Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 20, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PUBLIC OPINION ON IRAQ....Here's the latest chart from the Pew Research Center showing public opinion about withdrawal from Iraq. Just thought I'd pass it along.

The most interesting detail, I thought, was the educational breakdown. It turns out that among people with at least some college education, a little less than 40% think we should withdraw as soon as possible. But among those with a high school education or less, this number shoots up to nearly 60%.

I'm not sure what that means, but it's not what I would have expected. Other interesting results can be had by clicking the link.

Kevin Drum 1:43 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (203)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

This means that all the uneducated people are finally going with the impulsive emotional "feel" of what should be done, rather than the more logical idea of what has to be done. Republicans shoudl worry, since they own a lot of the less educated populace. But democrats have nothing to gloat about. If they win the next election series, they will inherit the whirlwind. Best to leave this one to the idiots in charge right now.

Posted by: Chris on January 20, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

Education is hard, hard work.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on January 20, 2006 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

For those with a high school education or less, the military is a fairly important employment option, but it's not as attractive while we're in Iraq.

Posted by: Pete Guither on January 20, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, I wonder if the uneducated (or rather, less credentialed) are more likely to have family members in the military than the more educated. If its your son or niece who's on patrol in Baghdad you might have a different perspective than someone who gets their military knowledge from The New Republic editorials.

Posted by: beowulf on January 20, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

The more educated were never in favor of the war to begin with, but, having been dragged into it, realize that completing the task is now the only way out of Iraq. the more republican leaning people, who tend to be more pro war, and anti intellectual, have always had more to lsoe under bush as it it. I doubt that they now see the light. Had they voted against him to begin with......but no, I forget, their religion demanded an extremist of them.

Posted by: Chris on January 20, 2006 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK

Same with Vietnam. The so-called "masses" were way ahead of the intelligensia as far as getting out. Most people I personally know (e.g. grew up with) who have gone to Iraq, have not gone to college and came from families who didn't have a parent who went to college--these constitute the people in the most dangerous positions and the bulk of the casualties. I don't have any friends with me in grad school who have a personal connection to anyone in Iraq.

It's not a shock. But then again, it's consistent with results from the last long term "adventure" the U.S. partook in.

Posted by: gq on January 20, 2006 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

As others have said: Who goes to war? Who attends military funerals, gives comfort to grieving widows, sees the blank looks on the faces of children who have lost a parent? Looks like they're getting pretty damned sick of bearing the brunt of this war while the thinking class blathers on about it.

Posted by: Jones on January 20, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

Well, the trouble with the statistic is high school *or* less. As I recall, white voters with a high school education (who are the bedrock of the working class) lean Republican these days, and those with less than high school education lean strongly Democratic. People with undergraduate degrees are split, leaning slightly Republican, and people with advanced degrees lean slightly Democratic.

What I would be curious to see are the numbers for white people with high school educations.

If it becomes clear that Iraq has descended into a civil war I wouldn't be surprised to see the number enter the fifties comfortably (and throw all the rules of American politics overboard in the process). If not the numbers may fluctuate with events on the ground, but I guess that's obvious.

Posted by: the blue nomad on January 20, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

The war was a bad idea, as anyone with a little bit of education feared when we were going into it.

For the rest of us, now that we have had time to study it and become more educated about the war, less of us support it and less of us like what the president has done.

It is not to late to change what goes on in this country and what we do overseas. Let us get rid of this clown and his pupeteers (Chaney, Rumsfeld etc)

Posted by: Big Dog on January 20, 2006 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINK

Blus: I'd query those statistics you throw about. If memory serves, Republican voters tend to be less educated, with lower income, on the one hand, and highly educated with massive wealth on the other. The inbetween folk are split between the Dems and the Repubs. Then there are the non voters, who foten, were they to vote, woudl identify themselves as Democrats.

Posted by: Chris on January 20, 2006 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

Damn high school education made me illiterate. foten=often, of course.

Posted by: chris on January 20, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, you would like to tie education in with the Republican "redneck" "beer drinking" "Bush supporting" "barefooted reactionary" "support our troops" "kill everybody in the Middle East" "Torture all prisoners" "Support The Death Penalty" Strangely, it is these of the "great unwashed masses"whose children are being returned in caskets and maimed and scarred in body and mind and who, like in the Vietnam Era,are beginning to question what is this really about. The educated and well to do find other opportunities for their children like King George W. and most of his scurrilous ilk did during Vietnam. Again, they failed to remember the past. They said this was not like Vietnam. Oh No? Reap the whirlwind Georgie Pordgie. It's coming at you now.

Posted by: murmeister on January 20, 2006 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

Chris,

Republicans shoudl worry, since they own a lot of the less educated populace.

It's the reverse actually.

Exit polls from the 2000 election

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dems . . . Repub
* No H.S. Degree - - - - - - - -59% . . . 39%
* High School Graduate - -48% . . . 49%
* Some College - - - - - - - - - -45% . . . 51%
* College Graduate - - - - - -45% . . . 51%
* Post-Graduate Degree - -52% . . . 44%

Posted by: TangoMan on January 20, 2006 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

If all you have is a high school education, your employment options are limited. The military looms much larger as a potential employer (and source of additional education and training). The highly educated can afford to be more dismissive of the military. If you don't think of yourself as candidates for cannon fodder, you may not worry as much if the President wages an idiotic and incompetent war.

Posted by: Zeno on January 20, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

tangoman: you may want to quote from an election where the republican candidate won.

Posted by: Nads on January 20, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

The answer is obvious. There is no way I can dump all my defense stocks this year (unless they eliminate the capital gains tax). I say we stay the course for at least another year.

Posted by: B on January 20, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

It's about race and ethnicity. A disproportionate number of people with less than a high school degree are either African American or Latino. And they are staunchly Democratic and they bitterly oppose the war.

Posted by: Elrod on January 20, 2006 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

This means that all the uneducated people are finally going with the impulsive emotional "feel" of what should be done, rather than the more logical idea of what has to be done. Republicans shoudl worry, since they own a lot of the less educated populace. But democrats have nothing to gloat about. If they win the next election series, they will inherit the whirlwind. Best to leave this one to the idiots in charge right now.

This comment epitomizes why progessive usually do--and should--lose elections. Last time I checked, Republicans don't own more of the "less educated populace" than the Democrats. But with statements like this, I'm surprised that they don't. You don't have to have a college education to know that Iraq was a bad idea from start to current situation.

As a personal bias, I have friends who haven't completed college or even gone to college whom I consider more bright and talented than graduate students I know. Education does not always represent intellectual abilities.

Posted by: gq on January 20, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

Not what I'd expect either. But then, who's fighting over there? I'd bet there aren't a lot of PhDs.

Posted by: JJF on January 20, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dems . . . Repub
* No H.S. Degree - - - - - - - -59% . . . 39%
* High School Graduate - -48% . . . 49%
* Some College - - - - - - - - - -45% . . . 51%
* College Graduate - - - - - -45% . . . 51%
* Post-Graduate Degree - -52% . . . 44%

Posted by: TangoMan on January 20, 2006 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

They have the bottom and the top in terms of education. I guess this means Dems have more varying levels of education....

Dems are made up of an alliance between the limousine liberals and their pawns, the "unwashed ethnic masses" who vote Dem regardless how badly government interferance has failed them.

See why I think the affirmitive action for disadvantaged minorities only is a political handout...

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

47% following the West Virginia Miners closely
40% following the situation in Iraq closely
14% following the Alito nomination closely

PRIORITIES!

Posted by: JamesP on January 20, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

"Blus: I'd query those statistics you throw about."

I was close enough. See above.

Posted by: The Blue Nomad on January 20, 2006 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINK

Dems are made up of an alliance between the limousine liberals and their pawns, the "unwashed ethnic masses" who vote Dem regardless how badly government interferance has failed them.

And Democrats are the ones who are called elitist? As someone this jack-a** would probably consider part of the "unwashed ethnic masses", I'd say as a product of public education, I wouldn't be where I am without it. I also know people who receive S.S. survivor benefits and people who receive S.S. disability benefits from circumstances beyond their control. Before these broadsides against the uneducated--and hardworking--I'd take a minute or two to talk to some of them.

Posted by: gq on January 20, 2006 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe most of the college educated never imagine it possible that they would have to be the ones on the ground putting their lives on the line.

Posted by: Jimm on January 20, 2006 at 2:46 AM | PERMALINK

Too bad people who obtain college educations can't take some time to revist the "original position". Perhaps the superiority complex would diminish.

Posted by: gq on January 20, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

Nads:

tangoman: you may want to quote from an election where the republican candidate won.

No problem.

From the 2004 election:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Kerry . . . Bush
* No H.S. Degree - - - - - - - -50% . . . 49%
* High School Graduate - -47% . . . 52%
* Some College - - - - - - - - - -46% . . . 54%
* College Graduate - - - - - -46% . . . 52%
* Post-Graduate Degree - -55% . . . 44%

Thanks to Tangoman for the formatting...

Posted by: tbrosz on January 20, 2006 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINK

Damn all those scientists, doctors, and professors who drive around in their limousines!

Posted by: Turgidson on January 20, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

gq,

Here's a good rule of thumb - Democrats don't believe in IQ unless it shows that they're more intelligent than Republicans.

From a Liberal Think-Tank:

From 1992 to 2004 the Democratic party has been losing educated voters.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1992. . 1996. . 2000. . 2004
High School . . . . . .54%. . 59%. .49%. .47%
Some College . . . . .52%. . 55% . .47%. . 46%
College Grad. . . . . 49%. . 49%. . 47% . .46%
Post Grad. . . . . . . .58%. . 57%. . 54%. . 55%
page 50

Democrats are also losing married couples and capture no more than 45% of that demographic, and of course there's the whole fertility issue.

The problem for the Democratic coalition, is first raw numbers with self indentified liberals accounting for 20% of the electorate compared to 33% who self-identify as conservatives. (page 43) and secondly, the educational divergence which melds the highest and lowest educated demographics together so it's hard to get a cohereht message to the broad middle.

Anyways, I don't want to hi-jack the thread but I wanted to inject some numbers to correct what I thought were faulty generalizations being used to analyze the topic of this post.

Posted by: TangoMan on January 20, 2006 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

Not what I'd expect either. But then, who's fighting over there? I'd bet there aren't a lot of PhDs.

Almost all the enlisted personnel (99%) are high school graduates, and about 10 percent have completed at least two years of college. For officers, 93 percent are college graduates (30 percent for warrant officers, 98 percent for commissioned). Don't know about PhDs.

BTW, in the category of the 48 percent who wanted the troops brought home "as soon as possible," 32 percent favored withdrawal over a year or two, and only 14 percent favored immediate withdrawal.

Some other numbers I "cherry picked" from the poll:

Do you think the war in Iraq has helped the war on terrorism, or has it hurt the war on terrorism?

44 percent: helped
38 percent: hurt

How well is the U.S. military effort in Iraq going?

Very or fairly well: 51 percent
Not too or not at all well: 44 percent

Regardless of your feelings about the original decision to use military force, do you now believe that the U.S. will definitely succeed, probably succeed, probably fail, or definitely fail in establishing a stable democratic government in Iraq?

Definitely or probably succeed: 56 percent
Definitely or probably fail: 34 percent

See? Kind of fun, isn't it?

Posted by: tbrosz on January 20, 2006 at 3:16 AM | PERMALINK

The trend appears to confirm Lincoln's saying, "You can't fool all the people all the time."

I'm sure you'd find that a disproportionate number of the supporters of the occupation continue to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to al Qaeda, since you can fool some of the people all the time.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 20, 2006 at 3:32 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz,

the data you extract would set me at ease if I were a Republican. There is a lot of congruence between the expectations of a majority of the populace and the express intentions of the Bush administration.

Posted by: JohnFH on January 20, 2006 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINK

How many of the posters have a college degree?
How many have family members (not counting cousins) serving in Iraq? My guess would by 75% + for the former and 10% for the latter. Two of my four nephews have served in Iraq or Afghanistan and a third is two weeks into Marine boot camp.
I certainly hope we are withdrawing troops from Iraq by this summer as this will greatly dimish the chances of any of them getting killed.

Posted by: farmboy on January 20, 2006 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

McAristotle - Are you still in Iraq or are you doing the recon for the hard targets in Iran? How did those cross border incursions into Syria go? Any actionable intelligence? Rumor has it you were part of the Predator strike in Pakistan. Maybe you should post less and concentrate more on your job.

Posted by: O'Plato on January 20, 2006 at 4:00 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe you should post less and concentrate more on your job.

Posted by: O'Plato on January 20, 2006 at 4:00 AM | PERMALINK

Yah, I am the Asian outsource branch of the CIA's WMD research group. Its a 'slam dunk' I tell you. They'll dig up those sand colored WMD sooner or later. Might have got Iran and Iraq mixed up though.

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 4:02 AM | PERMALINK

I have an ex-nephew-in-law who just got back from Iraq, an army sergeant. Due to his ex-in-law status, I haven't talked with him, but his safety has been very much on my mind in the last year.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 20, 2006 at 4:03 AM | PERMALINK

"How many of the posters have a college degree? How many have family members (not counting cousins) serving in Iraq? My guess would by 75% + for the former and 10% for the latter."

I have a nephew who is in the 82nd Airborne, although he's back from Iraq. It isn't always a good guide to sentiment about the war though. Everyone wants to see their family come home unscathed, but the fact is any number of military families supported the war (although my nephew's mother did not).

Posted by: The Blue Nomad on January 20, 2006 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK

it is indeed a sad comment when a terrorist like bin laden is more honest than bush.

Posted by: Nads on January 20, 2006 at 5:11 AM | PERMALINK

except for actually having military experience and being anti-bush and anti-iraq war, your list describes bush to a T.

why would dems want to saddle themselves with a second potential war criminal when we haven't removed the first one yet?

Posted by: Nads on January 20, 2006 at 5:23 AM | PERMALINK

Osama is not the devil, and even the devil cannot make a fact false by stating it. That the president is a lying sack of shit is not one whit less true when trumpeted by a monster.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 20, 2006 at 5:31 AM | PERMALINK

Me thinks the old Bush hatred, might be making it hard for the two of you to think.

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 5:41 AM | PERMALINK

It might be useful to analyze the situation in Iraq using the assumption that the result we find is what was intended. Almost nobody claims that, though; there's general agreement that the situation on the ground is a problem, which implies that mistakes were made.

In other words, the Pee Wee Herman defense, "I MEANT to do that!" is off the table.

There is a growing consensus that things are getting worse. If not a quagmire, Iraq is certainly a quandary.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 20, 2006 at 5:51 AM | PERMALINK

Me thinks the old Bush hatred, might be making it hard for the two of you to think.
Posted by: McA

I'm sorry ... I have a hard time understanding you with bush's phallus in your mouth.

Posted by: Nads on January 20, 2006 at 5:55 AM | PERMALINK

I think Dubner wrote in Freakonomics that the same applied to the Vietnam War, that the higher the education level, the higher the support for the war, but I don't have a copy handy, so I'm not sure.

Posted by: Rip Tatermen on January 20, 2006 at 5:58 AM | PERMALINK

Nads: you did yeoman's work in the gender debate downthread. Well done. Un fuerte abrazo.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 20, 2006 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

Just in case this hasn't already been covered (I did read the whole thread, but I've forgotten it) core Democrats include union members, who may or may not be high school graduates, non-whites, who may be immigrants or descendents of slaves, usually most women, and the few who value education above its cost.

College graduates traditionally tend to be kids with well-to-do parents, and generally skew conservative, in accordance with their natal milieu.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 20, 2006 at 6:10 AM | PERMALINK

and generally skew conservative, in accordance with their natal milieu.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 20, 2006 at 6:10 AM | PERMALINK

But why the post-grad shift to the left?

Posted by: Mca on January 20, 2006 at 6:26 AM | PERMALINK

Well done. Un fuerte abrazo.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 20, 2006 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

How did u know he speaks Spanish?

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 6:30 AM | PERMALINK

So, Drum's threads are being systematically strangled?

Posted by: bad Jim on January 20, 2006 at 6:42 AM | PERMALINK

It turns out that among people with at least some college education, a little less than 40% think we should withdraw as soon as possible. But among those with a high school education or less, this number shoots up to nearly 60%.

This shows that America's colleges are failing miserably at their major objective: turning students into anti-Bush, anti-military peacenik vegetarian hippie communist leftists.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on January 20, 2006 at 7:31 AM | PERMALINK

Not to nitpick but: "It turns out that among people with at least some college education, a little less than 40% think we should withdraw as soon as possible.""

'Less' is for quantity as in 'It is healthier to eat less fast food." 'Fewer' is for number. "Fewer than 40%..." (Fewer Big Macs).

I used to object to my local Albertson's signage for their express lane reading '10 items or less'. Don't know if that had any impact on the fact that they are all now labeled, and correctly so, '10 items or fewer'.

sigh

Posted by: CFShep on January 20, 2006 at 7:47 AM | PERMALINK

I see that Osama bin Laden is offering a "long-term" truce in exchange for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, President Bush will gleefully refuse this request, which means the troops will be staying in both places for the forseeable future, which will give bin Laden what he wants anyway: an invaluable tool for recruiting more Al Qaeda operatives and engendering more sympathy for Al Qaeda in the Muslim world.

Damn. Anyone else get the feeling bin Laden's playing us like a cheap fiddle?

Posted by: Moonlight on January 20, 2006 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

"They've got the post-grads in general. Not just the PhD's... Doesn't that include Lawyers, MBA's, etc., etc.... I'd say that includes quite a few limousine driving types.
Posted by: McAristotle on January 20, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK"

Thanks McAristotle, I'll think about that as I am driven to work in my Pontiac G6 limo.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 20, 2006 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

"I propose a long-term truce that will give the two sides stability and security."

Yeah me too but just long enough to get him to show his face and then we shoot the murdering bastard between the lookers.
*Shrug* why not, cops use that strategy to get criminals.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

James Loewen had some interesting comments on education levels and support for the Vietnam war in "Lies My Teach Told Me" (starting around p. 302 in chapter 12). He argues for two factors to explain greater war support among the more educated: allegiance and socialization.

Roughly, the first claim is that more educated people tend to be more successful, and therefor have a greater allegiance to the status quo.

Socialization refers to the fact that success in school often is the result of telling the professor what they want to hear, and more educated students are more conditioned to conformity.

Or something like that. "Both the allegiance and socialization processes cause the educated to believe that what America does is right."

Posted by: ex-wisconsinite on January 20, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

In case anyone was wondering what McAristotle did for a living--he's a financial day trader who is seeking to corner the world market on red underwear:

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia Jan 20, 2006 Good luck charms are usually worn around the neck, or on wrist. But this year, Chinese Malaysians are wearing them under their pants.

Red men's underwear emblazoned with auspicious animals and characters have become the rage among Malaysian Chinese ahead of the Chinese lunar New Year holidays, the New Straits Times reported Friday.

McAristotle's red underwear are emblazoned with pictures of Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham shoving dollar bills down their pants.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

Fuck yourself, McA.

That is all.

Posted by: General Shitz on January 20, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

Why is this post such a surprise? The more "educated" are probably more exposed to the main stream media and its influences, which the government uses very well for its purposes. Lets face it, educated people are more indoctrinated by the class who run this country. The less MSM you are exposed to, the more cynical you are about government.

Posted by: terry k on January 20, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and while I'm at it did anyone eals notice this one:

Extending its northern defenses to the natural Alpine barrier was obviously in Italy's interest, and popular sovereignty acted not as a break on war for this purpose but as a stimulus.

LATimes 15JAN06 Mark Helprin


Um...Mark, sometimes spell-check just won't do. The word in this context is 'brake'.

Society for the Preservation of Homonyms

Posted by: CFShep on January 20, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK
手机铃声免费手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载手机自编铃声MP3手机铃声移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声下载NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载TCL铃声飞利浦铃声特效铃声搞笑铃声MIDI铃声铃声图片MMF铃声下载手机图片三星手机手机报价诺基亚手机手机美容手机游戏彩屏手机手机大全手机论坛手机号码查询摩托罗拉手机飞利浦手机手机维修MP3手机免费手机点歌手机短信免费短信搞笑短信短信笑话祝福短信情人节短信手机彩信彩信图片免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信手机彩铃免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃12530彩铃小灵通彩铃 网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛PP点点通电影下载BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听MP3音乐MP3下载MP3播放器MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载QQ下载申请QQQQ幻想外挂QQ表情QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQQQ头像QQ游戏QQ空间代码QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

手机铃声免费手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载手机自编铃声MP3手机铃声移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声下载NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载TCL铃声飞利浦铃声特效铃声搞笑铃声MIDI铃声铃声图片MMF铃声下载手机图片三星手机手机报价诺基亚手机手机美容手机游戏彩屏手机手机大全手机论坛手机号码查询摩托罗拉手机飞利浦手机手机维修MP3手机免费手机点歌手机短信免费短信搞笑短信短信笑话祝福短信情人节短信手机彩信彩信图片免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信手机彩铃免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃12530彩铃小灵通彩铃
网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛PP点点通电影下载BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听MP3音乐MP3下载MP3播放器MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载QQ下载申请QQQQ幻想外挂QQ表情QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQQQ头像QQ游戏QQ空间代码QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

手机铃声免费手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载手机自编铃声MP3手机铃声移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声下载NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载TCL铃声飞利浦铃声特效铃声搞笑铃声MIDI铃声铃声图片MMF铃声下载手机图片三星手机手机报价诺基亚手机手机美容手机游戏彩屏手机手机大全手机论坛手机号码查询摩托罗拉手机飞利浦手机手机维修MP3手机免费手机点歌手机短信免费短信搞笑短信短信笑话祝福短信情人节短信手机彩信彩信图片免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信手机彩铃免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃12530彩铃小灵通彩铃
网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛PP点点通电影下载BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听MP3音乐MP3下载MP3播放器MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载QQ下载申请QQQQ幻想外挂QQ表情QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQQQ头像QQ游戏QQ空间代码QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

Posted by: 免费电影 on January 20, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

there's a chapter in the book "lies my teacher told me" that shows opinion polls of the public's attitudes about the vietman war. it's fairly similar to the point you make about those whose highest degree was a high school diploma.

Posted by: mark on January 20, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK
手机铃声免费手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载手机自编铃声MP3手机铃声移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声下载NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载TCL铃声飞利浦铃声特效铃声搞笑铃声MIDI铃声铃声图片MMF铃声下载手机图片三星手机手机报价诺基亚手机手机美容手机游戏彩屏手机手机大全手机论坛手机号码查询摩托罗拉手机飞利浦手机手机维修MP3手机免费手机点歌手机短信免费短信搞笑短信短信笑话祝福短信情人节短信手机彩信彩信图片免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信手机彩铃免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃12530彩铃小灵通彩铃 网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛PP点点通电影下载BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听MP3音乐MP3下载MP3播放器MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载QQ下载申请QQQQ幻想外挂QQ表情QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQQQ头像QQ游戏QQ空间代码QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

手机铃声免费手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载手机自编铃声MP3手机铃声移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声下载NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载TCL铃声飞利浦铃声特效铃声搞笑铃声MIDI铃声铃声图片MMF铃声下载手机图片三星手机手机报价诺基亚手机手机美容手机游戏彩屏手机手机大全手机论坛手机号码查询摩托罗拉手机飞利浦手机手机维修MP3手机免费手机点歌手机短信免费短信搞笑短信短信笑话祝福短信情人节短信手机彩信彩信图片免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信手机彩铃免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃12530彩铃小灵通彩铃
网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛PP点点通电影下载BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听MP3音乐MP3下载MP3播放器MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载QQ下载申请QQQQ幻想外挂QQ表情QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQQQ头像QQ游戏QQ空间代码QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

手机铃声免费手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载手机自编铃声MP3手机铃声移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声下载NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载TCL铃声飞利浦铃声特效铃声搞笑铃声MIDI铃声铃声图片MMF铃声下载手机图片三星手机手机报价诺基亚手机手机美容手机游戏彩屏手机手机大全手机论坛手机号码查询摩托罗拉手机飞利浦手机手机维修MP3手机免费手机点歌手机短信免费短信搞笑短信短信笑话祝福短信情人节短信手机彩信彩信图片免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信手机彩铃免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃12530彩铃小灵通彩铃
网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛PP点点通电影下载BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听MP3音乐MP3下载MP3播放器MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载QQ下载申请QQQQ幻想外挂QQ表情QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQQQ头像QQ游戏QQ空间代码QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

Posted by: 免费电影 on January 20, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

What it means is the uneducated are more likely to be in the military, love someone in the military, fear being drafted into the military, or fear someone they love being drafted.
They know that it's the enlisted taking the brunt of death and maiming. They know that rich folks like the Republicans in charge never went to serve in Viet Nam and their like will never serve in Iraq, especially not among the enlisted.
In short, they know on what side their bread is buttered, and they know that when it falls on the floor, their bread is more likely to land butter-side down.

Posted by: jussumbody on January 20, 2006 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

Hot damn, McAnushole, your post of 9:25 AM is the most incisive, brilliant, yet subtle composition you have ever posted - Kudos to you for your O'Reillyian Pithy remarks.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 20, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

are failing miserably at their major objective: turning students into anti-Bush, anti-military peacenik vegetarian hippie communist leftists.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on January 20, 2006 at 7:31 AM | PERMALINK

They do OK if you give them the extra time. Note the Grad skool trend.

------------

Damn. Anyone else get the feeling bin Laden's playing us like a cheap fiddle?

Posted by: Moonlight on January 20, 2006 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

I'd say giving him both Iraq and Afghanistan to play with might result in him training a terrorists too - but he is playing you like a cheap fiddle by telling you want you want to hear.

If he starts going on and on on Hurricane Katrina - you know he's reading the Daily Kos for his propaganda script.

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

JohnFH: There is a lot of congruence between the expectations of a majority of the populace and the express intentions of the Bush administration.

Except that Bush's express intentions aren't his real intentions.

McAnustotle: How come the liberals sound so much like OBL's latest tape.

Because you listen to little voices in your head telling you lies about what liberals have said, not to what liberals have actually said.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Ok, enough with this "quien es mas educated?" posturing. The point is that the "gut feel" people have about Iraq is that we should get out and leave. As Scottie McClellan said, we can end this war "at a time and a place of our choosing," and it sounds like a lot of Americans want that time to be now.

No one spends too much time breaking down the education levels of those who follow American Idol, girl-in-the-well stories or runaway bride stories. We just accept that Americans follow such things in large numbers and deal accordingly. With Iraq, Bush has lost the masses just as he lost the masses with his Social Security scheme. So game over.

Posted by: Constantine on January 20, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

"How come the liberals sound so much like OBL's latest tape."

Because they have the same goals? Kinda funny Al Qaida's talking points match with those coming from the Left.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 20, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Funny how the Bush-followers spend a lot of time talking about Osama bin Laden when he makes a tape but spend precious little time concerned about him or interested in capturing him otherwise. If they did, these talking points that McA and FF are spewing wouldn't exist.

Posted by: Constantine on January 20, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

What does the college vs. non-college breakdown mean?

Among the insulated elite, there is more support for the war than among those who are actually responsible for fighting the war.

You saw the same thing in Russia during WWI.

Posted by: theorajones on January 20, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

"Damn. Anyone else get the feeling bin Laden's playing us like a cheap fiddle?"

No I think we've got him cornered in pakistan and he's shittin in his nickers. Truce indeed. He's scared and knows he's about to bite it.

A little "Go America!!" cheerleading. God I hope I'm right.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

People who invest more of their lives getting their tickets punched by establishment institutions buy into the establishment more than the people who kinda suspect the game is bullshit and it's rigged?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on January 20, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Once again, the posts on this thread provide ample evidence that this site ought to require registration.

Of course, it's always fun to watch the proto-fascists ooze out of their tar pits.

Posted by: SavageView on January 20, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

With Iraq, Bush has lost the masses just as he lost the masses with his Social Security scheme. So game over.

Posted by: Constantine on January 20, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

Yup, as Osama said. Follow the polls.

----------------------

buy into the establishment more than the people who kinda suspect the game is bullshit and it's rigged?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on January 20, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

The why the post-graduate shift to the left then....

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

What do Osama and the Daily Kos have in common? They all overdo the propaganda and lose moderate voters for the Dems...

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, it's always fun to watch the proto-fascists ooze out of their tar pits.

Right, and there's nothing fascist about a Chinese dude from Malaysia wearing red underwear.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Truce indeed. He's scared and knows he's about to bite it.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Nah, he's shoring up his position with the Democrat base in preparation for his run for Senator.... this way he has more room to triangulate later.


Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, McA, but whose fault is it that we have to listen to Osama bin Laden at all?

I seem to recall a promise froma certain President to capture him "dead or alive," followed SIX MONTHS LATER by a statement that he "wasn't really that concerned about him at all..."

If you didn't want to listen to Osama bin Laden, you should have voted out the President who let him escape.

Posted by: theorajones on January 20, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Constantine
Funny how the Bush-followers spend a lot of time talking about Osama bin Laden when he makes a tape but spend precious little time concerned about him or interested in capturing him otherwise.

Funny how the military (about 70% republican) is quite busy right now hunting down these bad guys that you think they aren't hunting down. In fact, they're hunting them down to the point that they intrude into other country's soveriegn space and kill 18 "innocents". Maybe they did it to make a point to you...to show their commitment.

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 20, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Chinese dude from Malaysia wearing red underwear.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Dude, between the underwear obsession and the male stripper name - you are seriously looking kinda strange.

I'm calling you a self-hating American, not trying to turn you on.

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: Kinda funny Al Qaida's talking points match with those coming from the Left.

Another delusional wingnut who can only hear the little voices in his head telling him what liberals are saying, instead of hearing what liberals are actually saying.

Or perhaps like their hero, GWB, they are just lying.

Either way, they are Defamation R Us employees through and through.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

you should have voted out the President who let him escape.

Posted by: theorajones on January 20, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

If I could vote, I would have voted for the guy who let Anwar Ibrahim out. I'm not American.

I'm from a race opressed by your SUV driving oil consumption and horrible colonialsm.....your American PC training should be making you feel so guilty that anything I said is "'cos I was provoked".

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: He's scared and knows he's about to bite it.

Cheneyese translation: The insurgents are desparate and on their last legs. The fact that more and more American soldiers and Iraqis are being killed by the insurgents is proof! I know I've been saying this for the last three years each and every time the insurgents kill a bunch of Americans or Iraqis, but this time it is really, really, REALLY true!

As many times as conservatives have claimed OBL has been cornered and is sh*tting his pants, he clearly has not sh*t left to sh*t.

But conservatives are still full of sh*t to be sure.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

"Funny how the Bush-followers spend a lot of time talking about Osama bin Laden when he makes a tape but spend precious little time concerned about him or interested in capturing him otherwise."

Actually, what is really funny is how lefty blogs didn't have much to say about the OBL tapes. But, I suppose that is to be expected since the typical response concerning Al Qaida news is either: "yeah we killed another #3, and it's no big deal, cause we are losing" or "oh no, we just kilt some innocent expert bomb making bystanders, how horrible, no wonder the world hates us!"

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 20, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

It's interesting how much better Bush did among the no HS degree group in 2004 than he did in 2000. My guess is that that includes the Jesus freaks targeted by Rove, especially Hispanic evangelicals who voted GOP for the first time because of gay-hatred. If anything, the less-educated voters moved en masse toward the GOP between 2000 and 2004. I'm not sure if that correlates with war support.

Kerry had no appeal to those with less education. He was a snotty, patrician, condescending New Englander. I still find it amazing that he got 48.1% of the vote considering how bad of a candidate he was. It shows how much hatred of George W. Bush is out there.

Posted by: Elrod on January 20, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Dude, between the underwear obsession and the male stripper name - you are seriously looking kinda strange.

You know a male stripper named 'pale rider?' Well, I hope his hands aren't too rough when he takes care of you in that Malaysian strip club.

I'm calling you a self-hating American, not trying to turn you on.

Sorry, the Malaysian/Chinese red underwear story is on about four different news websites, including CNN and Huffington Post. People are having a good laugh at your expense.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

kevin, would you mind telling us what was leading you to expect that those with a high school education or less would against withdrawl from iraq as soon as possible?

Posted by: james on January 20, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

RSM, the only reason that OBL tapes are being released is because, truthfully, the Bush white house has been so much more interested in bogging us down in Iraq than in dealing with Afghanistan. And yet, you mindlessly, insistently support Bush.

Posted by: Constantine on January 20, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

From the graph, it looks like we are starting to agree. Begin the withdrawal in the next month or so.

Posted by: Matt on January 20, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

is level of school attendance/participation the equivalent of more/less educated?

what are the benefits of trying to interpret the meaning of public opion organized by the amount of formal school attendance?

Posted by: james on January 20, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

McAnustotle: I thought it was because they heard it all before from the Democrat's foreign policy position, "If we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, he will leave us alone".

Just can't get rid of those little voices in your head that spin lies about the left, can you McAnus.

Try an anti-psychotic.

You may be too far gone, but it would be worth the money for you to return to reality and truth.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

FF, the truth is that the lefty blogs don't really care much about what OBL has to say. It'sonly the weak and scared right-wingers who hang on his every word. What chaps the asses of right-wingers is that Bush has little interested in catching Osama bin Laden.

Posted by: Constantine on January 20, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

McAnustotle: There's a whale in the Thames by the way - that is really strange.

There are little voices in your head - but that isn't really strange at all.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

There's a whale in the Thames by the way - that is really strange.

Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud...

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

"ooze out of tar pits"

Very good, but in McAnus's case, he is more of a defanged, deranged Krait slithering out of the Long Yang Club in his red underwear. He really enjoys "Red Underwear Happy Hour" at his favorite club.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 20, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060120/wl_afp/britainanimalsoffbeat_060120135325

I'm not kidding.

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

. . . the truth is that the lefty blogs don't really care much about what OBL has to say.

The real question is why Freedom F*cker or anyone on the right cares.

After all, why would you care about the propaganda of your enemy?

Why would you hang on every word of your enemy?

Why would you pay attention to the words of an enemy that you say are lies and who is "soon" going to be captured or killed by the Bush administration ("soon" in this context and the conservative lexicon means maybe sometime in the next 20 years Bush might by luck actually kill or capture bin Laden).

Thusly, Tanker might refer, inaccurately to be sure, to the term "soon", at least as used by conservatives, as a "moral equivocation."

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

OBL will still be making these tapes long after GWB leaves the WH.

Posted by: Jim J on January 20, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Wow. The arrogance.

I've stayed in place whilst the democrats have gone from my right to the left... and to the left... and to the left some more.

I'm an atheist, and I can no longer vote Democrat because I'm 'right wing'.

Remember me the next time you lose an election.

Please.

Posted by: Dan on January 20, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

McAnustotle: I'm not kidding.

Neither are we.

Really.

And there are WMDs in Iraq at this very moment ready for imminent deployment against the US by Saddam Hussein's supporters!

Really!

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

It means nothing..

Posted by: greg wirth on January 20, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

I've stayed in place whilst the democrats have gone from my right to the left... and to the left... and to the left some more.

Yeah, but you have no basis for such a perjorative statement.

The FACT is, if you want Bin Laden caught or dead, why on Earth would you trust the Bush Administration to do the job? Why would you trust them to defend America when they have:

1. Failed to secure the border between the US and Mexico

2. Failed to adequately equip our military during combat operations

3. Failed to receive even a passing grade with regards to enacting the reforms put forth by the 9/11 commission

4. Failed to halt runaway spending and the growth of the Federal Government

5. Left our active duty and national guard Army units so badly equipped, overtaxed and broken that if a major land war broke out in Korea, we would not be able to respond

All you're doing is buying into the static generated by the smear machine that wants you to think Democrats--who have not held power--are somehow to blame for a litany of failures.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

"you should have voted out the President who let him escape."
Posted by: theorajones

We would have but his 2 terms were up anyway. You DO remember that the Sudan gov't offered him to Clinton don't you?

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

You notice Osama Bin laden has been watching CNN and Hardball with Chris Mathews.

He had their lines down pat in his speech yesterday. Mathews was especially taken aback having his own lines quoted back to him by the big guy himself.


By the way, I hear since the NYT publish their article on NSA wiretaps, Al Queda and related terrorist groups have significantly reduced their electronic communications. WAY TO GO GUYS...IF WE GET HIT AGAIN, IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE BECAUSE THE NYT TOLD THE TERRORISTS TO KEEP QUIET ON UNSECURE LINES AND USE COURIERS, CODES IN E-MAIL ETC.

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Amazing. 100 comments, a long discussion about why less educated people oppose the war, and no one notes that blacks want the troops home at a 77% clip, while whites are at 42%. Since about 20% of blacks are in the lower-than HS group, and only 10% of non-hispanic whites, this disproportion may explain a lot of the difference in attitudes between levels of education.

It would have been really nice if Pew had provided Hispanic numbers. The world isn't "White" and "Black". (I assume they included Hispanics in "White", but that hides a lot of differences in data like this.)

Posted by: rvman on January 20, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Dan: Wow. The arrogance.

Wow. The arrogance.

To think that the entire Democratic Party must cater to each and every of your personal pet peeves in order to garner your support.

Hopefully that merely means you will stay home on election day instead of voting for the party that would put you in jail or hang you if they could get away with it.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Well, to alter the old Phil Ochs song just a bit: "It's always the rich who lead us to the wars, it's always the poor who fall."

Posted by: Irony on January 20, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: You DO remember that the Sudan gov't offered him to Clinton don't you?

Still peddling that lie?

No wonder you still have it; nobody is buying.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know why Kevin says the educational split is interesting, its pretty, superficially at least, consistent with all the other splits (race, party, age).

Now a more sensitive analysis that statistically controlled each of the variables for eachother to determine how much of the difference in opinion they contributed would be interesting.

Although, for my money, the most interesting fact about the composition of support is that "Conservative/Moderate Democrats" are, and have consistently been, more supportive of bringing the troops home as soon as possible than "Liberal Democrats". It's certainly the only surprising or counterintuitive difference.

The most interesting fact in the poll regarding support is that more Americans think the decision to war in Iraq was wrong than right even though a majority believe it helped the war on terrorism and a majority believe that the US will be successful in setting up a stable democratic government. Seems to me its being rejected as, no matter if it works or not, not worth the cost in lives and treasure.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 20, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

"Still peddling that lie?"
Posted by: Advocate for God

Good Morning AFG :)
Here's your Lie buddy.
Have a good day my friend

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

It means that the people who don't think they're going to fight this war, or that it won't be fought by their kids, are all for it.

And the people who are expected to fight it, or have their kids fight it, are pushing back.

What did you think it meant, Drum?

Posted by: sixteenwords on January 20, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker42,

Would this be before 9/11 or after 9/11?

Seems to me, there's also a case where someone else let Bin Laden get away...

But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora - intelligence operatives had tracked him - and could have been caught.

"He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."

In his book - titled "Jawbreaker" - the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.)

That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops."

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Dan writes: I've stayed in place whilst the democrats have gone from my right to the left... and to the left... and to the left some more.

I think you are confused. You think that today's Democrats are to the left of (for example) George McGovern or Eugene McCarthy? On what are you basing such a statement?

The only sense in which the Democrats have moved left is that the most conservative Democrats of 30 years ago have switched parties, and now are Republicans.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on January 20, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Before 9/11 PR

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

"The real question is why Freedom F*cker or anyone on the right cares."

A quick scan of the political blogs show the right cares and the lefty ones don't.

"After all, why would you care about the propaganda of your enemy?"

Is that why the lefties care very much about the "Koran in the toilet stories"? But any depressingly positive stories are dutifully ignored. It's almost as though you guys are unpatriotic...

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 20, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

But any depressingly positive stories are dutifully ignored. It's almost as though you guys are unpatriotic...

Hence, Freedom Fries shows HIS patriotism by ignoring repeated inquiries from the local Army recruiters...

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: Here's your Lie buddy.

And that story has been debunked over and over.

Enjoy your Clinton-hating fantasy, though.

It's clearly all you have left since Bush dropped the ball so bad.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: A quick scan of the political blogs show the right cares . . .

Yep, they eat up every bin Laden word as if it were gold, while doing nothing substantive to capture or kill him.

Still on the loose more than 4 years after Bush promised to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice.

A signature failure of the Bush administration that will never be wiped out, because he lied and diverted American resources to Iraq instead of pursuing the actual terrorists.

Yes, too bad conservatives care only about themselves and their political fortunes, obsessing on bin Laden propaganda as if anyone but they and bin Laden's fellow terroriests were paying attention to it.

Indeed, it appears that bin Laden's followers and the American Right have much in common: they both listen to what bin Laden has to say and they both believe it.

It's almost as if you guys are bin Laden followers.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

This is a no brainer. That's the demographic pool that bears the burden of these wars.

The volunteer army is disconnected from the rest of the population, in that, many of us write them off. They aren't OUR problem, and they wanted to go.

I lived in a military town. It was the worst. We had Army, Air Force, Marines, and the dreaded NORAD. Imagine having neighbors who are chompin at the bit to go kill some Arabs, any Arabs.

The Xenophobic Red State rural is waking up, perhaps. And the institutional Islamophobes are going to have to stage another 'hit' if they want new recruits.

The scam only works if we have a clearly defined 'enemy' at our doorstep.

I thought the next target would be the Hispanic southwest, because a bunch of dead latinos at the hands of 'the designated enemy' would boost enrollment.

The neocons better get on it. LA? perhaps?

Posted by: wenn on January 20, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Who do I have to kill around here to get WEIGHTED AVERAGES? Those percentages tell me nothing.

Also, looks like the Conservatives are operating under the good old "They never change" fallacy, so that a voting group that voted for the Dems in 1996 (like College Graduates) could NEVER EVER switch their preference back after dallying with the GOP for a while.

In their world, all political change flows one way, permanently to the GOP. No one ever leaves the GOP coalition, and no one ever gets tired of GOP policies. The GOP can satisfy everyone in every way forever.

Those generic Congressional ballots giving the Dems one of the largest leads ever recorded? Practical joke. Everyone in every group loves everything about the GOP all the time.

Posted by: Alderaan on January 20, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

"Enjoy your Clinton-hating fantasy, though."

I will, Thank you. I wish you the same in your Bush hating endeavors AFG

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter - it is not "patriotic" to oppose aggressive wars fought for a foreign government.

That's the catch phrase that's supposed to discredit anti war activists.

Iraqis did not invade this country. Neither did Iranians. This is a race war, instigated by the enemies of Islam - with very deep pockets, and lots of lobbying money in Washington.

Guess who?

Posted by: TJ on January 20, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

That's an easy call. People with less education are a lot more likely to have a relative in the military or in the reserves, and are a lot more likely to have been directly affected by the war.

They're a lot more likely to have a relative in the military or the reserves because they have a lot fewer employment options, and the options they have pay a lot worse.

Posted by: nemo on January 20, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

patton -

If we get "hit" again, it will be because the neocons need new recruits.

My guess is Los Angeles or another Hispanic area. What the Israeli first contingent needs is a new pool of recruits, initiated into the "ALL ARABS ARE EVIL" club.

Posted by: wenn on January 20, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Hello, Bin Laden is from...

Saudi Arabia.

The majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from...

Saudi Arabia.

But the Axis of Evil was designated to be Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

And we took out Iraq and made a new friend who continues to put flowers over exploding artillery shells in order to welcome us.

Anyone have a link to those pictures of the President holding hands with the Saudi king? I think they should be used in the outreach marketing plan to promote Brokeback Mountain in Texas.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

A Nietzschean interpretation of the above-cited education-level polling data from the 2000 election:

Democrats are the party of the-more-suffering and the-more-accomplished, reflecting a more wide-ranging imagination of human possibilities.

Republicans are the party of the mediocre middle (and the just-above-average), practical busy-ness, stabilization of comfortable, middle-class life lacking imagination, lacking breadth and dynamism of experience.

Despite the negative spin, the latter is what most want and the Democrats will not win again until they can win back a greater share of the middle.

Posted by: Tom McDonald on January 20, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Good try but Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) gave away that little secret right after 911.Phone calls stopped right after his remark,So if you must place blame lets put it where it belongs.

Posted by: patton on January 20, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

What is this? A pissing contest about who has the most college degrees in their party? Picking stuff from a poll and touting numbers one minute and dismissing polls altogether the next? None of this really addresses anything. This is policy fight by playground rules. I understand that Dems can't get a national forum like a hearing for most of these issues simply because the Republicans don't wish for them to have one. To chide the Democrats for not making more news is like complaining that homeless people need to dress in better power suits so they can get further in a job interview.

There are many issues that the public has opinions on that are nothing more than gut feelings or regurgitated talking points. What most of these polls show is the effectivness or lack there of, of meme transmitters, nothing more. The satisfaction with the war is falling because you need victories to sustain support. The announcement of yet another offensive operation Steel-Toed Lightning Curtain Hammer or somesuch macho BS would probably generate another minor spike in approval, which would be touted as "mounting support for the war effort" by the press which likes to report on change in trends or new record high or low numbers in polls. See-sawing numbers fade off the reporting radar. In other words, the news follows the derivative and the limits not the original function.

Posted by: catalexis on January 20, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think a better poll would to be see what percentage of people currently taking medication or in therapy are in support or against the war. I'd venture to say most of them would parrot the leftist line.

I'm not sure what that means, but I am sure it's what I would have expected.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 20, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

"The satisfaction with the war is falling because you need victories to sustain support."

Hmmm, considering the fact that the lefties often hype bad news and ignore or downplay good news makes it almost seem like they want us to lose or something...

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 20, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom fighter

I am not a lefty. I am chumming liberal waters because George Bush is a disgrace. I am not a natural fit in the democratic party, and Perot has vanished, so I'm looking to see who is going to save us from the bushbots.

Poll me on any demographic question, and I come up right of center.

But the neocon coup on my government on behalf of a foreign government is the last straw.

All that stuff about medications and psychiatric problems on the left belongs at Free Republic or some other sad sad vestige of what was once thoughtful discussion of the crimes of Bill Clinton.

WEll, now we have the crimes of the treasonous neocons and their napoleonic pawn.

Don't bother to swipe at my mental faculties.

Posted by: wenn on January 20, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Niall Ferguson in his book "Colossus" (pro American Empire) mixed laughter-concern-and-spittle over the Americans who want an empire but who (unlike their British counterparts in the 19th century) don't want to leave the safety and comfort of America to support it. Join the army? Learn Arabic? Chinese? Vietnamese? Miss out on the easy money of K-Street?

American Imperialists want Empire TIVOed.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on January 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

All you stay at home 24/7 blog watchers go check out OBL speeches before 911 and the ones after,Notice how he speaks so much diffrent.He has always talked outside the box(so to speak) and now he speaks like G.W. talking to the stupid masses.Election year fun?

Posted by: patton on January 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: I wish you the same in your Bush hating endeavors . . .

Unfortunately, I have no time for hating Bush.

Honestly disagreeing with his policies and digust at his lies take all of the time I can set aside for him.

But do call back when Bush has been out-of-office for 5 years and I'm not still abusing him like conservatives continue to abuse Clinton (almost always with false information) 5 years after he's been out-of-office.

Living in the past, a dishonest past, clearly is doing you no good.

The present is imperfect, but it's all we got.

Deal with it and forget continuing to try to remove Bill Clinton from the presidency he no longer has.

Freedom F*cker: Hmmm, considering the fact that the lefties often hype bad news and ignore or downplay good news makes it almost seem like they want us to lose or something...

Hmmmmm, considering the fact that righties often hype good news, even to the point of outright making it up out of thin air, and virtually always lie about the bad, it almost seems like they want the American people to remain ignorant about conservative criminality, immorality, and incompetency!

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

I think a better poll would to be see what percentage of people currently taking medication or in therapy are in support or against the war. I'd venture to say most of them would parrot the leftist line.

I'd be curious how many war supporters fancy themselves futuristic super-soldiers because they sit at the computer in their bedroom in their underwear and play videogames with names like "Mechwarrior:Dawn of the Jihad" and belong to online "clans" where they have names for themselves like Death_Venom and Reap_Havoc and salute each other by "military" rank in chatrooms?

Posted by: trex on January 20, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Dow drops more than 100 points

Queue conservative rationalizations . . .

1) Katrina

2) Failure to cut taxes by twice as much

3) 9/11

4) The fiscal irresponsiblity of the Democratic minority

5) Katrina

6) Evil personal injury lawyers

7) 9/11

8) American workers

9) The MSM

10) It's really the greatest news ever that the DOW isn't as high as during the Clinton years . . .

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

ISTBARN . . .

Has the Bush administration done a good job of putting terrorists 'out of business'?

Yes 29% 21961 votes

No 71% 53169 votes

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be curious how many war supporters fancy themselves futuristic super-soldiers because they sit at the computer in their bedroom in their underwear and play videogames with names like "Mechwarrior:Dawn of the Jihad" and belong to online "clans" where they have names for themselves like Death_Venom and Reap_Havoc and salute each other by "military" rank in chatrooms?

Major-Admiral trex, you sunk my battleship! For that I shall have to place a SEAL team on your flagship and steal your personal supply of Magic: The Gathering cards and your genuine fake Samurai sword collection...

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

This reminds me of Viet Nam, when (again contrary to the expectations of some) the people in the economic class likely to have to fight the stinking war were against it, but those with college educations (notwithstanding college student demonstrations) were by and large for it.

Posted by: anandine on January 20, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

What this means is, the "less-educated" - i.e., the ones whose family members are more likely to be in the line of fire than those of the service-avoiding "more-educated" - have personal reasons to want their loved ones out of there.

Posted by: TCinLA on January 20, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

JohnFH:

the data you extract would set me at ease if I were a Republican.

Don't get too excited. I could go back into the same poll and extract as many statements in the other direction. I was "cherry-picking," and said so.

The Democrats are making a mistake if they think that issues that are burning up the liberal blogosphere are necessarily going to resonate with the general public. Conservatives can make this mistake too, as with the Schiavo case.

Another point is that you should never take a news story about a poll as the last word if the poll itself can be accessed. Another great thing about information access today compared to the age of media monopolies. I compliment those news stories that do have the guts to link to original documents, and more seem to be doing this recently.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 20, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

You can have public education without affirmitive action. Posted by: McAristotle on January 20, 2006 at 3:41 AM

Not if you had the US version of apartheid, Jim Crow, nor the open operation of the terrorist group, the KKK, and the rest of the racist legacy of the US.

You'd know that if you were an American, but your not.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on January 20, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

It just shows the dumber you are the less inclined you are to take cowardly killer terrorists seriously!

Posted by: Harry on January 20, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Is UBL running for the Democratic nomination? The rhetoric heard in that taped speech was spot on to what you hear from Pelosi, Dean etc. A Clinton/Bin Laden ticket?

Posted by: Jay on January 20, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: The rhetoric heard in that taped speech was spot on to what you hear from Pelosi, Dean etc.

Uh, no it isn't.

But I know that you think if you can repeat this lie enough people will start to believe it.

That is GOP SOP: lie till falsehood becomes perceived as truth.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK


lurker:You DO remember that the Sudan gov't offered him to Clinton don't you?


dont remain ignorant....

PAGE 109....of the 911 commission report...

"Sudans minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 20, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

When confronted with something displeasing, the left resorts to calling the messengers "liars". Sad isn't it?

Posted by: Jay on January 20, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

OBL is DEAD has been for four years.He died right after bush gave him 24 hours to escape tora bora.

Posted by: patton on January 20, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42 isn't much more interested in credible evidence than Lurker41 was.

Time to roll out a new model, Lurker43.

But since the models are being built by the Bush administration (in conjunction with Microsoft), future Lurker models will remain buggy and ineffective, selling well only in the winger blogosphere.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: When confronted with something displeasing, the left resorts to calling the messengers "liars".

When confronted with reality that is displeasing, the Right resorts to defamation, lies, and hypocritical self-righteousness about name-calling.

Sad isn't it.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Living in the past, a dishonest past, clearly is doing you no good.

Posted by: Advocate for God

But we must learn from the past AFG.
Because I've learned from the past I must ask, Was that story TRULY de-bunked, or did you just read something that you PREFER to believe.
You can bring the "Living in the past" up again the next time your Liby buddies bring up history to make a point about the present.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK


advocate: Dow drops more than 100 points

more interesting facts...


oil is up 1.50 per barrel...to 68.35..

did you know.....exactly 5-years ago today....when gwb was inaugurated..

oil was 22.50 a barrel...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 20, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

McA sez "I'm from a race opressed by your SUV driving oil consumption and horrible colonialsm"

Then why are you such a GW Bush supporter?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 20, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Hell Osama got G.W. selected twice,What a running mate Bush/Bin Laden.

Posted by: patton on January 20, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: . . . you just read something that you PREFER to believe.

No, I read something that conservatives themselves say they choose to believe - the 9/11 Commission Report.

You know, the report that conservatives tout when defending the Bush administration as being the complete and unadulterated truth about everything it opined on.

Conservatives are bound by the 9/11 commission report because they've held it up as the truth.

I am not, but will gladly use it to hold conservatives to their word that it is the truth.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Major-Admiral trex, you sunk my battleship! For that I shall have to place a SEAL team on your flagship and steal your personal supply of Magic: The Gathering cards and your genuine fake Samurai sword collection...

Brigadier General Rider, you can take my Samurai sword collection but I'll just re-arm myself by ordering from that knife show on TV. I heard this week they're having a special so bad-ass the producers almost fired them for it. I can get fifty Bowie Knives, a reproduction of the Mortal Kombat Raptor blade, AND a Samurai Dragon Katana with a matching Tanto for only $59.95! Sweet!

Besides, you missed my Magick: The Gathering cards that I hid in the cockpit of my Millenium Falcon model, along with Boba Fett and my sister's Sailor Moon cards.

They're my sister's, I swear.

Posted by: trex on January 20, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, thanks for the pointer, thisspaceavailable, to one of the many sources debunking this conservative lie about Clinton and more importantly one that conservatives can't impeach because they have wholly and without qualification endorsed that source.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate, trex

Gotta be careful, guys. Lurker42 and Jay have the truth on their side. I guess we have to ratchet up the MSM! Better get Katie Couric out there to talk about how peanut butter cookies will make you a wingnut!

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

"We've seen the enemy, and he is us," said Tom Rath, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire describing the sentiments of some GOP voters. "We have to get back to the basics. Let's talk about small government and reduced spending, and don't let the Democrats take those issues."

Interesting.

The RNC committee member's priority is not small government and reduced spending, it's not letting the Democrats back in, even if the Democrats would support small government and reduced spending.

Which just goes to show that he really doesn't understand that the problem is the RNC wanting to maintain power for power's sake, not for the sake of promoting a particular public policy.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Admittedly I have not read the report. So if you say it's in there *Shrug* it might be.
I've been rather skeptical about it personnaly but cannot prove otherwise.

Off Topic: Congratulations on posting a civil post toward someone you disagree with. Not so bad is it? I would much rather discuss these things without beating each other with E-clubs. I am here to learn because I prefer to look at both sides of things before I decide where I stand. I'm not here to fight.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not here to fight.

"I'm a lover not a fighter." -Michael Jackson

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Admittedly I have not read the report. So if you say it's in there *Shrug* it might be.
I've been rather skeptical about it personnaly but cannot prove otherwise.

Of course you can prove it. The 9/11 report is online. You can look it up.

Posted by: Stefan on January 20, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider: Hello, Bin Laden is from...Saudi Arabia. The majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from...Saudi Arabia. But the Axis of Evil was designated to be Iraq, Iran and North Korea. And we took out Iraq and made a new friend who continues to put flowers over exploding artillery shells in order to welcome us.

And other other hijackers were from Yemen and our good friend Egypt. And Al Qaeda was sheltered by the Taliban, which was in itself supported by our "ally" Pakistan (which continues to shelter Bin Laden).

So, an attack funded by Pakistan, planned in Afghanistan and carried out by Saudis, Yemenis and Egyptians. Yep, certainly makes to retaliate against Iraq.

Posted by: Stefan on January 20, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

"I think a better poll would to be see what percentage of people currently taking medication or in therapy are in support or against the war. I'd venture to say most of them would parrot the leftist line.

I'm not sure what that means, but I am sure it's what I would have expected." ~Frequent Farter

It means that people who support the war should be medicated.

Posted by: Ace Franze on January 20, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

GW Bush supporter?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 20, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

He's an oppressor, I'm sure we can outthink.

Actually, its because he's beating up a really nasty movement that could do a lot more damage than he can.

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, certainly makes to retaliate against Iraq.

Posted by: Stefan on January 20, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Its in the middle,, so he's right on average.

Funny how that Zarqawi fellow, renamed his organisation Al Qaeda in Iraq and started working with former regime elements so fast.

Its as if they knew each other before hand. Funny how Zarqawi had no connection to Al Qaeda until he was provoked into it.

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: I would much rather discuss these things without beating each other with E-clubs.

Then perhaps you should avoid the following mostly conservative-inspired partisan beating of others with an e-club (not to mention repeating conservative inspired myths about Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc.), although some are just personal vilification:

"I hate bush" blithering.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 17, 2006 at 1:35 PM

[Liberals] are purely driven by politics with no reguard for anyone except those that fit into thier little agenda.

Posted by: Lurker42 on December 19, 2005 at 11:15 AM

I can just hear Prez Gore now. 9/11 Ok you terrorists, that was BAD. Go to your corner for a time out.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 6, 2006 at 2:39 PM

Yeah and then there is the whole Vince Foster at Ft. Marcy Park thingy.

Posted by: Lurker42 on October 31, 2005 at 11:19 AM

[Caveat: The following is less atrocious due to context than the others. Nevertheless, whether right or wrong in his policy choices, there can be no doubt that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, among others, hoped to make the world a better place through their elected position.]

If you honestly believe that your democrat buddies are in DC to make this world a better place then you're on acid.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 22, 2005 at 10:46 AM

It's demon-crats who are telling black folk that they can't make it without governments help. They are the ones who are saying that without quotas, they would never get hired. It is they who perpetuate the hoplesness that many black people feel. . . . [Democrats] WANT black people to depend on the goverment because it gives them power.

Posted by: Lurker42 on December 15, 2005 at 9:03 AM

Oh you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 10, 2006 at 3:30 PM

All you have succeeded in doing is proving that you haven't anything worth saying so go fuck your self.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 26, 2005 at 11:55 AM

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

McAnustotle: Funny how that Zarqawi fellow, renamed his organisation Al Qaeda in Iraq and started working with former regime elements so fast.

Funny how the GOP started working on ethics reform so fast.

Funny how Bush started coming up with new excuses for invading Iraq so fast.

Funny how Bush started an alliance with a regime it was previously condemning (Pakistan) so fast.

Funny how Irag became the "central front in the GWOT" so fast because of the presence of a single terrorist with alleged Al Queda connections, as if there weren't dozens of other countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia & Syria) with multiple Al Queda terrorists on their soil and no 9/11 attackers were Iraqi.

Necessity is the mother of invention and alliances, or didn't you get that lesson as a child?

McStupid.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

MCa, did it ever dawn on you that if a foreign invader comes to your country, that might cause former adversaries to work for a common goal,i.e. drive out the infidels?

But keep spouting the lame tired talking points about how we are justified because some dork who writes for the National Review wrote some joke of a book based on one policy memo that shows iron clad proof there was some working connection between OBL and Saddam.

Posted by: My name isn't Earl on January 20, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't say I was perfect and you have to admit that it's easy to get caught up in the mud slinging on here. I have already seen this in myself and am trying to end it. I will refrain from digging up the venom in your posts because it was only I who said I'm not here to fight. You may very well be but I don't see any productivity there.

Now about your point.

"there can be no doubt that Bill Clinton hoped to make the world a better place through their elected position."
OH yes there can because I'm full of doubt about that. I left off the Jimmy referance because I agree with you about him.

Have a good weekend AFG (and everyone else here). I'm out till monday.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 20, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: I'm not sure what that means

I am. It means they have friends, family, neighbors and/or co-workers serving in Iraq. College-educated Americans are far less likely to be in that situation.

it's not what I would have expected.

Making my point for me.

Posted by: Nell on January 20, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: OH yes there can because I'm full of doubt about that.

Clinton was a policy wonk.

Even the most venomous of his detractors recognizes that.

Policy wonks, whether Right or Left or right or wrong, live to make the world better.

There was never any significant evidence of the ubiquitous cronyism that is apparent in the Bush administration that would suggest that Clinton's primary focus was to economically benefit friends and allies, again like the Bush administration, divert tax dollars to partisan political operations, ditto, or enrich himself.

No was there ever any evidence that Clinton believed he had a right to the office of the presidency, like Bush 41 and Bush 43 did and do.

You object because Clinton also had an ego to fill?

So has every other president.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fucker (who, as we have noted, has never fought anything more terrifying than his boyfriend) vomited, in commenting upon OBL's threats against the US:

"But any depressingly positive stories are dutifully ignored."

Freedom Fucker believes that a known terrorist, making claims to plans to attack the US, is a positive story. I suppose then we have to categorize FF as both a nancy-boy and a traitor.

FF, next time you want to compare liberal goals and motives with those of OBL (without any actual comparison, mind you, just stupid assertion) why not post your home address so combat veteran liberals such as I can remonstrate with your chickenhearted idiocy in person?

Posted by: solar on January 20, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

I would speculate that the reason the less educated people want out more is because they are the ones going to the funerals of their friends and family members.

Posted by: ScottW on January 20, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

""""Pale Rider: Hello, Bin Laden is from...Saudi Arabia. The majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from...Saudi Arabia""""

Hello, IDIOT...we know Bin Laden intentioanlly recruited Saudi nationals in order to attempt to drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia...
IT OBVIOUSLY WORKED ON FOOLS LIKE YOU WHO HAVE NO CLUE WHAT BIN LADEN IS UPTO.


By the way, I hear since the NYT publish their article on NSA wiretaps, Al Queda and related terrorist groups have significantly reduced their electronic communications. WAY TO GO GUYS...IF WE GET HIT AGAIN, IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE BECAUSE THE NYT TOLD THE TERRORISTS TO KEEP QUIET ON UNSECURE LINES AND USE COURIERS, CODES IN E-MAIL ETC.

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

In addition to the above, it means two other things,

1) The smarter you are the more reasons you can think of not to change what you're doing, and have the self-confidence to insist your original goal was correct, e.g. 19th century China.

2) Any way we leave from here except in outright victory with a flowery send-off will be under a cloud, and the less educated won't ever have to worry about any of these complicated foreign people ever again, so why should they care?

Posted by: cld on January 20, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK
Maybe they did it to make a point to you...to show their commitment. Posted by: Red State Mike
Nothing says commitment like 13 dead civilians. Go Bush!
Remember me the next time you lose an election.Posted by: Dan
Are you a Diebold programmer?
the Sudan gov't offered him to Clinton don't you? Posted by: Lurker42
Another silly falsehood, the right wing never tires of repeating. The offer was for bin Laden to be sent to Saudi Arabia.
A Clinton/Bin Laden ticket? Posted by: Jay
No one needs bin Laden more than Bush and no one has helped him more. Posted by: Mike on January 20, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, That is simply false, Clinton himself, IN HIS OWN words says Sudan offered Bin Laden to HIM and he said we couldn't take him because he hadn't broken any laws, THEN Clinton said he tried to get the Saudis to take him:

But a CBS spokesman insisted to NewsMax late Thursday, "Clinton never used the word 'bull.' That was Dan Rather's word. Clinton never said that."

When asked what Clinton did say, the spokesman explained that his account of the Sudanese offer was not "substantially different" from remarks he made to a Long Island business group in 2002.

In those comments, CLINTON admitted turning the Sudanese offer down.

CLINTON QUOTE: "We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," Clinton explained in the Feb. 15, 2002 speech.

CLINTON AGAIN: "They released [bin Laden]. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
HERE IS CLINTON ON AUDIO ACTUALLY SPEAKING
http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhh PATTON I LOVE IT WHEN YOU SHOUT AND GETS ALL WORKED TIGER, HEY GOT YOUR UNIFORM ON CUPCAKE"

KISSES'

boy george

Posted by: boy george on January 20, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

BOY GEORGE, SEE STEFAN IF YOU NEED A BOY. OR APPOLLO 13 IS AVAILABLE.

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

nOW TO DEFEND cLINTON HE DOES SAY HE COULDN'T ARREST BIN LADEN BECAUSE HE WAS AN INNOCENT MAN AND CLINTON, LIKE ALL LIBERALS THINK THE WAR ON TERROR IS ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NOT A REAL WAR.

BIN LADEN HAD IN FACT DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA IN TWO FATWAS AT THE TIME CLINTON SAID HE WAS JUST AN INNOCENT LITTLE CRIMINAL WHO 'WANTED' TO BE A REAL CRIMINAL.

Now if Clinton had been fighting a war against terrorists, Bin Laden would have been sitting in a cell on GITMO in 1996 having his Koran flushed down the toilet, while we turned his AC off and made him listen to loud rap music all day.

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK
we know Bin Laden intentioanlly recruited Saudi nationals in order to attempt to drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia

And I suppose Saudi Arabia's government's support for the Taliban -- matched only by Pakistan's -- which was essentially an arm and tool of al-Qaeda, was also engineered by bin Laden to drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia, rather than a reflection of Saudi Arabia's real policy priorities?

Posted by: cmdicely on January 20, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Of course in 1996, the ACLU would have been defending Bin Laden and Ramsey Clark would have been hugging him in his jail cell and claiming he was just an innocent Muslim caught up in Americans mean spirited war on the third world, etc. etc.

I can see Dumb Dick Turban now defending that poor Muslim, Bin Laden, who had never hurt anyone being caught up in Clintons wrong headed war on terror.

We'd hear the sob stories from MoveOn.Org and Democrat Undeground and The Washungton Monthly about this poor eccentric Saudi National that Clinton had branded a terrorist and jailed without trial claiming this guy who lived in a cave was gouing to hurt the big bad USA.

Kevin Drum himself would scoff at the notion that Bin Laden was anything but a harmless blow hard who hould be sent back to his cave to milk his goat, proving we are better and more decent people.

YOU DOUBT THIS IS TRUE, WELL LOOK WHAT THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT EVER TERRORIST WE HAVE CAUGHT SINCE SEPT 11TH? HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE NEXT SEPT 11TH? HOW MANY WOULD BE THE NEXT BIN LADEN, ZARQAWI, ETC.

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK
I am moving cash to Yuan deposits now.Posted by: McAristotl
So is Iran Great minds think alike.
IN HIS OWN words says Sudan offered Bin Laden to HIM and he Posted by: Patton
Nope, that is a deliberate misquote. Check the link.

The truth is that Clinton never offered Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Hannity distorted a remark Clinton made in a speech to the Long Island Association's annual luncheon on February 15, 2002, in which Clinton said that he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States. Hannity's mention of "the tape" is a reference to a video of this speech. NewsMax.com obtained a video of the speech in 2002 and began hyping the supposed Clinton "admission" (see transcript and listen to the audio). In fact, Clinton did not "admit" to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else. Here's the relevant portion of Clinton's remarks to the Long Island Association:
CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

YOU'LL HAVE TO FIND BETTER LIES.

Posted by: Mike on January 20, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

mIKE, lISTEN TO THE ACTUAL CLINTON AUDIO IN CLINTONS OWN WORDS. PERIOD, NUFF SAID.


http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3


He clearly says we couldn't take him because he hadn't committed a crime, that statemtn has to pre-suppose that he was available for us to take.
DUH

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

CFShep wrote:

"'Less' is for quantity as in 'It is healthier to eat less fast food." 'Fewer' is for number. "Fewer than 40%..." (Fewer Big Macs).

I used to object to my local Albertson's signage for their express lane reading '10 items or less'."

Posted by: CFShep on January 20, 2006 at 7:47 AM | PERMALINK


reminds me of the joke about a guy who sees a software product meant for "Win95 or better", so he takes it home and loads it on his Linux system

Posted by: MarkH on January 20, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

George bush has degrees from yale and harvard. I'm not sure what THAT means.

Posted by: Pechorin on January 20, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

So Pattens answer is to jail 2 billion Muslims just in case,Way to go Patten you think just like G.W.

Posted by: scott on January 20, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

This is not surprising. Opposition to the Vietnam war was highest among blue-collar workers as well. After all, it was their children who were dying - not the children of the elite. As with this war, those with privilege were able to avoid service thanks to "other priorities" so it's no surprise that their support is higher. They are not paying the price.

This isn't because they are more emotional than rational, as some of the grossly insulting posters believe. It's highly rational to oppose a reckless mismanaged war that is likely to engulf their families. As to the elite's support for the war, that's typical of the privileged class' willingness to sacrifice other's for their own convenience.

Posted by: Kija on January 20, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Why are we reading tea leaves to determine how people close to the military are thinking (and voting)? We have hard data that answers this question.

Have you ever served in the military? (post-election exit poll)
No: Bush 49 / Kerry 50
Yes: Bush 57 / Kerry 41

Are you serving in the military now? (pre-election poll)
Yes: Bush 73 / Kerry 18

Having served moves you 17 points toward Bush.
Serving now moves you 56 points toward Bush.

Posted by: gopher on January 20, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kija: "As to the elite's support for the war, that's typical of the privileged class' willingness to sacrifice other's for their own convenience."

Oh, and a quick word of thanks, Kija, for doing your part against "grossly insulting" posts.

Not.

Posted by: gopher on January 20, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm not sure what that means, but it's not what I would have expected."

seems pretty obvious when you consider that the military is one of the better financial opportunities for the uneducated and unskilled. Wanting to eliminate that little annoying feature of running the risk of being killed or maimed for an otherwise good career move makes perfect sense.

The military as instrument of geopolitical gamesmanship and influence is strictly for the hoi poloi...its much more practical for disadvantaged and downtrodden.

Posted by: yowzer on January 20, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

Scott makes an inane, stupid comment, par for the course for Scott:
""So Pattens answer is to jail 2 billion Muslims just in case,Way to go Patten you think just like G.W.""

Its Patton, not Patten dipwad. No one sugfgested jailing 2 billion Muslims, just the ones who set up terrorist training camps and issue FATWAS proclaiming they are at war with America.

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Yowzer psreads the doo doo:

""seems pretty obvious when you consider that the military is one of the better financial opportunities for the uneducated and unskilled. Wanting to eliminate that little annoying feature of running the risk of being killed or maimed """

LIKE BEING SAFE WORKING IN THE FINANCIAL DISTRICT IN NEW YORK...MAYBE EVEN IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER..NOW THERE'S A SAFE JOB...OHH, RIGHT THEY ALL DIED.

MORE AMERICAN SOLDIERS DIE EACH YEAR FROM NATURAL CAUSES AND ACCIDENTS, THEN DIE IN COMBAT...IDIOT.

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

MORE AMERICAN SOLDIERS DIE EACH YEAR FROM NATURAL CAUSES AND ACCIDENTS, THEN DIE IN COMBAT...IDIOT.

The number actually runs to an average of about 15-25 per fiscal year. That takes into account aviation accidents, the National Guard, etc.

With over 2,100 killed so far in Iraq, that's more than enough for the next 80 years or more.

Stupid ass, ignorant, bloodthirsty Patton/Alice. Can't even find the decency to understand a simple concept called decency.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

The "smarter Dem" position:

"A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons." Sen. Clinton

Persia Delenda Est

Seriously, kill some ayatollahs for Hil today. At least do what you can so we can bomb the shit out of them and their clandestine nuke facilities.

Posted by: DBG on January 20, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

Military death statistics, broken down by category, can be found here. They run a bit higher than 15 to 25 a year, even if you only count accidental deaths. In 2004, accidental deaths were at 565, while hostile action deaths were 737. If you look at total military deaths from all causes in peacetime, they easily exceed the current Iraq casualty rate in most years.

A properly accurate comparison, of course, would filter out deaths that would have occurred if the person had been a civilian, such as a routine car accident or some natural cause like heart failure.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 21, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

This is a no-brainer. A higher percentage of lower-income, less-educated people have family or friends in the military. The constant drip of soldier deaths means more to them than to the wealthy and educated folks who have no personal acquaintances in the front lines of the military (even if they know someone in the physicians' corps or the JAG corps).

Posted by: NancyP on January 21, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz,

Those numbers are way higher than I would have guessed, and I suppose I should revise my statement.

The breakdown of accidental deaths is higher than I would have guessed and doesn't take into account deaths that occur in actual training vs. accidental deaths off duty.

It is staggering though, isn't it? Those are awful numbers, just awful. They used to give us 'safety' training once a year for an hour and 'consideration of others' training for two hours four times a year.

I think they need to ramp up the safety training. Thanks for posting that--sorry for my error.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 21, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, the record in non-combat deaths seems to be improving, even considering the reduced number of military personnel. This chart shows deaths per 100,000, and there's a lot of improvement since 1980, although it seems to have leveled off.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 21, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz,

Yeah, for some reason I think the term 'accident' in that chart you posted the first time around relates to car accidents--which kill a lot of people irregardless of whether they're in the military--and actual training accidents.

Death during training was not unheard of--I knew of people who had heart attacks during PT--but they were relatively rare because of the emphasis on safety during exercises. Whenever we wrote up operations orders, safety considerations were always a priority regardless of the command. Even in Korea, I don't think we lost anyone that whole year during exercises.

I think the numbers on suicides are staggering, though. Those are awfully under-reported when it comes to Iraq. I believe the notion that 'you don't want the family to know how the guy died' has come into play over there.

Again, my original assertion was wrong and I used a bad estimate. I would never have guessed the number to be into the hundreds and in many cases over a thousand.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 22, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Stupid ass, ignorant, bloodthirsty Patton/Alice. Can't even find the decency to understand a simple concept called decency.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Again, my original assertion was wrong and I used a bad estimate. I would never have guessed the number to be into the hundreds and in many cases over a thousand.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 22, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK


So - since you were wrong... does Patton get an apology?

Posted by: McA on January 22, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

I think the numbers on suicides are staggering, though. Those are awfully under-reported when it comes to Iraq. I believe the notion that 'you don't want the family to know how the guy died' has come into play over there.

Again, you have to be careful not to let what you're looking for get in the way of the facts. The average suicide rate in the U.S. runs about 10.6 per 100,000. The military rates shown in that chart are comparable, and sometimes lower.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 23, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

So - since you were wrong... does Patton get an apology?

Nope. Patton is a troll, you're a troll--tbrosz is NOT a troll. See the difference?

What else do you have? Are you giggling like a schoolgirl with the thought that someone would publicly admit a mistake?

I made a mistake and owned up to it.

What a shocking thing it must be for you to see someone admit their mistake publicly, openly, and honestly. Save the permalink so you can hit me over the head with it again and again.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 23, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly