support for going to war with iraq (pre capture) 59%

it has never fallen below 50% in the last six months.

at some point we have to understand that this is a constant number.

now, tell me how we win with a man who says that 59% of the people were wrong.

You change a couple of words in the question and the results flip...

of the people will. the weakness in the bush numbers is in the handling of the war, not in the rightness of going in the first place.

we have a number of candidates that are making good points as to how they would do it differently.

we have only one "front runner" who says that 60% of the people were wrong and we should have left the murderering tyrant in power.

You know this, but since you supported the war, you ignore it.

look at the polls on that page. they ask a lot of questions and lots of the question portray ill for bush and good for us, IF we run the right candidate, a candidate that stands where the people stand, both in disgust of bush's blundering AND support for ridding the owrld of sadamn.

There's just this little nagging question of cost versus benefit that you like to ignore.

Go look here. I've seen polls with approval as low as 45%. You supported this all along but don't expect the rest of us to come around because of one more * failure.

That guy was supposed to be killed on the first night of the war. Thankfully, * has competent troops to bail out his failed policy.

i'm looking here.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

and the only opinion around here that i want to change is the one thaty says we can win with a candidate who's main focus is telling 60% of the American electorate that they are wrong.

candidates who tell people they are wrong don't get elected, ime.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm 45% say invading Iraq was worth it? Doesn't sound like overwhelming support to me. Doesn't even sound like support.

And another thing. Part of leadership is giving people reasons to follow your message. Besides, I've seen recent polls that show that 40% of Democrats don't even know who is running. You want to play fast and loose with statistics? You're going to have to do better than what you've put out so far.

42% got the White House in '92.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm just stating facts.

That said, polls are inherently biased because there is no such thing as a completely unbiased human and humans create the polls.

And 42% got the WH because there was a third, major candidate. Ross Perot got a lot more votes than Nader ever got.

Just wondering, bear...haven't heard much from you since the occupation in Iraq went on the skids

In my part of the country, approval for the war has been at or near the 50% mark, whereas Bush's approval rating is at 43%.

people believe the war was the right thing to do but that bush fucked it up. that is a winning point for us!!!

unless, of course, we insist on presenting a candidate who says the war is wrong which, in essence is telling 59% of the people that they were wrong to support it.

Is that what you are saying? This war didn't need to happen. That hasn't changed. What you are essentially saying is that we should run a candidate that panders to illogic instead of treating the American people like intelligent adults.

and a large proportion of them are Democrats...I would add that we'll be lucky if 50% of the American population votes in 2004 and I think the war opponents may be over- represented among those that do, motivated and informed types as they frequently are.

Also, have I missed something, has the war and the killing stopped today?

Vote for Bush if you support his politics.

"All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?"

...........Worth It...... NotWorth It.....Don't Know
% % %
ALL ............48 ............43 ...............9
Democrats . .30 ............60 ..............10
Independents 49 ...........43 ...............8
Republicans .76........... 16 ................8

THIRTY PERCENT OF DEMS SAY IT WAS WORTH IT!!
FOURTY NINE PERCENT OF INDYS DO TOO!

now tell me how we get them to vote for a man who's main claim to fame lies is saying they are wrong????

...do you?

Remember during the elections it was ALWAYS a win for Bush with more then 2 %.. then Gore got most votes

bush fucked up is a great campaign strategy.

i AM saying not to tell people that they themselves were wrong in supporting the war. you are going against human nature to try and tell them they were wrong about such a huge matter of life and death.

don't push them into bush's camp to protect their own self esteem.

It's no secret that you supported the invasion of Iraq and now you are using the fact that one man has been captured to justify the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, illegally invading a country that posed no threat to us, pissing away the goodwill we had after 9/11, the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent people in our invasion, the death of nearly 500 US troops, the thousands of injured troops, the mortgaging of our children's future with interest to pay for all of this.

And for what? What did it really accomplish for the American people? Not a god damned thing. You can gloat all you want about how terrible a person Saddam Hussein was but the cost of getting him was too high and not even remotely necessary to our national interests.

Are you truly so self-centered in your gloating that you cannot see that this was an ill-advised and unnecessary exercise of our power? Don't just look at our polls that parrot nationalism. Look at the world polls that now looks at us as a lumbering giant flailing about madly at anyone who disses us. We didn't win anything here.

there is NOTHING you can say to make me believe the war was wrong.

Would you have sacrificed your children to make your Iraqi friend happy?

but,,,,if i raised my child the way i was raised, o value freedom and regonize it at something worth fighting for, even if it's the freedom of people a half world away, abd that child volunteered for service and was killed i would respect HIS OR HER sacrifice.
that doesn't mean i wouldn't morn.
it has been a very emotional day. i have heard things today that my friend has never spoken of but i'm in no condition tocalmly talk about this tonight.

in a couple days, i hope to bring him here so you can hear it from him, in his own words.

a dear friend escaped Iraq in the early '90's. The removal of saddam and his minions was/is necessary.

The U.S. being the world's cop is nothing new.

gap for support. The average was about 25-35 for about a six month period before November

Then the average dropped to about 15-20, and it should go back up to at least 25.

it will be low-to mid 60's right, mid-to high 30's wrong

You have to realize the effect of nationalism (nazism). It takes a while to wear off. This will kick it up a notch, but it should wear off pretty quick.

it should have been about as low as it gets during novemeber because of all the casualties. that's the time frame for the poll i posted which breaks it down by party.

getting saddamn will pop it back up again. so will the constant drip drip of war crimes he has committed as revealed by the trial.

losing their lives 2 per day. The war popularity will drop below 50% by November 2004. More importantly, Bush's handling of the economy will drop below 30% by the same time. (50% + 30%)/2 = 40%. Dean will win 60%/40% against Bush.

If it's the way you see it, then we may as well pack it up and go home.

First of all, anybody who supported the war and will use that as a decisive point for casting a vote is voting for Bush anyway. The Democrats have nothing to gain by nominating a pro-war candidate.

Second, you are assuming that information can't get out to the people and that there will be no meaningful discussion on the matter. No matter how its spun, there were no WMDs, there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaida, and Bush's cronies are war prfiteering. Saddam's capture doesn't change that.

We need to get the word out that we support a bona fide war on terror. The September 11 attacks should not be used as a pretext for colonial misadventures. That is a waste of money, resources and lives. It is treason to send brave young Americans to combat under false pretenses. That is what Bush did when he invaded Iraq. That is reason enough to defeat him.

There are tens millions of Americans who supported the war that would vote for a democrat.

A third of REGISTERED democrats support the war(on average, over the past 4 or 5 months), and about half of independants do.

And second, you're statement that there were no WMD's is rediculous. Even Dean and France admit that there were WMD's.

It's one thing to be against the war, there are plenty of good reasons to be, I have gone back and forth and am basically ambivilant about it though because I read and listened to BOTH SIDES. You don't need to make shit up to back up your argument though, and your preferred candidate, whoever that may be.

Were there any last spring? Did they find any? Did I miss something?

Otherwise:

In my post, I qualified the statement to say that if support for the war is one's decisive factor (not only factor), then one will vote for Bush. I stand on that. That leaves open the possibility that could support the war and still oppose Bush.

As for my preferred candidate, I am uncommitted.

Finally, even if I didn't want to listen to the other side, I'd have to be under a rock not hear it. That doesn't change the fact that the justifications for the war stated by the Bushies were all lies.

I infer from your post that now Saddam is in the bag, any Dem against the war has been proven wrong.

(Sorry about the runaway alliteration.)

We know they're BS!

Ok, Vidal says it better:

"Congress and Media are silent as the executive, through propaganda
and skewed polls, seduces the public mind..." -Dreaming War, 2002

The core of the Bush strategy is their claim that they know what's going on out there in the world and that they know what to do. This is the fundamental of the pre-emption claim, and with every disproval of their godlike prescience, they take on political water.

If this breaks into a civil war, it could be incredibly ugly. If it messes up the flow of worldwide oil, it'll hit the plebes right in the FUV, and that'll be no fun for the junta.

The calculus of war support has not been changed by this in any way that we can really predict; all we can say is that we shall see.

If Iraq blows into a big ugly death vortex, Kucinich may have a chance.