US Congress – Job rating in recent national polls

Tsunami said:
democrats and illegal aliens will show up and vote for the jackass
Click to expand...

If you have information on Illegal Aliens voting in a Federal Election you need to contact your Supervisor of Elections, or, if you feel that your Supervisor of Elections is in on it as well (could be a Democrat) just go directly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
 
Tsunami said:
republicans will find more important things to do that day than vote because there is not a true conservative on the ticket.
Click to expand...

Democracy in action!

Have you noticed Mr. President getting similarly low numbers? No one is happy with the way the war is going.
 
Go tribe! Oh yea, another Boston Tea Party. :peace:
--
Kucinich just came out with a whole new peace process, he is going to have the mother ship land in Iraq and spread love and goodwill...
When your done spouting liberal talking points about nobody being happy w/ how the war is going, you may just see that the problem is way beyond that of Bush!
Put simply - if the mainline media would cover stories like what we saw earlier w/ the soldier holding the little girl or even more recent story that appeared via reuters, buy is showed up nowhere in US papers:
==========
Sharp drop in violence seen in Iraq
By Aseel Kami

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilise the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

GRADUAL IMPROVEMENT

In Baghdad, considered the epicentre of the violence because of its mix of Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, car bombs had decreased by 67 percent and roadside bombs by 40 percent, he said. There had been a 28 percent drop in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.

Reuters (IDS)
--

This article showed up on a swiss info sight - I mean, for crying out loud. When the American people are kept in the dark, which is the liberal way - what do you expect?
====

Oh yea - I am happy with how the war is going, which provides a fundamental flaw to your premise "The Other Guy."
:drill:
 
Last edited:
The proper response is - when is the press in this country going be held to a higher standard? I would argue that if the facts less the agenda were reported, then a) democrats would not be in power and b) Bush's approval ratings along w/ a repub held congress approval ratings would be reasonable and an objective measure.
 
The Other Guy, if you asked that question in 1940, in 1950, in 1917... the answers would have all been the same. No one knows.

Hell, sometimes by slapping on an artificial deadline, the enemy will USE that to their advantage. The enemy should never know when the bombs will stop dropping.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
The Other Guy, if you asked that question in 1940, in 1950, in 1917... the answers would have all been the same. No one knows.
Click to expand...

Not true, the answer in 1940, 1917 and 1950 was when a ceasefire was negotiated (Whether it was through the defeat of the other side or through political means) so while no one knew the exact date they did have a defined goal that could be achieved, this is not the case with the so called "war on terror" so his question is a valid one.

Perhaps you could tell us the conditions for winning it at least that way we would know whether it was being won or even seriously fought.
 
Tsunami said:
Define win - and don't dance around the issue concerning your liberal leaning press.
:rambo:
Click to expand...


Oh, the "Liberal Press" myth again. If someone disagrees with conservatives its therefore "liberal", especially when it happens to be true, then its called the "far-left" liberal media.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked everybody else who repeats this tired old line. If the press is so "Liberal" then how come most of it, (especially the mainstream media) it is owned by conservatives? Don't believe me? check who owns MSNBC (Gates), FOX (Murdoch), CBS (Time-Warner), ABC (Disney), ClearChannel, CNN (Time-Warner) (which owns 10% of radio airwaves in the US), the WSJ (Murdoch), the WT (Rev Sun Yi Moon), just to name a few.

I'll give a factoid: The popular myth of the "liberal" press was actually invented by Rupert Ailes in the FOX NEWS boileroom.

"Repeat a lie often enough and eventually people will believe it"
-Dr. Joseph Goebbels
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
13th Redneck

Except in all those examples the US had a strategy, an actual plan to win the war. The current gameplan is "Win the war against global terrorism". AKA: A war without end. The Iraq war has been going on longer than WWII with no end in sight.

The only reason we are still in Iraq is become our leaders THE REPUBLICANS, and a few Chickenhawk Democrats cannot come to grips with the fact that they were wrong, and of course certain Corporate interests that are unwilling to let go of their moneyfactory. 25% of the Worlds oil supply is a hard thing to give up, you know.

Alan Greenspan (a Republican who served as FRC for 5 different presidents) has publically acknowledged that the war WAS for oil (and a few other reasons) that had nothing to do with WMD or terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Ok then mmarsh, what is your response to these figures being released by the military which show that the amount of violence in Iraq has decreased sharply over past months starting in late June?
 
Damien435 said:
Ok then mmarsh, what is your response to these figures being released by the military which show that the amount of violence in Iraq has decreased sharply over past months starting in late June?
Click to expand...

I'll have 3.

1. The surge is not responsible for the # of attacks going down. The number of attacks going down, has decreased sharply in other years and its always come back up. The lowest period was actually in June-July 2006! The surge this year did not break that record. The reason there are fewer attacks now is because of Diplomatic discussions between the warring clans in Iraq, not because of the surge.

I admit, this is study doesn't take in to effect 2007, but it does show the fewest # of attacks was actually in spring 2005. I'll try and get some more updated figures to include 2007. But I will tell you that the surge did not break the 2005 record.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002169.php

2. The number of attacks per month has gone down during the surge thats true. BUT the number of civilians killed in those attacks has actually gone up slightly. More civvies have been killed this year than last year. Look at the chart from the AP at the bottom.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004116.php

Of course that is if you can trust the Patreaus report at all, which according to the September polls most Americans DO NOT. When you see INDEPENDENT studies such as the GAO you get a different picture. The days of Americans naiivly swallowing Bush talking points is over.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/19448.html

3. Basic insurgency tactics 101. If your a guerrilla fighter, and the enemy moves reinforcements into an area, you go to ground or you redeploy. The Vietnamese were pros at this during the Vietnam War. We didn't defeat the insurgents, thats just propaganda. They just went underground -but they'll be back. You read any modern insurgency tactics from the Swamp Fox Marion to Quantrill, to Mosby's irregulars, to Merrills Marauders, to the Vietcong, to the Taliban you'll see its a very standard tactic.
 
Last edited:
MMARSH - when you quote stats from a site that features the following:
img.jpg

you realy need to sit back and examine your arguments before typing away...
-
I rolled with the #1, because anybody can provide 10 different sites featuring 10 different poles supporting their posiiton on the surge.
I looked at #2 and thought - who cares? What relevance does that have to US Congress's job rating? Are you seeking a correlation between civilians killed and the rating? If so - I can agree with you to a point. What I mean is, if the US were to bomb a village tommorow and kill o'l Osama, do you think the press would focus on Osama - or the 100+ civilians that were killed as a result of being in the vicinity?
Wow - #3 - lets just say #3 produced one of those itches you just can't scratch... There are few men who truly know "basic insurgency tactics 101." Come to think of it - a few of them wear a green beret or a trident -
What are your qualifications - or is this just your humble opinion?
 
Last edited:
1. The guy that wrote that book won the Pulitzer prize on another critique he did of Bush for the Boston Globe. So I tend to trust his research over say...yours.

2. Which brings me to something I have noticed. Anything you disagree with you view as untrustworthy or bias. Thats very narrow minded view, but then thats the whole problem with conservativism isnt it? The Unwillingness to explore opposite or different ideas. I might as well stop then, because there is nothing you are going present to you will accept. I don't expect you to agree with me, you certainly won't change my mind, but when someone doesn't even want to listen and just dismisses everything as 'conspiracy' and 'assumptions' well, I have better things to do.

3. I thought I was pretty clear of where I based my facts from, its called HISTORY. History is all about watching trends. For example you'd be surprised how a perfectly laid ambush in Tuetenburg Forest destroyed 3 entire Romain Legions and that many of same tactics that gave the Germans the victory can be found in other modern engagements like in WWII, Vietnam and even today in Iraq. The trends are not difficult to discover, you just need to turn off FOX NEWS and read a book. Another interesting thing about HISTORY is to learn about people keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again throughout the centuries because they are too ignorant to study History. Of course, our President doesn't like to read which is a shame because if he did, we probably wouldn't be in such a mess in Iraq if he had. My suggested reading list would have been the Crusades, the British expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the French in Algeria as well as the Soviet War against the Taliban. All of which illustrated the folly about Western countries conducting large campaigns in the Middle and Far East. -they all ended badly, as will this one.
 
Last edited:
And the thing about ALL of these attacks, with the exception of the crusades, the euros were not attacked at their home countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top