About turn by Freedom Fries congressman
 

So one of the few remaining "good ole boys" has decided that he was wrong and that the US should withdraw. I have to admit I'm surprised.

I wonder if he will suggest renaming traditional American "Mom's Apple Pie" to Humble Pie? Perhaps French Fries should now be renamed "Opps, you were right all along and I got it wrong with my Europhobic reactionism - Fries"?

:)

Anyway, it seems to me that public opinion is slowly turning against the war. Is that correct? To be honest, US public opinion on the war is not really reported that much over here.

Mr Mephisto

Well I don't remember where I heard it, but I recently did hear that bush's approval rating is as low as ever, and its even lower than clintons approval rating when he was impeached. I believe that this was according to a gallop poll.

You know based on the standards I get put on by the lefties, I should report this for trolling. Of course I won't but it does amuse me.

Your only question is 'is public opinion turning against the war' which would be answerable by any google search if you wanted to know, and the rest is gloating.

Of course this guy was an asshat to the left wing when he did 'freedom fries' and I'm sure now he is a hero. In fact a quick google search of my own shows this little blurb on every radical left wing site there is.

So did you want debate on this or were you just out for a reaction?

The debate here should be whether the president, the VP, and the cabinet launched a war of aggression against a sovereign nation for reasons that they knew at the time to be provocations that were intended to fix the "facts" to fit the policy of a premeditated invasion, instead of actual justification of an imminent threat to national security.

Why can't or won't you debate the pressing issue of whether we have an executive administration of bumbling incompetents or war criminals?

That seems more alarming than your attempt to distract the discussion from the slow motion reaction to this controversy, by the American people.

NO, it's NOT.

This thread is on US PUBLIC OPINION.

Do NOT derail it.

There are about 20 or 30 other threads dealing with the war.

Go back to one of them if you feel the need to discuss justification of the war.

A quote of my entire message, IMO, makes a case for my opinion that I did not lose sight of the topic of this discussion.

public support for this farce of a war has been collapsing.
i am sure that even conservatives are aware of this because for the numbers to be true, support is necessarily eroding amongst their number as well.
i haven't got time right nwo to hunt up recent polling numbers, but i remember support being at about 35% in the most recent i have seen--but i could be wrong about the exact number.

what is clear is that support for bushwar is a minority opinion at this point.

as for the article at the outset of the thread:

what is most interesting in the article is that a conservative actually simply stated the facts of the matter--that the reasons for the war were--well--bullshit--and drew the obvious conclusions rather than trying to figure out another way to remain a loyal bushperson despite the implosion of the administration's claims.

so while walter jones was in fact a total asshat, to quote ustwo, in his role as the guy who struck a blow for "freedom" everywhere by trying to blame the problems with the bushcase for war on france and even more for directing his "critique" of france through the naming of deep fried potato strips--he was not much different in this from any other conservatives, many of whom confused richard perle with someone credible and informed and followed his idiotic lead in blaming france for the fact that the bushcase for invading iraq was worthless--

but it turns out that this particular asshat is more honest in confronting evidence about the rationale for war than most others of his political persuasion.

i would think this would give conservatives pause.

Meph, declining poll number for President Bush is not relegated to just the war. Other factors are involved too. Unfortunately I do not know for sure so it's mostly conjecture and speculation on my part, my guess is economy, jobs, social security, trade imbalance with China etc. Scroll around CNN.com or even BBC and you should be able to find an article on Bush's falling numbers. I thought I saw one recently. Come to think of it, the same goes for my governor, Ahnold.

However, there has been a steady decline in recruitment and renlistment due to consideration for the war - i.e.- length of tour of duty, parental concerns for new recruits, war fatigue.

In regards to "freedom fries" and "humble pie", there's precedent for this. Back in WWI or II (can't rememeber), the US changed hamburgers and saurkraut to "liberty steak" and "liberty cabbage". Hahaha! Some things never change?

Well I thought it was funny...

What's trolling??

Here you go Meph: an interesting article discussing the diffuclties the US military is experiencing in recruitment. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050613/...a_academies_dc

It's pretty good: an analyst gives some conpelling reason why this is happening and a defense spokesman counters the claim. Then, a third perspective is added to the mix.

Enjoy.

Meph, there is another article in the topic "New American Militarism", post #4.

Huh?

You should know my sense of humour by now. You should also note the smiley after the tongue-in-cheek comment. And finally, you should know that I don't troll. I never have, I have never been accused of such and I never will.

EDIT: Actually, I think this is the first time I've been accused of it. :)

Practically any "question" could be answered by google, but that's not the point of an open TFP politics discussion, is it? And I'm not gloating over anything. I don't gloat and, even if I did, I see nothing here to gloat over. He changed his mind. So what? I did too you know...

A debate my friend, a debate. A discussion on US public opinion. The only negative reaction so far has been yours. Which is a shame, as I thought you would present a positive position of the pro-war side.


Mr Mephisto

So here's another question.

So what?

Bush can't get re-elected. So what does he care? Why doesn't he proceed, hell for leather, will his agenda and "public be damned!"?


It's making deliberately provocative statements to specifically create a negative response or knee-jerk reaction. Saying something like "Bush is an asshole!" This adds nothing to the debate, but is just cage-rattling.

I don't troll.


Mr Mephisto

Jones' train of though:

"I am a conservative. I am cheering to help some other country gain freedom and happiness at the cost of $200+ billion of taxpayer money...

...holly crap what have I done!"

Frankly, I am disapointed. The last thing I wan't now is a quick pullout that leaves Iraq in a mess and billions of our dollars wasted. If we stay in Iraq and stabalized it we might be able to get some of our money back. If we stay in Iraq and dont ask for our money back we might change the whole middle east. The money is spent, whats another $200 billion to an $8 trillion dollar debt?

Mantus, I don't believe there will be a "quick" pullout. I honestly don't believe that we can, or should.

Please consider the possibility that Mr. Fry Guy is simply covering his butt because the folks back home are getting restive. There is a whole bunch of that going on right now.

Mr. M, here is some additional information regarding US public opinion:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061405D.shtml




Polls, and Reports from Iraq, Reveal Pessimism on War
Editor & Publisher

Monday 13 June 2005

New York - A flood of pessimistic articles in major newspapers this weekend, calls by some in Congress for a timetable for withdrawal, and now a new Gallup poll suggest to at least one military historian that the American public has reached a "tipping point" on Iraq.

The new Gallup survey finds that 59% of Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, the largest number in that category ever. Nearly half of that number, 28%, want all troops out. And, for the first time, most Americans say they would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops.

Accounts from the field in Iraq this weekend and today in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Knight Ridder newspapers, among others, all painted a picture of an Iraqi army unable (and to some extent, unwilling) to take over the lion's share of military activities for at least two years and perhaps much longer.

Tom Lasseter, longtime Knight Ridder correspondent in Baghdad, wrote for today's papers: "A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. service members during the past two years. Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerrilla war is through Iraqi politics, an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency."

"We have reached a tipping point," Ronald Spector, a military historian at George Washington University, told USA Today's Susan Page. "Even some of those who thought it was a great idea to get rid of Saddam [Hussein] are saying, 'I want our troops home.'"

The pattern of public opinion on Iraq is reminiscent of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, he said. A different poll last week found that 42% now liken the Iraq war to the Vietnam experience. Even Rep. Walter Jones, the man behind the "freedom fries" campaign, came out for withdrawal over the weekend.

Gallup also found that 56% of Americans now feel the war was "not worth it." An ABC News-Washington Post poll last week found that nearly three-quarters called the casualty level unacceptable. The count reached 1,700 over the weekend.

Of those who say the war wasn't worth it, the top reasons cited were: false claims and no weapons of mass destruction found; the casualty count; and belief that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.

In today's New York Times, a field report on Iraqi performance by John F. Burns and Sabrina Tavernise concludes: "Despite the Bush administration's insistent optimism, Americans working with the Iraqis in the field believe that it could be several years, at least, before the new Iraqi forces will be ready to stand alone against the insurgents....

"Earlier this year, the Pentagon suggested that an initial drawdown of the 140,000 American troops in Iraq might begin by the end of this year. Now, American generals are saying it could be two years, perhaps longer."

Perhaps much, much longer I fear.

Europhobic reactionism - Fries - nice

Do you think we can teach that phrase to our burger slingers? :D

I find it interesting how this board vehemently opposes "derailment" of threads. Doesn't conversation naturally dandy about a little? On theforum, a thread about the failed war on poverty turned into a thread about homeschooling.

Derailment: informative in the short term, humorous in the long term.

And we wonder why tfp has such funding problems....it's like trying to have a group discussion in class--moderators clutching their yardsticks.

Had you PM'd me, I would have told you that the key phrase is "a little" and that I was addressing something specific, not a general "dandy(ing) about", but you instead chose to throw out some public complaint that has nothing to do with the thread for some unknown reason.

I don't believe that an impartial outsider would come here and think that we stiffle conversation as much as a radical few insist.

I don't usually post in politics, but this kind of hit close to home.

Hubby served in Iraq; he was among some of the first troops to invade. He was confident in his commander in chief, proud of his mission, and although not happy to be in Iraq, knew it was his duty after signing on.

After the WMD debacle, seeing some of his friends get maimed/die for a no longer clear reason, and being lied to about the length of time spent over there, he (and I) no longer support the war. I never really supported it to begin with, but was supportive of the troops, as a military wife is prone to be. He is angry about the lives of his friends that he feels were taken in vain, and for having put himself in jeopardy for what he feels is political gain. I have a brother in law and good friend over there right now; I would be bitter indeed if something should happen to them.

Again, just my opinion.

i would say that the mods err too much on the side of letting the threads meander about... funny the perception differences.

i've always wondered about people who are fickle in their views about a war. what did they expect? a common response is that they say they were led to believe that the war would be easier. how exactly would someone come to that conclusion?

if you're going to topple a country's leadership, replace it with a completely foreign form of government, deal with hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Baathist's who are used to sucking off Saddam's corruption and rebuild a crumbled infrastructure... all the while fighting another war in Afghanistan and keeping our military posted on alert worldwide, you've got to expect HARD TIMES. yet, our leadership and armed forces carry out this mission with minimal impact on our homefront. most people have lived everyday of their lives since 9-11 without having to make a single consideration to the war being waged by their countrymen.

did you think this was going to be easier than it has been? if so, how can you possibly justify that?

Irateplatypus, please clarify for me whether that was directed at Medusa or simply the mass of American's that are now questioning the war in Iraq in a poll response.

I sincerely hope the latter.

On the whole the mods do a great job of keeping things civil around here. If they didn't, the TFP wouldn't have so many active members running around, nor would it be the most flame-free place on the net.

Trouble is that unlike most other forums out there, you've got about a jillion users who will see it when you DO make a bad call. And if you make that bad call in the politics forum in the middle of a debate where passions flare (let's face it, you're gonna have hotter arguments in here than in Nonsense ;) ), and one of the users that sees it has a bit of a tact problem, you're gonna catch hell.

Now IMO, the stay on topic warning in here was a bit unnecessary. The statement by Representative Freedom Fries (Fark gets credit for that nickname) IS another link in the chain of evidence that this war was a gross mistake, and it seems to me that there shouldn't be anything wrong with pointing that link out.

I could see it much better if it were, say, a prolife/prochoice debate and someone popped off with a "bush was wrong to go to war" crack, but in a topic that's discussing people's, in this case US lawmakers, disagreement with the justifications for the war, then why is there anything wrong with talking about those justifications?

All that said, the funding problems comment was WAY out of line. Any funding problems the forum has are caused by users who have no money, not the small percentage of the time moderators make bad calls.


Just IMO.