A year ago, John Kerry had run for election on the platform of 'I too want to stay in Iraq until the job is done'. Americans were getting the same message from both sides of the political aisle, so of course support was higher. 2005 was not a big election year so Democrats felt ok with pandering to their base, who they will need next year, with the pullout nonsense. But they're already gearing up to not talk about Iraq when the 2006 elections roll around.

Along with what Karol said, I think there's a plausible case to be made that people actually have gotten the message that things in Iraq are not as bad as they were portrayed, and that the country is actually fairly stable (which it is) rather than being the absolute bedlam and violent anarchy the Dems have tried to protray it as. That might be one of the reasons people want out. The fatigue, combined with the "It's not that bad anyway, so we can leave now."

I think that the only 'real' thing we can take from all the polling data is that approimately 33% of the Nation are mad as f****** hatters, and will never come back from their journey to fantasyland.

33%--- Impeach Bush Now
32%--- Terrorists Winning WOT
36%--- Run Screaming For The Exits

I blame a weakened gene pool.

It's an increase over their more recent polls. They had to go back a year to get their talking point of a decrease in support.

WHOO HOOO! New T-Shirt girl!

. . .

Stop looking at me like that.

I will ALWAYS oppose immediate withdrawal.

Heh...

P.S. If somebody named a blog "Ace of Dingleberries HQ", would that be cool, or what?

I'm not "heartened " by that at all, Ace.

36% of the public really wants to pull out immediately and let Iraq go straight to hell and have all those deaths be for naught?

Yeah, 57% is a majority, but not what I'd call a very solid one. Frankly, I find these numbers scary and deeply disturbing. I'm pretty disappointed in my fellow citizens.

P.S. If somebody named a blog "Ace of Dingleberries HQ", would that be cool, or what?

No, because it would inevitabley become Ace of Gay Dingleberries HQ.

Yeah, 57% is a majority, but not what I'd call a very solid one. Frankly, I find these numbers scary and deeply disturbing. I'm pretty disappointed in my fellow citizens.
Posted by Dave F at December 17, 2005 05:23 PM

Most people only watch an occasional evening news and can't even remember why we went to Iraq. I wouldn't worry about them too much, they're busy doing other stuff. Frankly, most people are dumbasses and don't matter politically..

Cindy Sheehan has been out voted we dont ned this stupid hen

Nobody proposed an IMMEDIATE pullout until the Republicans suggested it in their absurd, tongue-in-cheek vote designed to fleece people into believing that it was actually what Murtha was advocating.

It looks like they succeeded. They've managed to turn the polling analysis from the fact that close to two thirds of the American people oppose either the conduct or the concept of the war (or both) to "57% oppose a Manichean measure that nobody in power ever proposed with a straight face."

Nobody proposed an IMMEDIATE pullout until the Republicans suggested it

That's not correct: Murtha proposed an immediate "relocation" of US troops to an undisclosed location outside of Iraq. From his web site.

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

Geoff, while that may be what's on his website, his actual resolution (the one that every right-winger in the country insisted was identical in spirit and execution to Graham's resolution) included the key phrase "at the earliest practicable date." This would have given Bush considerable latitude with regard to when precisely that date would be.

I'm not saying I agreed with Murtha's proposal, but I take umbrage at the Republicans' attempt to cast Murtha's even-handed proposal with safeguards for presidential discretion as to when to begin the withdrawal of troops.

What will likely get lost in the mix is that it is quite likely that President Bush will draw down troops in preparation for the 2006 midterms in a fashion that will be eerily similar to Murtha's proposal, but since the Republican spinsters have done such a great job at casting him as a delirious "retreat and defeat" advocate, nobody will notice.

Geoff, while that may be what's on his website, his actual resolution (the one that every right-winger in the country insisted was identical in spirit and execution to Graham's resolution) included the key phrase "at the earliest practicable date." This would have given Bush considerable latitude with regard to when precisely that date would be.

I'm not saying I agreed with Murtha's proposal, but I take umbrage at the Republicans' attempt to cast Murtha's even-handed proposal with safeguards for presidential discretion as to when to begin the withdrawal of troops as the ranting of a Cindy Sheehan-esque peacenik.

What will likely get lost in the mix is that it is quite likely that President Bush will draw down troops in preparation for the 2006 midterms in a fashion that will be eerily similar to Murtha's proposal, but since the Republican spinsters have done such a great job at casting him as a delirious "retreat and defeat" advocate, nobody will notice.

Sorry about the double post. I tried to stop the first post when when I noticed I didn't complete a thought in the second paragraph, but I guess it was too late.

included the key phrase "at the earliest practicable date."

Well, you can either decide that his statement is meaningless (i.e., the 'earliest practicable date' is whenever Bush decides it is, so there's no change in policy), or you can take his stated meaning, which is that he wants our troops out as quickly as possible, without regard to the Iraq situation. In the context of the security of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi state, that is indeed an 'immediate' withdrawal.

What will likely get lost in the mix is that it is quite likely that President Bush will draw down troops in preparation for the 2006 midterms in a fashion that will be eerily similar to Murtha's proposal

What is lost in the mix is that Bush has been planning to draw down troops since 2003, as soon as the Iraqi military and police forces where able to handle routine security. That's why we've been training Iraqis at an insane pace for the last year. That's why we've been conducting shoulder-to-shoulder operations with Iraqi troops for the last 6 months, and why those troops are now taking the lead in many operations. That's why we've been capturing little towns in NE Iraq, clearing them of terrorists, and turning them over to Iraqi government and security while we stand by.

This is all part of the exit strategy we supposedly didn't have, and it has been since Day One. It's finally coming to fruition, but all Murtha has to do is say: "Let's leave as fast as we can!" and you think Bush is copying him.

It's finally coming to fruition, but all Murtha has to do is say: "Let's leave as fast as we can!" and you think Bush is copying him.

Silly geoff. Don't you know that Chimpy McBushalliburtonenronhitler can't come up with any ideas of his own?

I'm actually inclined to agree with the first assessment you proposed (that what Murtha proposed was essentially meaningless in that it forced no actual change of policy because of how weakly worded the provision was.)

In part, I think it is telling that Murtha has essentially been quoted as saying that he wouldn't have said anything about this if he would have been invited to sit at the "cool kids" table.

Unfortunately, that's not the story that has been played up in all this. The story is that all Democrats/liberals are advocating "cut and run" or "retreat and defeat," which is a gross distortion of reality. Murtha and his ilk may not be particularly original, but they are not steadfast defeatists either. They only look that way because of the straw man "resolution" that the Republicans put to a vote.

What I'm afraid of is that the political reality of the war's unpopularity will impel Bush to prematurely declare victory just in time to maintain control of the House and Senate in 2006. I'm all for a legitimate victory in Iraq, even if I believed and still believe that the original decision was grossly flawed, but what this whole episode amounts to is that it's not the message that matters, but who delivers it. If Murtha's unadulterated proposal were represented as is, all the President and/or the Republicans would have had to do is say, "Hey, thanks, Jack, but that's exactly what our plan already is! Why don't you propose creating a cabinet level Department of Homeland Security next week?" Instead, they concoct a distorted version of the proposal, attribute it to Murtha/Michael Moore/Sheehan/Hollywood/anyone who didn't vote for Bush in '04, and force it to a sham vote. To me, that speaks volumes about the way this Administration and the Republican power structure does business.

For all the accusations leveled at the left for "playing politics" with the war, I find it amazing that nobody seems to recognize the hypocrisy of the right when they respond in kind.

For all the accusations leveled at the left for "playing politics" with the war, I find it amazing that nobody seems to recognize the hypocrisy of the right when they respond in kind.

There's no question that the vote was a political power play designed to make a point. But while recognizing that, we also feel that the point needed to be made: a clear line needed to be drawn between Murtha's "withdraw when it's safe for us" and Bush's "withdraw when it's safe for them" positions. Not to mention Murtha's "Let's telegraph our intentions to the terrorists" and Bush's "Let's keep 'em guessing."

Fair enough. I suspect, however, that Bush's position of "withdraw when it's safe for them" has less to do with the actual safety of the Iraqi people than it does with the explosive political reality of the situation. Perception in this situation is, unfortunately, more important than reality. I fear that Bush will likely "declare victory" sometime over the next few months, even if such a proclamation isn't warranted by the situation on the ground, in order to position the Republicans to maintain both houses of Congress in '06.