Posted on 03/19/2006 4:14:54 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
"A clue to this curiously low-key response may be found in the bustling shopping centres. Despite the mounting cost of the war in Iraq, the economic consequences have remained relatively contained. There have been no signs of a decline in consumer confidence and no uptick in inflation."
I get it, instead of goin' protestin', Americans decided to go shopping instead. Boy, this is quite a stretch, even for the MSM to believe!
Could it be that nobody wants to protest? Maybe they were protesting somewhere else maybe over some little baby seals?
Whoever wrote the intro line couldn't stand not having the scum of the earth trash the President.
Yes....because these poll samples are of course pure...never to be questioned...even when sponsered by Liberal news outlets....
Folks! Don't believe your eyes. Just because people aren't bombing buildings and blocking traffic in huge protests, doesn't mean the polls are deceptive. Nope.
The polls weren't wrong on Nov. 2, 2004 eiether. [sarcasm]
Scrap them, I believe what is before my eyes.
There is no huge resistance to the war. A certain exhaustion, but the will is still there. Exhaustion only because the MSM/Dems/Liberals/hagels/Hollywood won't shut up in their quest to get Bush. We all must be miserable with them.
Second, the country has no respect for Democrats. No longing to see them in power.
Third, the country has no respect for Republicans and is severely disappointed and even frustrated by their cowardice and inability to govern as a Majority according to campaign promises made.
Where does that leave Nov.? Far as I can tell neither party has a happy base. Even the venomous 'get Bush' crowd is only about half the Dem party. The Rockefellar Republicans less than half of the Rep. Things stay as they are today? This won't be decided until election day, and it will be based on whomever's base is slightly more passionate. Not on polls...not on Abramhoff...not on a toss the bums out groupthink since both are largely bums...I wouldn't be surprised at a low turnout across the board at this rate though, from both sides. Wouldn't that be something? If a Party ekes out victory based on LOW turnout across lines vs the high turnout we've had the last few elections? Wonder if the elites in D.C. would get the message then.
This does exclude certain specific races however. Blackwell, Swann etc...have stand alone races outside of this disenchanted bubble the public holds the rest in. They've actually got people pumped up to elect THEM, which is the rare occurence so far in '06.
Actually, I don't know that. How do you know how much resistance the administration "was prepared for"? Did you look in the Federal Registry of Officially Prepared-For Things? How many "RUs" (Resistance Units - the internationally accepted unit of measuring the quantity of resistance) did it say the administration was, officially, prepared for?
Sorry for the sarcasm :) It's just that too often statements like this get repeated without being examined. If all you're saying is, the administration didn't have a detailed contingency plan for a situation where terror-insurgency lasts for years, well ok, I'm sure they didn't. (I don't even know what such a contingency plan could possibly look like, BTW.) They have had to adapt on the fly (the early troubles with Bremer, etc.) and call audibles. (Not that I think there's any better alternative to improvisation and adaptation. There's no Textbook containing Mathematically-true Theorems regarding how one should or shouldn't wage a counterinsurgency that i know of.)
But if you're trying to imply that George Bush and Dick Cheney and whoever else "the administration" signifies, personally weren't (mentally?) "prepared for" even the mere possibility of terror-insurgency lasting for years, well then I call foul. That's mind-reading at best.
Anyway, this is all beside the point of what I was responding to in the article. The author did not simply claim that the current insurgency level is more than they were prepared for (in whatever sense); he said " “more fighting and sacrifice.” [..] is not what was being predicted three years ago." That is simply false. Whether or not you're right about your "prepared for" claim, the fact remains that Bush has repeatedly and explicitly stated in speech after speech that this would be a long war which called for sacrifices.
The longer this goes on, the more damgaed Bush will be.
I guess. Not sure why this matters. Have people all forgotten that Bush is a second-termer? He can't run again. This isn't about "Bush", I really couldn't care less about Bush at this point.
I think it's up to the administration to state it's case. Are they doing it effectively?
I don't know (and one must keep in mind the handicap they start out with - a completely hostile/biased media), but again I have to call a time-out here and ask you to backtrack. Why exactly is it "up to the administration to state its case"? "Case" for what, exactly? Invading Iraq? They already did that - successfully - in late 2002. The invasion of Iraq occurred. It happened, it's a historical event. Now that it's in our past, and it's about 3 years later, what other "case" about it is there to be "stated" that wouldn't be redundant? There is absolutely no need, in any practical sense, to re-argue over and over again for Invading Iraq In 2003.
The only related issue which perhaps needs a "case" to be made is, should we continue to occupy Iraq and defend its government from terror-insurgency. (I note in passing that this is a completely separate issue from whether it was ok to invade in 2003.) But the thing is, withdrawal advocates have absolutely no good arguments whatsoever (to a large extent they're so confused they spend most of their time re-arguing against the 2003 invasion, as if that's relevant to anything). They know it too, because whenever they're pressed (i.e. the Congressional vote on withdrawal) they quickly back off. After all, the underlying premise of their stance (to anyone with a brain) is that we don't need to care whether Al Qaeda wages attacks against and gains a foothold in a naturally-wealthy democratic Middle-east country. And the thing is, that premise is so self-evidently idiotic that it shouldn't need to be argued against, effectively or not.
http://www.geocities.com/renee_arena/moonbat1.html?1142832345426
My take on the Boston protest of 3/18/06.
The protests flopped miserably worldwide, and particularly so in the United States. The reason for this isn't that Iraq is now lovey-dovey, it's that its current situation is by far the least of several possible evils. Anybody with a better idea is welcome to state it, but in the meantime bitching about how things are is an act of futility.
I agree. The last sentence is a blatant and flagrant lie!!
The answer is easy. There is NO huge, organized anti war movement. PERIOD. It is purely fictional, and made up by the MSM and pollsters.
I am not against the war. Maybe that is because I don't believe the lies of the left like so many others in this country and the entire world do huh? In fact, I wish it would be carried on in other countries as well as Iraq. I suppose the President doesn't have the backing anymore to do that thanks to the left.
The only thing I can say about this picture is that I asked my young son to come over and look at it (He's heard my husband and I use the term 'Moonbat' often and asked us what it meant). I pointed to the woman and said "That, son, is a moonbat." Enough said.
Ouch, did that woman try to start a fight in response LOL?
Right. And if it were the other way around these Junk Journalists would be screaming it to the heavens. Quite rationalization of the Anti War Movements failure is more accurate.
I've got friends like this too. Frustrating isn't it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.