Fox gives less attention to Iraq war study shows

[Kevin]

So you disagree with what they're doing, yet you support them?

Again, that seems to be a contradictory statement.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

People disagree about the war, thats fine. However when you refer to Bush in that manner (that we "knew what he was capable of"), you lose legitimacy.

As someone who has never been a fan or supporter of Bush (and who never voted for him), I actually agree with you. I may not agree with many of the policies he has pursued or the way he has gone about pursuing them, but that kind of knee-jerk reaction to Bush is, in my opinion, just as lacking in any real thought as the knee-jerk reactions to Bill Clinton were. It gets an immediate discounting of credibility from me.

Originally Posted by Kevin

How about the Demos who voted to make Kerry the Democrat nominee? If y'all had actually put forward a candidate who was worth a crap, maybe things would be different.

Again, I find myself in agreement.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

ok...apparently i have offended a few people on here, and for that i am sorry you feel the way you do. i am looking at this from probably a more emotional POV than others are. i have family and friends in this war. i was blessed to have some of them return safely, and then go BACK and come home injured. and then this same goverment is not taking care of our injured troops the way it should be and that is a FACT.

I have two very close family members that served in the Special Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would have absolutely loved for you to have come up to me or my aunts and uncles and told all of us that we effectively killed our cousins/sons because we voted for Bush. I can't think of a more heinous thing to say to someone. Frankly, you should be embarassed....especially considering the fact that you are a mother with children.

As for government aid for injured troops.....it appears to me that the Pentagon is slowly but surely improving upon their ways to increase aid to the injured, so I'll leave that alone. Those men deserve the best, no doubt.

IMO, if you voted to KEEP GW in the white house the 2nd time around, and you knew what he was capable of, you are part of the problem. If you are not doing or have not done anything within your reach to bring these men and women back home, you are partly (not 100%) responsible for whatever happens. i will cut slack for anyone who voted for GW the first time, because nobody knew what was going to happen. but the 2nd time around?? i dont think so.

Well apparently the majority of America is "part of the problem" then because that is exactly who voted him into office "the 2nd time around" (first time a majority popular vote has occurred since 1988). Frankly, I had no idea in 2003/2004 what was going to happen in Iraq. I'm pretty certain that I hadn't learned how to predict the future just yet. I am certain though that, at the time, I was very impressed by the fact that we managed to bring down the Iraqi Government, its military, and secure its oil infrastructure with minimal damage in a reasonably short amount of time. Evidently quite a few people felt the same way because he was riding close to a 70% approval rating going into the 2004 Elections, if I remember correctly.

Let me ask you this......what have you done that is so incredibly special that you are free from any blame or "responsibility" for whatever happens in Iraq? Please don't say, "well I didn't vote for Bush"...because that is an extraordinary cop-out. Seriously though, what have you done? Are you standing on the Capitol steps day in and day out demanding that the government bring our troops home? Are you traveling to Iraq and personally taking people back home with you? Really, I'd like to know....because I sure as hell hope you have done something special enough that allows you to place blame and "responsibility" on others. As for me, I pray for our troops, for their safe return, and that the conflict will be resolved in a manner that will benefit all sides....hopefully sooner than later. If that isn't enough for you, I don't really give a damn.....but guess what......those guys aren't coming home until the powers that be feel that it is absolutely necessary.

In all honesty though, when it really comes down to it........maybe y'all should have put up a better opponent than John Kerry. If the same two men were up against each again this coming election.......I'd still vote for Bush. I think many, many people would willingly share the same sentiments.

i get mentally exhausted looking at obit after obit of these children being sent home in wooden boxes. as a mother it breaks my heart to see someone bury their child. that is pretty much my angle with things.

eta: i am not worthless. my vote counted as much as yours did in that election.....

[OneTimeSBX]

pray tell, Macallen...whose fault is it then?

@kevin, i dont have to agree with what the troops are overseas doing, positive or negative, every single one deserves to come home safe. if they were overseas rebuilding after a natural disaster, i want them home safe. if they were overseas killing innocent people, i want them home safe. its not contradictory.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

pray tell, Macallen...whose fault is it then?

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter, which is "who can I blame for this." For starters, you can blame Iraq for violating numerous UN resolutions. You can blame the UN for not taking affirmative action. You can blame various intelligence agencies around the globe which reached the same conclusions. You can blame the huge majority of American people who supported the war, and the majority of legislators who voted for it. You can blame the administration for listening to these sources, and not having the foresight to anticipate what has happened. You can can blame the other countries who were originally involved, and you can blame the military personnel who made the decision to join the armed forces.

All of this, however, accomplishes nothing.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

pray tell, Macallen...whose fault is it then?

durrrrrrrrrrrrr if you think somebody has done something 'wrong', why wouldn't you blame that person?

Laying blame at the feet of the 'enablers' (who in this case had no foresight nor real control over the situation) is just as shady as blaming people who did not actively prevent a situation.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

pray tell, Macallen...whose fault is it then?

I don't know who's fault it is......and frankly, I'm not sure anyone does. You could list a boat load of people who could be found at fault. Voters, Congressmen, the UN Security Council, the Iraqi government, the CIA, foreign intelligence agencies, other foreign governments, etc. etc. (basically everyone that Shinerbock mentioned).

What I do know is that presenting an argument/belief in which you claim that the Republican party and the voters who elected George W. Bush are solely responsible for the diminishing situation in Iraq and the death of thousands of American Soldiers is, not only baseless, but appears to be nothing more than an easy way out for uninformed Liberals looking to attack Conservatives.

Speaking of responsibility.....again, I ask you what you have done? Haha, can you not answer my question from the last post? You are so quick to tell me who is "part of the problem" and who is to blame.....but when I turn it around on you......you side step it like it was a land mine.

@kevin, i dont have to agree with what the troops are overseas doing, positive or negative, every single one deserves to come home safe. if they were overseas rebuilding after a natural disaster, i want them home safe. if they were overseas killing innocent people, i want them home safe. its not contradictory.

Well, usually when you support someone.....you support whatever it is that they are involved in.

[Rudey]

Many supported the war. Many did not support the way it was carried out. Many also do not support the fact that we are providing charity and suffering for it.

I think that's the Christian thing to do - get slapped on one cheek and offer the other for a good slap. I'd seriously re-think that philosophy, but hey I leave that to you guys.

As for the actual topic of this thread, it's an irrelevant statement isn't it? Does CNN provide a lot of coverage on positive events (as limited as they may be) in Iraq? No. Does that indicate perhaps that they're against success in Iraq?

-Rudey

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Well apparently the majority of America is "part of the problem" then because that is exactly who voted him into office "the 2nd time around" (first time a majority popular vote has occurred since 1988).

Would that you were right, because that would mean that almost all voting-age Americans actually voted. It's true that the majority of those who voted, voted for Bush. But unfortunately, only a bare majority of eligible Americans voted at all, putting those who voted for Bush at around 25%-30% of voting-age Americans.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by macallan25

You know what? No buddy, I won't. I find that post ridiculously offensive and extremely uncalled for. Sweet God, can we go one day without someone exhibiting 8th level nerd tendencies by bitching about TOS "violations"? What's next, are you going to start calling for e-tickets and fines? This is an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD......chill out.

I'll stand by my comment.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

I'll stand by my comment.

Get over yourself.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Would that you were right, because that would mean that almost all voting-age Americans actually voted. It's true that the majority of those who voted, voted for Bush. But unfortunately, only a bare majority of eligible Americans voted at all, putting those who voted for Bush at around 25%-30% of voting-age Americans.

Still doesn't take away from the fact that he had a large amount of support. We don't know which way the non-voters would have gone, so I find that somewhat irrelevant.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Still doesn't take away from the fact that he had a large amount of support. We don't know which way the non-voters would have gone, so I find that somewhat irrelevant.

It is irrelevant if your statement is that Bush had a large amount of support and that he received more votes than anyone else and a majority of the votes cast. That's quite true.

But if you're going to say, as you did, "the majority of America is 'part of the problem' then because that is exactly who voted him into office 'the 2nd time around,'" it's quite relevant because that statement is inaccurate -- the majority of America did not vote for Bush because only about 55% of eligible voters actually voted at all. More people didn't vote for anyone than voted for Bush.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise. Bush won the election because most people who voted saw him as the better choice compared to Kerry. Bush did get a majority of the popular vote. And as I said, while I am not a Bush fan, I have little patience with the knee-jerk reaction that too many have for him.

My point was more to comment on the apathy of way too many Americans, as well as to clarify that it was a majority of voters rather than a majority of Americans who voted for Bush, than to suggest that Bush didn't really have that much support in the 2004 election.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It is irrelevant if your statement is that Bush had a large amount of support and that he received more votes than anyone else and a majority of the votes cast. That's quite true.

But if you're going to say, as you did, "the majority of America is 'part of the problem' then because that is exactly who voted him into office 'the 2nd time around,'" it's quite relevant because that statement is inaccurate -- the majority of America did not vote for Bush because only about 55% of eligible voters actually voted at all. More people didn't vote for anyone than voted for Bush.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise. Bush won the election because most people who voted saw him as the better choice compared to Kerry. Bush did get a majority of the popular vote. And as I said, while I am not a Bush fan, I have little patience with the knee-jerk reaction that too many have for him.

My point was more to comment on the apathy of way too many Americans, as well as to clarify that it was a majority of voters rather than a majority of Americans who voted for Bush, than to suggest that Bush didn't really have that much support in the 2004 election.

Well, I realize this is getting theory-heavy here, but still . . .

-If the premise is that people who vote for Bush are "part of the problem" or "responsible" for later actions, it's not hard for me to think that there is some sort of analog whereby people who stand by the wayside and don't vote are somehow similarly "responsible" for being pathetic douche bags who take no ownership or responsibility for their own welfare and their nation. In short: if you're going to say those who did vote for Bush have blood on their hands, unless you want to really fall victim to the fallacy of Monday morning quarterbacking you'd almost have to argue that those who didn't actively work against Bush have the same blood on their hands. With this comparison, I think it's easy to see why I think the whole discussion becomes ridiculous.

-Additionally, there is no reason to think the non-voting population is distributed differently from the voting population, is there? So while you're correct that the statement "the majority of America voted for Bush" is technically incorrect, the spirit is still very relevant: America slightly preferred Bush to Kerry, making a vast number of people "responsible" under the earlier claims of unclean hands. If you combine this with the above point, it would certainly appear that the 'majority' of Americans would have blood on their hands, according to OneTimeSBX, no?

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It is irrelevant if your statement is that Bush had a large amount of support and that he received more votes than anyone else and a majority of the votes cast. That's quite true.

But if you're going to say, as you did, "the majority of America is 'part of the problem' then because that is exactly who voted him into office 'the 2nd time around,'" it's quite relevant because that statement is inaccurate -- the majority of America did not vote for Bush because only about 55% of eligible voters actually voted at all. More people didn't vote for anyone than voted for Bush.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise. Bush won the election because most people who voted saw him as the better choice compared to Kerry. Bush did get a majority of the popular vote. And as I said, while I am not a Bush fan, I have little patience with the knee-jerk reaction that too many have for him.

My point was more to comment on the apathy of way too many Americans, as well as to clarify that it was a majority of voters rather than a majority of Americans who voted for Bush, than to suggest that Bush didn't really have that much support in the 2004 election.

I see what you are saying......good call. I didn't really even think about the fact that it was a pretty low year for voter turnout.

I do agree with RC though, excellent post.