Editore"s Note
WM on the Radio
Email address
Powered by: MessageBot

February 28, 2006

THE TROOPS SPEAK....From Zogby:

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

....29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

....Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

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

The troops don't support the troops!

Posted by: derek on February 28, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

derek has ended the thread in one comment! A new record.

Posted by: craigie on February 28, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Contrast 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 | PERMALINK

the 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 | PERMALINK

HA 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 | PERMALINK

from the Zogby page:
"While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly 'to retaliate for Saddam’s 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.'"

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 | PERMALINK

Al, you ignorant slut, it was Kerry's to lose. and he lost it.

Posted by: cleek on February 28, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney'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 | PERMALINK

Just 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
2. WMD
3. WMD programs
4. WMD-program-related efforts
5. Considerations regarding WMD-program-related efforts

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.


Posted by: HappyConservative on February 28, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

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 | PERMALINK

Oops. 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 | PERMALINK

We 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 | PERMALINK

craigie look here for the political leanings of the troops polled.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 28, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Sh!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 | PERMALINK

The 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 | PERMALINK

Soldiers 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 | PERMALINK

Why 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 | PERMALINK

Contrast 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

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 | PERMALINK

Looks 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 | PERMALINK

Cheney/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 | PERMALINK

Were 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 | PERMALINK

Wow 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 | PERMALINK

shortstop: 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 | PERMALINK

craigie 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 | PERMALINK

Zogby 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 | PERMALINK

Were 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 | PERMALINK

Concerning 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 | PERMALINK

Today 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 | PERMALINK

The 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.

Posted by: Jon Karak on February 28, 2006 at 1:36 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."

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 | PERMALINK

Hmm. 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 | PERMALINK

Why 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 | PERMALINK

Zogby'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 | PERMALINK

Why 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 | PERMALINK

During 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 | PERMALINK

Today Al managed to write 0 sentences before his first ad hominem argument, tying his own personal record.
Posted by: Patrick Meighan

Attaboy!

My own Fresh Catch of the Day comes from
Andrew O'Hehir on Salon.com: "...Ann Coulter and her band of blood-drinking cyborgs..."

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 | PERMALINK
Uh, 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 | PERMALINK

I 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 | PERMALINK

Oh 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 | PERMALINK

President 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 | PERMALINK

It 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 | PERMALINK

Uh, 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 | PERMALINK

While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks".

Ugh. Banging head on keyboard.

Posted by: Robert on February 28, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

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 | PERMALINK

ChrisS 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 | PERMALINK

I bet that 75% or so of ...

Well, since we can't know ...


the 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.

So Kevin "doubts", and I "bet", and Tripp is offended by the "bet" but not by the "doubt".

Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

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 | PERMALINK

Yeah, 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 | PERMALINK

If 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 | PERMALINK

republicrat: 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.

Posted by: S Ra on February 28, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

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 | PERMALINK

S 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 | PERMALINK

Clap 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 | PERMALINK

Adolph:

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 | PERMALINK

Davod, 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 | PERMALINK

Yes, but the same poll also showed that 'While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s 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....?
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on February 28, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

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 | PERMALINK

the 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.

Posted by: Stefan on February 28, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

"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 | PERMALINK

Troll 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 | PERMALINK

Davod -

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


Anyone know if this law is still in effect?

Posted by: cld on February 28, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

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 | PERMALINK

So 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 | PERMALINK

S 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 | PERMALINK

Zogby 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.

Posted by: McA on February 28, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

McAsshat

Posted by: grape_crush on February 28, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

"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 | PERMALINK

You 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 | PERMALINK

Wait, 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?

Posted by: McA on February 28, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Of course they aren’t 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 don’t 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.

It’s real easy to be patriotic when you don’t have any skin in the game (no pun intended, really).

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 28, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

McAsinine

Posted by: grape_crush on February 28, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

in 1954 i served in a engineer brigade at ft bragg with many men that were in airborne troopers in ww2.
one day a little smart ass from th 82nd came to our shops and he ask one of the old troopers . hey pop how many jumps did you make ? i have 27 !
m/sgt hollingsworth replyed " son i had only four, sicily,
normandy , salerno and holland .
the cocky LT. SMART ASS left without a word.

Posted by: KNEW SOME TROOPERS on February 28, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK
So how come Zogby couldn't be a spy? Posted by: McA
Most 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 | PERMALINK

An 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 | PERMALINK

As 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 | PERMALINK

As 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 | PERMALINK

Gee 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 | PERMALINK

Funny, 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 | PERMALINK

Brad 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 | PERMALINK

I 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 | PERMALINK

But 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.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Happy Conservative is a parody, apparently a very good one.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 1, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

As 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
source of income. Despite invitations from credit
card issuers
, you will still have to demonstrate that you are a good risk
before they grant you credit.
The proof is in your credit report. Before you submit a credit
card application
, you may want to obtain a copy of your credit
report
to make sure it is accurate. Credit
cards by type
could be following:

0% Intro Low APR credit cards
- 0% Intro Low APR credit cards
,

Rewards credit cards
- Rewards credit cards ,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/instant-approval-creditcards.html">

Instant Approval credit cards

- Instant Approval credit cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/airline-milescards.html">

Airline Miles Cards

- Airline Miles Cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/business-credit-cards.html">

Business Credit Cards

- Business Credit Cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/gas-credit-cards.html">

Gas Credit Cards

- Gas Credit Cards,

/>
Student Credit Cards

- Student Credit Cards ,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/low-insterest-creditcards.html">

Low Interest Credit Cards

- Low Interest Credit Cards, ,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/american-express-creditcards.html">

American Express credit cards

,

/>
Bank Of America credit cards

- Bank Of America credit cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/chase-credit-cards.html">

Chase credit cards

- Chase Manhattan credit cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/citibank-credit-cards.html">

CitiBank credit cards

- Citibank credit cards

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/columbus-credit-cards.html">

Columbus Bank credit cards

- Columbus Bank credit cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/discover-credit-cards.html">

Discover credit cards

- discover credit cards

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/hsbc-credit-cards.html">

HSBC Bank credit cards

,

New Millennium Bank credit cards
- Millennium Bank credit cards, and

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/USbank-credit-cards.html">

U.S. Bank credit cards

Calculator
Mortgage
- calculator free mortgage, calculator mortgage rate

Mortgage
Calculator
calculator interest mortgage, mortgage interest calculator,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/calculator-mortgage.html">calculator
mortgage

.

Read more about personal
finance
, earnings,
stock
markets
and economy
at online business news. More offers
can be found at credit cards
offers
.

Visa credit cards visa credit
cards

Visa gift cards
visa gift card

Visa platinum
visa platinum

Chase visa chase
visa

Aspire visa
Aspire visa

Aspire visa
Card
Aspire visa Card

Visa Master
card
Visa Master card

Royal bank visa
Royal bank visa

Capital One
Visa
Capital One Visa

Prepaid Visa
Prepaid Visa

Bank of America
Visa
Bank of America Visa

Visa Gold Visa
Gold

MBNA visa MBNA
visa

Visa
student credit card
Visa student credit card

Secured visa
Secured visa

Visa
credit card application
Visa credit card application

Bank One Visa
Bank One Visa

Prepaid
visa credit card
Prepaid visa credit card

Chase Visa card
Chase Visa card

Worldperks Visa
Worldperks Visa

Bad credit
visa card
Bad credit visa card

Visa debit card
Visa debit card
Master card

Master Cards and Mastercards best offers

Chase master card

Chase master cards offers


Master Card
gift card


Master card gif cards listings


Platinum Master
Card


Platinum master card listings


Prepaid Master
Card


prepaid master card offers


Citibank master
card


Citibank master card offers


Master Card credit cards

Master Card credit cards top offers


Citi master
card


Citi master card offers


Shell Master Card

Shell master card best offer!


Orchard bank
master card


Orchard bank master card - get here!


Gold Master Card

Gold Master Card best offers


Bad Credit
Master Card


Bad Credit Master Card offers


HSBC master card

HSBC master card listings


Master credit card

Master credit card listings


You can search, compare and apply for
a credit card online
- and in some cases even get a credit
decision
within 60 seconds!


Low Interest
Credit cards
low interest credit cards

Cash Back Credit
Cards
cash back credit cards

Fixed APR Credit
Cards
fixed APR credit cards

Balance Transfer
Cards
balance transfer credit cards

Reward credit cards
reward credit cards

Gas Rebate Cards gas
rebate cards

Shopping Rebate
Cards
shopping rebate cards

Travel Rebate Cards
travel rebate credit cards

Airline Credit
Cards
airline miles credit cards

Business Credit
Cards
business credit cards

Student Credit
Cards
student credit cards

Pre-paid Debit
Cards
prepaid debit cards

Bad Credit
Credit Cards
bad credit credit cards

Catalog Credit
Cards
catalog credit cards



Advanta credit
cards
advanta credit cards

Amex credit cards
amex credit cards

Chase credit cards
chase credit cards

Citibank credit
cards
citibank credit cards

Aspire visa card
aspire visa card

Discover credit
cards
discover credit cards

HSBC Bank credit
cards
HSBC bank credit cards

New Millennium
Bank credit cards
New Millenium Bank credit cards

Pulaski Bank credit
cards
Pulaski bank credit cards

Worlperks visa
credit card
Worldperks visa credit card


Credit Reports credit
reports

Mortgage Loans mortgage
loans refinance

Credit card application Credit card
application

Credit card online application Credit
card online application


Dish Network Satellite,
dish network satellite

Dish Satellite, Dish satellite

Dish Satellite TV, dish
satellite TV

Dish TV, Dish TV

Dish main Dish Main

and dish network satellite
TV
dish network satellite TV.

If you are looking for best online insurance quotes, you might be interested
in the following:

Auto Insurance Quote auto
insurance quote

Car insurance car insurance

Car insurance quote car
insurance quote

Car
cheap insurance
car cheap insurance

Auto
cheap insurance
Auto cheap insurance

Car
insurance rate
Car insurance rate

Car
insurance online
car insurance online

Car
insurance online quote
car insurance online quote

Car
company insurance
car company insurance

Auto
insurance online
auto insurance online

Auto
insurance company
Auto insurance company

Auto
insurance progressive
auto insurance progressive

Car
cheapest insurance
car cheapest insurance

Car
geico insurance
car geico insurance

Online
car insurance
Online car insurance

Auto
discount insurance
auto discount insurance

Auto loans auto loans

Car loans car loans

Vehicle loans vehicle loans deals

motorcycle
insurance
motorcycle insurance

Insurance company Insurance company

Insurance quotes insurance quotes

Insurance Broker Insurance Broker

travel insurance
insurance travel

home insurance
home insurance

insurance
recreation vehicle
insurance recreation vehicle

farmer insurance
farmer insurance

allstate insurance
allstate insurance

geico insurance
geico insurance

progressive
insurance
progressive insurance

dental insurance
dental insurance

medical insurance
medical insurance

insurance life insurance life

dog health
insurance
dog health insurance

insurance quote insurance
quotes

life
insurance quote
insurance life quotes

health
insurance quote
health insurance quotes

Term
life insurance quote
term life insurance quote

Online insurance quote Online
insurance quotes, insurance online quote

Free insurance quote Free
insurance quotes

Home
owner insurance quote
home owner insurance quotes

Allstate insurance allstate insurance
quotes

allstate insurance company allstate
insurance company

allstate
auto insurance
allstate auto insurance,

allstate
car insurance
allstate car insurance,

allstate insurance agent allstate
insurance agent,

allstate
home owner insurance
allstate home owner insurance,

allstate
home insurance
allstate home insurance,

allstate
life insurance
allstate life insurance


Home equity loans Home
equity loans

Home loans Home loans

Loan mortgage mortgage loans

Equity loans equity loans

home
improvement loan
home improvement loans

home equity loan rate home
equity loan rates

consolidation
loans
consolidation loans

fast loans
fast loans

unsecured
loans
unsecured loans

refinance
loans
refinance loans

florida
home loan
florida home loans

bad
credit home loan
bad credit home loans

real estate
loan
real estate loans

bad
credit home equity loan
bad credit home equity loan

california
loan mortgage
california loan mortgage

loan
mortgage refinance
loan mortgage refinance

california
home loan
california home loans

home equity loans home equity
loans and mortgages

Debt consolidation debt consolidation,
debt counseling, debt reduction

Bad credit debt consolidation
Bad credit debt consolidation

online debt consolidation online
debt consolidation

credit card debt consolidation
credit card debt consolidation

debt consolidation loan debt
consolidation loan

debt consolidation services
debt consolidation services

free debt consolidation free
debt consolidation

debt consolidation program debt
consolidation program

bad credit