NationStates Jolt Archive

Who knew? (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Provoking%20War.htm) This certainly hasn't been a talking point or on the op-ed pages, either for the left or the right--it's something that people have just come to on their own.

June 23, 2005--Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans say that President Bush is more responsible for starting the War with Iraq than Saddam Hussein. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% take the opposite view and believe Hussein shoulders most of the responsibility.

In late 2002, months before the fighting began, most Americans thought that Hussein was the one provoking the War. Just one-in-four thought the President was doing the provoking at that time.

The split is pretty predictable--along party lines--but there's trouble for Bush among independents, who blame him 52-34. That's also who's been largely responsible for his overall poor approval ratings.

Bush - 49%
Saddam - 44%

Where's the other 7%?

But what about 9/11?

They started it you know.

Bush - 49%
Saddam - 44%

Where's the other 7%?
Undecided? Don't know? You got me.

Where's the other 7%?
The other 7% think the Canadians did it.

But what about 9/11?

They started it you know.

Who the The Man?
It wasn't Saddam who started 9/11, ask Syria and Suadi Arabia (most of the terrorist involved in 9/11 came from there)

But what about 9/11?

They started it you know.

Bin Laden caused the US Military to bomb Iraq? I never knew Osama had those kind of powers.

Who the The Man?
It wasn't Saddam who started 9/11, ask Syria and Suadi Arabia (most of the terrorist involved in 9/11 came from there)

I will never believe you no matter how much evidence you present to support your argument.

I will never believe you no matter how much evidence you present to support your argument.

How about the fact that we attacked Afghanistan first. Also if you refuse to acknowledge facts then you refuse to acknowledge reality and are living in your own little world like a number of critics of the war suggest

How about the fact that we attacked Afghanistan first. Also if you refuse to acknowledge facts then you refuse to acknowledge reality and are living in your own little world like a number of critics of the war suggest

What, just because I haven't been brainwashed by the liberal media?

How about the fact that we attacked Afghanistan first. Also if you refuse to acknowledge facts then you refuse to acknowledge reality and are living in your own little world like a number of critics of the war suggest

I can't believe that didn't tip you off that he's being sarcastic and/or trolling...

Who knew? (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Provoking%20War.htm) This certainly hasn't been a talking point or on the op-ed pages, either for the left or the right--it's something that people have just come to on their own.



The split is pretty predictable--along party lines--but there's trouble for Bush among independents, who blame him 52-34. That's also who's been largely responsible for his overall poor approval ratings.


Bush is not running for re-election and doesn't need to worry about his popularity in the polls, not that he worried before the last election so, how is there trouble for Bush among independants? What trouble? What are they going to do, be really angry at him?

More Americans blame Bush than Hussein for war.


Duh.
It's not like he invaded us.

I am at a complete loss as to how 44% of America can believe that the guy who was attacked was responsible for the war.

Man... wouldn't want these guys within 100 feet of a courthouse
Judge-Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, have you reached a verdict?
Jury-We have your honor. We find the victim.... guilty!
Judge-You are aware that the defendant brutally attacked the victim, trying to kill him, his family, and take over his house and business? And you're saying the victim was responsible for all this?
Jury-We are your honor.

sheesh.

What, just because I haven't been brainwashed by the liberal media?

lol.. you've been brainwashed by bush more than anything

How about the fact that we attacked Afghanistan first. Also if you refuse to acknowledge facts then you refuse to acknowledge reality and are living in your own little world like a number of critics of the war suggest
I think he's pulling your leg, judging from that sentence.

I am at a complete loss as to how 44% of America can believe that the guy who was attacked was responsible for the war.

Man... wouldn't want these guys within 100 feet of a courthouse
Judge-Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, have you reached a verdict?
Jury-We have your honor. We find the victim.... guilty!
Judge-You are aware that the defendant brutally attacked the victim, trying to kill him, his family, and take over his house and business? And you're saying the victim was responsible for all this?
Jury-We are your honor.

sheesh.


Something tells me that it would end up as an SNL script within an hour.

Bush is not running for re-election and doesn't need to worry about his popularity in the polls, not that he worried before the last election so, how is there trouble for Bush among independants? What trouble? What are they going to do, be really angry at him?

Well trouble for Bush really means trouble for the Republican Party. Unless Bushis found doing something illegal in whitch case his low approval rates could cause him to be kicked out of office.

What, just because I haven't been brainwashed by the liberal media?

Just as you have been brainwashed by the conservative media? Please, I rarely watch news stations as most of them suck.

I can't believe that didn't tip you off that he's being sarcastic and/or trolling...

I have little trust or faith in humanity so I wouldn't find it hard to believe he is serious.

I am at a complete loss as to how 44% of America can believe that the guy who was attacked was responsible for the war.

Man... wouldn't want these guys within 100 feet of a courthouse
Judge-Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, have you reached a verdict?
Jury-We have your honor. We find the victim.... guilty!
Judge-You are aware that the defendant brutally attacked the victim, trying to kill him, his family, and take over his house and business? And you're saying the victim was responsible for all this?
Jury-We are your honor.

sheesh.

That's a poor analogy.

It wasn't Saddam who started 9/11, ask Syria and Suadi Arabia (most of the terrorist involved in 9/11 came from there)

True, fifteen were Saudi Arabian, but the others were Egyptian, Lebanese, and United Arab Eremites citizens. Yes, I’m nitpicky.

That's a poor analogy.
If they didn't have false analogies, they would need prozac

This is an awkward pole, considering it is not subject to opinion, but rather cold facts. Bush set a clear ultimatum, and that was for Saddam to leave Iraq in 48. He did not, so Bush attacked. Saddam is responsible for bringing the war on himself.

This is an awkward pole, considering it is not subject to opinion, but rather cold facts. Bush set a clear ultimatum, and that was for Saddam to leave Iraq in 48. He did not, so Bush attacked. Saddam is responsible for bringing the war on himself.

So, if I say you have to leave your house in 48 hours or I'm going to kill you, can I get off on self-defense?

This is an awkward pole, considering it is not subject to opinion, but rather cold facts. Bush set a clear ultimatum, and that was for Saddam to leave Iraq in 48. He did not, so Bush attacked. Saddam is responsible for bringing the war on himself.

Who gave Bush the right to demand that Saddam leave his country? Actually this sounds a lot like the Supreme Court decision everyone is talking about only it's Bush doing it.

Well trouble for Bush really means trouble for the Republican Party. Unless Bushis found doing something illegal in whitch case his low approval rates could cause him to be kicked out of office.

I have thought about trouble for the Reps in the next election and I don't think there will be much shift. Yeah, they aren't doing such a hot job, basically they are political cowards. On the other hand, the Dems have been offering a big fat nothing to people other than yelling, "Look at the Reps! They are doing a bad job!" Well, that isn't going to win an election. They spend their time blocking just about everything and coming up with very few new ideas, again political cowardice.
Both parties are geared toward political cowardice, actually doing something is risky!
As far as the poll goes, sure, logically you can blame Bush for the start of the war much more than you can blame Hussein, Bush made the decision to go to war. But this has no bearing whatsoever as to wether the war was justified or not and really, justification is not going to change anything either. Nations go to war, that is what they do, that is what they have always done. To expect something else from nations is very unrealistic.

First: What liberal media? How on earth can something be liberal when it is owned by ultra-conservative millionaires and all it does is tailor to Bush's every wish?

Second: Bush gave Saddam an ULTIMATUM and you say Saddam was responsible because he didn't fold? Jeez, I'm not one to side with people like Saddam but WTF?! Hmmm... Who else in history gave an ultimatum... AH YES! Hitler. Hitler gave both the Czechs and the Poles ultimatums: Fork over your country or I'll take it from you. Bush did the same thing. So, in your mind, would you say that the Polish defenders, and not the Nazi aggressors, were responsible for WWII? Your logic, or lackthereof, is most confusing.

First: What liberal media? How on earth can something be liberal when it is owned by ultra-conservative millionaires and all it does is tailor to Bush's every wish?

Second: Bush gave Saddam an ULTIMATUM and you say Saddam was responsible because he didn't fold? Jeez, I'm not one to side with people like Saddam but WTF?! Hmmm... Who else in history gave an ultimatum... AH YES! Hitler. Hitler gave both the Czechs and the Poles ultimatums: Fork over your country or I'll take it from you. Bush did the same thing. So, in your mind, would you say that the Polish defenders, and not the Nazi aggressors, were responsible for WWII? Your logic, or lackthereof, is most confusing.

The Hitler card is in play! Of course, this is a thread about Bush so it was only a matter of time.

Hmm, Murdock, check conservative millionaire with media company.
Ted Turner, liberal millionaire with media company.

Seems balanced to me.

I am at a complete loss as to how 44% of America can believe that the guy who was attacked was responsible for the war.

Man... wouldn't want these guys within 100 feet of a courthouse
Judge-Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, have you reached a verdict?
Jury-We have your honor. We find the victim.... guilty!
Judge-You are aware that the defendant brutally attacked the victim, trying to kill him, his family, and take over his house and business? And you're saying the victim was responsible for all this?
Jury-We are your honor.

sheesh.

Can I hire these guys if I ever commit a crime. They make good jury for defendants :)

The Hitler card is in play! Of course, this is a thread about Bush so it was only a matter of time.

The hitler card was going to come down sooner or later, because frankly in this instance it is a valid comparison. Hitler is considered by history to have started the war with Poland, regardless of the fact that he sent them an ultimadum to fork over the Danzig corridor.

Bush started the war, regardless of the fact that he sent Saddam an ultimadum to get out.

The person who starts a war is just that - the person who freaking started the war! Whoever ordered the first troops to move in, the first bombs to fall, the first shots to be fired, started the damn war. It is really that simple.

The extra layer comes in when you ask was it justified to start the war. Then you get the division. But to say Saddam started the war, when Bush ordered the first hostile action in the conflict, is just plain silly.

EDIT: I am not calling Bush Hitler. I am not calling Bush or the Republicans Nazis. I am not supporting war, genocide or National Socialism. Post not valid in VA, WO and MD.

That's a poor analogy.

Yes, it is. Here's a better one.

Jury: We are, your honour. After all, the defendant was told the victim had a gun! And therefore, it was his /duty/ to take his bigger gun in and attack the victim, /just in case/ the victim decided to attack someone with his gun.

I think the word is 'vigilante'.

lol.. you've been brainwashed by bush more than anything

Bush is not brainwashing anyone, he is just doing what he needs to to protect us from more terrorist attacks.

Just as you have been brainwashed by the conservative media? Please, I rarely watch news stations as most of them suck.

Not all media outlets are news stations. In fact it is hard to find any unbiased news that isn't on the internet.

I have little trust or faith in humanity so I wouldn't find it hard to believe he is serious.

And who said libs were condescending.

Just remember, hidden or not, an insult is an insult. Let's see if you can play the game without using them.

And is your faith in humanity challenged by those with differing viewpoints?

[QUOTE=31]The Hitler card is in play! Of course, this is a thread about Bush so it was only a matter of time.QUOTE]

The hitler card was going to come down sooner or later, because frankly in this instance it is a valid comparison. Hitler is considered by history to have started the war with Poland, regardless of the fact that he sent them an ultimadum to fork over the Danzig corridor.

Bush started the war, regardless of the fact that he sent Saddam an ultimadum to get out.

The person who starts a war is just that - the person who freaking started the war! Whoever ordered the first troops to move in, the first bombs to fall, the first shots to be fired, started the damn war. It is really that simple.

The extra layer comes in when you ask was it justified to start the war. Then you get the division. But to say Saddam started the war, when Bush ordered the first hostile action in the conflict, is just plain silly.

It is still the Hitler card, old, tired, torn on one corner. Somebody play a card you don't like, just pull out that old Hitler card and throw it down.
I agree with what you are saying, I just find the Hitler card funny. I pay it no mind when it comes to a debate other than to chuckle about it.

Bush is not brainwashing anyone, he is just doing what he needs to to protect us from more terrorist attacks.ROFLMAO
Good one, Vittos.

ROFLMAO
Good one, Vittos.

shush...

Yes, it is. Here's a better one.

Jury: We are, your honour. After all, the defendant was told the victim had a gun! And therefore, it was his /duty/ to take his bigger gun in and attack the victim, /just in case/ the victim decided to attack someone with his gun.

I think the word is 'vigilante'.

Will that hold up in court?

I mean could the lawyer prove that it was a reasonable fear that the guy "might" be a danger?

Will that hold up in court?

I mean could the lawyer prove that it was a reasonable fear that the guy "might" be a danger?

Well, it was the original justification behind Iraq. Whether it would hold up in court, I don't know.

Well, it was the original justification behind Iraq. Whether it would hold up in court, I don't know.

No it wouldn't. In a court of law, fearing a gun owner might use a gun is not an acceptable reason to attack him and try to take his gun.

Although it's getting closer to that, because in Florida, residents are now free to open fire at home or in public if they feel threataned by someone.

But in the other 49 states, you can't attack someone because he has something you are afraid of. The story changes only if he threatans to use his gun on you, or actually tries to use his gun on you. Then self-defense comes in.

Personally, I blame Sweden. They've been mysteriously silent for some time now.

Not all media outlets are news stations. In fact it is hard to find any unbiased news that isn't on the internet.



And who said libs were condescending.

Just remember, hidden or not, an insult is an insult. Let's see if you can play the game without using them.

And is your faith in humanity challenged by those with differing viewpoints?

Indeed and I usualy get news from the internet.

Also my faith in humanity is not challenged by opposing viewpoints but rather by the actions of a number of the species such as Charles Manson and Hitler. In truth my faith in humanity isn't challenged by them so much as what they represent, that humans can do more evil than the majority of other humans want to believe and get away with it for some time. I have the same lack of trust and faith in everybody.

Personally, I blame Sweden. They've been mysteriously silent for some time now.
'Cause Göran Persson is getting his ass kicked by the opposition and thus can't comment.

Or we're taking over the world...

I don't see what the issue is. More people say that Bush is responsible for the war than Hussein. The poll doesn't ask whether they think that's a bad thing or a good thing. Heck, I bet if you asked Bush if he took responsibility for America's decision to go to war, he'd say yes.

Bush is not brainwashing anyone, he is just doing what he needs to to protect us from more terrorist attacks.

Oh, so we're not discussing the War in Iraq anymore? If we were I'd probably have mentioned the fact that the Bush Administration forged the three different reasons for the war at different times as the previous died out and fear needed to be restored.

Hmm...who's more responsible? Generally a war begins when someone strikes. So unless it becomes logical to say, "Hussein started a war with us so we must make the initial attack." knowing that if we didn't, it's not exactly a valid belief to think he'd strike against us...then the ideology that Bush isn't responsible ventures from the realm of incorrect into the demented sea of idiocy.

Hmm, Murdock, check conservative millionaire with media company.
Ted Turner, liberal millionaire with media company.

Seems balanced to me.
Far be it from me to hijack my own thread, but just so you know--Turner hasn't had anything to do with CNN for a number of years. You might want to check up on things like that next time so you don't look so much like a tool.