Feb 21 2007
Coming To A Street Near You
The Democrats are in a world of political hurt. Their radical (and not entirely sane) anti-war base wants to surrender to Iraq as soon as possible, but brand new poll is out confirming an earlier poll showing Americans are in not in the mood to quit Iraq, but they instead want to win Iraq as soon as possible (H/T to MacRanger on the latest poll).
By a 53 percent – 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.
By identical 57 percent – 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
As I stated previously, if Bush gets continued traction with the Surge plan (beyond chasing al Qaeda and the Mahdi leaders out of the country or into hiding – which is already a result) thden the Dems will be a deep, long political price as the party that tried to quit on America when she needed resolve and confidence in her armed forces. And it is clear that Americans understand the ramifications:
By a wide 74 percent – 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that “I don’t really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home.”
Why the cold hard realism? Well they know, as bad as it is now in Iraq, if we leave that will give the Islamo Fascists a base on resources to bring things like this too our shores and into our neighborhoods:
Insurgents exploded a truck carrying chlorine gas canisters Wednesday – the second such “dirty” chemical attack in two days … The gas cloud in Baghdad, meanwhile, suggests possible new and coordinated strategies by bombers trying to unleash toxic – and potentially deadly – materials. “Terrorists are using dirty means,” said Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, an Iraqi military spokesman.
Not only is this a strong possible result of surrendering Iraq prematurely, the fact is no Dem is willing to claim it is LESS LIKELY that we will see increased attacks in America if we surrender Iraq. Those who would make such a claim would be dismissed as suicidal. And rightfully so. America was promised rabid changes in Iraq. Surrender and increased threats at home were not what they had in mind when they bought into the Dems vague promises of action.
Only six weeks into the new Congress, and I think it’s safe to say the Dems have already overplayed their hand.
Nice to see someone other than soothie being the first to post right after AJStrata.
And I agree. Weird how quiet Murtha has become in the last few days. Did Pelosi tell him to shut up? And they are probably waiting for something really bad to happen before they start harping in front of the microphones.
I heard the guy running for president from Iowa say that if we bring our guys home from Iraq we will have the money to fix our uninsured medical system. I think that the Dems believe we are in an elected war, we can walk away and all will be well. We will continue to fight in Afghanistan and try to catch bin Laden, and that’s it. 911 was a one off event period. We will talk to the Iranians and Syrians and they will fall into line, Korea also. They are living in a 90’s world. Sometimes I wonder if I’m wrong thinking that there is a global jihad going on and if we don’t fight them where they are we will fight them at home. How could the Dems, all of them, believe in a world I just don’t see? Is it possible we are wrong?
Kathie, you are not wrong at all. You’re usually very astute and right on! Remember in the nineties when Clinton decided, “Now that I’m president, nobody will hate us anymore, we can cut the military in half and spend it on social programs!” Ignorance compounded by arrogance. It was called the Peace Dividend. It was stupid then and it is stupid now. The only thing that ever made this country safe and ended world wars was the strength of the American military, not cowardice and second guessing.
Someone posted recently that there were dark days coming. They were absolutely right. Mankind goes throught this porposing thing where we hit the absolute bottom and then immediately forget it and do it again. No matter how many holocausts we have, there will still be those people who won’t ever believe that it can happen again until they are standing facing an over with a gun at their back. We still have holocausts, they are just smaller and the press ignores them like they did before, like Darfur. Islam is on a move around the world and it is not about spreading peace.
I have a friend from London who used to call me an ignorant racist when I told him what islamic immigration was going to do to England. He had spent a few years in Afghanistan and loved the muslims. Now he sadly admits I was right all along but it may be too late to stop a catastrophe.
I might add for all of you pro liberal immigration folks, that when they do pass that idiotic immigration bill, it will open the door for hundreds of thousands of muslims to come here and you can bet they will be well financed by those who wish to do us harm. It isn’t just about Mexico.
A lesson from Lincoln. Who was a pretty good observer of the Whig’s decline. And, he was the one who shored up disaffected Whigs, from their radical brethren. And, at the time? The issues were: “native, against, the irish and german newcomers. The new catholics hated by the old protestants. slavery. And, prohibition of liquor.
Put on top of this that the democratic party was breaking accepted deals (Missouri compromise). Dred Scot came down the pike. And, Lincoln reached national acclaim by the words he spoke. And, the national newspapers, running wires that telegraphed this stuff from coast to coast.
Meanwhile? Douglas, the more famous of the two, became the democratic nominee in 1860. He came in dead last, I think, in a pool of 4 candidates. ANd, Lincoln won the MOST VOTES. No matter how you counted the others.
We are again, in an UNCIVIL war.
And, to go back to Lincoln for a moment, he HATED the political PARTY machinery. At first? He thought he could help design something that would do without it. And, then he realized there is no way you can get elected IF YOU CAN’T GIVE AWAY JOBS.
That’s the reality. Nobody works for nothing. Men, who are the engine behind any candidate, expect to be hired, afterwards. Because they have families to feed. And, mortgages to pay.
On the democratic side of today’s partisan warfare, is a reality that “since Reagan,” the jobs have been on the decline for the donks. Yet, the special interest moneys are there. And, the carville’s and bagala’s are knocking down big fees. Not for nothing, you heard that Russert earns $5,000,000 smackeroo’s a year. He ain’t handsome. And, he ain’t honest.
But NBC ruled “that trial!” Where Libby could not confront Andrea Mitchell, or even Russert’s LIES, because the NBC lawyer was even able to use his BlackBerry in the courtroom. NOBODY STOPPED HIM.
Later, walton would ask the NBC attorney “what Mitchell would say,” without ever giving Wells a chance to cross-examine her.
What’s at play is BIG BIG MONEY. And, the fears that without the lawyers they can’t even hang onto this.
That Bush takes a beating from the MSM? Well, it seems the MSM could care less that it’s subscriptions are down. Ad rates are down. And, the nutwork shows aren’t attracting viewers, either.
Heck, after Dan RaTHer’s fall from grace, C-BS “stole” Katie Couric from NBC. But C-BS’s anchor is down in the toilet. Not getting any better folks, so can you expect it will get a whole lot uglier!
If you noticed how insane Fire Lake Dog was when it gave it’s opinions for flowing testimony, you get to see partisan warfare affecting even the Internet. And, we had to wade through that junk.
Partially, the right, has troubles, too. They’ve got the evangelicals and the radicals, who in their day (1860) brought the democrapic party to ruin, before.
That’s the business of politics. You get this. Or you get straight tyrants and despots. Who last about 30 years. Before all hell breaks loose. And, like gang warfare; you get gangs to fight over street corners.
While the “independents,” most of America is not participating at all. First off, they own no party. So they have no system available to choose a “better man” and see to it that he gets enough altitude to run for president. (Or dog catcher.)
We need more realism. And, perhaps a better sense of argument. So at least the Russert’s can be flushed down the toilet. As to Hillary, winning? I just don’t see it.
Inside the donkey tent there’s a strong stench from the clintoon’s. But how they deal with it I do not know.
In 2004, when Howie Dean grabbed the hearts of the loons, (because he promised to kill Bush), they weren’t going to be swayed to Wesley Clark. So, Wesley faded away. As did Kevin Drum’s Cal Pundit.
While others on the Internet can really make money! Just look at Glenn Reynolds.
But reaching alitude in an honest arrangement is different than how you get there in a dishonest one.
DRUGE MADE IT ON HIS OWN!
And, on Sunday he talked about Jet Blue’s troubles. He said the CEO was at fault for extending the business too far ahead of its business potential. Where Drudge then said he’s always put his foot on the brake when it came to his own growth. I learn a lot from Drudge.
Kathie said and I agree with
I heard the guy running for president from Iowa say that if we bring our guys home from Iraq we will have the money to fix our uninsured medical system.
A nice balm to rub on places that ache so little that they don’t even apply.
Throwing money at any problem solves all ills, what a crock.
My word we have slut puppies of the world making their tenth mistake and we don’t even question it. Just subsidize it an carry on
soothie and lassoing {are they one and the same?} might show up and call me ignorant about Iraq, but I think they are ignorant about America and I am assuming they live in it. There is of course no way of knowing that for sure.
Americans have been listening to Democrats do this for years. They know what they are hearing. When it works for Democrats politically to be hawks then they are hawks..for awhile…then they change on a dime, attack someone like Rumsfeld and wave the flag..
For instance we still hear that nonsense about Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand decades ago, but the same complaining about that have made it plain they would shake his hand today if only Bushitler had not ruined all their fun. People see through a lot of that. The Democrats think that if they call enough people names, accuse other people of being war mongers or stupid that the voters will overlook the fact that they are completely self serving.
People see through a lot of that. Just because they are tired of the war does not mean they want to lose it. Just because the Iraqi people are culturally different and are dealing with the demons of decades of tyrany does not mean they can not create a stable society in time.
The left as usual believes in nothing but acquiring power for itself.
And health care needs a lot more than a government program. The costs is growing towards 20% of GDP…
Carol:
John Adams hated the party system as well. He said that partisan politics was the greatest threat the new nation faced. He tried and failed to rise above that. Jefferson, on the other hand, was very adroit at party politcs.
From Big Lizards an observation about the left in Italian politics {their government collapsed due to the communists pulling out} and the Democrats here:
But I’m less interested in the intricacies of Italian coalition politics than I am in the fact that the Communists broke with Prodi, not over the Iraq war, but in a dispute whether Italy should participate in the non-controversial Afghanistan war… where the defeated Taliban are trying — without any success so far — to stage a resurgance.
Even the French and the Canadians participate in Iraq as part of their NATO commitment to the International Security Assistance Force: 1,700 from the former and 2,500 from the latter. At the moment, there are 1,950 Italian troops in Afghanistan… but evidently, the so-called “pacifists” in Italy (perhaps taking their cue from Russian President Vladimir Putin) now almost openly side with the anti-liberal, anti-woman, anti-gay, Moslem-fundamentalist terrorists in the Taliban.
I have argued for some time (since at least 1996 in print) that the global jihadis are the natural heirs of the Communists; that when push comes to pull, totalitarians of a feather stick together. Over and over, in virtually every corner of the globe (well, you know what I mean!), Communists ally with jihadis:
* Russia, swiftly re-Communizing under Putin, and despite fighting for years against Chechen separatists, is clearly allied with Iran against the West;
* Red China is also allied with Iran against the West;
* North Korea conducted nuclear and missile trades with Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq;
* Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has formed a virtual partnership with Hezbollah and Hamas;
* And the Godfather of Latin American Communist revolution, Fidel Castro, formed a deep bond with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, launching a connection between Cuba and Iran that exists to this day.
The slow drift of Communists supporting jihadis has dramatically accelerated in recent years. It appears that the party of atheist empire has more in common with the fighters for global theocracy than with any supporter of freedom and liberty.
This may well explain the mounting rejection by the Democratic Party here in America of a serious war against global jihad: it’s not that the Democrats are anti-war; a major part of their leftist base has simply become pro-jihad. Recall Michael Moore referring to the Iraqi al-Qaeda terrorists as “Minutemen,” and note the embrace by the Democratic Party of noted apologists for jihadist terrorism, such as CAIR, the Nation of Islam, and Sami al-Arian.
This is a very scary development, but I wonder how far it can possibly go: the mass of Democrats in the United States are certainly not supporters of jihad or jihadists. At what point will they suddenly wake up to what the party leadership is doing — something that formerly Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT, 80%) realized some time ago — and actually begin doing something about it? Either by voting against future Keith Ellisons in primary elections, or even by starting to vote Republican, as many did during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
Don’t worry Terrye, the impeachment of George Bush will serve as a unifying event for Democrats.
As for the polls AJ cites – has anyone ever heard of these pollsters before? I think not. Who commissioned the polls – and who wrote the questions?
Oh, geeze – how long did that take to find out about the bogus poll:
Oh please. The Democrats have been muttering about impeaching President Bush for at least four years if not longer. If they’re going to impeach him, they’ve got only twenty months to do it before his successor is elected. And despite the soul-blackening hatred that some of the Democrats’ supporters have for this President, I doubt that the Dems could impeach Bush without having to weather a good-sized political backlash. (There are still quite a few people in this country who don’t believe that this war is just Bush’s personal game, you know. Remember the recent polls suggesting that even people who are unhappy about us being in Iraq still recognize that simply pulling out is a cure worse than the disease?)
The PEW poll is older than the recent polls. The recent polls polled REGISTERED members.
As noted in the recent history, it will be one of the biggest blunders for the Democrats to commit. It will drive many voters away. So go ahead and try to impeach Bush. You will not be successful in getting him impeached, btw.
And the more recent polls than the PEW polls showed that the numbers are increasing for those Americans that WANT to win in Iraq and do NOT want to pull the troops out.
Let’s see what the next move the Democrats will make and it will be another blunder on their part.
That’s socialism leading to dictatorship. Destined towards failure for the general public. Read Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” book.
If sooth has not heard of the pollsters then we know they are legitimate. The pollsters btw, were :
from macsmind.com:
“The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent). Public Opinion Strategies “scored the best win-loss record among the major polling and media firms in the 2004 election” and was named Pollster of the Year in 2002.”
The left is just not well informed. Their media treat them like mushrooms: feed them ****and keep them in the dark.
The dems, as predicted, have totally used the election for their fantasies and they now OWN DEFEAT as Rush just stated. Dems are determined to be intellectually dishonest for the purpose of re-gaining any semblance of power…America be damned.And many actually WANT AMERICA TO LOSE. Sick. That puts nothing of benefit on these haters’ plates, just puts hurt on other Americans. Covert hostility is on the rampage.
What a sad, core-less group. Deep Healing is needed asap.
Don’t worry Terrye, the impeachment of George Bush will serve as a unifying event for Democrats.
Talk about a Liberal wet dream. Care to expand our dinner bet, Sooth?
My favorite part of the Clinton/Obama dustup is this statement from David Geffen:
Coming from a guy that raised $18 million for the Clintons, that is a mouthful.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html
Pretty rational detailed argument for stepping back above. I doubt it will take among the balance of the true believers here though. No details suffice for true believers.
Merlin
“Throwing money at any problem solves all ills, what a crock.”
Just look at the billions made and wasted in the Iraq quagmire.
Terrye lies again:
“For instance we still hear that nonsense about Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand decades ago, but the same complaining about that have made it plain they would shake his hand today if only Bushitler had not ruined all their fun. People see through a lot of that. ”
You are the one who approved of siding with Saddam against
Iran while non-interventionists ranging from Buchanan to Nader
approved of….complete exit from the Mideast.