Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

POLL: 67 Percent Of Congressional GOP Say No Iraq Exit Even If War Hasn’t Improved By September

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-11-07 03:51 PM
Original message
POLL: 67 Percent Of Congressional GOP Say No Iraq Exit Even If War Hasn’t Improved By September
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/11/iraq-september/

POLL: 67 Percent Of Congressional GOP Say No Iraq Exit Even If War Hasn’t Improved By September

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said this week, “By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B.” His remarks were echoed by Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS).

But a new National Journal “Congressional Insiders Poll,” which surveyed 124 members of Congress, finds that the September deadline may not mean much to war supporters.

Fully 67 percent of congressional Republicans say that even if conditions in Iraq have not improved significantly by September, Congress will still not pass legislation withdrawing U.S. forces out of Iraq. They give reasons such as, “Democrats will try, but fail,” and “No complete withdrawal can occur without Al Qaeda setting up a safe haven.”

Question: If the political and military situation in Iraq has not significantly improved by September, will Congress enact legislation to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq?



In contrast, 59 percent of congressional Democrats said they believe Congress will pass withdrawal legislation if conditions don’t improve.

Also, unlike their GOP counterparts, the Democratic members who say Congress will not pass withdrawal legislation say they feel this way because they don’t believe enough war supporters will buck President Bush — not because they oppose the idea of withdrawal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-11-07 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. More AMMO for '08
Keep going this way and all these folks are going to have a very NASTY surprise in the next election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-11-07 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm becoming more convinced that the "watershed meeting" was a ploy
It allows the *moderate* Repugs to "SAY" they tried to convince * to withdraw troops, when in actuality they're still pro-war. The ONLY thing they care about is their OWN RE-ELECTIONS, not stopping the war or SAVING THE TROOPS' LIVES.

Cynical, scheming bastards ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-11-07 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Two Thirds Of the Republican Contingent, Ma'am, is Not enough To Block Anything
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-11-07 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is just the neo-con version of
the "Domino Theory" whereby all of the Far East is going to become Communist if we don't stop them in Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia ... etc., etc., etc. It's almost 40 years later and the "Communists" are not a threat to anyone. In fact most of our manufactured goods and a crapload of our food additives now come from a Communist country, namely China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-11-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. "Terrorism" replaced "communism" as the great boogieman
When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the conservatives had no more boogieman with which to scare the American public. No boogieman meant no fear and no fear meant no bloated defense contracts. So the military/industrial guys decided to unleash...terrorism! The bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 could have been another FBI setup job, just like the Fort Dix fiasco of late:

Allegations of FBI foreknowledge
In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad A. Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. <4> He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers; reported by Ralph Blumenthal in the New York Times, Oct. 28, 1993, secton A,Page 1.

In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office, denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks. The 1993 WTC sting operation was depicted as a false flag operation and was a plot device for the 1996 movie The Long Kiss Goodnight with Geena Davis.


wikipedia

Gotta keep the 'Murkans scared and begging to exchange their civil rights and tax dollars for "security!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC