Supporters Turning On Bush

[hardheadjarhead]

The President's polls are lower than Nixon's during Watergate, apparently.

This article from the National Review has some expressed frustrations from Bush supporters who are getting fed up with the lack of political acumen in the White House. They make some good points. One observes:

"Why can't the president make an appearance with some Iraqi children whose school has been rebuilt? Where are the generals to explain the military strategy? ... Even I, a die-hard Republican and Bush supporter, am losing heart."

http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/08232005.asp#073900





Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Saw 'Real Time with Bill Maher' last night. The ditzy blonde de-jour actually stated that "5 years ago women in Iraq were forced to wear bhurkas".

I find it hard to believe that with supporters like this, they can ever turn on President Bush. To be so woefully ignorant of what life was like in Iraq is almost criminal, when supporting the war. (Iraq was a secular society under Saddam Hussein - Religious traditions were accepted as private behavior, not state sponsored).

Asa Hutchinson, former congressman from Arkansas, and future Arkansas gubanatorial candidate, accussed Mr. Maher, when he corrected the erroneous 'facts' presented by the Bush supporter, that Mr. Maher was arguing for the return of the Hussein regime. Mr. Maher did no such thing.

It was embarrasing. I would have loved to have 10 minutes in that discussion.

 

[Gemini]

Even I, a die-hard Republican and Bush supporter, am losing heart."

As am I and I thought that could NEVER happen. I would have to say that I'm still a supporter of the war, only because to pull out now would be the absolute worst thing we could do. We've seen what losing the support of the American public can and will do. We're quickly heading for that worst case scenario once again. As our reasons for being there have turned to dust, so has his support.

 

[MisterMike]

Iraq was a society living in fear under Saddam Hussein.
Religion was tolerated, until it was time to use the Gas.

And until the U.S. invaded, the streets were lined with gold...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I don't have a problem with the war, or Bush.
I have a problem with the facts, or rather the mis-facts that are constantly used to validate them.

 

[michaeledward]

As am I and I thought that could NEVER happen. I would have to say that I'm still a supporter of the war, only because to pull out now would be the absolute worst thing we could do. We've seen what losing the support of the American public can and will do. We're quickly heading for that worst case scenario once again. As our reasons for being there have turned to dust, so has his support.

I would suggest that your thoughts are, perhaps, not very far reaching. I believe there are many things that could be far worse than the current course of action.

We have already destroyed Fallujah, in order to save it. How many more cities are we going to level? What will the impact of those leveled cities (and accompanying dead bodies) have on recruitment into militant Islam?

How long did we stay in Vietnam because the 'absolute worst thing we could do' was to pull out. How many American lives were lost during the time between the 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' of that war and 1975. How many American dollars were spent.

This is an ill conceived war, that should have been opposed from the beginning (see the thread 'A letter to Senator Smith'). Where we stand today, vis-a-vis Iraq, was completely predictable. As I recall, a certain General was run out of town for predicting it. He sure seems like a Sage now, though.

As soon as you start realizing the many more things that can be worse, you will support our troops by calling for their immediate withdrawl from this shooting gallery.

 

[Makalakumu]

We need an honest look at this war. We need to, as a country, take a look at the rationale used to get us there and reject it. Further, we need to look for some real explanations for this thing. If the original premises for going to war are false, then why are we there...I think the answer to this question is going to be very difficult for the American people to hear.

 

[DngrRuss]

While I am not a supporter of the war, I also believe that we cannot pull out now. We, as a country, invaded another sovreign nation and destroyed it's infrastructure. Whether the reasons were right and just, or misinformed and criminal, the fact remains that we are there, we are responsible, and we need to fix the problem that we created.

I understand the logic behind the Vietnam comparrison. There is at least one major difference: A government infrastructure and organization was being prepared by the communists. They had ready assistence and allies in the surrounding communist regimes. Stability in Vietnam would be quicker coming than what will be ween in Iraq. If this were purely a secular government issue, I think that whatever change will happen would go more smoothly and quickly. But no, we gotta mix religous ideology in and let the crazies run amok. In Vietnam, the insrugents were fighting for thier homeland and what they saw as self rule. In Iraq, the insrugants are fighting for thier god and against "the Great Satan". Not exactly the most rational people. After the fighting, if the public of that country do not see the world through the same religous eyes, they are likely to be the next victims of thier jihad.

To leave Iraq now would be to doom the people of that country to a holy not of thier making. We need to finish the job of helping the new government secure it's borders, and protect from within. This is a job that has not been done properly and the current administration needs to get off its *** and finish it. I think that there is more planned by the Bush-Boys and it's gonna get uglier before it gets better.

And Mr.Mike, I have yet to hear one of those evil liberal leaders state that everything was just peachy in Iraq before the war and that we are the cause of all thier evils. But if the regime needed to be overthrown, why was it any of our business to do so? WMD?- not accurate. Freeing the world of a tyrant?- why do it without the support of the rest of the world (I know, I forgot Poland). And what about all the other tyrants and human horrors that are running free in the world that we don't even bat an eye at- can someone say Rwanda? I mean, if that's the template for our actions. I know your comments were sarcastic, but they reflect what I think is a blind and dangerous belief in a man (Bush) over an ideal (conservatism). Such a belief is never healthy and usually ends in dissapointment.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Saw 'Real Time with Bill Maher' last night. The ditzy blonde de-jour actually stated that "5 years ago women in Iraq were forced to wear bhurkas".

I find it hard to believe that with supporters like this, they can ever turn on President Bush. To be so woefully ignorant of what life was like in Iraq is almost criminal, when supporting the war. (Iraq was a secular society under Saddam Hussein - Religious traditions were accepted as private behavior, not state sponsored).

Asa Hutchinson, former congressman from Arkansas, and future Arkansas gubanatorial candidate, accussed Mr. Maher, when he corrected the erroneous 'facts' presented by the Bush supporter, that Mr. Maher was arguing for the return of the Hussein regime. Mr. Maher did no such thing.

It was embarrasing. I would have loved to have 10 minutes in that discussion.

No, no burkha's, just thousands people tortured and murdered, an entire prison full of the children of dissidents, Saddam Hussein personally engaging in torturous acts against political prisoners. But you're right, no Burkha's. Nice point. Nothing like willful ignorance.

 

[sgtmac_46]

While I am not a supporter of the war, I also believe that we cannot pull out now. We, as a country, invaded another sovreign nation and destroyed it's infrastructure. Whether the reasons were right and just, or misinformed and criminal, the fact remains that we are there, we are responsible, and we need to fix the problem that we created.

You see, this is why I consider you higher on the food chain than some leftist bottomfeeders, DangRuss, you have the ability to think. You understand that what you think about the reasons for going to war is less important than dealing with the situation, we are committed at this point.

Other leftists don't care about the consequences, they just want to force Bush to pull out so they can declare victory and do their little victory dance. They don't know what comes after, and more importantly, they don't care. Being able to declare victory is all they want.

I understand the logic behind the Vietnam comparrison. There is at least one major difference: A government infrastructure and organization was being prepared by the communists. They had ready assistence and allies in the surrounding communist regimes. Stability in Vietnam would be quicker coming than what will be ween in Iraq. If this were purely a secular government issue, I think that whatever change will happen would go more smoothly and quickly. But no, we gotta mix religous ideology in and let the crazies run amok. In Vietnam, the insrugents were fighting for thier homeland and what they saw as self rule. In Iraq, the insrugants are fighting for thier god and against "the Great Satan". Not exactly the most rational people. After the fighting, if the public of that country do not see the world through the same religous eyes, they are likely to be the next victims of thier jihad.

If we pull out now, we likely end up with an Islamic Republic like Iran.

To leave Iraq now would be to doom the people of that country to a holy not of thier making. We need to finish the job of helping the new government secure it's borders, and protect from within. This is a job that has not been done properly and the current administration needs to get off its *** and finish it. I think that there is more planned by the Bush-Boys and it's gonna get uglier before it gets better.

Of course, how would you have done it. Lets hear your plan. And I don't want to hear what you would not have done, because we've already heard that. Criticism is easy, and doesn't require any stones, putting your neck out with a real plan is hard.

And Mr.Mike, I have yet to hear one of those evil liberal leaders state that everything was just peachy in Iraq before the war and that we are the cause of all thier evils. But if the regime needed to be overthrown, why was it any of our business to do so? WMD?- not accurate. Freeing the world of a tyrant?- why do it without the support of the rest of the world (I know, I forgot Poland). And what about all the other tyrants and human horrors that are running free in the world that we don't even bat an eye at- can someone say Rwanda? I mean, if that's the template for our actions. I know your comments were sarcastic, but they reflect what I think is a blind and dangerous belief in a man (Bush) over an ideal (conservatism). Such a belief is never healthy and usually ends in dissapointment.

A little reality check. I don't have an absolute belief in Bush. I simply have NO faith in leftists, period. I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Big difference. When I disagree with Bush, I disagree with him. I just don't disagree with the majority of his policies on Iraq.

 

[Makalakumu]

Of course, how would you have done it. Lets hear your plan. And I don't want to hear what you would not have done, because we've already heard that. Criticism is easy, and doesn't require any stones, putting your neck out with a real plan is hard.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'll give it a go...

Iraq - let the inspectors do their work. Work politically through the UN to bring more real democracy to Iraq. Publically denounce Saddam and his regime and make a real big deal about the atrocities that were committed. If worse comes to worse, invade, but do so with an equal coalition of forces...include as many Arab allies as possible. Have clear goals and an exit strategy so the Iraqi people know exactly what is going to happen. Let Iraqis decide what to do with their oil and as a show of good faith, forbid US companies from any interference in that process.

The bottom line is that the US shouldn't need to shoulder this war. We are not the world's policeman. In fact, the people who live next to Iraq should have had more of a hand in dealing with Saddam. The entire world has just as much stake and as much responsability as we do.

Terrorism - hunt down Al-Qaeda wherever it is and destroy it. Work with Arab countries to form partnerships. Punish countries that harbor terrorists with strict sanctions that ban anyone from buying or selling oil. The US must be ready to blockade if neccessary. See how that changes their minds...I imagine that some of these governments would take some pretty extreme measures to root out the bastards. In my opinion, terrorism is ultimately an Islamic problem. Given some "incentive" they would probably do something about it. Oh yes, we need to deal much more honestly with the Saudis. All of the above applies to them.

Related Misc. - develop alternative energies, reward conservation efforts, and rewards ways of living that use less oil. The more we can cut our dependence on foriegn oil the better. Begin pulling our interests out of the Middle East attempt to lead the way into the Post Carbon age. Distance ourselves from Isreal and start shutting off the aid flow. They should probably learn how to deal more honestly with their neighbors and everyone should learn how to play nicer. Maybe cut our ties to the Saudis. Their duplicity has cost the US thousands of lives.

Well, that is what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are some problems, but I think that overall it would work. Mainly, I think that the US should be an equal player on the world stage, not the only player and definately not the policeman. I envision a lot more cooperation in this new global world.

 

[MisterMike]

And Mr.Mike, I have yet to hear one of those evil liberal leaders state that everything was just peachy in Iraq before the war and that we are the cause of all thier evils. But if the regime needed to be overthrown, why was it any of our business to do so? WMD?- not accurate. Freeing the world of a tyrant?- why do it without the support of the rest of the world (I know, I forgot Poland). And what about all the other tyrants and human horrors that are running free in the world that we don't even bat an eye at- can someone say Rwanda? I mean, if that's the template for our actions. I know your comments were sarcastic, but they reflect what I think is a blind and dangerous belief in a man (Bush) over an ideal (conservatism). Such a belief is never healthy and usually ends in dissapointment.

I have yet to hear one of them say how bad it was there before we got there. Just how bad it is now. The template you dreamed up is obviously not the real one. When we suspect Rwanda of making nuclear tipped spears, maybe we will go in.

In 4 years, I have yet to hear any of your revered liberal leaders offer any alternatives to going in. Just political rhetoric. They've politicized this war and Afghanistan for their own gain in the face of American losses. They are a disgrace just like their supporters.

Now that we know there's no WMD's and Hussein is a couple weeks from being lynched, I'm all for leaving. But make no mistake, this is about the war on terror and countries who would give aid to them. There is no place for them on this planet. To those who would rather jump up and down and throw a tantrum because it isn't their guy leading the charge - too bad. I still sleep better knowing we're fighting them over there, and not here, yet.

 

[Flatlander]

===========================================
Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Senior Moderator-
===========================================

 

[Marginal]

In 4 years, I have yet to hear any of your revered liberal leaders offer any alternatives to going in.

Not going in to Iraq would've worked well enough. Focusing on terrorism would've been far more productive to the aim of national defense. (Which was initially why we were supposed to be invading Iraq anyway, not some hooferoo about freeing the Iraqi people.)

But make no mistake, this is about the war on terror and countries who would give aid to them.

Hard to tell while the US invades irrelevant countries to further that goal.

 

[Rich Parsons]

The President's polls are lower than Nixon's during Watergate, apparently.

This article from the National Review has some expressed frustrations from Bush supporters who are getting fed up with the lack of political acumen in the White House. They make some good points. One observes:

"Why can't the president make an appearance with some Iraqi children whose school has been rebuilt? Where are the generals to explain the military strategy? ... Even I, a die-hard Republican and Bush supporter, am losing heart."

http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/08232005.asp#073900

Regards,

Steve

Steve et al,

Could it be politics? Could it be that we need to demonize the last man in, since it is his second term, so a new representative of the party in a few months, steps forward to claim or fight for the leadership, and begin their campaigning?

Sorry I could not resist.

 

[Makalakumu]

Or it could be the fact that if the Iraq War and the PNAC plan do not work well or are disasterous. It could be very bad for Republicans (not to mention or troops!). Blaming liberals worked well in the past...so the message becomes, "the reason why its not working out is because the liberals are unpatriotic and never supported the troops."

There's plenty of politiking goin' round.

 

[Cryozombie]

Just so I am clear, There are not now, nor have there been, Terrorists in Iraq, correct?

 

[michaeledward]

Prior to the US Invasion, there were no terrorist organizations of global reach operating within control of Saddam Hussein's governance. There was a terrorist organization that had a training camp in Northern Iraq; the Kurdish controlled - US No Fly Zone protected area of the country. Prior to the invasion, the Pentagon, under control of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld would not authorize an independent attack on that training camp.

After the invasion and occupation of Iraq, you might find many people whom the United States government would like to label as terrorists. Of course, there might be other, equally accurate (or perhaps, more accurate) ways to describe these people. Are the combatants in a civil war terrorists? Is that the way we describe the Confederate Army in our own civil war?

There are some in Iraq, quite probably, that may accurately be labeled terrorists.

Of course, what that has to do with supporters turning away from President Bush's policies is obscure to me.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Of course, how would you have done it. Lets hear your plan. And I don't want to hear what you would not have done, because we've already heard that. Criticism is easy, and doesn't require any stones, putting your neck out with a real plan is hard.

It must be hard to come up with a real plan, Mac. Certainly the administration hasn't come up with a clearly articulated one.

Bush won't give a timetable for withdrawal. Cheney says the insurgents are on their last legs...a month later we take terrible casualites, giving no indication the insurrection is any less strong. Rumsfeld says we may be there twelve years. Gee...we were told we'd be greeted as liberators.

Now we're told to "stay the course," so that we can honor the sacrifice of those that were killed up to this point. In staying the course, of course, we end up getting more Americans killed. Its a somewhat strange and obscene calculus.

Currently over half the country thinks the war was a mistake, that the war is being badly handled, and that Bush is doing a bad job overall. Now...maybe you can malign the "leftists" for that. You can blame the "liberal" (corporate owned) press. You can quote Disraeli and say "Sprung from our loins is a race of weaklings," and talk about how we just don't measure up the "The Greatest Generation." You can blame fix all you like...and I see it coming from you and others here.

This situation is going to continue to degrade, and it won't be from lack of support. It will be because of incompetency in the administration and an inability to carry out any cogent actions AND a failure to articulate goals and gains. The article above--from a noted conservative magazine--clearly shows that.

We're exhorted to stay the course...when we haven't been told where we're going or when we're going to get there, or how.

Power in Iraq STILL is lower than pre-war levels...and that with one of the country's top energy companies running the reconstruction show. Sewage was flooding the streets last year because they didn't have electricity to pump it out.

And all this is costing us six billion a month because we're using government contractors at an unprecedented level. Six billion.






Regards,


Steve

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The President's polls are lower than Nixon's during Watergate, apparently.

This article from the National Review has some expressed frustrations from Bush supporters who are getting fed up with the lack of political acumen in the White House. They make some good points. One observes:

"Why can't the president make an appearance with some Iraqi children whose school has been rebuilt? Where are the generals to explain the military strategy? ... Even I, a die-hard Republican and Bush supporter, am losing heart."

http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/08232005.asp#073900

Regards,

Steve

While I am glad that hard questions are finally being asked by individuals and groups that it is harder for the "true believers" to smear and marginalize - I sense opportunism and self-preservation at work here. Congressional elections are in 2006 and many of these Repblicans now finally asking questions can read polls as well as the next person. Like the Democrats who wanted to be both for and against the war, these new figures coming forward, IMO, are doing so largely because they don't want to be dragged down by an increasingly unpopular war.

SGTMAC, asking hard questions about the war, its costs, its results, etc. is not about not being able to finish something hard. My Grandfather spent four years in the Pacific, under unimaginable circumstances and he is asking these very same questions. Iraq, and I recognize that there were good people and good arguments on BOTH sides of the pre-war debate, was, unlike WW2 or Afghanistan, an optional war.

In truth, I'm disappointed in politicians all around - BOTH PARTIES. In my view, many Republicans have confused party loyalty for loyalty to the best interests of the country, and Democrats want it both ways.

What's the plan that you are demanding of us? I think the first step would be an honest appraisal of the situation. Iraq is like the former Yugoslavia was - an artificial nation composed of three differing ethnic and religious groups. If Iraq is to hold together as a coherent whole, either it needs a strong, tyrannical even, federal government with a Tito like dictator, or failing that, we have to stay there indefinitely and hold it together by force of American arms. Democracy, installed from above, will lead to the majority (Shiites) dominating the other two (Sunnis and Kurds) in a way that WILL most certainly - barring a ruthless CENTRAL dictator - lead to civil war. The Sunnis realize this and are fighting the American occupation like mad, the Shias, for the most part are biding their time to see if they get their Islamic Republic. If they don't, the will fight the U.S., thus increasing OUR losses EXPONENTIALLY. Iraq is not yet, Vietnam, but it will be if the Shia's rise en masse against us. I and many others thought about this BEFORE the Invasion. For our leadership, both Presidential and Congressional, not to have, is the grossest incompetence in foreign policy in a very long time.

Ladies and Gentleman, congratulations on the probable creation of a Shiite dominated Islamic Republic in Iraq. Is it possible that they might then ally with their former enemies, the Shiite dominated Islamic Republic of Iran? Do ya think that might happen and is that in the best interests of the United States? Brilliant!