I think the average joe just wants this all to end. Of course, the average joe doesn’t understand the extreme situation that exists if we fail.

I am totally disgusted with Bush. He didn’t handle Iraq well at all. On top of that, he promotes amnesty for illegals. Now I read he’s coming up with some screwey health care proposal that provides insurance for those who don’t have it by taxing people who do have good insurance.

Makes it damn hard to believe he knows what he’s doing at all..and you know, Robbie, I’m not a liberal.

Left by dianne on January 21st, 2007 at 9:31 am

Can’t think of a single one who is “activley rooting and hoping that the US fails in Iraq.” I think you’re making that up, or confusing opposition to this administration’s conduct of the war with hoping for failure.

Left by Dan on January 21st, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Dan, you must have missed this poll, which asked “Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?”

The sickening results? 49% of all Democrats polled answer NO or I Don’t Know. Think about that — nearly half of all Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed.

Other’s who wrote more about the poll numbers here and here.

I find it incomprehensible that people would allow their opposition to the President or even the war itself to overcome their innate sense of patriotism that the overwhelming majority of Americans feel when it comes to our military.

I could say that since 49% of Democrats want the military to fail, then it follows that they wish large numbers of American soldiers to die to make their wish come true. But I would never accuse Democrats of any such thing, would I?

Left by Robbie on January 21st, 2007 at 4:08 pm

I don’t believe those poll numbers. Who conducted it? How was it worded? I don’t believe for one minute that 49% of all Democrats want us to fail in Iraq. I can believe a lot of self-described Democrats might say that, but are they Democrats? Really?

I’ve been watching and listening to these things long enough to know that way too many people think they are scoring points by saying-

“I’m a Democrat (or liberal) but”-

“I’m a Republican (or conservative) but”-

“I’m black (or white) but”-

And so on and so forth.

It would be way too easy for a bunch of conservatives to answer that poll as Democrats and then crow about how unpatriotic Democrats are. A number like 49% makes it look especially suspicious.

Plus, it depends on how you define failure. A lot of people could be answering these questions based on assumptions of intent that might not be accurate. In that case, a Democrat who assumes a Republican considers withdrawal from Iraq to be the same as failure might without giving it a lot of thought answer in a way that he thinks means he favors withdrawal, but nothing more sinister than that.

I am all over the map myself. Since we are in Iraq, I favor going all out to win it without regard for collateral damage, the UN and international community in general be damned. On the other hand, failing this being adopted by our leaders, I think we should otherwise get out.

I would also like to see Bush and his Administration investigated, and if the facts which come to light warrant, impeached. But, at the same time I do not favor this Congress actually doing that, because I seriously doubt anything would ever get accomplished besides even more partisan gridlock than before.

So am I a traitor for wanting us to leave and wanting to impeach Bush, or am I a patriot for wanting to go all out to win the war and leave Bush alone?

Maybe I’m just like a lot of Americans in the sense that I am frustrated, angry, and sick of our elected leaders misrepresenting and misleading us for their own political gain and the benefit of their contributors (bribers).

Left by Patrick Kelley on January 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pm

If that poll is correct (and I could not get it to open to see it), that’s a really sad indictment of the American public. I am disgusted with Bush and I’m having a real hard time believing IN him these days, but I want us to succeed in Iraq. I would want that under any president.

I’m sure there is an “I told ya crowd” who wants him to fail, but if I had conclusive proof that 49% of the democrats (who must be at least 25% of the public) actually feel that way, I think I might consider moving back to my roots in Norway. I can’t imagine living with 1 in 4 people who want our soldiers to die, who want our country to fail to further whatever their cause may be to unseat repubilicans or whatever.

I do know this. Of all my time on this earth, I’ve never seen as much hate as I see these days.

Left by dianne on January 21st, 2007 at 6:18 pm

No way is that a legitimate poll. I smell yet another republican lie.

Left by Dan on January 21st, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Robbie- the same poll finds:

Even though a majority opposes Bush’s new plan and many are doubtful it can succeed, that does not mean they want it to fail: 63 percent of Americans say they want the plan to succeed, including 79 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 51 percent of Democrats.

So unless 21 percent of Republicans want the escalation plan to fail I suspect the question is b.s.

The lack of clarity in the question is the obvious culprit: what does it mean to hope that the ‘plan does not succeed’? Does it mean that it does not succeed in Congress? Does it mean that it leads to extended occupation of Iraq? Who know: Garbage in, Garbage out.

Left by Preston on January 21st, 2007 at 6:27 pm

I have to say that I’m tired of hearing that anyone who opposes Bush’s plan “wants us to lose,” or worse, “wants our troops to die.” That’s absurd. It’s exactly my concern for American lives and innocent Iraqi lives that makes me doubt the chances for “success.” I believe we have already lost, because where’s the good, clear, measurable, objective definition of VICTORY?

Can anyone tell me how we’ll know when we’ve “won?” Because we can’t seem to tell civilians apart from terrorists, we can’t scare the insurgents into dying because, hey, if you’re willing to be a suicide bomber, how can you possibly be afraid of death? So when will we know we’ve achieved victory?

And if the answer is “when Iraq has a stable democracy that can protect and sustain itself,” that’s just a pipe dream. Even if that did occur, what would we do (as in Palestine) when the people elect a government we don’t like? Take them out and start over?

We’ve picked up the tar baby, and we’re stuck, no matter how many troops we send. So let’s find a way to at least calm the situation down, which may happen if we get the hell out.

Left by JC Shakespeare on January 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm

When you consider the massive insanity caused by epidemic levels Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left it is entirely possible to concive of half the Democrats rooting against the U.S. and for AQ.

Read the Daily Kos or DU. They all see the United States as an force of almost total evil in the world. Not a sparrow fails that the Kos Kids and DUmmies blame America first.

Left by Jim Howard on January 22nd, 2007 at 12:27 am

JC said:

So let’s find a way to at least calm the situation down, which may happen if we get the hell out.

That would be nice if it were realistic. Remember, we weren’t in Iraq (or Afghanistan) when Islamofascists flew airplanes into our buildings. We weren’t in Iraq when they bombed the USS Cole. We weren’t “over there” when they bombed our embassy in Kenya.

One way to temporarily placate the animals would be to cease all support of Israel. Just let Iran “go nuclear” on them. Once Isreal is wiped off the face of the planet (Jimmy Carter just got wood reading that sentence), they might not bomb or attack US for a few months.

But then they’d start back.

Sorry, but pulling out isn’t going to calm anything down…it will just allow them to go back to training, planning, and building up to their next attack against the US.

Left by Robbie on January 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 am

How will we know when we’ve achieved victory? What does that look like?

Left by JC Shakespeare on January 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 am

When you consider the massive insanity caused by epidemic levels Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left it is entirely possible to concive of half the Democrats rooting against the U.S. and for AQ.

Jim- there is only a 20% difference in the response from Democrats and Republicans- does that suggest that Republicans also suffer from ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’.

Read the Daily Kos or DU. They all see the United States as an force of almost total evil in the world. Not a sparrow fails that the Kos Kids and DUmmies blame America first.

That’s b.s. If you want to read about blaming America try reading Dinesh D’Souza’s new book. Once again, the right-wing resorts to attacks that are simply projections onto others of their own failings.

Left by Preston on January 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 am

The bottom line is, we are going to continue to have problems in the international community as long as we are overly involved in it. Right now, we are perceived as the “king of the hill”, therefore every problem, perceived or real, becomes our fault to at least some significant degree.

It’s time to return to the way things were before we decided we were going to be the policemen on the international block. We can still engage in trade relations, and even strategic alliances, but we should do so on a bi-lateral basis only.

That way, we can keep our own country strong in all ways, including in defense, without building up an ever higher mountain of debt doing so.

Who knows, if we were to do this and the rest of the world saw we were serious, they might actually really respect us for once, and the Europeans might even come to realize they had damned well better get their respective houses in order.

Just look at the crap that is going on over in Europe right now. How is our influence helping anything? Shit, these people talk about our so-called status in the world, and they promise how we will eventually leave Iraq aftr it is strong and secure and able to take care of itself.

BULLSHIT!!!! It has been more than sixty years since World War II ended and we STILL HAVE TROOPS IN JAPAN!!!!!

Left by Patrick Kelley on January 22nd, 2007 at 11:11 am

How will we know when we’ve achieved victory? What does that look like?

Victory looks like Hiroshima. Wars are won only when the cost of continuing are too high. We have not made the cost of waging war against the United States “too high” since Hiroshima.

The immediate response to acts of War such as the 9/11 attacks should be to make the countries responsible into glazed-over parking lots. The best way to clear a neighborhood of disguised and non-uniformed enemy combatants isn’t going house-to-house with ground troops. The best way is to eliminate the neighborhood. This does not require the risk of life of a single boots-on-the-ground soldier. All it takes are a few B-52 bombers.

But even this presents numerous problems in our current war against terrorism, which doesn’t represent a war against a particular country or their army — rather it represents an ideology that is widespread.

So the anser for now as to how to achieve victory and what it will look like? Change the rules of engagment that are handcuffing our soldiers in war zones. Make the cost — yes, the colloteral cost too — too high to bear. Make it so insuffarable that the “moderates” and innocents will rise up and force out or defeat the terrorists and insurgents in their midsts.

Left by Robbie on January 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm

As bad as things were in Fallujah, that would have been a perfect opportunity to set an example. Just imagine how those people would have felt when they saw that mushroom cloud rising up over Fallujah used to be. It might not have ended it overnight,but it sure would have made a whole lot of people think twice about attacking us. Sure, innocent people would have been killed, but hell, they are getting killed now every day, all over the damn country. It never ceases to amaze me how people cry and whine about how we should avoid killing innocent civilians, and then turn right around and promote policies and strategies that in the long run cause even more death and destruction.

Left by Patrick Kelley on January 22nd, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Robbie, you should listen to JC Shakespear.

You seriously want to drop nuclear bombs on Iraq?
This is unheard of.
People in America are unconcerned about killing innocents?
Only in Texas.

Patrick Kelley is right… Europe should have more respect for America and we would really like to. So many of us grew up thinking it was utopia; now your average European is dangerously anti-US. Made in the USA used to be a powerful statement - now it has a bitter taste.

Lastly: America is no longer perceived as King of the Hill; in Europe we have Russia controlling our Gas and Oil supplies, and we are teaching our Children Cantonese in an increasing number of Schools.
I’d get out of Iraq with as much dignity as possible; start talking WITH the rest of the World rather than talking AT us.

Left by Jimmal on January 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 am

Just a couple of quick questions for you Jimmal: Are you a Muslim?

If not, are you prepared to be one?

Left by Robbie on January 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 am

Ha, that’s good and I hear what you’re saying.

Quick Answer:
No Robbie, I follow no religion and as such I do not appreciate the ‘Western World’ being associated with Christianity and the ‘Middle-East’ being associated with Islam.

Left by Jimmal on January 23rd, 2007 at 10:02 am

Quick answer 2: Am I prepared to be a Muslim?
The Muslims are not coming to get us Robbie.
If they smell your fear, then maybe they’ll come and get you!
What are you so scared of?
I’ll see you for morning prayers big fella

Left by Jimmal on January 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 am

Victory looks like Hiroshima.

That’s harsh, Robbie. But thanks for putting your cards on the table. I guess that’s really what it comes down to, isn’t it? Either we get out, or we hit them with our biggest weapons. I hope I’m not being naive in my belief that the vast majority of Americans find the use of nuclear obliteration morally untenable. If we’re willing to nuke a country toward which we have been the aggressor, how are we morally superior to Saddam? One of the essential beliefs of our country is the sanctity of life. Bush talks about it all the time. Do we believe that, or do we believe that all must die in the name of democracy?

The immediate response to acts of War such as the 9/11 attacks should be to make the countries responsible into glazed-over parking lots.

In that case, seems like we should be nuking Saudi Arabia instead of having their royal highnesses over here to traipse through the bluebonnets holding hands with Bush. I still don’t understand how attacking Iraq is supposed to be retribution for 9/11. Iraq posed no viable threat to the US; there were no WMD, and the sanctions and inspections had reduced the country to a shell of its former power. That’s why it only took us a few weeks to oust Saddam. I’m still unclear about why we’re there. So, we should use nuclear weapons to end a war we started? I can’t buy that. Unless, of course, your belief is that Iraqi life is less valuable than US life, which opens up a whole new can of worms.

It never ceases to amaze me how people cry and whine about how we should avoid killing innocent civilians, and then turn right around and promote policies and strategies that in the long run cause even more death and destruction.

Mr. Kelley, your baseless assertions smack of a steady diet of Fox News and spiteful talk radio. “Cry and whine” about killing innocent civilians? I’m sorry, I was led to believe we were there to give them freedom, not nuke them. What policies and strategies have I promoted that cause more death and destruction than the 3,000 + American lives and several hundred thousand Iraqi lives caused by this war, a war which I have never supported or believed in? None. What evidence do you have for that claim?

For the record, peace, in my opinion, is not the mere cessation of war. Sustainable peace will be possible when we begin to use our talents, resources, and moral fiber to create a more fair and balanced world. Robbie, you keep saying that peace isn’t realistic. As long as we believe that, then you’re right. But I think our archaic ideas are no longer viable in a crowded and anxious world. We need to start thinking like global citizens instead of world cops protecting our, and only our, interests.

Discuss . . . (hopefully in a peaceful manner!)

Left by JC Shakespeare on January 23rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Just a quick note on one question:

Unless, of course, your belief is that Iraqi life is less valuable than US life, which opens up a whole new can of worms.

Well…sort of, yes. I believe that the life of me and my family is more important and valuable than that of anybody else. But especially more so than the Muslim terrorists who are hell bent on converting or killing me and my family, as well as their numerous “moderate” apologists and enablers.

I think that we are at war with an ideology (Islam) that is incapable of peaceful coexistance with the entire world.

I’m not prepared to submit.

Left by Robbie on January 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm

“I think that we are at war with an ideology (Islam) that is incapable of peaceful coexistance with the entire world.”

Christianity and Islam have both been used as tremendous weapons, in establishing the concept of a spiritual cohesion in times of war. The US is not short of Christian Fundamentalists; George Bush jnr actually used the rallying call and declared that God had spoken to him.
Robbie, I am absolutely opposed to moderate religion also; it is at the very root of the problem in my mind. However, the problem is not unique to Islam; Christianity is equally to blame.

Iraq as a base for Global Islamic Terrorism?
Under Saddam, very few Iraqi people were actually Muslim Terrorists, plotting to destroy America.

Since the invasion of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of these non-terrorist, peaceful Iraqi’s have died as a direct result of US intervention - how do you imagine their families feel? How would you feel?

For every day we stay in Iraq, we establish a greater reason for Iraqi’s to actually hate us.
Jesus and Mohammed would be wishing they’d never bothered but that’s another kettle of fish.

Left by Jimmal on January 23rd, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Like I said, IF we are going to stay there, we should go all out to win it, with the understanding that this will result in collateral damage. War without it is impossible. Otherwise, we should get out of there. It’s this middle ground that is killing us, staying over there and “fighting”, i.e., turning our soldiers into targets. We should never conduct a war like that, I will never support a war that is fought the way the Iraqi war has been fought. I will support any necessary war that is fought correctly, which as Robbie said, looks like Hiroshima. If not Hiroshima, then at least Dresden.

Otherwise, bottom line-prepare for death or dhimmitude (if not the Muslim version, then some other form of slavery).

Left by Patrick Kelley on January 23rd, 2007 at 6:28 pm

If we get out, are we really faced with Death or Slavery under Islam?

Who has more to fear?
The Middle East suffers daily, from the aggressive, capitalist, Christian US stronghold that is Israel. We have made clear intentions to control vast swathes of the Middle East, almost entirely encompassing Iran (see why they want a bomb?).
I’m going to work in 5 minutes with no fear at all - our brothers and sisters in Iraq may well be blown up by a stray US bomb today… I fear for them!

Left by Jimmal on January 24th, 2007 at 3:27 am

I fear for us! In that you will return from your job and subject us to more of your weenie drivel!

Left by Anonymous on January 24th, 2007 at 1:52 pm

American fears:
1. WMD (scud off)?
2. Anthrax in the post (be careful now)?
3. Contaminated crop sprayers (clever buggers)?
4. Red neck panic that would result in a global nuclear war…

Left by Jimmal on January 25th, 2007 at 4:00 am