I’ve no doubt that Sam, for example, is none of the above), this poll does provide evidence that something strange is going on. As Sam writes, it seems like even the “facts” are in dispute.

We have a chicken-and-egg question here as well. There appears to be a correlation between 1) supporting Bush and 2) believing many of the administration’s pre-war claims regarding Iraq. But the question arises, which is cause, and which is effect?

57% of the US public (give or take a couple of percentage points) still believes that Saddam supported al-Qaida prior to the war. 45% believe, despite all news coverage to the contrary, that the US has uncovered solid evidence of this cooperation. Of this group, 72% plan to vote for Bush in the next election. Is it possible that they simply don’t know the truth? In that case, one might conclude that ignorance is the driving force behind much of Bush’s support. If these people were to discover that their beliefs were mistaken, they might not support him.

But what if they choose to support Bush first, so to speak, and then as a result willfully choose to ignore information that runs counter to their preconceptions? In such a case they would simply take Bush’s word as truth, and dismiss the rest – as the spin of a partisan, “liberal media,” for example. A lot of us on the left are beginning to ask that question, which, by the way, ties in to the issue Sam raised above concerning the diametrically opposed perceptions of Iraq, the occupation, and so on. For example, one political analyst suggests that the poll results suggest that “We’re so polarized right now that people are seeing what they want to see through a very partisan lens.” Juan Cole wonders:

**Why would so many Americans cling to patently false beliefs? One can only speculate of course. But I would suggest that the two-party system in the US has produced a two-party epistemology. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. If it were accepted that Saddam had virtually nothing to do with al-Qaeda, that he had no weapons of mass destruction (nor any significant programs for producing them), and that no evidence for such things has been uncovered after the US and its allies have had a year to comb through Baath documents-- if all that is accepted, then President Bush’s credibility would suffer. For his partisans, it is absolutely crucial that the president retain his credibility. Therefore, rather than face reality, they re-jigger it to create a fantasy world in which Saddam and Usamah are buddies (as in the Jimmy Fallon/ Horatio Sanz skits on the American comedy show, Saturday Night Live), and in which David Kay (of whom respondents say they’ve never heard) never recanted his earlier belief that the WMD was there somewhere.

Of those who maintain that Iraq actually did have WMD, 72% say they are going to vote for Bush.**

and goes on to reflect upon a recent example:

** It is bad for the country for policy to be made based on falsehoods, and it is even worse for failed policies not be be recognized as such because the public clings to myths.

I saw how the mythical opinions are generated at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations where I testified last Tuesday. Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified, and began his testimony with a long quote from Usama Bin Laden about how the US was timid and had easily been chased out of Lebanon and Aden with a few bombs. It was an odd way to begin a hearing on what has gone wrong in Iraq.

…it seems clear to me that Schlesinger was trying to shape his Senate testimony so as to hint around that the Iraq War was somehow connected to al-Qaeda, even though we all know that it wasn’t. The only one who challenged Schlesinger on this was Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee…

Actually, George Tenet has testified that there was no relation between Saddam and 9/11. What is interesting here is how completely honest and aboveboard Chafee was being, in taking on the Neocon Consensus. That consensus has been adopted by the Right of the Republican Party as its election playbook, and it is repeated on Fox Cable News, on rightwing talk radio, at Republican fundraisers, dinners, and in television interviews all through the Red States. So far the Republican Right has been able to keep its partisans with it on these matters….

If nearly half the country cannot even see that things are going badly wrong in Iraq, one despairs that anyone will work up the political will to try to fix the problems before it is too late.**

(As an aside, I note in these debates it is often argued by those who support Bush that those who criticize his policies are driven by their dislike of him as a person to spin every possible issue as negatively as possible – hence the epithet “Bush-basher,” and comments like that of xtisme, above, to the effect that the Iraq war is not “a major issue except for people who were already against Bush anyway.”)

Finally, Josh Marshall wonders about the effect Bush could exert upon this mistaken belief, should he choose to do so:

** But consider this. And let’s consider this a thought experiment, probing the limits of passive presidential deception.

Let’s say that 55% of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the war and that they were providing material support to al Qaida. Let’s not question why they believe it. Let’s just put it out there.

Now, what would happen if in some major forum – a press conference or a major speech – the president were to go before the public and say: “Before the invasion, we believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We made the best guess based on the intelligence we had. But, now, having looked at all the evidence, it’s clear we were wrong. He didn’t have them.”

Clearly, here we’re setting aside questions of bad-faith and willful deception. But let’s give him the best foot to put forward.

A week after that speech, or that comment in a press conference, how much do you think those numbers (55%) would change? I suspect they’d change quite a bit.

And what that tells me is that, to a great degree, the portion of the public that is is misinformed on this issue is misinformed because the president continues to deceive them, even if in a passive manner.

And why does he does so? Because it is in his political interest that they remain deceived.**

Look back at kanicbird’s bizarre post (page 2, # 68). To him, the facts on the ground are simply lies. Any evidence that contradicts his vision of the Bush presidency and its Iraq policies is nothing more than the construction of a “liberal media” that hates Bush, and hates America.

At a more sophisticated level, it works like this: any sort evidence, no matter how fragmentary or suspect, is immediately seized upon and trumpeted as proof that the pro-war side is right. Any evidence that runs counter to that view, on the other hand, is treated differently; we cannot jump to conclusion in that case. We must take a step back, gather more data, analyze more carefully, and then maybe, in 4 or 5 years, we’ll be able to come to a conclusion about it. Thus, on the basis of quite flimsy evidence, the administration can claim that Iraq has extensive contacts with al-Qaida, or that there can be “no doubt” that it possesses some of the most destructive weapons known to man. Then, afterwards, when mountains of evidence reveal these assertions to be false, they step back and claim, “We need more time; we need to gather more data.” The more knowledgeable Bush supporters tend to employ this strategy as well, in my experience. It’s a very effective technique, especially since it creates the illusion that one is being fair-minded and cautiously open to contrary evidence.
Sam:

Bummer about your post. A word to the wise: I always compose my responses in Word, and then cut and paste. That way, if the hamsters attack, I still have a copy to repost.

Am looking forward to your response. I’m still not finished critiquing your last effort, either, so, in the words of the governor of California: “I’ll be back.”

[Rashak_Mani]

@Mr. Svinlesha

Look back at kanicbird’s bizarre post (page 2, # 68). To him, the facts on the ground are simply lies. Any evidence that contradicts his vision of the Bush presidency and its Iraq policies is nothing more than the construction of a “liberal media” that hates Bush, and hates America.

I thought no one would mention that wacko post… absolute denial of reality !

Great post Mr. Svinlesha, pretty much summarized it all in one.

As for party politics… I think its gone a bit further than that. Bush has appealed to national and patriotic sentiment that goes way beyond gun toting republicanism. The very issue of “America is Good” is called in doubt if Iraq was invaded for no good reason. To grasp the concept of Iraq being either a major fumble or major deceit isn’t something people want to do.

I don't know about other so called "liberals" here... but I sympathize with a lot of what would be called Republican ideas: Smaller Government, no handouts and business minded policies. So I don't like people answering criticism to Bush with criticisms to Clinton... its silly. If Bush is not doing a good job... get another fucking Republican !  I would vote for Powell anyday if I could. There must be some rational republicans left over... even if they have a few distasteful religious or military ideas.... anything but Bush.

[PatriotX]

What if the GWB WH staffed the Pentagon with Mylroie conspiracists?
Would that be enough to change anyone’s mind about the quality of the WH’s judgement?

[PatriotX]

@Rashak Mani

I thought no one would mention that wacko post… absolute denial of reality !

I addressed it thusly, (but with shitty coding):
“If you were a little more correct, you’d be wrong. As it is, though, you’re not even wrong.
I’m particularly surprised to learn the GWB eliminated spam.”

@Rashak Mani

   I don't know about other so called "liberals" here... but I sympathize with a lot of what would be called Republican ideas: Smaller Government, no handouts and business minded policies. So I don't like people answering criticism to Bush with criticisms to Clinton... its silly. If Bush is not doing a good job... get another fucking Republican !  I would vote for Powell anyday if I could. There must be some rational republicans left over... even if they have a few distasteful religious or military ideas.... anything but Bush.

Take a look at the American Conservative Union’s Statement of principles.
Choice quotes

**It is our belief that the Constitution is designed to guarantee the free exercise of the inherent rights of the individual through strictly limiting the power of government.
We further believe that our liberties can remain secure only if government is so limited that it cannot infringe upon those rights.
We believe that any responsible conservative organization must conduct itself within the framework of the Constitution; in pursuance of this belief we refuse to countenance any actions which conflict in any way with the traditions of the American political system.
**
Maybe you’re a conservative and didn’t know it?

[Kimstu]

SimonX: What if the GWB WH staffed the Pentagon with Mylroie conspiracists?

“Mylroie conspiracists”? Wozzat?

[google google google…] Oh.

Nah, I think that if someone can still defend the Administration’s “Iraqi-threat” scare tactics despite their massive factual wrongness and apparent unscrupulous deceitfulness, they won’t be fazed by the revelation that these scare tactics were largely based on the ideas of someone who seems to be a crackpot conspiracy theorist:

At the end of the interview, Mylroie, who exudes a slightly frazzled, batty air, started getting visibly agitated, her finger jabbing at the camera and her voice rising to a yell as she outlined the following apocalyptic scenario: “[…] There is a very acute chance as we go to war that Saddam will use biological agents as revenge against Americans, that there will be anthrax in the United States and there will be smallpox in the United States. Are you in Canada prepared for Americans who have smallpox and do not know it crossing the border and bringing that into Canada?”

This kind of hysterical hyperbole is emblematic of Mylroie’s method, which is to never let the facts get in the way of her monomaniacal certainties. In the case of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, she has said that Terry Nichols, one of the plotters, was in league with Ramzi Yousef. Richard Matsch, the veteran federal judge who presided over the Oklahoma City bombing case, ruled any version of this theory to be inadmissible at trial. Mylroie implicates Iraq in the 1996 bombing of a U.S. military facility in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 U.S. servicemen. In 2001, a grand jury returned indictments in that case against members of Saudi Hezbollah, a group with ties not to Iraq, but Iran. Mylroie suggests that the attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 might have been “the work of both bin Laden and Iraq.” An overseas investigation unprecedented in scope did not uncover any such connection. Mylroie has written that the crash of TWA flight 800 into Long Island Sound in 1996 likely was an Iraqi plot. A two-year investigation by the National Tran-sportation Safety Board ruled it was an accident. According to Mylroie, Iraq supplied the bomb-making expertise for the attack which killed 17 U.S. sailors on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. No American law enforcement official has made that claim. Mylroie blames Iraq for the post-9/11 anthrax attacks around the United States. Marilyn Thompson, The Washington Post’s investigations editor, who has written an authoritative book on those attacks, says, “The F.B.I. has essentially dismissed this theory and says there is no evidence to support it.” A U.S. counter-terrorism official remarked: “Mylroie probably thinks the Washington sniper was an Iraqi.”

[Shodan]

I think the Left is going thru something in the twentyfirst century that conservatives went thru in the 90s.

“How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don’t you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?”

To which the reponse is, “That isn’t as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy.”

Which side is showing blinkered ideological blindness? Why not the other?

We are looking at the same set of facts, but thru different lenses. Yes, you too. And your version is no more unquestionably right than my version.

Which is why I thought Sam Stone’s question way back on page 1 was a useful one. Under what circumstances would some of our more rabid posters begin to support Bush? What would it take?

Or is the answer “Nothing he could do would change my mind”, in which case perhaps stubborn partisan blindness is not confined solely to the GOP side of the aisle.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

@Mr. Svinlesha

Hmmm…find me a town in the US with a population between 135000 and 150000 that suffered more than 700 traffic fatalities over the last year.

Well, its not a very valid comparison, as you well know. Combat is just slightly more dangerous than driving your car when you compare relative numbers in population/troops deployed. However, instead of nit picking my example, which breaks down as you know in direct numbers (and was ridiculous IMO for you to make), why not address my core assertion…that is, that Iraq doesn’t weigh as heavily with the voters as the economy does/will come November. If you think that Iraq and the current level of troop losses will end up weighing more heavily, or even be relatively the same weight with the voters as the economy simply say that and we can disagree.

Hell, never mind. We’ll just wait and see what happens to the economy by November and see how the election goes. If the economy improves (or the perception is that it has) and Bush still loses then I’m obviously wrong…or if the economy goes to shit and Bush still wins then again I’m wrong.

-XT

[Rashak_Mani]

@Shodan

To which the reponse is, “That isn’t as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy.”

Which side is showing blinkered ideological blindness? Why not the other?

Which is why I thought Sam Stone’s question way back on page 1 was a useful one. Under what circumstances would some of our more rabid posters begin to support Bush? What would it take?

Or is the answer “Nothing he could do would change my mind”, in which case perhaps stubborn partisan blindness is not confined solely to the GOP side of the aisle.

Regards,
Shodan

When Clinton said he didn't have sex... I thought he was hiding something. Most Brazilians thought it was amusing at worse. Well apparently he did lie... so much for the blue dress and american morality. No casualties beyond the supposed bombing of Belgrade. Lying about Iraq is real nasty vs blowjob nasty.

Kerry is no great leader... or doesn't appear to be so. Still compared to the avalanche of dirt coming up about Bush I did wonder what Bush needed to do in order for his followers to blink at least. Ideological blinders I feel are more on the Bush side than the opposition. With the recent polls about half of americans beleiving in AQ - Saddam connection and that WMDs do exist I feel warranted in this belief. 

Sam could start another thread on the topic of course… the reasons I’m against Bush are pretty solid I feel… and even though I’m prone to overlook some good things he might have done… I see much more negative things.

One thing his supporters correctly claim is that Bush is determined and "stays the course" or doesn't flinch evertime a new poll comes around. Though a good part of this is called "stubborn" elsewhere. Bush has followed a certain line of thought and action. We can with certainty say we know what creature he is. Its not a quality to always be the same to me... but he certainly is solid in his ideals. Bad or good. He doesn't flip flop like he likes to compare with Kerry... but this can be very bad. Stubborness combined with self rightneous, no ability to see the other side, and a staff of handlers or yes sayers means Bush will stay the course out of sheer pride, prejudice or lack of ability to admit he can do something else. The world is complex and no plan is immune to defects. Politics and people change. To adapt to changing conditions is good in my view. 

So no I cannot ever change my mind on Bush because he apparently is set in the 19th century religious and moralistic views I cannot agree with. He doesn't seem capable of having a more multilateral view of the world... he beleives the US is God's creation and responsible for giving "freedom" to others in God's name. He favors certain elements and factions that are unacceptable. So unless he becomes in a pretty short period of time a real diplomat... a real leader... a real multilateralist and sheds his neo-con creeps I can say I have good reasons to want to see him fall.

[Shodan]

@Rashak Mani

So no I cannot ever change my mind on Bush …

Precisely.

And I assume you don’t believe this is so because you are stubbornly stupid or hypocritical or blindly partisan.

Those who disagree with you don’t believe that about themselves either.

“After the twenty-six thousand Bush-bashings on the SDMB, anyone who still supports Bush must be a moron or a hypocrite. Bush Republicans - which is it?” is just not a question that can be answered to your satisfaction.

Regards,
Shodan

[Rashak_Mani]

@Shodan

And I assume you don’t believe this is so because you are stubbornly stupid or hypocritical or blindly partisan.

Regards,
Shodan

Quote the rest please ?!

“So no I cannot ever change my mind on Bush because he apparently is set in the 19th century religious and moralistic views I cannot agree with. He doesn’t seem capable of having a more multilateral view of the world… he beleives the US is God’s creation and responsible for giving “freedom” to others in God’s name. He favors certain elements and factions that are unacceptable. So unless he becomes in a pretty short period of time a real diplomat… a real leader… a real multilateralist and sheds his neo-con creeps I can say I have good reasons to want to see him fall.”

[pervert]

@Mr. Svinlesha

But what if they choose to support Bush first, so to speak, and then as a result willfully choose to ignore information that runs counter to their preconceptions?

Or what if they simply interpret the value of such evidence diferently than you do? Is it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that some of the evidence you are talking about is not 100% conclusive?

At a more sophisticated level, it works like this: any sort [of] evidence, no matter how fragmentary or suspect, is immediately seized upon and trumpeted as proof that the pro-war side is right. Any evidence that runs counter to that view, on the other hand, is treated differently; we cannot jump to conclusion in that case. We must take a step back, gather more data, analyze more carefully, and then maybe, in 4 or 5 years, we’ll be able to come to a conclusion about it.

Do you not think there is a similar effect running from the other side?

Look. I am not really interested in rehashing all of the evidence for or against various complaints about Bush. That’s been done to death. Polls that claim more people believe someting ridiculous are not that persuasive either. How was the question about an Iraq - Al-Qaeada link phrased? Is it possible that they asked something along the lines of “was there a link between Iraq and terrorism before the Iraq war?” Or do you think they asked “Did Saddam Husein give money, arms, training, or safe havens to members of Al-Qaeada involved in the attacks of 9-11?” As I think the article (and you to some extent) are trying to assert that people believe. While I’m at this, do you agree that such a question (mine about how the question was asked) might be a legitimate probe into the poll results? Or am I simply being partisan.

For example, among those who say most experts agree that Iraq had banned weapons, 72 percent plan to vote for Bush.

Doesn’t this mean that 28% of the respondants believe that Iraq had banned weapons and still will not vote for Bush?

You see, I really think it is that group (although from the other side of the isle) that the OP was addressing. Those who believe that Bush committed all these acts of incompetence and will still vote for him. Unfortunately, he and you seem bent on lumping all Bush supporters (note you use the term “Bush Republicians” without a definition) in with them. Remember he did not ask what would it take for “Bush Republicians” to beleive any of the claims against him. It appears from reading it that he is specifically talking to those who already believe them or from a vantage point which ignores the possiblitiy that reasoned people might disagree with them.
If I may, I’d like to mention one other point. It has seemed to me that the derision heaped on the supporters of the war for their supposed linking it with the war on Terror has been unfairly placed.

[…]Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified, and began his testimony with a long quote from Usama Bin Laden about how the US was timid and had easily been chased out of Lebanon and Aden with a few bombs. It was an odd way to begin a hearing on what has gone wrong in Iraq.
[…]
it seems clear to me that Schlesinger was trying to shape his Senate testimony so as to hint around that the Iraq War was somehow connected to al-Qaeda, even though we all know that it wasn’t.

How is such a link clear? What if he was merely saying that the Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq now may be thinking like this. That is, they may think we will cut and run after a few bombs. Such a statement at the begining of testimony with which he intended to influence the Senate to stay the course would not in any way be “odd way to begin”.

I know this is not the way you intended the quote, but I’d just like to point out that this is the sort of evidence commonly brought out to claim that the Bush Administration has tried to link the Iraq war and 9-11. If you could see how such evidence might be dismissed, or perhaps how it might be lowered in probitive value, you might be able to understand how so many people disbelieve the things which you take for granted.

[pervert]

@Rashak Mani

Still compared to the avalanche of dirt coming up about Bush[…]

Ideological blinders I feel are more on the Bush side than the opposition.

If I may suggest, the avalanche as you suggest might just be because of Ideological blinders from the other side. The hatred of Bush started long before 9-11 or the Iraq war. It is irrational and has not been built slowly over his term in office. I recognize it because I saw the same sort of irrational hatred aimed at Clinton from the other side. The phenomena is almost identical.

[Rashak_Mani]

@pervert

If I may suggest, the avalanche as you suggest might just be because of Ideological blinders from the other side. The hatred of Bush started long before 9-11 or the Iraq war. It is irrational and has not been built slowly over his term in office. I recognize it because I saw the same sort of irrational hatred aimed at Clinton from the other side. The phenomena is almost identical.

Hatred of Bush has always been there, correct. Yet books, reports and info that point out his mistakes are more recent. Iraq is there for anyone to see. It cound't be anyway else... how can you write stuff about a president recently taking office ?

[Kimstu]

Shodan: *“How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don’t you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?”

To which the reponse is, “That isn’t as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy.” *

Crumbs Shodan, you’re suggesting that lying about getting a blowjob from an intern is of comparable importance to lying about the reasons for the United States to start a war?!?

Either you think wars are not that big a deal, or you take extramarital blowjobs really, really, really seriously.

[blowero]

@pervert

Sample_the_Dog, blowero and jshore

You are all missing the point. No one is saying that Bush’s “mistakes” are going to be held against Kerry if he wins. No one is saying that major policy shifts are necessary to save the nation but Kerry is not providing enough detail. Nor the bizarre contention that some people want to keep the perpetrator of said “mistakes”.

I didn’t miss any point. This is what you said before:

But there is a perfectly well understood way to argue with such a position. Explain how the policies in question are not quite as good as expected and then explain how your candidate’s policies would necessarily produce better results. The problem, is that Kerry is not able to do that. The Democrats are so focused on Bush bashing that they are unwilling or unable to present any sort of policy to fix what they call a mess with such hyperbole.

Seriously, what does Kerry propose to fix Iraq. If it was such a huge mistake, what is he going to do to fix it. If you answer is merely that he will try and get the UN more involved how is that a large enough policy shift to justify the rhetoric?

This is ENTIRELY different matter than simply saying “Bush didn’t make any mistakes”, which now seems to be your contention. Well, if you don’t think Bush made any mistakes, then QUITE OBVIOUSLY you aren’t going to vote against him, so as far as you are concerned, it makes no difference what the details of Kerry’s plan are, because you don’t think any change is necessary at all.

The point of all of this is that it makes the democratic claims (or at least their hyperbolic rhetoric) much less believable because they have no concrete suggestions for how to fix the problems.

But that’s the point. We say Bush screwed up, and you claim our position lacks merit because we don’t have a “more detailed” way out of BUSH’s mess (whatever that means). That’s absurd. You are not in a position to judge Kerry’s plan, because you DON’T EVEN THINK WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY. It doesn’t matter WHAT Kerry says, you automatically are going to disagree, because you are in favor of the status quo.

What we have in Iraq right now is a serious counter-insurgency, American soldiers dying every day, and a June 30th deadline to transfer power, with nobody to transfer it to. Sorry, but that’s a mess by any definition, no hyperbole required. And it’s playing right into bin Laden’s hands. He wants nothing more than for the U.S. to take over an oil-rich Middle East country, because that’s what he said was going to happen. To the radical factions, it doesn’t matter that we’re trying to transfer power and failing; they will think we are trying to rule Iraq, and it will simply fuel the fire. The only way out of this dilemna is to get the U.N. involved. We stand a MUCH better chance of convincing all the Iraqi people to accept a new government if we can diffuse the perception that the U.S. ALONE is trying to ram it down their throats. Sure, it’s not guaranteed to work, but it’s certainly a better idea than what Bush is doing.

I find this to be an eminently sound policy. Exactly what more do you want? Do you want Kerry to draw up detailed battle plans and troop movements before he’s even in office and before he has even had a chance to communicate with our allies to secure their cooperation and get their input? The whole point is sharing the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq; making it a true international effort. He can’t give ALL the details RIGHT NOW because the details are going to depend on the dynamics of the situation once others are involved.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Sam:

Returning, then, to where we left off (approximately):

Even today, with all the screwups and violence, a plurality of Iraqis think the war was the right thing to do, and that includes the Sunni areas which actually had it pretty good under Saddam. Support for the war is still in the high 80’s in the Kurdish regions and not much lower in the southern Shiite areas.

The poll you cite gainsays this assessment:

There are huge differences in these and many other questions between Arab Iraqis, who account for 79 percent of the population, and the Kurdish minority (17 percent). Forty percent of Arabs say it was right for the United States to invade; that soars to 87 percent of Kurds. Just one-third of Arabs say the war liberated rather than humiliated Iraq; it’s 82 percent of Kurds. Thirty percent of Arabs support the presence of coalition forces, again compared with 82 percent of Kurds.

The report does go on to note, “* Positive views of the invasion also are held disproportionately in the South of the country…*” but provides no hard data for the extent of that “disproportionately” positive attitude.

And bear in mind that the grouping ‘Arabs’ includes the Sunnis. The Sunnis has a particular reason to dislike the war. They held all the power under Saddam, and got all the perks, despite being in the minority. If the ‘Arab’ vote separated out Shiite and Sunni, you’d see even higher support among the Shiites. It should not be surprising that the Sunnis are least happy.

I remind you again that we are interested in debating the “facts,” to the extent that they can be determined. So I ask you what, beyond your own guesswork and assumptions, leads you to such a conclusion.

In fact, the poll is disproportionately weighed toward the Sunnis:

In religious terms, 96 percent of Iraqis are Muslim. In this poll 40 percent identified themselves as Sunni Muslim, 33 percent as Shia, and 23 percent did not cite an affiliation within Islam.

So here is one curious discrepancy: in a country where 96% of the population are practicing Muslims, 23% of those polled “did not cite an affiliation within Islam.” In addition, the poll does not represent the population proportionately in terms of religious affiliation: although the Shia constitute the largest group of Muslims in Iraq (around 60%), only 33% of the respondents claimed membership in that sect.

There are two possibilities here. If your assertion is correct, then the poll underestimates the actual satisfaction Iraqis feel with regard to the occupation, their optimistic view of the future, and so on, because the satisfied Shiites are underrepresented in the poll results. However, it also possible that many Shiites are also dissatisfied with the invasion and occupation, view it as a humiliation, and so forth. If that’s the case, then poll actually underestimates the actual dissatisfaction extant among the Iraqi population. In this context it is perhaps worth remembering that the Sadrists, who comprise about 30% of the Shiites, are most definitely not happy with the occupation, and are the source of the latest uprising. So I’m not sure you can make generalization about the results in terms of Sunnis and Shiites, and notice that the authors of the poll have been careful not to do so as well.

The poll-takers were not unaware that there might not be a simple answer to the question of the US invasion, so they also included the following question:

** From today’s perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong or absolutely wrong that US led coalition forces invaded Iraq in Spring 2003?**

The answer: 20% considered it “absolutely right;” 29% considered it “somewhat right;” 13% considered it “somewhat wrong;” 26% considered it “absolutely wrong;” and 13% had “no opinion.” (This adds up to 101%, and so there must be a misprint somewhere.) With this more nuanced question, we find that more Iraqis consider the invasion “absolutely wrong” than consider it “absolutely right.”

Now we come to some of the answers that I do find surprising, and that I don’t quite know what to make of:

*But here are the really important numbers which would indicate what the future holds in Iraq (and how Iraqis will perceive the U.S. after the occupation ends)

**How things are going today:** 
            All    North   South   Central   Baghdad 
Good        70%      85%    65%      70%       67% 
Bad         29       14     34       28        32 

Does that suprise you? With all the stuff we hear on this board and elsewhere about how bad things are in Iraq, and how Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam (snort), look at those results!*

Just to start off with, I certainly haven’t read anyone who claims that the Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam. But to answer your question honestly, yes, it does surprise me. However, the devil is, as always, in the details:

Again there are regional and ethnic differences. In the Kurdish north, 70 percent say their lives overall are better than before the war; in the south, 63 percent. That declines to 54 percent in the central region, and falls under half – to 46 percent – in the greater Baghdad area, home to more than a quarter of Iraqis.

First off, before we cream our pants over these results, I think we need to put them into perspective. We are, after all, comparing the current post-war situation with the previous brutal dictatorship, so the standards of comparison are rather low. Even so, in Baghdad, home to 25% of the Iraqi people, less than half feel that they are better now than prior to the invasion.

And in fact one can wonder a bit about how Iraqis in general employ the terms “good” or “better.” Consider, for example, these demographics:

The poll also paints a compelling demographic portrait of the Iraqi people. In just 20 percent of Iraqi households does the main breadwinner hold a full-time, outside job; 58 percent are self-employed. Average household income is the equivalent of $164 per month, for an average of eight people per household. Eighty-one percent of households have a refrigerator; 44 percent, an air conditioner (the average daily high temperature in Baghdad in August is 108 degrees); 44 percent, a washing machine; 37 percent, a telephone; 21 percent, a still camera. There are disparities across regions, with the south of the country substantially poorer.

In 80% of Iraqi households the breadwinner is either unemployed, or employed part-time. And yet, apparently, 70% of the population feels that things are going “well” for them. This seems a contradiction, at least on the surface.

• That’s a huge number. I’m not sure you’d get a number that high if you took a similar poll in the United States.*

Yes indeed. Doesn’t that fact alone give you pause?

• This bodes well for the future of Iraq if we can stabilize it.*

Ah, yes. There’s that ever-so-troublesome word again: “if.”

By a 2-1 margin Iraqis think things are better today rather than worse.

Although this summary is again a gross simplification of the poll results, I once again suggest that we consider the pre-war conditions with which Iraqis are comparing their lives today. Is it really so surprising that they think things are at least marginally better?

• Look at the optimism! Almost all Iraqis now think they have a bright future.*

No, Sam, they think, apparently, that things next year will, with luck, be better than this year’s misery.

• This is the most important question of the bunch, because it’s an indicator of what the upside is to a stable, democratic Iraq. It is also a good indicator of the lack of desire for a civil war or for animosity between the various ethnic groups in Iraq.*

Well, I think you simply draw far too many broad conclusions from far too little solid data. I doubt anyone really wants a civil war, if it can be avoided; but this poll says nothing, as far as I can tell, about the “animosity between various ethnic groups in Iraq.”

• If we succeed in Iraq and stabilize it and allow them to build a democracy of sorts, the payoff is HUGE.*

This is not a “fact,” Sam. It’s an assertion. Neither you nor I can see what the “payoff” will be a few years down the road, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise. It may turn out for the better, if we’re lucky; but doesn’t it seem like an awful risk to take for the small chance that it might succeed?

In addition, I have to point out to you that there is no “we” here. There is you, sitting on your butt in front of a computer in Canada, and there are US and British soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq, along with countless Iraqi combatants and non-combatants. If this damn fool war does come to a successful conclusion, it will be because of them, not you and them. Just to be clear.

• Once the occupation is over, you’re going to see public opinion of the U.S. in Iraq climb again. As a Democracy, they will trade with the west, invite investment from the west, and in general become more comfortable with the west.*

How quickly that “if we succeed” has become a certainty in your mind, and in your argument.

• A free press is the best antidote against the poisonous lies of the old State media and the relentless anti-western spin of al-Jazeerah.*

That must be why Bremer shut down al-Sadr’s newspaper, the act which sparked off the entire uprising. And let us not forget that al-Jazeerah’s “relentless anti-western spin” is an expression of the press freedom you cherish.

More later.

[pervert]

@blowero

This is ENTIRELY different matter than simply saying “Bush didn’t make any mistakes”, which now seems to be your contention.

No, I am not making that contention in this thread.

Well, if you don’t think Bush made any mistakes, then QUITE OBVIOUSLY you aren’t going to vote against him, so as far as you are concerned, it makes no difference what the details of Kerry’s plan are, because you don’t think any change is necessary at all.

So, you were addressing your comments to those who think Bush made mistakes and will still vote for him. Is this what you meant by “Bush Republicans”?

We say Bush screwed up, and you claim our position lacks merit because we don’t have a “more detailed” way out of BUSH’s mess (whatever that means).

No, that’s not what I meant. I do not fault Kerry’s plan for lacking details. In fact I don’t find many things wrong with some of the things in Kerry’s plan. Neither does Bush as far as that goes, he seems to be “moving toward Kerry” according to some pundits over the weekend. My problem is that the details of Kerry’s plan don’t live up to the rhetoric. Let’s look.

What we have in Iraq right now is a serious counter-insurgency, American soldiers dying every day, and a June 30th deadline to transfer power, with nobody to transfer it to.

Well, without getting into a big hijack, I think both of these contentions are overblown. While it is true that we have insurgency problems and that the final face of the interim government is not known, it is not true that there is a general uprising nor that there is nobody to transfer power to.

The only way out of this dilemna is to get the U.N. involved. We stand a MUCH better chance of convincing all the Iraqi people to accept a new government if we can diffuse the perception that the U.S. ALONE is trying to ram it down their throats.

This is my problem with Kerry’s plan. Simply involving the UN will do next to nothing to convince Al-Qeada or the Iraqi insurgents that the army occupying Iraq is legitimate. Seriously, if Iraq is such a quagmire, if it was such a crime against international law, how is putting UN uniforms on the American troops going to change anything. I understand that it will change things a little. But the guys shooting at American troops will still have American troops to shoot at. Do you really think they will stop shooting because of the white U and N on the helmets? Or perhaps they will simply hold back a couple rounds out of each clip?

Sure, it’s not guaranteed to work, but it’s certainly a better idea than what Bush is doing.

But it is exactly what Bush is doing. He’s just not doing it as fast (by a couple percent) as you want.

Exactly what more do you want?

Well, to be frank I’d like one of 2 things. Either stop using the bizarre conspiracy rhetoric or live up to it. If the invasion of Iraq was a crime against international law, then call for turning Bush over to the Internationl Tribunal or the World Court. At least call for a Security Council resolution. If UN participation in Iraq is the only thing that can fix it, then call for REPLACING American troops with troops from other nations. At least call for making the relative percentages more equal (by more than a couple percentage points). It might be nice to have the names of some of these nations to hand if anyone asks who Kerry thinks might put them into Iraq.

Do you want Kerry to draw up detailed battle plans and troop movements before he’s even in office and before he has even had a chance to communicate with our allies to secure their cooperation and get their input? The whole point is sharing the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq; making it a true international effort. He can’t give ALL the details RIGHT NOW because the details are going to depend on the dynamics of the situation once others are involved.

Of course he can’t give all the details. I certainly don’t expect him to. Odd that this is exactly your complaint about the June 30th turn over.

[Rashak_Mani]

Pervert,

Involving the UN isn’t only about putting Blue Helmets on US soldiers… it would at the least allow dozens of countries to actively help out in Iraq… money or military. At least less americans would be necessary… meaning less targets and less “provocation”.

Arab peacekeepers would help a lot… I think.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Shodan:

• Which is why I thought Sam Stone’s question way back on page 1 was a useful one. Under what circumstances would some of our more rabid posters begin to support Bush? What would it take?

Or is the answer “Nothing he could do would change my mind”, in which case perhaps stubborn partisan blindness is not confined solely to the GOP side of the aisle.*

Well, obviously, wandering around accusing every who disagrees with you of partisanship is no way to run a debate.

But I can easily think of a number of circumstances in which I would support Bush. Here’s a short, incomplete laundry list of things he would need to do to get my vote:[ul]
[li]Admit that the administration’s pre-war claims regarding Iraq’s possession of WMDs, it’s alleged contacts with al-Qaida, and it’s status as a significant threat were wrong/exaggerations/lies.[/li][li]Reject his previously asserted prerogative of “preventative war.” [/li][li]Fire Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney, or at the very least hold them accountable for their misleading public statements.[/li][li]Withdraw funding for his Missile Defense system and invest those fund in anti-terrorist activities.[/li][li]Repeal his tax cuts.[/li][li]Actively participate in the Kyoto agreement and work aggressively for a better environment.[/li][li]Tie any economic or military support of Israel to the making of significant gains in the “peace process” and the withdrawal of illegal settlements on the West Bank.[/li][li]Stand up for the rights of gays to marry, and dismiss the idea of a Constitutional amendment banning SSM.[/ul][/li]Were he to do these things, and convince me that he was sincerely repentant for misleading the nation into war, I might consider voting for him.

Also, I have to wonder along with Kimstu about the moral compass of a man who can’t tell the difference between lying about a blow-job and lying about a war. If you honestly can’t make this distinction, then I guess nothing will dent your partisanship.
pervert:

Or what if they simply interpret the value of such evidence diferently than you do?

That’s what I mean. They choose to interpret the evidence differently. I cited kanicbird as an example. Do you wish to argue that his interpretation of the evidence is more reasonable than my own? Knock yerself out.

Is it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that some of the evidence you are talking about is not 100% conclusive?

Of course not. But I believe that much of the evidence is highly conclusive, if anyone were to approach it objectively. The evidence of the Bush administration’s wrongdoings with regard to Iraq, for example, is significantly more conclusive than the evidence we had of Iraq’s possession of “WMDs;” in the latter case we went to war, yet in the former we are met with much hand waving, relativism, and warnings that our views are not 100% conclusive.

Do you not think there is a similar effect running from the other side?

There probably is, but I don’t experience it as being as egregious as the rhetoric I hear the from the right.

Would you like to post a few examples?

• Look. I am not really interested in rehashing all of the evidence for or against various complaints about Bush. That’s been done to death. Polls that claim more people believe someting ridiculous are not that persuasive either. How was the question about an Iraq - Al-Qaeada link phrased? Is it possible that they asked something along the lines of “was there a link between Iraq and terrorism before the Iraq war?” Or do you think they asked “Did Saddam Husein give money, arms, training, or safe havens to members of Al-Qaeada involved in the attacks of 9-11?”*

That’s easy enough to find out. You can download the questionnaire and inspect it for yourself.

• While I’m at this, do you agree that such a question (mine about how the question was asked) might be a legitimate probe into the poll results? Or am I simply being partisan.*

Sorry to disappoint you, but I find it a completely legitimate to ask such critical questions. It is well known that polls differ in their outcomes in part as a result of the way in which questions are phrased.

However, if you were to employ spurious objections to the way the poll was conducted simply because you didn’t like the results, then I might think you were being partisan.

• You see, I really think it is that group (although from the other side of the isle) that the OP was addressing. Those who believe that Bush committed all these acts of incompetence and will still vote for him. Unfortunately, he and you seem bent on lumping all Bush supporters (note you use the term “Bush Republicians” without a definition) in with them. Remember he did not ask what would it take for “Bush Republicians” to beleive any of the claims against him. It appears from reading it that he is specifically talking to those who already believe them or from a vantage point which ignores the possiblitiy that reasoned people might disagree with them.*

I’m not sure what you intend with this passage. The OP may be unclear, which might lead to some confusion; but I agree with Rashak that, given the state of things, one wonders what it would take to convince some people of the Bush administration’s mendacity and incompetence.

How is such a link clear? What if he was merely saying that the Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq now may be thinking like this. That is, they may think we will cut and run after a few bombs. Such a statement at the begining of testimony with which he intended to influence the Senate to stay the course would not in any way be “odd way to begin”.

Well, it seemed clear to Dr. Cole, and seems clear to me, by virtue of the fact that in a hearing addressing the ongoing problems in Iraq, the speaker chose to begin his presentation with a quote from bin Laden, who has little or nothing to do with the issue at hand. And the point is that one finds a continuing effort on the part of certain war supporters to rhetorically link al-Qaida and Iraq by consistently referring to them in the same sentence, or the same breath, or under the same rubric. Although they are two substantially different problems, really, administration officials seem to constantly blur them together into one large, monolithic issue. This rhetorical simplification leads listeners to associate al-Qaida with Iraq, even though we know, factually, that no such connection exists. This, in it’s turn, is probably what leads many Americans to wrongly believe that there existed a substantial, proven connection between the two, as evidenced by the poll referenced above.

[pervert]

@Rashak Mani

Hatred of Bush has always been there, correct. Yet books, reports and info that point out his mistakes are more recent. Iraq is there for anyone to see. It cound’t be anyway else… how can you write stuff about a president recently taking office ?

Iraq is there for anyone to see, yes. But what do the facts of the case mean? Surely we are too close to the event to have an objectively “true”, if you will, perspective on it. I find it troubling that so many books have been written about the current administration. I tend to think that it is unlikely that good information can come out of events this close to those events. If such information is coupled with an identifiable agenda, then it is more than merely suspect in my view.

Again, I am not arguing that any view is right or wrong here. I am simply trying to make the case the the case for or against Iraq is not so clear cut that reasonable people cannot disagree. In which case, the huge avalanche of books may have as much to do with ideological agendas as it does with any Bush missteps.