Poll Shows Most Americans Sympathetic To Cheney

[Warham]

Poll Shows Most Americans Sympathetic To Cheney
Monday, November 28, 2005 By Chris Cillizza and Peter Slevin The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Dick Cheney’s suggestion that criticism of the administration’s war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney’s point.

Seventy percent of people said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale while 21 percent say it helps morale.

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush’s Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to “gain a partisan political advantage.”

This poll is one of the few pieces of supportive news the administration has had lately on Iraq. Most surveys have shown significant majorities believe it was a mistake to go to war, as well as rising sentiment that Bush misled Americans in making the case for it.

Even so, there is still support for Bush’s policy going forward. A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.

The poll results came from calls made to 1,001 adults from Nov. 17-20. The margin of error is 3.1 percent.

http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=255423&Category=23

[LoungeMachine]

Go Fuck yourself, Mr. Cheney

[LoungeMachine]

November 26, 2005 latimes.com :

Cheney's history needs a revise

TIM RUTTEN

IF the debate over the war in Iraq now raging across our front pages and airwaves proves nothing else, it already has demonstrated that this administration believes the people's attention span can be measured in nanoseconds and that memory has the shelf life of fresh bread.

Take, for example, this week's astonishingly revelatory public statements by Vice President Dick Cheney and Porter J. Goss, the director of central intelligence:



Monday, Cheney told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute that anyone who suggested that President Bush or anyone in his administration had made the case for invading Iraq by distorting or exaggerating prewar intelligence on Saddam Hussein's purported possession of biological or nuclear weapons was guilty of historical "revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety."

According to the vice president, "any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false" and the product of a "self-defeating pessimism."

Really.

Just 24 hours earlier, The Times' Bob Drogin and John Goetz had described in vivid and convincing detail how the administration exaggerated and recklessly misused intelligence concerning Hussein's alleged manufacture of biological weapons that was provided by the now notorious Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball." (Who says spooks don't have a sense of humor?) As Drogin and Goetz reported, Curveball's handlers in Germany, where he sought political asylum, repeatedly warned their American counterparts that their informant was an unreliable — possibly unstable — fabricator. Still, both Bush and then Secretary of State Colin L. Powell incorporated his fantasies into their arguments for war. Conscientious CIA agents who had tried to blow the whistle on a deceit the administration found deliciously convenient were dispatched to windowless offices without telephones.

Cheney's reasons for ignoring these facts — and for hanging the politically charged "revisionist" epithet around the necks of those who refuse to go along — are pretty clear. A wide spectrum of public opinion surveys now shows that more than half the American people already believe that the war in Iraq is a mistake and that the president misled them to justify the invasion. The vice president and his allies within the administration were the war's most forceful advocates, and a recent Newsweek poll found that just 29% of Americans think Cheney is either honest or ethical.



SO why put him out front to make the administration's case? As the Weekly Standard's William Kristol put it: "His numbers have dropped and he is probably not the best messenger to independents and swing voters, but in terms of managing an argument, he is good at it and his style lends itself to it."

Right.

This isn't about getting to the truth concerning our headlong plunge into the Iraqi quagmire — and, yes, it's time to revive that word — it's about winning an argument that has put the president's poll numbers into freefall.

And that brings us to the CIA's Goss, who this week told USA Today: "This agency does not torture. We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information, and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways, all of which are legal and none of which are torture."

Fortunately, some of the people forced to work for Goss have consciences stronger than their stomachs. The interrogation techniques they described to ABC News don't sound particularly "innovative or unique," though they do sound exactly like torture. For example, there's "shaking or striking" prisoners to cause pain and fear. Then there's forcing a prisoner with shackled hands and feet to stand upright for as long as 40 hours. Others are placed naked in freezing cells and periodically doused with cold water.

The best, though, is something called "waterboarding," which ABC's CIA sources described this way: "The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."

Wednesday, in an editorial that went right to the point, the Washington Post wondered: "Are these techniques 'not torture,' as Mr. Goss claims? In fact, several of them have been practiced by repressive regimes around the world, and they once were routinely condemned by the State Department in its annual human rights reports. By insisting that they are not torture, Mr. Goss sets a new standard — both for the treatment of detainees by other governments and for the handling of captive Americans. If an American pilot is captured in the Middle East, then beaten, held naked in a cold cell and subjected to simulated drowning, will Mr. Goss say he has not been tortured?"

Does it matter?

Apparently it does to other people in the CIA. As the New York Times reported Thursday, one of the major reasons the government lessened the charges against alleged terrorist Jose Padilla — who the administration initially said plotted to set off a so-called dirty bomb inside the United States — was that the chief witnesses against him have been tortured. They are two senior two Al Qaeda leaders, Abu Zubeida and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, currently being held in secret by the U.S. government.

According to the New York Times, the CIA inspector general found Mohammed, reputed mastermind of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, "had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning in the first months after his capture."

Apparently the paperwork on that never made it to Goss' desk, so he never got the opportunity to brief Cheney. Maybe when he does, he also can bring the vice president up to speed on that irritating Curveball problem.



MORE than anyone else in this administration, Cheney and Goss have rhetorically upped the ante and made clear the critical domestic issue that also is at stake in America's intensifying foreign policy debate over the Iraqi war.

Nearly 40 years ago, Nobel laureate Czeslaw Milosz — whose 1953 book, "The Captive Mind," remains an unmatched account of the evils attendant on intellectual accommodation to political expediency — began his poem "Incantation" with these lines:






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTINUED

[LoungeMachine]

Cheney's history needs a revise



Page 2 of 2


Human reason is beautiful and invincible.

No bars, no barbed wire, no pulping of books,



No sentence of banishment can prevail against it.

It establishes the universal ideas in language,

And guides our hand so we write Truth and Justice

With capital letters, lie and

oppression with small.





Was there ever a better reproach to the linguistic evasions of our home-grown torturers, their accomplices and apologists? Was there ever a more urgent need for the American news media to recover Edward R. Murrow's disdain for that faux fairness that "gives the word of Judas equal weight with that of Jesus"?

Properly punctuating the past is not revisionism. Sane and mature societies — no less than individuals — accept that they have an obligation to parse what was as a way to understand more clearly what is. We do not overstate when we describe this as a moral duty. History, after all, is our collective memory, though we also must recognize that — even with the best of wills — it inevitably is selective and fallible.

That's why Cheney is right about at least one thing: Deliberately falsifying history for mere political advantage is a particularly noxious social perversion. It is, to borrow, his stingingly apt adjective, "reprehensible."

But candid recollection and sober reflection do not amount to revisionism — unless, of course, you're already committed to self-deception and determined to convince others to live with your lie.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine


As the Weekly Standard's William Kristol put it: "His numbers have dropped and he is probably not the best messenger to independents and swing voters, but in terms of managing an argument, he is good at it and his style lends itself to it."

The vice president and his allies within the administration were the war's most forceful advocates, and a recent Newsweek poll found that just 29% of Americans think Cheney is either honest or ethical.

[blueturk]

That's right...another quote! Put the fucking chickenhawk in his place, John...

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

John Murtha, Nov. 17 2005

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by blueturk
That's right...another quote! Put the fucking chickenhawk in his place, John...

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

John Murtha, Nov. 17 2005

Here it is for you NeoCon shitbag Chickenhawks with your heads so far up your asses you can't see very well


"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

[Cathedral]

That's nice, rebutt a poll of 1,001 people with an article from 1.
The poll supports what i have said since the first partisan attack was thrown while claiming support for the troops.

I concluded a long time ago that my idea of supporting the troops differes greatly from those of a Liberal mindset.

All the Democrats have done is waste yet another opportunity to gain support by staying on the course of hatred and short sidedness when answers and issue are what the public wanted addressed.

Here's how it goes:
Q: What is your plan in dealing with Iraq, how would you handle things?

A: Bush got us into this war based on lies and it is a quagmire, like Vietnam. he should be honest with the people and tell them the intel was faulty and apologise.

Not word for word, but basically ALL i hear from the left. many accusations or in some cases, pointing out the obvious...but NO ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION, WHAT WILL YOU DO?

This poll says more than what was asked, it says that the people are turning against you yet again because you don't know how to do anything but piss and moan. excuse me, but that doesn't qualify as a Direction when it comes to running this country.

I have persoanlly heard the same Anti-Bush rhetoric spread over and over and over again, but what in God's name do you Democrats offer as an alternative, seriously, it's time to answer the damn question at hand, WHAT WILL YOU DO, WHAT ALTERNATIVES DO YOU OFFER?

I honestly believe the party can't answer that question without further alienating its own base because your answer is NOT the answer mainstream America will support.
Tell ya a secret, most of them think like Kucinich, that's why nothing but deflection happens when this question arises.

So, go ahead and remain silent, it saves the Republican Party time and money by watching you self destruct all on your own.

The attacks worked for a minute, but that was 5 minutes ago. you could say that the Democrats platform is "A day late and a dollar short".
Too many eggs were placed in the basket of the fed up conservatives because they, like myself, may have abandoned Bush, but you had nothing to offer us while we were in the middle so we ended up back with our party looking at who will be the next Republican Prez in '08.

You were warned, hatred only gets you the attention, but you fail to hold that attention for your own benefit...Democrats are dysfunctional and unable to communicate among one another...It's like a modern Babylon, you don't even understand yourselves.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by blueturk
That's right...another quote! Put the fucking chickenhawk in his place, John...

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

John Murtha, Nov. 17 2005

Have you been there?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
[B]Here it is for you NeoCon shitbag Chickenhawks with your heads so far up your asses you can't see very well

Yeah, name calling makes your points more valid, maybe on the playground in elementary school that works, but not when it comes to leading a nation or debating among adults.

Babble, babble, babble, babble, that's all i heard, bro.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Cathedral
That's nice, rebutt a poll of 1,001 people with an article from 1.
.

The Newsweek poll showing a vast majority of Americans think Cheney is dishonest was from only 1 person?

Who knew

Cheney's action and words have done more to harm our troops and put them in further danger than the entire Democratic Party, Cat.

Besides, I thought you left[again]

I love you, man, you know that, but Cheney is pure evil.

I don't argue that the Dems haven't done enough to stop this shit, but then they don't control a single body either.

Your support of this administration and it's policies of late is disturbing to me, as I've grown to admire and respect your central positions.

Bummer

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Yeah, name calling makes your points more valid, maybe on the playground in elementary school that works, but not when it comes to leading a nation or debating among adults.

Babble, babble, babble, babble, that's all i heard, bro.

Dude, seriously, I gave up on meaningful adult conversations in here about the 20th time I was called fucking scum by ELVIS

You, me, and Warpig talking over beers? Lively yet polite and respectful.

Spamming Cheney threads in here? NO HOLDS BARRED.

Roth on, Catheter

[FORD]

Uncle Dick has 19% approval. So exactly which "most Americans" do you mean?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
Uncle Dick has 19% approval. So exactly which "most Americans" do you mean?

FAUX viewers on Oxycontin

[Cathedral]

I'm not defending Cheney, don't misunderstand what i'm saying here, fellas.
I defend the troops and the bottom line is that they are effected by what is said in Washington. It's hard to remember that while the soap box feels so comfortable, but damn, I know from talking with soldiers every chance i get that what is said is damaging to them and what they are doing over there.

Murtha retired in 1990, so his "I was there" bullshit doesn't wash with me. and sorry, but a trip where he isn't in uniform or engaging the enemy, it holds no credence with me.
I respect the man for his service to this country, but i have none for him as a politician, and after his proposal to practice cowardice by cutting and running...his influence on the troops is more powerful than any suit who's never served and he should show restraint in what comes out of his mouth.

But the fact is, we don't approve of Cheney, but we do agree with his view of how all this partisan bullshit affects the troops in battle, so let's not confuse the two issues, k?

This is not a tree with no limbs, you cannot go straight up and down without coming across a branch that goes in another direction.
Cheney's approval rating has nothing to do with people agreeing that the rhetoric is harmful to our soldiers, period.

Oh, and why am i here? because Dr. love knows me better than anyone i reckon, lol.