Which side do you want to be on:
THE RIGHT:
Economy Rebounding From Gulf Coast Storms
Bush takes on pessimists on U.S. economy
Bush Unveils New Iraq Strategy Document
THE LEFT:
Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq
John Kerry Calls American Troops Terrorists video
Sunnis and Dems Agree: Bring Back Saddam
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Which side has the winners; which side the losers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
In other words:
If it's good for America, it's bad for Democrats.
or
If it's bad for America, it's good for Democrats.
-----------------
Bunch of leeching bottom-feeders.
Regarding "Dems agree: Bring Back Saddam", As I posted on December 2:
Not surprisingly, you and NewsMax misrepresent the poll question and the results.
The question was not whether Saddam is good or bad, whether he should be in power or not, or whether the world would be better off with or without Saddam. Democrats would have been nearly unanimous that Saddam is bad, he should not be in power, and the world would be better off without him.
The question was:
Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?
This question has two conditions, and the first condition is key. A "better off" answer is clearly not an endorsement of Saddam. It is a legitimate opinion that the manner in which he was removed leaves the world worse off.
Every pollster knows how important the phrasing of the question is to the results. Many pollsters ask questions in a certain way in order to achieve certain results. This is an example of that.
This question does not ask if the world is better off or worse off with Saddam in power. It asks if the world is better off or worse off because the military took action in Iraq. The addition of the phrase "and Saddam Hussein were still in power" frames the question with an entirely different meaning and practically begs the responder to answer in a certain way.
Then it provides you, NewsMax and other right wing papers and organizations the opportunity to accuse Democrats of supporting Saddam, which is an absurd accusation.
Except to be contentious, I dont think ANYONE thinks Saddam should be in power. The guy is a douchebag, and should have been reduced long ago. However, nobody likes to be hoodwinked. I called 'bullshit' on Bush and his cronies from Day One. There was just something not right about them saying he had WMD's. I was happy the SOB was gone, but the whole war has been run like a farce. As I commented on a different post, the US track record in winning nontraditional wars with traditional tactics is abhorrent.
I think things would be different if Republicans brought Democrats into their administration when they began on the war on terror. FDR did this when WWII began if my memory serves me well. Instead, the GOP used the terror issue to club their opponents over the head in the 2002 elections, even though elected Democrats gave ubiquitous support for the war in Afghanistan and were divided 60/40 in favor of authorizing the president in Iraq.
As a result, there's a lot of mistrust and bad blood, especially since much of the case for Iraq that was used in attacking Democrats wasn't even factual.
I'm sure he's a nice guy and helps his mom around the house... but you have to wonder how often Wino can be wrong before he realizes, "man, I just don't know what I'm talking about."
Yes, Dems DO want Saddam back.
"Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey, with a SOLID plurality saying the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.
Forty-one percent of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34 percent said Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone, reports the New York Post." - NewsMax
http://www.newsmax.com/
archives/ic/2005/12/2/90042.shtml
per usual humanzee, your sources are junk. You need to find a credible story to quote facts. Not only does that not list the poll in question, but it doesnt then list where to find the poll in question. Its bogus, scientifically(and therefore logically).
I agree, again, with Jim that polls can be made to say whatever you want...however, since the military action WAS to get rid of saddam, you can't seperate the two questions...
also,
you guys HAVE to agree that the world is better WITH saddam if you think the military action has made the world a more dangerous place....since you have no plan of how to get Saddam out yourselves..
Nonsense Game!
If the question was:
Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the US military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein had been removed from power by other means?
I'm sure Democrats would have been near 100% that the world would have been better off with Saddan not in power.
The Democratic response to the question is NOT in any way an endorsement of Saddam.
One reason I have trouble debating with conservatives. You guys aren't debating the fate of America, you are debating right and left like it was some kind of football game and you are the head cheerleader. I have a difficult time using those parameters. I figure we are pretty much all winners or we are pretty much all losers depending upon the course we embark on.
Jim...I'm just wondering what workable alternative plan to war the Democrats had to remove Hussein?
Are you privy to this plan? I didn't hear about this alternative plan the Democrats had after 911!
All I heard was that all the Dems were in favor of war.
Enlighten us to what this alternative Democrat plan was, please.
Sometimes I feel like a mushroom...Democrats keep talking about all these great ideas they had as alternatives to war. I'm kept in the dark, I guess;)
Post a Comment