Polls show Americans are 'confused'

you know what the problem with liberals and progressives is?

Many progressives in and out of the media accept the Right's basic "narrative" in this affair and apparently, most others, and just nod their heads and go "tsk, tsk" when the facts don't fit the narrative spewed by the Busheviks in power.

Progressives, by intellectual training and by emotional inclination, aren't willing street fighters and shun the rough and tumble of fighting the Right Instead, they attempt to be fair and see both sides. They think of issues from the points of view of interests other than their own and don't mind conceding that the other fellow has a point. They want to believe that reasonable people can disagree in good faith.

But, in this case, the other fellow, aWOL Bush has no point, has produced NO facts to support him, has been unreasonable and still many in the press are unwilling to speak the truth because it might make them look like a progressive. That is the progressive disease.

This self-destructive disease of intellectual comity has allowed the Right to hit the Left with lies and bombast and all the Left does is grin like idiots and take it. We saw it when the rabid wolverines, bought and paid for by millionaire right wingers set up an entire industry to get Bill Clinton, and normally progressive journalists bought the hype about Whitewater, Trooperegate and a myriad of other lies manufactured to destroy Clinton.

And while the Right calls the Washington Post and New York Times "liberal" both newspapers were on the forefront in attacks on Bill Clinton, and the Times recently fired editor Harold Raines called for Clinton's resignation and attacked him personally in editorial after editorial. So much for the myth of the "liberal" Washington Post and New York Times, so much for the myth that these newspapers skew news coverage to the Left.

I would ask one to reflect on what most media comments from alleged progressives were about Bill Clinton and Whitewater or Troopergate, and if they used their wonderfully fair, progressive minds to call for cautious analysis when the hysteria from the Right swept this country into a frenzy and led to the impeachment of a president over nothing but consenting sex between adults.

Why, of course they did. NOT. They had bought the narrative of the Right wing, hook, line, and sinker.

What gave the Left its strength were its traditional alliances with the civil rights movements and labor. Both of these had strong, articulate voices made all the stronger by experience in decades long struggles with foes that wanted them dead or dismembered.

Fighting such adversaries makes one stronger. The Left is now filled predominantly with intellectuals who have never had their heads cracked open on a strike line by management goons or had police dogs attack them while marching for their civil rights.

They have felt little pain, and without the experience of such pain they are unaware of the consequences of their inactions when the Right attacks them and the things they hold dear.

I adhere to "the Chicago Way" "If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue." That's the Chicago Way, and if one is not willing to actually fight for their principles, they don't have any.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Piffka wrote:
Here's an oddity...
Quote:
Among Republicans who said they follow international affairs very closely -- and thus may also be more exposed to headlines reporting promising leads -- an even larger percentage -- 55% --said weapons have been found, with just 45% saying they have not.
(bolding mine) Is this what Rush is telling 'em?

Pifka - Do you consider the banned missiles they have found to be "weapons of mass destruction" in this context? Perhaps you don't, but perhaps some do. Likewise the trailers that have been so debated may constitute the discovery of WOMDs to some. While the question on whether Iraq used chem or bio agents in the war clearly shows people who don't know what the hell is going on, I tend to think this question was poorly worded and open to interpretation. It would have been easy, and useful, to define the term "weapons of mass destruction" for the purposes of the poll. Had they done so, I suspect the responses would have been different.

oh, scrat, you are so full of it. those missiles had a range of a few kilometers longer than was defined by the armistice of 1991. yet they did not even have fuel to propel them. that the UN inspectors found them was exactly the point of the inspections. inspections that your idols considered to be ineffective. you cant have it both ways. where you use evidence that the iraqis were breaking treaties and submit that the inspections that found them were useless. that's pretty goddamned stupid.

bush did NOT, powell did NOT even mention them while giving their lie-filled speeches at the UN.

the trailers the americans found were sold to the iraqis by the british, the british examined them and said they were being used exactly as the iraqis said they were, for generating hydrogen for weather ballons. the iraqis even mentioned them in their reports up to the start of the war. the americans decided that they were not used for the intended use the iraqis claimed they were because the americans thought them to be too inefficient to be used to generate hydrogen. maybe the american would not use such inefficeint methods to generate hydrogen, but did you ever even stop to think that after a 12 year embargo on anything of a technical nature that the iraqis were using them even if they were inefficent?

no, you did not, you did not even stop to use your brain to think logically because you just KNEW those dirty little bastards were up to no good and you ignored a logical analysis of the data..

this is what is so disgusting about the rightwing, that they grasp at anything that confirms their illusions.

get on to something more substantive.

it appears you are scraping the bottom of the barrel because everything else you have proposed has been shown to be pure bull$hit.

0 Replies

Quote:

it appears you are scraping the bottom of the barrel because everything else you have proposed has been shown to be pure bull$hit.

In reading your post, I'd say you were down there with him.

Quote:

those missiles had a range of a few kilometers longer than was defined by the armistice of 1991

So, how many kilometers would be ok in your mind, kuvasz?

Quote:

you cant have it both ways

That goes for you as well, kuvasz.

0 Replies

(Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps.)

Quote:

Piffka -- Do you consider the banned missiles they have found to be "weapons of mass destruction" in this context? Perhaps you don't, but perhaps some do.

You are referring to the banned weapons Iraq had that can send a missile more than 90 miles... maybe 120 miles with a good tailwind? You surmise that some of these self-described Republicans who "follow international affairs closely" MIGHT CONSIDER those short-range missiles to be weapons of mass destruction? Shocked

Hmmmmmmmm.

Perhaps they might!

I've lost a lot of my initial surprise over what people think. Stupid me, I'm just a liberal, but I thought it was pretty obvious that a weapon of mass destruction would mean an atomic bomb, a nuclear bomb, or a large-scale biological or chemical weapon that would kill lots and lots of people. I'm pretty sure that's what it means. At least that's where the "mass destruction" part comes in....

But you're right. Those pollsters may have confused folks by not fully explaining just exactly what those words mean.

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

Quote:
it appears you are scraping the bottom of the barrel because everything else you have proposed has been shown to be pure bull$hit.

In reading your post, I'd say you were down there with him.

Quote:
those missiles had a range of a few kilometers longer than was defined by the armistice of 1991

So, how many kilometers would be ok in your mind, kuvasz?

Quote:
you cant have it both ways

That goes for you as well, kuvasz.

oh yeah, well you seem to be adverse to the truth here. not that your side ever cared for it in the first place.

show me where i, like your bedfellow cobbled a set of unrelated data, exaggerated them, used them to string a fatuous argument and made a cause for war on repeated posts when repeatedly those facts have been shown to not lead to the conclusions stated.

BTW the poster right after me gave you the details of the missiles' ranges.

but it took less than 30 seconds to doa google search for the facts.

http://middleeastinfo.org/article2092.html

The U.N. inspectors swarming over Iraq's missile industry found an infraction last week: The short-range Al Samoud 2 sometimes flies a few miles farther than allowed.

But the experts have reported no sign of any longer-range missiles that could strike Israel or neighboring oil nations as Washington fears.

In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic "eyes and ears."

Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.

Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix gave Iraq until Saturday to begin destroying the Al Samouds, and Baghdad was reported Thursday to have agreed in principle to go ahead with their elimination --- via explosives, crushing, cutting or other means.

Blix called it an important test of Iraq's cooperation with U.N. disarmament efforts.

The Iraqis must also eliminate the design data and equipment to build the weapons --- a damaging blow to their young missile industry.

Under the U.N. arms control regime that followed the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), Iraq was forbidden to have missiles that could travel beyond a 150-kilometer range --- 93 miles.

That's considered the outer limit of short-range or "battlefield" missiles.

Blix reported the newly developed Al Samoud 2 exceeded that limit on 13 test flights, by no more than 20 miles.
On 27 of 40 flights, the missile tested short of the permitted threshold, Blix told U.N. diplomats behind closed doors.

so when your side puts up deceitful and dishonest data to prove a point, i assume you are okay with that, and when i call them on it with the real details, i am akin to them for showing them to be liars.

get a life.

you did read the papers in march? bush said that the iraqis could launch missiles that could reach the States with WMD, that they could attack us within 45 minutes. that the iraqis posed , in bush's words "an immenent threat." you believe that tripe?

now tell me again where i was having it both ways. i was not the one who made up things, that was done by your buddies, not me. all i did was call them on it.

you just seem put off that the rhetorical devices your buddies use are being pointed dierctly back at them and now you decry such use? i did not hear you mention this when they went off to alice's wonderland with their statements. so i guess as usual with your side you dont like it when people show what hypocrites your side has on its team.

you might wish to admonish your buddies for making it up as they go along.

0 Replies

Quote:

you believe that tripe?

Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant, the fact that a majority of both sides of the aisle in Congress believed it, and the Administration believed it is relevant, and that is the point.

To hypothesize with wild conjecture that Bush was complicit in duping the American people and the rest of the World regarding the WMD in Iraq requires a departure of reality the likes of which I am not willing to take.

Why is it so important that they be found in Iraq, when even a dim-witted republican knows that they have been transported elsewhere.

To continually maintain that there was not an active and ongoing Weapons Program (and yes, I know the difference between banned weapons and WMD, although I think the distinction is irrelevant, Piffka, though I won't quibble with you on it) requires even a further removal from reality.
What were those Scientists working on, hmmmm?

The bile that rises up with such vigor and stench from the organs of the liberal that materializes in the "Where are the WMD's???" Rant is far beneath you, kuvasz.

And it is that duplicity that I am calling you on, good buddy.

0 Replies

The only reason we supposedly sent armies of US soldiers to Iraq was to find & destroy weapons of mass destruction. For the Brits -- they were looking specifically for chemical weapons. They still are ... and getting more and more desperate. To say that the difference between that and a small-scale missile is shocking. I can only assume the poison ivy has affected your noodle because you just implied it was fine to go to war, to kill 3000 or more for a short-range missile? Yikes.

I'd rather have just gone into Iraq because Hussein was a bastard. At least, THAT makes sense.

0 Replies

HA ha ha ha !

No, fortunately neither one of my noodles are afflicted :wink:

So, do we count you among those who wished we would have waited until the WMDs were actually used against us before we went in?

0 Replies

Oy vey, now it's raining red herrings and straw people too.
I hope my galoshes can keep me dry!

kuvasz wrote:

... with all the money that GE gets from the government, do you think that GE will allow NBC to prove bush a liar by informing the public of the truth?

come on. the media manuafactures consent for the benefit of those who run the country. its the only way these sons-a-bitches could ever get away with stating such blatant lies. ...

I look for trends and forces within society. The things that shape our system, regardless of left, right, middle or upside down. So, just one mental exercise, re: Larger Corporations.

What happens as they get larger and larger, more powerful than we've ever experienced and known before? As companies grow to exceed to size of most nations then corporate mechanisms surplant government mechanisms. Private wars outweigh public ones. The world goes behind closed doors.

As companies begin to wield greater power than most governments, they don't have the opaque checks and balances that we expect of public institutions.

As it grows and becomes more extreme, what would naturally happen? Governments go private. Corporations rule. Perhaps we're back to kingdoms and fiefdoms, doing anything we can get away with. That's the law of the jungle. It's a breeding ground for strategies, scams, and back-room deals, unfair to democratic principles and placing disorganized free individuals at a severe disadvantage.

Corporations and governments become one and the same, and it becomes the people versus the institutions, more than ever. Polls are not performed by free individuals, so it's like asking the wolf to educate the sheep.

Given that most Americans are asleep under all that wool, how can we change the system ... so that natural forces take increasingly better care of people and society? We have work to do(!), things to take care of in the world, rather than ruthless power-grubbing politics.

What would motivate every institution to do work, rather than politics?

I don't know. I'm just fishing in my galoshes. Beautiful day out though.

0 Replies

Those are excellent facts, thank you!
So what do you think of the forces involved?

And what might prevent this from happening over and over again
with one person or another?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Pifka - Do you consider the banned missiles they have found to be "weapons of mass destruction" in this context? Perhaps you don't, but perhaps some do. Likewise the trailers that have been so debated may constitute the discovery of WOMDs to some.

Well, I'm glad you've left the chemical plant out, this time - I guess that means you did read my post, then.

You know, as a matter of procedure, say, it would be nice if, when you boldly challenge others to come up with "even ONE" example, and they promptly do so, to at least acknowledge it. Not just a Q of basic civility, but also to keep up the point of discussing, kinda. It may sound like I'm nitpicking here, of course, but otherwise it just becomes a trick, of course, to go: "I bet you wont even come up with one example". Because you know that, by now, no, they wont make the effort of finding the appropriate quotes and drafting a response, because they know you wont even "see" it, anyway. If that in the end gains you the rhetorical victory of being able to go - "see! no-one gives me any example, they're just talking", its a very hollow one. Reason noone else did, this time, for example, was cause they already did it a zillion times, and dont see the point anymore.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Pifka - Do you consider the banned missiles they have found to be "weapons of mass destruction" in this context? Perhaps you don't, but perhaps some do. Likewise the trailers that have been so debated may constitute the discovery of WOMDs to some.

Then concerning the two examples you did still use.

Considering the missiles found by the UN inspections, I'd think that 'find' proved the point of the UN, who suggested inspections would indeed do the job - rather than that of the US, who said it would find so much more if it got the chance of waging war to do so.

The second thing you mention are the mobile labs. As it turns out, the "some" who do still think these constitute WMD apparently even do not include your own allies in the British government anymore. (And this is the very last time I'm going to paste in this article below). That leaves you with no examples of what WMD the Americans have found, whatsoever.

Quote:

Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds

Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.

The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government - and revealed by The Observer last week - is hugely embarrassing for Blair, who had used the discovery of the alleged mobile labs as part of his efforts to silence criticism over the failure of Britain and the US to find any weapons of mass destruction since the invasion of Iraq. [..]

See http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

Quote:
you believe that tripe?

Whether or not I believe it (info re WMDs) is irrelevant, the fact that a majority of both sides of the aisle in Congress believed it, and the Administration believed it is relevant, and that is the point.

With all respect, Max, you are making a rather large assumption here -- and, in light of what we both know about politicians, I think an unwarranted assumption.

It is more likely, in my estimation, that a majority of both sides of the aisle DID NOT "believe" it -- but found it politically expedient to pretend they did.

I don't KNOW that -- it is essentially a guess. But I think one that ought to be considered.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

maxsdadeo wrote:
Quote:
you believe that tripe?

Whether or not I believe it (info re WMDs) is irrelevant, the fact that a majority of both sides of the aisle in Congress believed it, and the Administration believed it is relevant, and that is the point.

With all respect, Max, you are making a rather large assumption here -- and, in light of what we both know about politicians, I think an unwarranted assumption.

It is more likely, in my estimation, that a majority of both sides of the aisle DID NOT "believe" it -- but found it politically expedient to pretend they did.

I don't KNOW that -- it is essentially a guess. But I think one that ought to be considered.

Not only that, but it IS the point that a great many of them did believe it! Do you, Max, feel it's ok that a bunch of professional politicians at the top of the power grid did fall for the hype and lies? It scares me a bit. I'd almost rather believe what Frank says above - they were watching their backs.

0 Replies

The main point as I see it regarding this issue is intent.

Was it the intent of the present administration to deceive to further their objective as is argued here and elsewhere?

Or was the present administration, operating on information obtained from UN weapons inspectors (being the news/political junkies that you are, I know I was not the only one who heard Hans Blix's report stating that Iraq had not provided the proof of destruction for literally tons of WMD that they allege were destroyed, have you all forgotten that as well?) and intelligence from the previous two administrations, operating on good faith that this information was accurate.

The critical point is not why aren't the WMDs in Iraq, but where are they?

I refuse to believe that the intelligence derived under 41,42 AND 43, as well as the UN weapons inspectors were all wrong.

To buy into your argument requires one to do just that.

0 Replies

kuvasz, et al - My simple point was that some who answered that poll might have considered these items "weapons of mass destruction" and this may have been the reason for their answer to that question. That remains my only point, your rants notwithstanding.

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

The main point as I see it regarding this issue is intent.

Was it the intent of the present administration to deceive to further their objective as is argued here and elsewhere?

Or was the present administration, operating on information obtained from UN weapons inspectors (being the news/political junkies that you are, I know I was not the only one who heard Hans Blix's report stating that Iraq had not provided the proof of destruction for literally tons of WMD that they allege were destroyed, have you all forgotten that as well?) and intelligence from the previous two administrations, operating on good faith that this information was accurate.

The critical point is not why aren't the WMDs in Iraq, but where are they?

I refuse to believe that the intelligence derived under 41,42 AND 43, as well as the UN weapons inspectors were all wrong.

To buy into your argument requires one to do just that.

One of the great things about "believing" something -- is that you can do any believing you want to.

Blix did note deficiencies in the reports from Iraq -- but Blix also noted that they were cooperating -- and that the inspections were working.

In any case, the Bush reasoning before the war was more than "these things are not totally accounted for" -- but rather that they definitely are there; and they present a real and present danger to our nation.

I think any reasonable assessment of this administration's pronouncements before the war would lead one to assume that they were purposefully deceptive.

If there is the naivete' that you inferred in your post, Max, it is on the part of folks like you -- not on the part of those of us on the other side of the issue.

Try to get that straight.

0 Replies

Re: (Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps.)

Piffka wrote:

But you're right. Those pollsters may have confused folks by not fully explaining just exactly what those words mean.

Cool! We agree. Very Happy

Thanks for putting aside your bias and considering my point with an open mind. Cool

0 Replies

Polls show Americans are 'confused'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know