War, What Is It Good For?

Not votes, at least not for Bush at the present moment. The latest Wash Post poll (yeah, yeah, all polls are crap…) suggests that Bush's once formidable lead on War on Terror-related issues has become a dead heat. And 52 percent of respondents, the highest total so far, now say the war in Iraq is not worth fighting.

And, just to throw a spanner in the works, half of Americans now say they see significant progress in Iraq, up from 37 percent a month ago.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[Mr. Nice Guy]

That lawyer broad is uglier then Courtney Love passed out in a jail cell on a Saturday morning. It's probably a good thing that that santa-claus hat wearing sheik was blind.

"The indictment alleges that while visiting her client in prison, Stewart spoke gibberish in English as a cover while the sheik gave instructions in Arabic to a follower posing as a translator."

A lawyer speaking gibberish..? It must've taken a real Sherlock Holmes to crack that ruse.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Sorry for the mis-post. I'm still spacing out over the Australian Dickhead campaign.

[Call me snake]

Gillespie (and other Reasonites) intend to stir the mix of libertarian isolationists and conservative Bushies with posts like this: It's got the key 'button pushing" elements:
-A poll result
-A positive Kerry spin
-A potential pro-Bush development at the end

The only thing it's lacking is a WMD or Al Qaeda/Iraq connnection element, which is good for at least 40 posts on a topic.

I'm just glad I wasn't suckered into making...a...post...

[Tuck]

It appears that the 15-minute speech delivered Monday night by President Bush can be seen in the light of the apparent fabrications which lead to the slaughter of thousands of children by Air Force cluster bombs. Perhaps for the first time since the late 1940s, Donald Rumsfeld's worldview belies justifications given by the world's leading apologists for the flagrant lies promulgated by the political donor class. So far, a minority of warmongers and apologists is solid evidence of a humanitarian disaster of unimaginable scale. For one thing, Bush's argument for war is determined by capitalist interests which lead to the essential Western imperial interests.

Clearly, the Pax Americana of the future brings forth an act of international violence that exceeds even those of the "liberal" Bill Clinton. So far, Donald Rumsfeld's worldview belies justifications given by the world's leading apologists for this calamity brought to us by a horrific onslaught, known as Shock and Awe. Presumably, the pro-Sharon neoconservative cabal provides a pretext for the end of any possibility of social justice in a reactionary state. Nevertheless, the 15-minute speech delivered Monday night by President Bush leads our attention to the slaughter of thousands of children by Air Force cluster bombs.

[db]

Tuck,

What the hell are you trying to say? I read that forwards, backwards, in a mirror, and upside-down, and it still makes no sense.

[Ironchef]

Take off the tinhat Tuck.

[Jason Ligon]

Tuck is awesome.

"So far, a minority of warmongers and apologists is solid evidence of a humanitarian disaster of unimaginable scale. For one thing, Bush?s argument for war is determined by capitalist interests which lead to the essential Western imperial interests."

Friggin beautiful ....

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I'm pretty sure this Tuck guy taught at my liberal arts college.

[Gadfly]

Toke up and squint your eyes a little and it makes sense...kinda.

[Jon Bristow]

If I squint my eyes and wave my hand in front of my face, it looks a little like Jessica Simpson's derriere.

[Create your own Tuck rant]

http://www.spinline.net/cy/lefterator.pl

[Lisa Simpson]

Will this be on the final, Professor Tuck?

[R C Dean]

Say, Tuck, do Saudis flying airplanes into American buidlings count as "international violence"? How about Syrians and Palestinians planting road bombs in Iraq? Or Iranian proxies cutting off people's heads in Fallujah?

Or is it only "international" violence when Americans do it.

[Dude]

Jon - You need to get out a little more, man!

[Rick Barton]

Tuck:

"Bush?s argument for war is determined by capitalist interests which lead to the essential Western imperial interests."

Wrong! Capitalist interests do not, by course, "lead to the essential Western imperial interests". Imperialism requires government.

[Rick Barton]

"Tuck, do Saudis flying airplanes into American buidlings count as "international violence"?"

Does the Israeli government murdering innocent Palestinian civilians using US tax dollars count, Tuck...or R C?

[c]

Hey: Rick, RC, reread that 3:55 post. You are arguing with a bot.

[BB]

Tuck -- is that a first draft or did you work on it a while. Serious question.

[Jax]

"...throw a spanner in the works..."? Undoubtedly taken from the boot next to the tyre. Where did you learn your sabotage? Manchester?

[Rick Barton]

c,

Wow. Well, I did say before on a previous thread that it would be cool if one of us turned out to be a bot. I was sort of thinking of a more cogent and libertarian bot though. I'll really be impressed if it responds to me.

[Lisa Simpson]

Friends don't let friends read the Washington Times.

[M. Simon]

Funny thing is that the polls showing Bush falling behind (LAT, WaPo) both have samples in which Democrats are over represented.

What this poll is saying is that generaly (not overwhelmingly) Democrats prefer Not Bush.

Duhhhhhhhh.

[John Hensley]

But... aren't wars supposed to GUARANTEE reelection? It worked for Bush the Elder!

I can guarantee that if Bush loses, the next Republican president who orders military action will be met with the same canard. And that it will originate from the same marxists who concocted it the last two times.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Friends don't let friends read the Washington Post.

[Rick Barton]

Lisa Simpson,

For economic freedom issues, and coverage there of, the Washington Times is pretty good. Now remind me; just what is the Washington Post good for?

Full disclosure: I don't read either, although I read Insight on the News sometimes. But I do read articles and op-eds on line from both.

If I want coverage of the war; I go to Antiwar.com for an opposite and far better perspective than Fox's Soviet style "rah rah" reporting for instance. Also, unlike many sources that come from an anti-war point of view, I don't have to wade thru any leftist BS at the libertarian Antiwar.com

If the Washington Post beats up on Bush and Ashcroft for the war and the Patriot Act (do they: the Patriot Act?) that's great, but if they suck on economic stuff (they do, don't they?), well then; they just don't cut it.

Was the WP "taken in" by the neo-con WMD hustle like the NY Times was?... where in the Hell is that liberal media when you need them?