Home > Uncategorized > The Public Continues to Turn Against the war

The Public Continues to Turn Against the war

The U.S. military scored a major victory by taking out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but the larger question looms as to whether or not it will make any difference in the long run. Chris Arend was in studio tonight urging us to stay the course and reminding us what happened in Viet Nam. Chris found it hard to contain his rage against John Murtha; personally I hope the Democrats run Murtha for VP in ’08.

But here’s the latest poll numbers. The majority of Americans still have deep quesitons about this war. And all of Sean Hannity’s huffing and puffing isn’t going to change that. Check out this report from the Associated Press:

“The death of al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq came as more Americans than ever thought the war in Iraq was a mistake, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

The poll, taken Monday through Wednesday before news broke that U.S. forces had killed al-Zarqawi, found that 59 percent of adults say the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq — the highest level yet in AP-Ipsos polling.

Approval of President Bush’s handling of Iraq dipped to 33 percent, a new low. His overall job approval was 35 percent, statistically within range of his low of 33 percent last month. The poll of 1,003 adults has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Among other findings:

_More than half, 54 percent, said it’s unlikely that a stable, democratic government will be established in Iraq, a new high in AP-Ipsos polling. The survey was completed before Iraq’s parliament approved three key new government ministers. Just 67 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of conservatives, and 57 percent of white evangelicals believed a stable, democratic government is likely.

_Only 68 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of white evangelicals and 51 percent of self-described conservatives — key groups in Bush’s base of support — approved of his handling of Iraq. Those most likely to disapprove are Democrats (89 percent), women (70 percent), minorities (84 percent), city dwellers (72 percent), those with household incomes under $25,000 (71 percent), and unmarried men (70 percent).

_Those most likely to believe the war in Iraq was a mistake are Democrats (84 percent), women (63 percent), especially suburban women (67 percent), minorities (76 percent), city dwellers (66 percent), self-described liberals (82 percent), moderates (64 percent), and Catholics (62 percent).”

  1. Bob from San Luis
    June 9, 2006 at 6:26 am

    Dave, I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to hear the entire segment; I don’t understand where the vitrol comes from on the right against Rep. Murtha. Here is a quote from an interview he did recently: “SCHIEFFER: Now, Congressman, when you say al-Qaeda wants us there, why would al-Qaeda want us there?

    MURTHA: Because we’re depleting our resources. A very small proportion of what’s going on in Iraq — they’ve diverted their attention away from the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is worldwide. In Iraq, it’s a civil war. We have diverted ourselves away from that war on terrorism. ” Chris, Rich, anybody from the right, please explain why, in your opinion, Congressman Murtha is so wrong in his views.
    I did hear Chris mention at one point in the show that Congress knew what they were agreeing to when they authorized the President to use force in Iraq. What Chris is either forgetting or doesn’t want us to know is, that Congress voted for the authorization of force based on faulty intelligence and, there were conditions on the use of the resolution by the President. For starters, President Bush was required to go back to the U.N.:
    “(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” In addition, the President was required by the resolution to report to Congress: “SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).” President Bush did neither; since this was an act of Congress where law is written, did the President break the law by not complying with the requirements of the resolution?
    Now, as far as the death of al-Zarqawi is concerned, why did President Bush not capture or kill al-Zarqawi sooner? Three separate times our military had a clear opportunity to take him out, and all three times the White House had the military stand down. Here is the first link Michelle posted earlier, and here is the second link. The fact is, al-Zarqawi could have been eliminated before we even went to Iraq. Reading the articles the assertion is made that the reason did not eliminate him then, was that there would not be as much of a reason to go into Iraq, if al-Zarqawi weren’t there. There being in the region of Iraq that Saddam was not in control and could not strike because of the no-fly zone enforced by the US.
    Chris, Rich, anyone else who still thinks that President Bush is doing the right thing, I can’t think of anyone who would want us to fail in Iraq; but if America was told straight out what it was we were going to attempt, how long it would take (years), what the cost would be in lives and resources, do you really believe that a majority of Americans would have jumped at that idea?

  2. Rich from Paso
    June 9, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    Bob, how long have you been a supporter of mass murder?

  3. Shawn
    June 9, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    Isn’t this like the third or fourth time Zarqawi has been killed? Is it really official this time?

  4. Rich from Paso
    June 9, 2006 at 7:54 pm

    No, there was never any other Zaraqawi killing before. There were many near misses where he left a building before the bombs fell, but this is the first body produced after a bombing. It’s for real.

  5. Rich from Paso
    June 9, 2006 at 9:31 pm

    Okay, now that you are really seething from reading my question, Bob. Here is my refutation:

    Murtha has gone from being just a boob to a complete ass. he can no longer be referred to a “a Marine”, because a real Marine would not hot foot it over to the nearest bank of mikes and cameras and proceed to throw all Marines under the bus by accusing them of killing civilians in cold blood and say that they are stressed out and out of control. John Batiste, to his credit, still believes in the rule of law and that people are innocent until proven guilty when asked about Haditha (note: he still holds Rumsfeld responsible for everything from the conditions in Iraq to the bird flu to the Seahawks not winning the Super Bowl). Murtha is constantly giving out percentage of how many soldiers want us out, how many Iraqis want us out, etc etc. Well, 100% of the soldiers in Iraq I have surveyed (37) all want to punch Murtha in the nose and tell him to get his head out of his ass and to keep his nose out of something he obviously has no knowledge of: fighting and winning a war.

    We found Iraqi army uniforms in Zaraqawi’s house yeaterday. He could be the primary source of all of the sectarian violence in Iraq right now. While that may be overly optimistic, we don’t know how widespread his operations are, but we’re learning. We hit 17 al Qaeda safehouses yesterday based on the same intel that was used to bomb Zaraqawi’s place. The flood of actionable intelligence should be huge.

    Read the Joint Resolution Authorizing force against Iraq. It clearly states that Iraq “continues to pose a national security threat to the United States and the Gulf region”. It was approved 77 to 23. The House passed it 296 to 133. Read it. Remember that everywhere it says “whereas” that means “fact”.

    Here is another link stating why there was an Al Qaeda/ Iraq link before the war. Here is a link from USAToday that clearly establishes that Zaraqawi was in Iraq prior to the war. I fell like I’m a broken record here because I know I have told you all this before.

    The bottom line: Saddam is gone and that is an undeniable and inherent good. To question our continued presence in Iraq or to say that we never should have gone in is to condone the mass murder, the rapes and killings of thousands of teenage iraqi girls and the continued instability that Saddam and his ilk presented the United States. If you are against the removal of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq then you are for the continued murder of Iraqis. There is no weaseling out that, Bob. No matter what the intel said, no matter how wrong it was on WMD, no matter on the violence going on now or how long it took to get a parliment and government seated — Saddam is gone and Iraq is better off. To state anything else means you are for rape and mass murder, pure and simple.

  6. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    June 9, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    Dave amd others,

    How come you people went off on Ann Coulter because she said SOME of the 9/11 widows were using their loss for fame?

    Dave Congleton the other day said “How can you say anything about Murtha…he was wounded in Vietnam?”

    You had special programs last summer about Cindy Sheehan and what she was saying about President Bush. Have you talked much about what this poor lady has written lately to Mr. Mike Moore?

    Coulter is saying in her brash way that you can’t say anything against someone who has experienced a recent or in some cases a not so recent loss or accident.

    What about that guy that was trying to gain as much fame as possible, Bill Mitchell. I have seen his pathedic search for stardom fall flat. Yes, I am sorry that his son was killed defending our country from terrorism, but his is using his son’s death to tout his opposition to the war. His own son, like Sheehan’s, were and probably would still be opposed to their parent’s selfish ambitions.

    Mitchell ran down to Texas hoping to be as notable as Cidy, sorry Bill, you are just an old hippy with only a few other hippies who were willing to listen to you worn out ideas about free love and pot. Remember war has never solved anything, right?

  7. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    June 10, 2006 at 1:18 am


    Where are you getting your talking points from. Here is you favorite person totally refuting your talking points yesterday. I know there are some that just think Michelle is the best thing since sliced bread, and she is vocal, but I think it is clear that she reads these blogs that give her these ideas unless Rush has been listening to Dave Congleton on the web, but I doubt that. Enjoy!

  8. Jeff
    June 10, 2006 at 4:43 am

    Hey Dave, so the dogs don’t like their dog food (so said Bob Novak in another context). I dunno but I wish more people had joined that guy who stood out in front of Camp SLO for a week in March of ’03, before the bombs started.

  9. Bob from San Luis
    June 10, 2006 at 7:41 am

    Rich: Your answer to my question about Rep. Murtha was not very informative; you claim that a “real” marine would not “hot foot” it over to any bank of microphones and cameras to accuse all marines of cold blooded killing; would you provide a link to an article or interview where he made that assertion? I am aware of his stating that there had been a cover-up or an attempted cover-up, looking at this article, I don’t see anywhere where he accused all marines of what you say he said. Show me Rich, you usually back up your claims; if there is proof of what you say he said, I will dismiss the Congressman immediately. I’m sure many would argue with you about Murtha not knowing anything about fighting a war, since he was apparently in both Korea and Vietnam.
    Yes Rich, I did read the full text of the Congress Authorization of Force; whereas you say each “whereas” means ‘fact’, please don’t forget that those ‘facts’ where the ones supplied by the Administration. The White House is the only branch of government that has full access to intelligence data, and Congress only got to see what the White House wanted them to see. Please don’t forget the allegations of “cherry picking”, “stovepiping”, and the precident setting direct involvement by the office of the Vice-President inside the CIA. There still remains many questions about those “facts” that lead us to invading Iraq. The two quotes I had in my first comment were from the Joint Resolution; the first one was from section 2, paragraph 2, which directed the President to “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council..”, which the President did not do. The second quote was from section 4 which mandated that the President was to report back to Congress, which he did not do as well. If I read that section correctly, did it not state that the reports were supposed to be given before any “action” was to be taken? As for al-Zaqawi being in Iraq before we invaded, I haven’t heard anyone dispute that claim; if you read the links I brought over from Michelle you will see that stated clearly. What is still disputed is the claim that al-Qaeda actively worked with Saddam; your link certainly provided some food for thought. The writer makes some very good points with much credence, but was all of that information available back in ’02 when we started the run-up to the invasion? Could that article be a very good job of Monday morning quarterbacking?
    You state that the bottom line is, Saddam is gone and that is undeniably good; agreed. You also state that anyone who was against our going in and removing him from power is for rape, torture and murder. Nice try, but that doesn’t fly. I was against going into Iraq to remove Saddam militaraly, I was not against having him removed from power. He is a murderer, he is evil and his removal from power has undoubtedly stopped him from killing more of his people; the main difference between the left and the right seems to be: was it worth the cost to us in the amount of dead and wounded US military personnel, and, have we caused fewer, the same, or more deaths to Iraqis by our invading than would have occured if we had not gone in? I respect that an individual joins the military to serve our country; I respect that the parents of those who have had the children join and are justifiably proud of their children for doing so, but for the life of me I cannot understand a parent or surviving spouse of a fallen soldier, marine, airman, seaman, or reservists who has been killed in Iraq who believes that their loved one died for a noble cause. I do not question their sincerety and I do respect their grief; but I do not think I could be so gracious to our President if one of my kids were to die for this cause.

  10. Rich from Paso
    June 10, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    Again, Bob, the ABC piece you cite has Murtha states fictionalm (until proven otherwise) polls saying 80% of Iraqis want us out. Where does that poll come from? He never says. He never says what poll the “47% say its okay to kill Americans” statistic comes from. Murtha says the Army is broken; it’s not. He says recruitment is down, it’s not. He says that the Marines at Haditha were under pressure and all Mariens and Soldiers in Iraq are under the same pressure, therefore, all Soldiers and Marines are one IED away from committing a Haditha. Read it here. Again, Bob, Murtha already tried and convicted those Marines before the investigation iseven complete. Yep, that’s responsible of him.

    Hey, Dave, Murtha on the ticket in 08 would give give voice to the “angry old curmudgeon” vote. If you all stand any chance of winning, you should back a Warner/Richardson ticket.

    Anyhow, Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion… the word “active” is a difference with no distinction. Thery were there. The press is saying that al-Masri, the “new” head of Al Qaeda in Iraq was there in 2002. They were there.

    For me, Bob, is that all of you people that bemoan the deaths of 2400 servicemen (some of them were my friends; all of them a personal tragedy for their friends and families) would have DEMANDED!!! in the strongest terms that we end World War II after the 50,000 died on June 6th, 1944. (which, by the way, the level of attrocity in WWII is three orders of magnatude higher for the US than in Iraq. Remember Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima?) You have no spine for war. You hide behind your failed diplomacy and your appeasements of your enemies in the hopes they will leave you alone. In grammer school, you probably gave the bully your lunch money willingly so he’d leave you alone. To “contain” Saddam, as you have said, would be to give him permission to kill as many Shia as he could, to work on building WMDs (don’t give me that UN inspector bullshit) and to have his sons rape and kill whoever they wante. that is the same blind eye Bill Clinton turned to Rwanada and the same blind eye we are now turning to the Sudan. I will say this, though: it does appear that Bush has gone “all in” with Iraq, and because of that our options are limited with Iran and the Sudan. So,in my book, we have no choice but to succeed. You can’t understand the nobility of the action in Iraq because you have never met or spoke to an Iraqi. I can tell, because if you had you would have learned what life was like in Iraq before we invaded that country. Face it Bob, you’re just ignorant of the realities over there. Its not your fault; You just believe everything the New York Times has told you. That’s why the American people are against the war.

  11. Rich from Paso
    June 10, 2006 at 11:04 pm

    Here are two articles by Michael Barone on the unprecendented prosperity that America now enjoys

    Have you Heard the News

    Bush Knows his History

  12. Rich from Paso
    June 13, 2006 at 4:01 am

    Thanks, Dave, for continuing to give voice to the anti-military, anti-recruiter and anti-victory in Iraq group Code Pink. In their latest tilt on Bush, G’itmo has to close because of some suicides this weekend. What the military is trying to figure out is how those guys could whack themselves seeings how they are looked in on every 2 minutes. These men were not victims in any sense of the word. They chose to kill themselves in an attempt to become martyrs with the ultimate goal of getting the most effective prison in the war on terrorism, Almost every person in G’itmo was a high-valued target in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I just love listening to Code Pink talk about the human rights of murders above the human rights of those they murdered. It just makes my day.

  13. Bob from San Luis
    June 14, 2006 at 2:45 am

    Rich: I’m going to answer your earlier comments later, so for now I just want to ask a couple of questions about the detainees at Gitmo. If a majority of those being detained were taken off of a battlefield, would that not make them prisoners of war? Yes, I know that they were not wearing uniforms of a recognizable countries’ military, but they were supposedly taken during a battle; isn’t battle a condition that only exsists in a war? If they were not taken as prisoners of war, what is the justification for taking them? Were they committing criminal acts? Wouldn’t that dictate that they be treated as criminals? If they are prisoners of war, they need to recognized as such with the Geneva Conventions applied. If they are criminals, they need to treated as such under international law, charged with a crime, tried and either found to be guilty or innocent of those specific charges and then treated accordingly. Our founding fathers saw how a government could abuse it’s power and strove to make our country different, to instill the notion that individuals have inherent rights; the detainess may all be guilty as hell of crimes against humanity and America, let’s find out and act in accordence with the intention of our founding fathers.

  14. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    June 14, 2006 at 3:47 am


    What I am afraid you don’t understand is that the animals that are in G’itmo were caught fighting a war on the battlefield. At the same time, while they are certainly at war with the United States, they are unlawful fighters. John Walker Lynn was a US Citizen and was afforded his constitutional rights allowed him. The other dirt bags that were fighting with are not US Citizens and should not be given those right. They should be held until they either die of old age, kill themselves saving us the effort, or the war on terror is completed and they can be released with certainty they will not re-enter combat as at least some who have been released have done.

    Note to Code Pink: If one of these animals at Gitmo was let loose in a room to talk with you about your offer of health care and love for them, you would be murdered within 10 minutes. That is my opinion.

    Have a good one.

  15. Bob from San Luis
    June 14, 2006 at 6:34 am

    New Tone: You did not answer the question; if they were caught on a battlefield, shouldn’t they be considered prisoners of war? If you say that they are not a recognized military force, what would they be considered? Were the captured or arrested? If they were captured, they are prisoners, if they were arrested, they are criminals- charge them, arraign them, have a trial and be done with it. They may have committed atrocities that can be labled as animalistic, both in intention and execution, but they are still humans. I don’t want to “coddle” them, I just don’t believe that our founding fathers would appreciate us holding anyone without charging them, denying them representation, and never allowing them to have some sort of legal recourse. Of course you could say that I am thinking in a “pre 9/11” mindset, but come on, our constitution was written in 1776, is that too “pre 9/11” for you? I thought the oath that military personal took was to “defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America”; and the best way we can defend ourselves is to subvert or deny the intention of that ideal to our “enemies”? The one principle that has always supposed to have differentiated us as a country to every other country in the word is an adherence to the rule of law; if we abandon that stance now, what makes us different than the other countries of the world?

  16. Rich from Paso
    June 14, 2006 at 7:25 am

    It’s “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

    I’m glad that your involvment in the War on Terror is limited to bitching about the US infringing on the legal rights of murderers. I seriously doubt you would have the courage to pull the trigger on one of these pieces of human excrement because you might think “who am I to kill him, he might be an innocent man, after all he wasn’t tried and convicted in a court of law” or “who am I to play judge, jury and executioner on this man, who could be from a poor family just trying to make ends meet”. Of course in the span of time it took you to concern yourself with his rights, you’d be dead or taken captive where you would have your head cut off by someone who wouldn’t give a spit about any “human rights” you might have.

    This is a WAR, Bob!! Not a police action. You don’t call SWAT you call the Army. Your bullshit point about criminals is just that.
    I’m more concerned with why you even spend the time trying to justify giving these murderers rights they don’t deserve. Our Founding Fathers would look at you all on the Anti-war left and say “What are you all nuts? Their trying to freaking kill you!” or words to that effect. They are prisoners of war, period. I guess your camping out here on the Left Coast must have really muted the impact (no pun intended) of 9/11 on your thinking. Islamofacists are worse than Hitler because at least Hitler had one country which he called home. These guys will go anywhere, kill anyone, men, women and children of their own religion if it furthered their overall goal of the a Fundamentalist Islamic empire. They almost don’t deserve human rights, almost.

  17. Rich from Paso
    June 14, 2006 at 7:32 am

    Furthermore, George W. Bush has more guts than all of the al Qaeda pieces of crap put together. Any one of those guys would have loved to take down Bush and still Bush goes to Iraq, puts himself in harm’s way to meet the new Prime Minister and talk to the troops and is there for five hours. Yeah, he had beefed up security, but a deternmined enemy can pull of tremendous feats. bin Laden has been out of his cave for what? three years now. It takes a brave man to order suicide bombers from the relative safety of your cave, Osama.

  18. JerryDinAZ
    June 15, 2006 at 4:26 am


  19. Bob from San Luis
    June 16, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    This is a WAR, Bob!! Not a police action. You don’t call SWAT you call the Army.
    Okay Rich, you answered one question, it is not a police action, it is a war. If this is a war, there should be prisoners of war, not enemy combatents, with the prisoners of war having the protections afforded to them, period. I don’t want them coddled, I want them prosecuted for what ever it is that they did against us. I am glad that you percieve them to be at least somewhat human.
    As far am my “courage to pull the trigger on one of these pieces of human excrement because you might think…”; I can only assume that you mean if I were in the military and I were stationed in Iraq, in a fire fight, that I would freeze- if I’m correct in assuming that is what you’re supposing, that is so far removed from my relm of possibility that I have never even considered for a moment how I would react in that situation. I never joined the military back when I was 19 or 20, I had no wish to go to Vietnam, I had no wish to learn how to kill, which is my understanding what marines and army infantry learn how to do, and to do it quite well. I respect all who chose to join the military, I had no desire to do so myself. I appreciate the sacrifice of those who serve, past, present, and future; I just wish that when a person has finished their term of service that our government would do right by them, and if that person needs assistance in any form, we have leaders in place that will serve us well by serving our military well. Again, thank you for you service Rich.

  20. Rich from Paso
    June 18, 2006 at 12:54 am

    Bob, you really do need to read the 3rd Geneva Convention, in it, it dfines who is a legal combatant. Reading the provisions that discuss what makes for a legal combatant, it is clear that those captured in Iraq an Afghanistan that are not of Iraq or Afghanistan are mere mercenaries, they do not represent Iraq or Afghanistan, and they do not represent a country at war with the United States, thus they are illegal enemy combatants.

    Now, how should they be tried? I do not agree with anyone that says that they should be accorded the same rights as an American citizen to be tried in our courts. Nor should they since the actions took place outside American. Jose Padilla and Moussaui committed crimes inside the United States and therefore our courts have jurisdiction. For the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union says that all of the G’itmo detainees, that have committed no crime or act inside the United States, should be tried as if they had. That’s wrong. FDR established the precedent of the military tribunals which was upheld by the Supreme Court. That is the way justice needs to be handed out. Bob, call your buddies at the A-ACLU and tell them to stop their delaying tactics so that tribunals can be established, the G’itmo detainees are either tried and convicted or released as the court decides. Okay?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: