More FactCheck bias

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
http://factcheck.org/article478.html

Either way, the actual numbers of the British poll seem only to bolster the grim conclusions of ABC's.
What is so grim about this? :confused:

Most people say their life is better now.

Most people say they prefer a unified Iraq.

Most people say they themselves haven't been harmed by the violence in Iraq, nor have their family members or close friends.

Most people say Iraq is not in a civil war.

Can anyone explain this? I'd be curious what the exact same poll questions for the US would show.
 

forestal

I'm the Boss of Me
You Republicraps are so full of it....

Maybe we should add the two million Iraqi refugees who have voted with their feet, and left Iraq, to the poll results....

Life Sucks Rocks in Iraq


Calls are growing for Britain and the US to do more for the two million refugees who have fled Iraq since the invasion four years ago.


vraiblonde said:
http://factcheck.org/article478.html


What is so grim about this? :confused:

Most people say their life is better now.

Most people say they prefer a unified Iraq.

Most people say they themselves haven't been harmed by the violence in Iraq, nor have their family members or close friends.

Most people say Iraq is not in a civil war.

Can anyone explain this? I'd be curious what the exact same poll questions for the US would show.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
forestal said:
Maybe we should add the two million Iraqi refugees who have voted with their feet, and left Iraq, to the poll results....
How many Iraqis fled under Saddam? (Hint: there were a lot of them living here in the US when we invaded Iraq in the first place)
 

AndyMarquisLIVE

New Member
vraiblonde said:
How many Iraqis fled under Saddam? (Hint: there were a lot of them living here in the US when we invaded Iraq in the first place)
Forestool thinks we'll all agree with him and jump on the Democratic bandwagon.

Hey forest, I'm a Democrat! I hate Mr. Bush with a passion - but life in Iraq is better than under Saddam.

I'm with you on one thing: I disagree with the premises of why we went to war, but we're stuck there now. Would you rather have Saddam Hussein as our president or do you enjoy democracy? :jet:

Oh wait, forest thinks Mr. Bush is the devil, so...
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Folks...

...you have to understand one simple thing; for most Democrats and for people like our good friend forestal, things can NOT get better in Iraq or their entire house of cards collapses and it becomes, for the history books, that Bush changed the world for the better. Instead of him being a lying criminal, he becomes a liberator.

Consider the Dem position;

It HAD to be better under Saddam.
There can NOT be a legitimate national security reason to invade.
WMD's must NOT have existed in any substantial way.
Civil War and democracy MUST be worse than tyranny and dictatorship.

You'll notice that the true lefties, the self described 'liberals', oppose a war of liberation. They are not interested in gaining the power to make it better. They are not interested in gaining power to make it work. It's not that W messed up a wonderful idea, liberating a people and providing hope for the entire region. It is, it MUST BE that he was WRONG TO TRY. Everything is GET OUT NOW.

The DNC motto should be "Get out now because if this works we're screwed."

Think it through; Democrats position cements the political impossibility of ever launching another war to free anybody for any reason. That's why Hillary is straddling and is in so much hot water with the far left; she's smart enough to know that this may work and that, in any event, it is madness to ever bury the idea of liberation once and for all.

I have railed about the mistakes this administration has made in conducting this war and the one in Afghanistan, not the ideas behind them. The left opposes the ideas themselves and can NOT afford for either to work.

Think about that. You don't even hear folks from the left say "I hope I'm wrong and it does start to work..." All you here is "OUT. OUT. OUT."

It MUST fail from their short sighted political view. It MUST.

I'll be happy to hear that I'm wrong about this. So will the Iraqi people. So will any one living under tyranny who also lives with the hope of a better tomorrow.
 

Coventry17

New Member
Larry Gude said:
You'll notice that the true lefties, the self described 'liberals', oppose a war of liberation

So NOW it's a war to liberate the Iraqi people? The spin here is ridiculous. We invaded Iraq because we told the world that they had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Bush sent Colin Powell, a true patriot and American hero, before the United Nations to lay out the administration's case. I was on an in country exploitation team that went in immediately after the initial invasion that was looking for said stockpiles. The Iraqi people were incidental to the issue. The "liberation card" was only played by the Bush administration after they finally admitted that they based their war on faulty data.

You don't have to be a Democrat or a "leftie" to understand this. I am neither. Actually, I have voted Republican more often than Democrat over the course of my adult life. However, this war is wrong. Nobody here gives a rip about the Iraqi people. You're only parroting Republican spin.
 

Coventry17

New Member
vraiblonde said:
How many Iraqis fled under Saddam? (Hint: there were a lot of them living here in the US when we invaded Iraq in the first place)


How many Americans have fled under Bush? Army desertions are at an all time high.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Coventry17 said:
So NOW it's a war to liberate the Iraqi people? The spin here is ridiculous. We invaded Iraq because we told the world that they had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Bush sent Colin Powell, a true patriot and American hero, before the United Nations to lay out the administration's case. I was on an in country exploitation team that went in immediately after the initial invasion that was looking for said stockpiles. The Iraqi people were incidental to the issue. The "liberation card" was only played by the Bush administration after they finally admitted that they based their war on faulty data.

You don't have to be a Democrat or a "leftie" to understand this. I am neither. Actually, I have voted Republican more often than Democrat over the course of my adult life. However, this war is wrong. Nobody here gives a rip about the Iraqi people. You're only parroting Republican spin.

If there were none, what did they use on the Kurds? On Iranians? I think maybe they were there (like virtually everyone in the world, including Hussein said) and were sent out before we got there? I mean, just because we didn't find them later doesn't mean they weren't there before. Didn't we even give them some????
 

Kerad

New Member
Larry Gude said:
...
...
Think about that. You don't even hear folks from the left say "I hope I'm wrong and it does start to work..."...
.

Interesting. Are you sure about that?
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Kerry on the Today show this morning.. "We are gaining ground, we have to keep up the fight, we have to see it to it's end."



When assked about why keep up the Iraq resolution to PULL OUT, when they know they can't overcome the veto.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Here is some light reading for you...

Coventry17 said:
So NOW it's a war to liberate the Iraqi people?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html


Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

It may well do to refresh your memory. There seems to be quite a few people who don't seem to recall what they voted for.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
No...

Coventry17 said:
You don't have to be a Democrat or a "leftie" to understand this. I am neither. Actually, I have voted Republican more often than Democrat over the course of my adult life. However, this war is wrong. Nobody here gives a rip about the Iraqi people. You're only parroting Republican spin.


...I'm parroting my spin. I've been saying this for years.


So, why is the war wrong?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
That is laughable...

Coventry17 said:
How many Americans have fled under Bush? Army desertions are at an all time high.

...and so far from being anywhere near a fact it's actually not funny.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
No...

Kerad said:
Interesting. Are you sure about that?


...I am not sure and I HOPE I AM WRONG.

I hope millions of Democrats realize just how insane the position of our left is; that wars of liberation are invalid. That we never have the right to invade another country, an enemy, with the intent of making it a better place.

I'm just not hearing it much theses days.

I wrote in here when the anti's got rolling three years ago that for them, this is a no brainer issue and Pelosi even said so when she rose to minority leader;

"I fully support our troops AND our commander in chief"

Further, how simple is this: "The world will be a better place with Saddam and his crew gone and I am in full support of us getting this job done and done well. In the mean time, we also need to focus on this that and the other thing here at home."

Then, you get to say "This administration is a mess and we want to be in charger because we'll get the job done right."

Instead we get "Liar! Criminal! Cut and run! It'll never work! :jameo: "
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Well...

vraiblonde said:
I give up - how many? Tell me how many US citizens have left their country to go live somewhere else.

:tap:


...there is Alec Baldwin...no wait...he's still here.

Does Cap'n Jack Sparrow count? :lmao:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Is the American expatriate population so high that foreign cities have a "UStown" or a "Little America"?

Coventry, help me out here. Give me an education.
 

AndyMarquisLIVE

New Member
Coventry17 said:
So NOW it's a war to liberate the Iraqi people? The spin here is ridiculous. We invaded Iraq because we told the world that they had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Bush sent Colin Powell, a true patriot and American hero, before the United Nations to lay out the administration's case. I was on an in country exploitation team that went in immediately after the initial invasion that was looking for said stockpiles. The Iraqi people were incidental to the issue. The "liberation card" was only played by the Bush administration after they finally admitted that they based their war on faulty data.

You don't have to be a Democrat or a "leftie" to understand this. I am neither. Actually, I have voted Republican more often than Democrat over the course of my adult life. However, this war is wrong. Nobody here gives a rip about the Iraqi people. You're only parroting Republican spin.
OK, say it's a few months after 9-11. The CIA gives you soomething saying, "Mr. Bush, Saddam is developing WMD and selling them to terrorists."

What would you do?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Coventry17 said:
So NOW it's a war to liberate the Iraqi people? The spin here is ridiculous. We invaded Iraq because we told the world that they had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Bush sent Colin Powell, a true patriot and American hero, before the United Nations to lay out the administration's case. I was on an in country exploitation team that went in immediately after the initial invasion that was looking for said stockpiles. The Iraqi people were incidental to the issue. The "liberation card" was only played by the Bush administration after they finally admitted that they based their war on faulty data.

You don't have to be a Democrat or a "leftie" to understand this. I am neither. Actually, I have voted Republican more often than Democrat over the course of my adult life. However, this war is wrong. Nobody here gives a rip about the Iraqi people. You're only parroting Republican spin.
Spin?

Ever read this?
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled
 
Top