Support for Surge in Iraq Grows
Author: Nate6 Aug
Here is some good news that shows maybe, just maybe the american public understands that we truely are at war and the ramifications of both victory and defeat in Iraq. One reason I am supporting Fred Thompson is because I believe that he could be a Winston Churchill type leader that can unite and communicate directly to the american people the importance of victory. This is an area that Bush has completely failed in my opinion. Our next president needs to have the ability of going over the heads of the media and going directly to the american people. The average american does not feel responsible or connected to this struggle and that must change. All americans have a stake in this struggle and all should be willing to take a role in it.
Recent Comments
- Langley: Yeah, and regardless of his
- Barbara: Michael says: "Choosing Romney solidifies
- Barbara: I've been thinking Romney is
- ChemistryDave: Yea, this sucks. But it
- Sam: The Enquirer actually claims to
- ChemistryDave: Im pretty sure this story
- Oly: I am going to guess
- Langley: I make it clear in
- jim: and let me guess, edwards
- Michael C: Its a crap shoot. But
Categories
- Activism
- Authors
- Campaign 2006
- Campaign 2007
- Campaign 2008
- Campaign 2010
- Campaign Science
- Civil War
- College Republicans
- Conservative Movement
- CPAC 06
- CPAC 2007
- CPAC 2008
- Culture
- Daily Kos Stupidity
- General
- Herman Cain
- Issues
- Local Politics
- Religion
- RINO Watch
- Sports
- Supreme Court
- Tech
- The Site
- UK Politics
- Unions
- White House 2008
Blogroll
- AK's Rapid Fire
- Alarming News
- Alexander Brunk
- Bates Line
- Brain Terminal
- Captain's Quarters
- Carolina Politics Online
- Club for Growth
- ConfirmThem
- GOP3: The Triumvirate
- GrassrootsPA
- Instapundit
- Kansas Progress
- Langley Perry
- Martin Andrade
- Matty N's Blog
- Michelle Malkin
- National Journal's Blogometer
- National Review
- New England Republican
- NoMAR for HIM
- Outside the Beltway
- PA Water Cooler
- Peach Pundit
- Power Line
- Red Jersey
- RedState
- Republican Senate
- Republican Study Committee
- Right Wing News
- Rob Bluey
- See Jane Mom
- Senate Conservatives Fund
- Stromata Blog
- Talk Show American
- The American Mind
- The Columbia Conservative
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
13 Responses for "Support for Surge in Iraq Grows"
I don’t know where to post this, but you people got punked
http://jmhm.livejournal.com/1721512.html
by November of 2008 the war would have already been decided for better or for worse, and even if the iraq war turns for the better, i don’t see the American public supporting any military action in iran because of the ridiculously high cost of the iraq war, so the war on terror will be the down low under the next president unless there is another attack.
Could not disagree more…there are so many similarities between this coming election and the 1968 election. Hillary will be the nominee and is going to be defeated just like Humphrey was on a pro-troops in Iraq but at a lower level platform just like Humphrey.
I disagree, the american public has no stomach for a long and protracted war so by this time next year if there has not been real progress as in massive reduction of voilence throughout the country al qaeda and the PKK on the run (having been in turkey i am very sympathetic to the turks that want the army to go into iraq, but this would be disaster to the united states), there will be an american retreat for better or worse.
We hear this time and again that the American people do not have a stomach for and a long and protracted war…while there is some truth to that, it is historically inaccurate….
Johnson won in 1964 as a pro-war candidate…then Nixon won in 1968…then Nixon won in a landslide in 1972 after more than 10 years invested in the very unpopular Vietnam War.
Lincoln won a majority in 1864 after a protracted war….
Eisenhower defeated Stevenson in 1950 on a pro-war platform in Korea….
Roosevelt won four terms despite a protracted war….
so historically, it is those viewed as defeatists that tend to lose elections despite the length and popularity of the war.
Who got punked? Certainly no one on this blog since we support neither candidate.
Well, you guys were proud of yourself for one-upping the “Blogs for Brownback” people in your little playground fight. One of the main posters there is “Baptists for Brownback” referred to in the article, and their store sells a bumper sticker claiming that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun. Yet, you engaged these people in a serious discussion. Didn’t you realize that the whole thing is a hoax? You took them seriously and they made fools out of you.
with the civil war and world war II both wars had a forgone conclusion by the time of the 1864 and 1944 elections. IT was clear a victory would occur (the souoth was running out of all supplies and the Us and brits were well in euroope with the nazis being defeated by the russians on the eastern front). Iraq is not so clear, the United States could remain in iraq and loose. The korean war of 1950 began during a relatively early period of the war, and only became more unpopular after the election and this is the same with 1964. the 1968 election nixons model was that of phased withdrawl or withdrawl with dignity. and he was benefit by mcgovern being on the far left. so by nov 2008 the iraq would have been raging for longer then anywar except for vietnam, so without an obvious impending victory, i do believe the US will leave.
One point where I will disagree strongly…”Iraq is not so clear, the United States could remain in iraq and lose.”…
Completely disagree. As long as US soldiers are there we cannot lose….think Vietnam. We only lost when the liberals forced us to withdraw.
Okay, publius, if the site is a hoax, so what? The site is meant to elicit outbursts from those who see it (assuming it is a hoax)… none of my statements I made there or here concerning that site were out of bounds or personally damaging - so if their intent was to prompt embarrassing outbursts, they failed in that regard.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming…
The point is that any idiot should have been able to see that it was a hoax! The fact that you attempted to engage them in serious discussion is absurd.
If you’ve been around the blogosphere as long as I have, you know that there are people who are so absurd you think they are caricatures when really they aren’t… yeah, my bad, but have you read some of the junk at Kos, by people who are absolutely serious? I don’t normally respond to that type of stuff, but it was a slow day at the office and I felt like being entertained.
Get over it. I sure have.
Leave a reply