 |
 |
   During a recession, should college presidents face the same pay cuts as CEOs?
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
February 28, 2006
By: THE TROOPS SPEAK....From Zogby:
Soldiers are famous for being disgruntled, of course, but I doubt that 72% of military respondents in 1943 would have favored pulling out of World War II within 12 months. Zogby's summary is a little unclear on this point, but it looks like the big difference is that troops in Iraq are pretty confused about why they're there and whether they're doing any good. After all, 68% think the mission was simply to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and with that done apparently a lot of them aren't quite sure what the point of staying is. —Kevin Drum 12:33 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (95)Comments
derek has ended the thread in one comment! A new record. Posted by: craigie on February 28, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKContrast the overwhelming support the Union Army gave Lincoln in 1864, when their own former commander was running and McClellan wanted to surrender. Posted by: theAmericanist on February 28, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINKthe troops in Iraq are pretty confused about why they're there and whether they're doing any good. After all, 68% think the mission was simply to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and with that done apparently a lot of them aren't quite sure what the point of staying is. Hey! Me too! BushCo lackeys, fill us in! Posted by: craigie on February 28, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKHA HA. Zogby? Is this the same Zogby who predicted the 2004 presidential election was "John Kerry's to lose"? Who would we believe somebody so STUPID? Posted by: Al on February 28, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK*sigh* Why do the troops hate America? Posted by: Stefan on February 28, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKfrom the Zogby page: I think they're going to be bitter when they find out Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or alQaeda. Posted by: cowalker on February 28, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINKAl, you ignorant slut, it was Kerry's to lose. and he lost it. Posted by: cleek on February 28, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINKCheney's remark would be quite humorous, if we didn't know that he was actually serious. Up is down! Losing is winning! We really want an islamic theocracy supported by Iran, armed with nukes! That was the plan all along! Mission Accomplished! Posted by: craigie on February 28, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINKJust to remind you forgetful liberals why President Bush sent our brave men and women in to liberate. 1. Saddam and his role in 9/11/01 Look at the progress since we invaded. A 9/11-supporting maniac with WMDs is now sitting in the dock of an Iraqi court. And those purple fingers.
Guess the snail-mail's been slow in delivering the Bush talking troops to the field. Must be held up with the shipment of body armor... Posted by: janissary on February 28, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINKOops. Should have read: "Guess the snail-mail's been slow in delivering the Bush talking points to the troops to the field. Must be held up with the shipment of body armor..." Don't know what happened. I'm thinking the gov't is monitoring my posts. I did call a friend in Spain last year... Posted by: janissary on February 28, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKWe all know where Zogby's sympathies lie: Oh...you want a hint? It's initials are A.Q. Posted by: Sh!t4ead on February 28, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKcraigie look here for the political leanings of the troops polled. Posted by: tbrosz on February 28, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINKSh!t4ead nails it! It's a good thing that Zogby isn't considered to be a polling outfit that's friendly to Republicans. That would make me nervous. Posted by: HappyConservative on February 28, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINKThe troops don't support the troops! Damn funny! Ah, I see the troll talking point has shifted from "Our troops don't share you libs' cut and run attitude" to "Um, mission accomplished!" Were these people born without dignity genes? Posted by: shortstop on February 28, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKSoldiers are famous for being disgruntled, of course Has anyone seen the Discovery Times Channel's Off to War? The thing that struck me about the average soldier's feelings over there were how much they came to hate Iraqis. We might wrongly conclude that the average soldier is fed up with the Iraq war because of the conditions there. Maybe they are just sick of fighting for the Iraqis. That would be a shame, because it wouldn't change the core problem with this kind of conflict. The same kids will line up for the next war unless the folly of this conflict is out in the open, for everyone to see. Posted by: enozinho on February 28, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKWhy do the troops hate America so much:) Actually they are probablly getting tired of being killed and injured for a bullshit war. Also, Tbrosz why don't you sign your ass up with the army reserve and go fight. Posted by: spyder on February 28, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKContrast the overwhelming support the Union Army gave Lincoln in 1864, when their own former commander was running and McClellan wanted to surrender. Or like when FDR had to sit down with Uncle Joe while American troops were staging "Wanna Go Home" protests over the whole western theater? Posted by: CFShep on February 28, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKLooks like Murtha was right: the Democrats should have advocated precisely the course of action that the troops want: how do we get out pretty soon? But instead we look to be backing into a pell-mell retreat pretty soon. Probably when most of our troops decide that "in-a-year" might as well be "now". A retreat managed by the same bunch of arrogant incompetents who got us into this mess in the first place. That's what Democrats, no all responsible politicians, need to scream for now: competent leadership at the Pentagon: quick. Posted by: Samuel Knight on February 28, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINKCheney/Charlie/Chuckles sure as hell doesn't want the troops to leave. That would mean fewer dead kids, and fewer dead kids means less material for his comedy routine. That sick bastard just loves making jokes about dead kids. Posted by: Vladi G on February 28, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINKWere these people born without dignity genes? This is why they are against stem cell research. If we had it, we could answer this question once and for all - and they don't want to hear the answer! Posted by: craigie on February 28, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKWow The trolls are really lame today.E-mail must be down and there trying to go it alone.Sad, very sad. Posted by: Ahmadd Bacrad on February 28, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINKshortstop: Were these people born without dignity genes? My God, that's it! You've hit the nail on the head. That can be the only possible explanation for their willingness to flop back and forth between completely contradictory arguments, often within the same sentence. Posted by: Stefan on February 28, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK"The troops don't support the troops!" Good line! Wonder when the Right Wingers will start blaming the troops for the abject failure in Iraq as they do anyone who has opposed their failed policies. Haven't read Zogby's piece yet, but interesting numbers cited above when you think about them in greater context. 3/4 of the troops are in their 2nd or 3rd tour, meaning they've seen, first hand, the worst of what this war has brought to them and to Iraqis, and they overwhelmingly (72%, also around 3/4) support getting out no later than by the beginning of next year. To show how out of touch the general American public is, notice that most recent polls of those who have never stepped foot in Iraq during this war only object the war by somewhere in the range of 55% to 60% or so. To put it in further perspective, the kids with boots on the ground are forced (mostly by peer pressure & by their superiors) into supporting the decision to be over there from the moment they get to boot camp - it's real, I know - my son did a tour each in Iraq & in Afghanistan. This completely lends credence to the notion that those who support this war ought to hop the next military transport to Baghdad & start fighting for their noble cause, otherwise they ought to call for the ill-conceived madness to end ASAP. Posted by: GK on February 28, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKcraigie look here for the political leanings of the troops polled. Link's broken, but considering you should be a smart guy, you should understand that if I take a large enough random sample, then the traits of the population should be represented within whatever standard deviation you're applying. Hence, if I pull 7 blue marbles and 3 red ones out of a jar of 20, it would be reasonable to suspect that the total population of marbles consists of 70% blue marbles(the math will be off, I'm half-assing this). So, maybe we can put to rest the stupid-ass CW that the troops are overwhelmingly conservative. It's a random sample, it would cease to be random if you took answers from equal numbers of both left- and right-leaning soldiers. Of course, you could always join up and go visit them and double check. I've been to the middle east, how many times have you gone? Posted by: ChrisS on February 28, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKZogby is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by polling the troops on such sensitive issues and then having the temerity to publish the results which undermine our soldiers' selfless and heroic efforts to bring democracy and liberty to the people of the middle east. Zogby should prosecuted for treason. Posted by: nut on February 28, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINKWere these people born without dignity genes? Actually, right before Bush took office, the Genome Project did find that Gene in a Brazilian Rubber Tree (Madeirallius Borrachanicus). It's called the "I'm rubber, you're glue" gene. Posted by: enozinho on February 28, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINKConcerning troops political leanings, has anyone seen the color-coded U.S. map of the actual hometowns of those who were killed in Iraq? It is almost identical to those county & population charts that Right Wingers were touting after election 2000 - the majority of those killed in Iraq came from heavily Blue regions (New Jersey, Souther CA were heavy casualty areas). Doesn't mean much in terms of the overall political leanings of the troops, but it sure squashes the notion that those who are serving and giving their lives in the military are red-staters. Posted by: GK on February 28, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINKToday Al managed to write 0 sentences before his first ad hominem argument, tying his own personal record. Posted by: Patrick Meighan on February 28, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINKThe reason is simple: soldiers know when they've been handed a sh*t sandwich. They don't want to be there because they know the solution for Iraq is not going to come from American armed forces. It is worth reminding that the "other-priorities-defending-Texas-from-Oklahoma-flight-suit-Mission-Accomplished" administration has jacked up this war, not the troops; and it is the son's and daughters of America that are paying the price. I hope they come home soon. "It's a random sample, it would cease to be random if you took answers from equal numbers of both left- and right-leaning soldiers." Posted by: ChrisS ChrisS, in general stratified sampling is is frequently done, then weighted. For example, a more variable stratum might be oversampled. Posted by: Barry on February 28, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK. . . "having the temerity to publish the results . . . " What !?!?? Typical Right Wing Facist propaganda. Just like the NY Times coverage the NSA spying of domestic phone use where the White House asked them to sit on hte story for a year - squash the truth because it makes the government look bad. And these people rule the Administrative, Congressional & Judicial branches of our government?!? Jeepers we're in trouble. Posted by: GK on February 28, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKHmm. A arrogant, isolated leadership increasingly unpopular with its civilian population, engaged in dragging-out war that is increasingly unpopular with its military. That's never ended badly, before... Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINKWhy do liberals have to post such discouraging material? Uh, libbos? Some of us want to win the war on terror. Posted by: hateful on February 28, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINKZogby's reputation took a hit in 2004 after he spent months cheerleading for John Kerry. He personally opposes this administration and the Iraq war. Sorry, I'll wait for polling from a reputable pollster. Posted by: Paddy Whack on February 28, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINKWhy do liberals have to post such discouraging material? Uh, libbos? Some of us want to win the war on terror. We're just the messengers, shoog. You need to address your complaint to those treasonous, Old Glory-defiling troops. Are you going to stand by and let them dishonor themselves this way? Posted by: shortstop on February 28, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINKDuring the Murtha proposed withdraw debates Congress had several months ago, it was said by the pro-war legislators that staying the course was somehow in the best interests of our soldiers, which I thought a blatant lie but one that would resonate positively with the electorate. I think this poll shows that the troops know their best interests are in leaving Iraq ASAP. Too bad their views are not worth anything to the political decision makers, who view them as cannon fodder. Posted by: Hostile on February 28, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINKToday Al managed to write 0 sentences before his first ad hominem argument, tying his own personal record. Attaboy! My own Fresh Catch of the Day comes from He's got a piece on the films nominated for Oscars entitled "Introducing the Guilties!" "You could argue, in fact, that as Hollywood has pulled a long face in the last year and cranked out one feel-bad soapbox flick after another, the Oscars have pretty much become a liberal-guilt-apalooza." Yowsa. Posted by: CFShep on February 28, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINKUh, libbos? Some of us want to win the war on terror. So do we. That's why we wanted to keep fighting it rather than handing the other side a victory by invading Iraq. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKI doubt that 72% of military respondents in 1943 would have favored pulling out of World War II within 12 months. Intriguing idea. I bet that 75% or so of Americans in Italy would have been in favor of withdrawing after Anzio, especially considering the apathy of most of the Italians. If you had asked the American soldiers in England, you might have gotten a 75% vote against the invasion of Europe. After all, by that time, Germany had no weapons of mass destruction, and the trade embargo was hurting the German economy. More French and Italians were collaborating with the Germans than were opposing them. Hitler had been contained, and his eastern armies were being ground into minced meat. Liberating France was as pointless as liberating Berlin, if you had asked them. Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKOh jeez, the people who brought us "Red Fridays" - the idea of everyone wearing red on Fridays to support the troops - are at it again: RED FRIDAYS - Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing red meat every Friday. The reason? Americans who support War and Carnage are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, Country, Red Meat and Horror in record-breaking numbers. We are not organized, boisterous or overbearing, but we do love George W. Bush and every twitch of his furry brow. Many Americans like you, me, and our God-fearing friends - as well as God Himself - simply want to support our troops in the Crusade for George W. Bush. Our idea of showing solidarity and support starts this Friday, sending a deafening message that every red-blooded, red-meat loving American who supports our men and women afar will wear Red Meat affixed to their clothing. Let's make the United States on every Friday a dripping sea of Red Meat, much like a homecoming football game or a successful hunting expedition. If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances, co-workers, friends, and family it will not be long before the USA is covered in RED MEAT and blood and viscera and it will let our troops know that we are crazy motherfuckers back home, certainly more than the media lets on. The first thing a soldier says when asked "What can we do?" is...We need your support and prayers. That should do it. Blood, blood, blood! So let's get the word out and lead with red state class and dignity, as if you were at a Nascar event or a pro-abstinence rally; and wear Red Meat every Friday. IF YOU AGREE - THEN! SEND THIS ON. WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, AND THE CAPTIVE NON-CHRISTIANS OF THE WORLD WILL SOON BE FREED WITH A SEA OF BLOOD, HALLELUJAH. AND OF COURSE GOD BLESS GEORGE W. BUSH, AND MAY OUR SAVIOR GEORGE W. BUSH BLESS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU WHO AFFIXES RED MEAT TO HIS CLOTHING, AMEN. Posted by: rich f. on February 28, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKPresident Bush declared his mission accomplished in May, 2003, which was to remove Saddam from power in retaliation for his 9/11 attack on us. So he did his part, and it's not his fault that the Democrats haven't come up with a plan to get our troops out of Iraq so they can be redeployed in the President's next great mission to liberate Iran from those who would pursue nuclear-related program-like planning activities. Posted by: Adolf on February 28, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK"It's a random sample, it would cease to be random if you took answers from equal numbers of both left- and right-leaning soldiers." ChrisS honey, before wasting your time responding to tbrosz, make sure it really is tbrosz. Posted by: craigie on February 28, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINKIt seems like we barely ever see polls of our troops. The discussion of what the troops want or need makes it seem like they're a bunch of children who the civilians need to care for. I would be interested to see more polling of our troops in the future. Posted by: Frank J. on February 28, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINKUh, libbos? Some of us want to win the war on terror. Last I heard the army was begging for recruits. They've even lowered their standards to the point where even you could get in. I bet you're too busy with your College Republican meetings to apply, eh? I've seen your type in High School - all talk and no action. Posted by: Tripp on February 28, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINKWhile 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks". Ugh. Banging head on keyboard. republicrat, I bet that 75% or so of ... Now there you go again pulling crap out of your ass. I'll take that bet. Prove to me you are right or pay me $10. If you do offer the proof I'll pay you the $10. Oh, wait, you're just another internet bigtalker making things up as you go along? I thought so. Posted by: Tripp on February 28, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINKChrisS honey, before wasting your time responding to tbrosz, make sure it really is tbrosz. I know, it's just getting to be all so confusing here. The comments at CalPundit used to be fairly good. Sigh. Nostalgia is a fucker. Posted by: ChrisS on February 28, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKI bet that 75% or so of ... Well, since we can't know ...
So Kevin "doubts", and I "bet", and Tripp is offended by the "bet" but not by the "doubt". Nostalgia is a fucker. Yeah, it's just not what it used to be. Posted by: craigie on February 28, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINKYeah, it's just not what it used to be. Please. Have you read the comments on Eschaton lately? 400 posts per thread. Each one of them either "Frist", "Buck Fush" or "Chimpeachment". This place still has the best comments on the internets. Posted by: enozinho on February 28, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINKIf the majority don't support the war and want to get out in a fairly quick fashion, then why did so many of them vote for Bush? Or is that just CW? I mean, how do we know FOR A FACT that the majority of troops overseas voted for Bush? Posted by: LAS on February 28, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK*sigh* Why do the troops hate America? Stefan, sorry, just started reading this thread, so i'm behind, but this is priceless. thank you. Posted by: EM on February 28, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINKrepublicrat: I bet that 75% or so of Americans in Italy would have been in favor of withdrawing after Anzio, especially considering the apathy of most of the Italians. If you had asked the American soldiers in England, you might have gotten a 75% vote against the invasion of Europe. After all, by that time, Germany had no weapons of mass destruction, and the trade embargo was hurting the German economy. More French and Italians were collaborating with the Germans than were opposing them. Hitler had been contained, and his eastern armies were being ground into minced meat. Liberating France was as pointless as liberating Berlin, if you had asked them. This statement is not only deeply ignorant, it is highly offensive. You must not know many World War Two veterans, if any. Few if any soldiers would have been in favor of withdrawal after Anzio, before D-Day, or at any point post Pearl Harbor and prior to the capitulation of the Axis powers. They may have been sick and tired of combat, but almost none of them would have advocated giving up and leaving; they were there to achieve a goal, and they would (and did) tough it out until that goal was achieved. As I say, your flippant comment is not only wholly in error, it is downright insulting. Kevin's comparison between World War two in 1943 and the current situation in Iraq is not particularly exact, as Iraq is not a war but rather an occupation. There is no goal save the status quo. However, your deeply ignorant guess about the opinions of past American soldiers really only reveals the mental gymnastics you are willing to perform in order to maintain your pre-existing beliefs. Of course, deep ignorance of history and human nature are distinct prerequisites for those very beliefs, so perhaps that is not surprising. Let's see, 37% say that those back home who want to bring the troops home are "unpatriotic", and 15% say that those folks "don't understand the need to be there", where I went to school that was 52%. An alternative, and equally correct description of the poll could have been: "A majority of troops polled believe that those back home wanting quick withdrawal are wrong." I do hope Zogby reported this to president Kerry. Posted by: tool of some sort on February 28, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINKS Ra the the empath is back. You should really catch his act. He knows what you are thinking due to his perfect knowledge of human nature and the universe. To disagree with him is to lie to yourself and to reveal pathetic intellectual shortcomings if not utter mental derangement. In fact his authority is so complete that his posts are considered "texts", to be preserved and studied. He is really something. Posted by: tool of some sort on February 28, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINKClap louder, tool! You aren't clapping loud enough for the Dear and Glorious Leader. Will I have to report you? If you clap loud enough tool, maybe those nabobs of negativity will be drowned out and all we can hear from Dear Leader is how many schools we painted in Iraq, hooray!!! Posted by: WM Troll Brigade and revue on February 28, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINKAdolph: I don't mind the press getting things wrong, but I am shocked that a respondent to such a prestigeous blog has so little knowledge of the facts. "Mission Accomplished" related to the aircraft carrier's extended time at sea, much longer than any other carrier. The comment was a well deserved thank you to the crew. The media and the Democrats turned it into a slur. Mission accomplished, well done, a slur. Then again, this does seem to be a Foreign Affairs blog. So maybe I should give you a little leeway for your ignorance. Posted by: davod on February 28, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINKDavod, brown lipstick isn't very flattering for you, dear. It's really fun to watch the Bushbots wear brown lipstick. Posted by: WM Troll Brigade and revue on February 28, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK"The comments at CalPundit used to be fairly good. Sigh." The comments are still very good, just ignore the troll spam. It's pretty easy to tell within the first few words if it's troll spam or someone with a point to make. Just skip the spam. And Patton makes it really easy by TALKING LOUD. I've been able to avoid reading her nonsense completely! Posted by: Harold S. on February 28, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK"Mission Accomplished" related to the aircraft carrier's extended time at sea, much longer than any other carrier. The comment was a well deserved thank you to the crew. This is the funniest thing I've read in a while. That pesky camerman from Bush's staff just happened to set up the shot so that the banner was right behind Bush's head!!! And who is the nitwit that keeps putting those little phrases all over Bush's speech backdrops?? I know the little phrase says "Keeping America Safe", but that's not what we really mean. Jeez, it's not our fault if you misunderstand us! Posted by: enozinho on February 28, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK"You aren't clapping loud enough for the Dear and Glorious Leader..." OK, you caught me, I am wearing a brown shirt too. I guess you are right... I am a Nazi. How could I not have known? Who are you talking to anyway? Me, or to the others that might listen to me? What are you saying? Are you countering my arguments, are are you really threatening others to encourage them avoid my views? I was just pointing out to "Ra", that his assertion of god-like knowledge makes him a little ridiculous and that this poll does not really support in detail, the headline given it. As a matter of fact, I hope that we have the majority of the troops out of there within a year too. Doesn't mean I consider the war a failure though. I just feel that if it does succeed, it will be far enough along by then. I do want a long term presence to keep Iran and Syria out of the game, at least in terms of ground troops, kind of like Murtha was saying, without the "our troops are bloodied and beaten" part. Posted by: tool of some sort on February 28, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINKYes, but the same poll also showed that 'While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly to retaliate for Saddams role in the 9-11 attacks, 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.' Wha....? I seem to remember one of Tom Friedman's NYTimes' column a few years back, in which he said he was listening to the troops. When they told him it was time to leave, it would be time to leave. Are you listening Mr. Friedman Posted by: river on February 28, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINKthe following is equally unsupportable: "I doubt that 72% of military respondents in 1943 would have favored pulling out of World War II within 12 months." In World War II "pulling out" was not an option. It was fight and win or surrender and die. We, however, are in no such position in Iraq, as we are the agressor and can leave whenever we want to. "I bet you're too busy with your College Republican meetings to apply, eh? I've seen your type in High School - all talk and no action." That's what his girlfirend said too. Posted by: brewmn on February 28, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINKTroll and En: What can I say, nothing that will change your mind. As I said you did not know why the sign was there, and knowing why did not change your mind. Then again, you may just be Foreign Affairs geeks. Troll. Good name. Posted by: davod on February 28, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKDavod - We all knew the excuse. The cover story, whatever you want to call it. We just don't believe it. See the difference? Bush was not thanking the troops. He was congratulating himself. That's what I believe. Posted by: enozinho on February 28, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK"Under a controversial order passed by the previous US-led occupation authority, all foreign soldiers, diplomats or contractors implicated in the killing of Iraqi civilians are immune from arrest or trial in Iraq and are subject to the jurisdiction of their native countries." http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:gwz2QS628kIJ:news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050703/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusmilitary_050703164240+%22All+foreign+soldiers,+diplomats+or+contractors+implicated+in+the+killing+of+Iraqi+civilians+are+immune+from+arrest+or+trial+in+Iraq.%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a
craigie on February 28, 2006 at 2:49 PM: Yeah, it's just not what it used to be. ...groan... davod on February 28, 2006 at 3:41 PM: "Mission Accomplished" related to the aircraft carrier's extended time at sea, much longer than any other carrier. This is a parody of a troll, right?...Right? tool of dumb sort on February 28, 2006 at 4:00 PM: OK, you caught me, I am wearing a brown shirt too. Yuck. Didja poop through your Depends? I guess you are right That's the first time you've been right all day! How does it feel? Who are you talking to anyway? Me, or to the others that might listen to me Don't you have enough attention from your imaginary friends? Maybe you need to get some new imaginary friends... Are you countering my arguments, You make arguments? Where? are are you really threatening others to encourage them avoid my views? Nahh...you do enough on your own to discourage people from taking you seriously. I was just pointing out to "Ra", that his assertion of god-like knowledge Actually, you're the only one who has made such an assertion, which makes you a little ridiculous. and that this poll does not really support in detail, the headline given it. 15% apples and 37% oranges do not equal 52% bananas...Man, it's gotta be hard, hard work to torture logic enough to come to your conclusion. As a matter of fact,I hope that we have the majority of the troops out of there within a year too. Cite your source for this information, please. I don't believe you. Doesn't mean I consider the war a failure though. It wasn't. But it's been over for about 2 1/2 years...Saddam's gone, no WMD...Victory! Post invasion, not so much. War On Terror&trade? Not at all. I just feel that if it does succeed, it will be far enough along by then. 'Along' meaning what? Please describe the conditions for victory in Iraq. Sounds like there might be some troops that are interested in knowing your answers. Posted by: grape_crush on February 28, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINKSo this is it. Bush says for the Iraqis "The choice is between chaos or unity." Like I said before this whole sad stupid predictable waste of money and loss of prestige and death started - when the civil war starts and we leave Iraq we are going to say "We brought freedom to Iraq and they blew it." We will reassure ourselves that it wasn't *our* fault. It was a GOOD thing we did. We made no mistake. No. What a load of crap. Posted by: Tripp on February 28, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINKS RaAs I say, your flippant comment is not only wholly in error, it is downright insulting. I don't think it is flippant, wholly in error, or downright insulting. I picked Anzio, and the time before the Normandy invasion, for their time, not for the Anzio defeat. Large numbers of those men were draftees, and if you had asked their opinions at the time, a lot of them thought that what they were doing was a waste of time. Of course, none of them that I know would have wanted to quit. But if you had put the question to them time after time, they might have polled in favor of "withdrawal within the year". Those whose first combat was in Normandy were indeed mostly home just a little over a year later. There isn't a direct comparison. Some of the men in Iraq have been deployed, continuously in some cases, off and on in other cases, for two years. A large fraction of those who saw duty in Northern Europe were outside the US for less than two years. for those who went ashore in Morocco, two years later was Nov 1944, and it isn't flippant to suggest that at that point they might have polled in favor of going home within a year. I am never certain that I am correct. It just sounds that way when read. The one D-Day veteran whom I knew really well was drafted. Had he been asked, he'd have never served in the first place. He received two purple hearts, and was near the Elba river at the cease fire. I really do not think it is flippant or disrespectful to assert that, had he been asked, he'd have called the whole enterprise a waste of time. He was proud of his service, and attended reunions with those of his unit who had also been drafted. Also, he was of the opinion that "Those people over there have been fighting amongst each other for hundreds of years, and nothing we do is going to accomplish anything." Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK"The one D-Day veteran whom I knew really well was drafted." No draftees in Iraq. All volunteers. That's why their disaffection is so significant. And why your comparison is irrelevant. Posted by: Joel on February 28, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINKZogby is Arab-american. After your stand on the UAE ports, Kevin - how dare you outsource a report on the mood of the troops to an Arab! Oh wait, he's a Democrat and its not a Bush-bashing opportunity. I guess racial profiling is wrong again. "I picked Anzio, and the time before the Normandy invasion, for their time, not for the Anzio defeat. Large numbers of those men were draftees, and if you had asked their opinions at the time, a lot of them thought that what they were doing was a waste of time" Well, I know a bunch of those guys. They're my father, my uncles, and their friends. They believed in what they were doing. You malign them without evidence. Calling Anzio a defeat, by the way, is something of an overstatement Posted by: rea on February 28, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINKYou know, McA, knowing of your ongoing interest in American life and politics, I wanted to mention that today is actually a US holiday. It's "All Malaysians Shut the Fuck Up Day." Even the banks are closed. Posted by: Pat on February 28, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINKWait, a few posts ago, you couldn't even let them 'filthy arabs' own shares in a port because they could be infiltrated easier. So how come Zogby couldn't be a spy? Of course they arent sure why they are still in Iraq! Who is, besides Bush and his tight cadre of neocon Kool-Aid drinkers? And keep in mind that these are mercenaries. Oh gee, was I being indelicate there? If professional soldiers dont see any point in staying in Iraq, can you imagine how conscripts, like the people that we put in Vietnam, would feel? The best thing that Democrats could do to end this pointless war, would be to push for immediate reinstatement of the draft! Then, when a few conscripted sons and daughters, maybe like Jenna and Laura Bush, get their limbs blown off, the war would be over toot sweet. Its real easy to be patriotic when you dont have any skin in the game (no pun intended, really). Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 28, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINKin 1954 i served in a engineer brigade at ft bragg with many men that were in airborne troopers in ww2. So how come Zogby couldn't be a spy? Posted by: McAMost spies these days come from Opus Dei[Robert Hannsen], neo-Cons[Larry Franklyn], and Israeli groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC); but, as usual, your racist smears of Arab-Americans is typical and despicable. Posted by: Mike on February 28, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK your racist smears of Arab-Americans is typical and despicable. Posted by: Mike on February 28, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK But if Arabs aren't bad, why can't they own port companies that still use American workers to do the job? I'm curious how the poll checked respondents were troops by the way. You'd think that you wouldn't put a man with Arab links in charge of personal information on your troops! He could be infiltrated and organize attacks! Did you know Zogby comes from a country that stitches up women's vaginas?* *Not really, but it comes from recent Dubai-bashing Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINKAn overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and I doubt that 72% of military respondents in 1943 would have favored pulling out of World War II within 12 months I did not introduce the contrast/comparison between troops in Iraq and troops in WWII, the host of our site did that. If the comparison/contrast is inapt, tell him, not me. If you think the comparison has some validity, then what is the best comparison? Of those in WWII who entered combat on D-Day, most were not deployed oversees a full two years (unlike the soldiers in Iraq), and most who survived were home within a little over a year of first combat. Most were also draftees who, when they had the choice, had chosen not to volunteer, so it is hardly extreme to assert the possibility that they thought they were wasting their time; of course, the 82nd and 101st airborne were not draftees, they were volunteers, and almost certainly felt different about it. Of those soldiers who first saw combat in Morocco, almost all who survived were home within 2 years, deployed overseas for less than many of the soldiers in Iraq. Had they been polled after a year of deployment to they combat areas, it is hardly far-fetched or insulting to suggest that they might have recommended no more than 1 more year of deployment. It was reported that a majority of soldiers in Iraq voted for Bush instead of Kerry, analogous to the soldier vote for Lincoln in 1864. Almost all of those who survived were back home less than a year later. Large numbers of Union soldiers left service as soon as their enlistments were up, occasionally right on the eve of battle. It is neither far-fetched nor insulting to suggest that, had they been polled shortly after the 1864 election, they might have favored a war deployment lasting no more than 1 additional year. I grew up on military bases, and most of the adult men I knew had served in WWII. They were the few who stayed in the military after the end of the war. Millions more returned to civilian life, including some of my uncles. As many American men as could tried to finish college before going to war, or obtain deferments to raise their families. Thus, my family included uncles who finished college instead of serving in the war; uncles who obtained deferments and never served at all; an uncle who was never deployed to a war zone but served the whole war in the US; a father who served overseas in N. Africa, Italy, and England; another family member who, as I wrote, was drafted and trained and deployed, who fought from Normandy to the Elbe, and whose entire overseas deployment was less than 2 years. There is no completely perfect comparison between the soldiers in Iraq (being polled) and the American soldiers of WWII (who were never polled), but as long as you are going to think about the comparison, you should think about all the possibilities, all points of comparison, all the subsets of the people involved. The US avoided the European war until attacked by Japan, by which time the German army was withering in front of Moscow. They didn't engage the German army until after the amazing Soviet counterattack at Stalingrad. They only went to war because the US was attacked, and then most of them waited to be drafted. In view of all the details, I don't think it is superficial to suggest that, had they been asked after one year of overseas deployment, a large majority might well have said that the whole effort was not worth one more year of their time. Posted by: republicrat on March 1, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINKAs evidenced by "republicrat"'s posts here, the GOP is now reduced to arguing that we should support the troops, but not actually listen to them. "Supporting" now apparently means "sending to Iraq for a couple of years against their will". Bearing this in mind, I want to go on record as saying that I support President Bush. Posted by: brooksfoe on March 1, 2006 at 2:43 AM | PERMALINKAs evidenced by "republicrat"'s posts here, the GOP is now reduced to arguing that we should support the troops, but not actually listen to them. Funny, but when the polls showed the troops in Iraq overwhelmingly supported Bush over Kerry, everyone here dismissed their opinions. Now that a poll says that they disagree with the mission in Iraq, suddenly you want to "support the troops" and do what they want. Obviously, your attitude towards their opinion is soley determined by whether or not they agree with you. Posted by: Anonymous on March 1, 2006 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINKGee according to the results of the Zogby poll, the Democratic Party should sweep the military vote in 2006! (what a laugh) Why do I have a feeling Zogby, who did SUCH a bang up fantastic job in 2004! may not be realisticly representing the mood of the troops after all. Posted by: Brad on March 1, 2006 at 3:24 AM | PERMALINKFunny, but when the polls showed the troops in Iraq overwhelmingly supported Bush over Kerry, everyone here dismissed their opinions. No, we disagreed with them. Now we are glad they've come around to the correct point of view. The question is, why haven't you? Do you agree with the troops when they say that we should pull out of Iraq within a year, or not? Posted by: brooksfoe on March 1, 2006 at 3:45 AM | PERMALINKBrad on March 1, 2006 at 3:24 AM: Why do I have a feeling Zogby, who did SUCH a bang up fantastic job in 2004! may not be realisticly representing the mood of the troops after all. Simple. You feel whatever Karl Rove wants you to feel... Posted by: grape_crush on March 1, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINKI can't believe there are still people out there (happy conservative) who blindly believe that Sadaam had something to do with 9/11. Hain't it amazing? Ignore all facts to the contrary and it will be truth?? BTW--what are those Iraqis doing with our oil? Posted by: katrap on March 1, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINKBut if Arabs aren't bad, why can't they own port companies that still use American workers to do the job? I've got no problem with Arabs operators of US ports. I have a problem with foreign, non-democratic regimes being increasingly relied on for critical US strategic and economic infrastructure, especially when experts in the field attribute this to the US losing the knowledge and expertise to manage that infrastructure effectively. Happy Conservative is a parody, apparently a very good one. Posted by: grape_crush on March 1, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINKAs evidenced by "republicrat"'s posts here, the GOP is now reduced to arguing that we should support the troops, but not actually listen to them. Good grief. When did I say that I discounted the opinions of the troops? The troops are a diverse lot, and I read some of their opinions, which are often in conflict. I think it is quite reasonable to assert that, one way or another, the deployment of 140,000 or so better not last more than another year. Almost all of the Americans who engaged in ground combat in WWII were deployed overseas less than 3 years, and a majority for less than 2 years. With that in mind, I think Kevin exaggerated the difference between the troops in Iraq and the troops in WWII. President Bush said that American forces would stand down as Iraqi froces stood up. He said that the progress would be faster if there were no formal timetables for withdrawal. If that is what you support when you write that you support Bush, then you and I are in agreement. Posted by: republicrat on March 1, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK To qualify for a credit card you must be at least 18 years old and have a regular href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/instant-approval-creditcards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/airline-milescards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/business-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/gas-credit-cards.html"> /> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/low-insterest-creditcards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/american-express-creditcards.html"> /> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/chase-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/citibank-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/columbus-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/discover-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/hsbc-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/USbank-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/calculator-mortgage.html">calculator Chase master card Master Card Platinum Master Prepaid Master Citibank master Master Card credit cards Citi master Shell Master Card Orchard bank Gold Master Card Bad Credit HSBC master card Master credit card You can search, compare and apply for Low Interest Credit Reports credit Dish Network Satellite, If you are looking for best online insurance quotes, you might be interested Home equity loans Home href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.net">web href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com">affiliate href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com/affiliate-resources.html">affiliate Mp4 player Mp4 player Online travel reservation, travel href="http://www.travelsuper.com">discount href="http://www.travelswanted.com/san-francisco-hotels.html">san href="http://www.travelswanted.com/new-york-hotels.html">new href="http://www.travelswanted.com/toronto-hotels.html">toronto href="http://www.travelswanted.com/venice-hotels.html">venice href="http://www.travelswanted.com/thailand-hotels.html">thailand href="http://www.travelswanted.com/palm-springs-hotels.html">palm href="http://www.travelswanted.com/manhattan-hotels.html">manhattan href="http://www.best-web-hosts.be">best web hosting web 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
