I'm curious about the 5% of Republicans who agree that the world would be better off if we lost in Iraq. What's up with them?

Sadly they've all been detained at GITMO for security reasons...   ;>)

Since this was a FOX "News" poll, I find it suspect. Was the question asked in exactly that way, or did they do a little bait and switch? Did they, perhaps, ask if the world would be better off if we "withdrew" from Iraq? Since the Regurgicons equate withdrawal with losing...I wouldn't put it past them. It certainly wouldn't be the first time they've....exaggerated.

I'm trying to figure out what "lost in Iraq" entails.

And a lot of people keep throwing out this "win in Iraq" or "lost in Iraq" narrative as though this is a legitimate war to be fighting in the first place.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly "lost in Iraq" means.

And a lot of people keep throwing out this "win in Iraq" or "lost in Iraq" narrative as though Bush's invasion of Iraq is somehow legitimate.

"I think America would not remain the great nation it has always been if she were the leader"

How funny. Here we are in the 7th year of President Numbnuts, and he's worried about Hillary making us "weaker"?

What a maroon.

Are they talking about the same war we were sold in '03?

Nonexistent WMD's: Neutralized.

Sadddam Hussein: Captured, tried & executed.

The war's over, we won.

America? The world? To these right wingers America IS the world. The rest don't count. What arrogance...

"America? The world? To these right wingers America IS the world. The rest don't count. What arrogance..."

- IRONY 101

You are correct - its why everyone wants to come HERE and not the other way around.

Look - its not about 'winning' the war in Iraq. The far-left has painted it self into a corner where any good news out of Iraq hurts its agenda and chances at getting in the White House in '08. What a shame it is that you need to hope for more dead Americans because of your blind, irrational hatred of Bush. 

The party of tolerance is anything but.  

Hey Goodfella, I thought the right's problem with non-rightys was that they want to bring our troops home.Why would people hoping for more dead Americans want to get them out of this BS war?

You might want to try the "preview" feature before hitting post.That way you can have a grownup look at it, and that person can tell you what a douchebag you are.

That makes two hiveminders mentioning us lefties oppose the war because of irrational hatred of Bush. So the question is was that Hannity, Limbaugh or the Weinerdog who put that one in the hivemind today?

Solon, As usual, I don't get the reference - probably my right-wing brain is too stupid to get it.

Nevertheless...I don't listen to Rush, Hannity or Savage, but apparently you do. You need to get a life - come to think of it, I need to get a life and stop responding to your idiotic comments.  

Respond, dont respond dress up in drag and try to scare humans as Ann Coulter I couldnt care less. Perhaps its just projection that makes you repeat this talking point that the rightwing repeats endlessly about how we are only against the war because of some imaginary hatred of Bush. I mean no one can cough up any examples of this and YOU GUYS are the party of Ann  Coulter and Micheal Savage but hey anything is possible short of George Bush joining MENSA. Wherever you heard it you are still repeating mindless BS that doesnt even make sense the hallmark of a hivemind moron.

"...what a douchebag you are." - HuntingtonBeachLefty

When all else fails, resort to name calling! What are you, in the 5th grade?  

WWAAAAHHHH, its fine for Gooober to tell us we are hoping for Americans to die but its SO mean for us to call him a douchbag. WWAAAHHHHH, keep snivelling like a little Girlscout that we are treating you the way you treat us its so entertaining.

This one's easy.

If you don't want to be called a douchebag, stop acting like a douchbag.

Pretty simple, huh?

Yeah, I thought saying that we are hoping for Americans to die, although not directly "name calling", was pretty much douchebag behavior.

Goodfella, if you want to accuse others of being murderers or sadists, have some nuts and just say it straight out.Nobody wants to read your sad little posts about being called names.

If being in the 5th grade means I said something clearly, as opposed to your passive-aggressive double-talk and indirect insults, then I guess I'm in 5th grade.

Douchebag.

Okay then..let me put this in 5th grade terms...

its troublesome that if things begin to turn in Iraq...lowest casualties in 2 years...Al Queda wavering...locals ratting out insurgents, the Dems can't hang their hat on how 'bad' it is there.  They cannot be grateful for the good news because people like you - the far left - will not allow it. Fortunately, whoever gets the nomination, particularly if its your girl Hillary, they will drop the far-left like hot lava. Mark my words here: Hillary will distance herself from Dailykos, MMfA and all the other nut-job lefty sights the day she gets nominated.

Love, douchebag

You've got that exactly wrong. It is you rightwingers who are comitted to getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can. The war itself has been a disaster and it isnt going to turn into anything else in the next year. Your 08 election disaster is already in the bag no matter what happens in Iraq yet you keep working hard to get Americans killed.

Solon, you have misunderstood...

War is always bad. No one is 'Pro-war'. Snarkiness aside, I ask you the same question I posed to HBL in another comment: What should America do about radical Islam? 

I have posted an answer to this many times. We should attack those who are violent militarily. We should let Islam itself know that we dont think THEY are the problem and avoid a holy war. We should stop supporting the horrific regimes like the Saudis that are part of the problem and let the Islamic people know we support them becoming democratic. Put some money into places like Palestine and Egypt that goes to schools, irrigation projects hospitals things that help the people not the elites. In short show them we are not THEIR enemy and by doing so seperate the nutbags from the reasonable people. The extremists need them like a fish needs water and when seperated from them will be much easier to deal with. We should stop invading countries that are NOT a threat but sit on oceans of oil like Iraq. When WE seem less threatening it will be a harder sell for the extremists to say we ARE some great Satan.

What should America do about radical Christianity?  

http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/london_sunday_times/904G-000-008.html

Nutbag zealots are a problem for everyone, no matter WHAT name they use for god, or what country they call home.

The answer IS NOT "kill 'em all", as rightwingers seem to think is the answer to everything.

And FU very much for saying that we "hope" that more Americans die "to advance our agenda"- you're confusing US with you and yours.  It's a common Rovian tactic employed by you people- accuse the other side of what you KNOW you're guilty of.

Radical Islam has nothing to do with Iraq. iraq was a secular state, contained by embargoes and no fly zones.

If it is considered a hot bed of radical Islam we are to blame. no one else. We created a vacuum. The vacuum was filled with anti-american, radicals.

Even today, Iraq and Iran are not considered as radical as Pakistan .

I wonder what percentage of Republicans think America would be 'better off' if there were no more Jews in this country.  I'll bet it's more than 1 in 5.

Change 'Jews' to 'Muslims' and I'll bet it's more than half.

'Better off' is certainly a subjective term.  Better off for you?  Better off for all Americans?  Better off for whom?

Maybe some of these people were guilty of actually thinking it through. Maybe some people fear that if we "win" in Iraq, President Cheney would be emboldened enough to invade Iran...which could lead to one giant FUBAR Middle East. Would the world be better off then?

When I read or hear Hannity's stuff, I am always reminded of "Who's on first?"

I think these guys are just simply afraid of Hillary.  They are used to their nice, little Stepford wives just going along for the ride. I think it is called Hannia law.. Now Mrs. Clinton will drive the bus..even without my endorsement.

Let's ignore the fact that Sharia Law is a system that would seem to be as attractive to our own far-right faction as it is to the Muslim conservatives,

And let's ignore the fact that there's really no way to "lose" an occupation, we can only voluntarily decide to end it.

Do these bedwetter, delicate pansies (Hannity and Romney) actually believe that we're in danger of being conquered by Muslim extremists? Or do they just feel that sure of the ignorance of their audience that they can say this stuff without being embarrassed?

HBL

What a joke...So what do YOU propose? How far do you let radical Islam infiltrate our country and culture? Look at England, or Denmark, or France. The least perceived 'slight' on Islam results in torched cars, riotous mobs and even death. Over a cartoon! 

I really want to know your thoughts on this. Is there a line thats too far for you?   

I haven't seen this infiltration of radical Islam in the U.S., but I'd be happy to see any examples you could provide.

I will say that, in my lifetime, no Muslims have knocked on my door when I was trying to sleep in on a weekend and tried to convert me.So, by your paranoid logic, I should be taking up arms against Christians before even thinking about anybody else.

But thanks for starting your post with "what a joke", it really set the mood for the rest of your candy-ass whining..

But thanks for starting your post with "what a joke", it really set the mood for the rest of your candy-ass whining..- HuntingtonBeachLefty

But calling me a 'douchbag' in an earlier post shows a lot of class.

Let's not start with the 'moral equivalence' between Christians and radical Islam It's not Christians blowing themselves up.   

Nobody started with the "moral equivalence" but you. I was only responding to your idea that radical Islam was taking over our lives.

And the "douchebag" comment was after you said that non-Republicans are hoping for more American deaths. Do you consider that "classy"?

Right, Princeofwheels,

The media thorns behind Fox News are afraid of Hillary Clinton, and are endorsing Rudy Giuliani. They will deny it, but they are liars. Watch and see in the coming months and you will see that I'm right.

Don't believe ANY of Fox News Channel polls because it is not accurate. It's twisted to fit the Fox News Channel agenda in attacking the Democrats.

Long Island loser in life Sean is a complete fraud and a habitual liar. He wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in his wide behind.

Stick to your local news.

There's certainly a strong case to be made that the war is already lost, and we are not better off for it.

Wow, this is pretty bad even for Media Matters. Talk about using Clinton type parsing of words to try to discredit Hannity. If the respondents of the poll thought that the world would be better off if we lost in Iraq, wouldn't they think the U.S. would be better off as well? This is simply a meaningless parsing of words from Media Matters. It's simply what they do. Hannity's point was accurate, while Halperin should have noted that it was 1/5 instead of a majority. But either way there's still more Democrats than Republicans or independents who want us to lose in Iraq.

"...who want us to lose in Iraq."

That's certainly a loaded phrase.  It brings up images of tweed-wearing, pipe smoking, goateed professorial types who are jumping up and down with glee and clapping their hands when soldiers are killed in Iraq.

We were better off in dropping the atomic bombs over Hirsohima and Nagasaki than dargging out the war in the Pacific for another six months.  Does that mean that I'm glad that 100,000 people were incinerated in a fraction of a second?  No.  It means that there are two horrible choices, and while one of them may make us "better off", it doesn't mean that I'm happy with it.

Personally, I would need someone to explain to me what we're fighting for in Iraq, and then I could tell you if we are better off or not if we win or lose.  Are we killing terrorists who attacked us on September 11?  Are we setting up a democracry that will inspire a new revolution in the Middle East?  Are we allowing the Iraqis time to learn to govern themselves?  Are we establishing our presence in the Middle East in the interests of our own defence?  Tell me why we are there, tell me what "victory" means, and I'll tell you if I think we're better off sacrificing a few thousand, or tens of thousands, of US citizens for it.

Obviously, you want us to "lose" in Iraq with all of that fancy writing you put out there... <end sarcasm>

All we here from republicans, or most republicans, and most candidates who are republicans (minus Ron Paul) is how we need to "win" in Iraq for America to be better and safer, and how we need to be for "honor". Nobody ever says what winning means, and what honor are they talking about. Of course, you have the frontrunners in the republican camp each trying to out-macho each other with their rhetoric.

Rudy: Well, I'd build Gitmo bigger, and then take over Cuba with it.

Mitt: Well I'd hire Jack Bauer to interrogate every terrorist suspect that we have, that will get us some information.

Rudy: Well, I'm definitely going to bomb Iran.

McCain: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran (this would be funny if he really didn't do this little ditty to the tune of Barbara Anne by the Beach Boys).

And so on and so on.

"Winning" simply means that Iraq becomes stabalized and able to function on it's own. That's the goal. There are many on the left who believe that we're part of the problem and that Iraq would be better off if we just left. I can at least respect that view. But I can't respect the 19% of Democrats who actually want Iraq to turn out to be a mess. My guess is they want to fail in order to make Bush look bad. Again, that's not a noble position to have.

Pitiful. And I can't respect the 99% of conservatives who are cowards and send real men and women off to do their fighting, while they don their cheerleading outfits and propogate divisiveness.

Are you the same guy as the poster Weird Zombie Writer? You sound quite a bit alike.

Are you the same guy who supports war, but likes to hide behind your mommy's dress while those with courage do the fighting for ya? You sound alot alike.

I support our soldiers in Iraq and I'm rooting for them to win. If you have a problem with that, nobody can help you.

You are supporting getting as many Americans killed in Iraq as you can. Suporting them into graves in Arlington. Getting their limbs blown off. See how easy it is to misrepresent an argument? Why dont you stop doing it?

I didn't. I simply cited a scientific poll. Apparently you have a problem with scientific polls that don't reflect your point of view.

YES YOU DID. Why do you keep conflating that 19% saying the world would be better off saying it is what they want? Why do you say they want Iraq to be a mess because of their hatre of Bush that is EXACTLY misrepresenting their position.

You did not just cite a scientific poll.  Tell me, have you seen the poll?  Can you tell me what question was asked, and not just Hannity's phrasing?

Even assuming that Hannity is exactly right in his phrasing, how can you make the jump from 19% of Democrats reponded YES to 19% of Democrats want Iraq to turn out to be a mess?  I would guess that more than 19% already think that.

You've taken a complex question with many possible meanings to a response and shoved it into your own world view.  That's note citing a poll, that's just exposing your own prejudices and biases.

"Winning" simply means that Iraq becomes stabalized and able to function on it's own.

This is something for the Iraqis to do; not us.

You mean its a win if Iraq is stable and functions on its own. Yet Iraq WAS stable and WAS functioning on its own BEFORE the invasion. YOU are an idiot for saying that 19% want Iraq to be a mess. That is not stated in the lose in Iraq scenario. Since we dont know what that meant and since YOU dont have amazing mind reading powers to know what they THOUGHT that meant your statement was a mindless gratuitous slap at people who disagree with you.

Newsflash Mr. Rino -

We don't have to "lose" the war in Iraq to make the president look bad.  He's done quite well all by himself.

And another thing - we won the war.  We're losing the peace because of a general lack of competence in this administration.  Viceroy Bremmer?  Disband the army?  Don't secure the weapons caches?  It goes on and on.

They want the occupation to be endless so they can STEAL via no-bid and cost-plus contracts.

And as long as Bush is the "War President", he can attempt to hide his extensive law-breaking behind the sheild of "national security".

Define "lose" and define "win" in Iraq...

As someone already said, President Bush told the nation and the world that Saddam had WMDs, and that we needed to stop him before he gave them to his non existant terrorist buddies. We invade because of this WMD threat that Iraq and Saddam posed, at least this is what we were told. Lo and behold, no WMDs just like the weapons inspectors had been saying all along. Check one off there.

Why else did we invade? To depose Saddam and remove his regime from power. BAM! And we're done. Declare victory, load up the HUMVEES and come on home, we won already.

I think in the mind of yourself, and other people who blindly support this "war" (by the way, it's not a war, as there was no declaration of such a thing by Congress), that you see a nice treaty signing on the deck of a battleship somewhere as the "end" of the war. Ain't gonna happen chief, as right now we're fighting a loose collection of a-holes and militants. Who are they going to surrender to? How does this "war" end?

We've already won. Start the parades and bring everyone home.

"I think in the mind of yourself, and other people who blindly support this "war"

I never even said I supported the war. I think going in there ended up being a mistake. Looking back on it I think that we would've been better off if we never would've been there. My point is that now that we're there I'm cheering for my country and want to win in Iraq. I don't want Iraq to be a complete mess, which is why I oppose immediate withdrawel. My criticism was very narrow. I was talking about the small number of Americans who actually want to lose in Iraq, not simply those who oppose the war and believe that the situation would get better if we got out.

There are other reasons that people might want to see us 'lose' the war, besides proving Bush wrong.  No matter what happens going forward, Bush was clearly wrong.  Your comment shows that even the most conservative among us can no longer deny that.

Some people might think we need to 'lose' the war in order to save the lives of our own soldiers, and in order to keep them at home where they protect us.

Some people think the Fox News definition of 'winning' the war is securing the oil fields.  Some people don't want this to happen because it will only increase our dependence on oil, and will in turn destroy the environment, and enrich other Arab countries.

Some people think we need to 'lose' this war to learn a lesson, and so we don't repeat this mistake with Iran or another country.

So, there are valid reasons for thinking the U.S. should 'lose'.  I don't agree with any of them, but there are certainly arguments for that side of the coin.

It's hard to 'win' a war when you don't have any objectives for victory, though.  There really needs to be some sort of plan in place for victory, which must include withdrawal of the troops.  There is no victory in an extended troop presence in Iraq.  I don't think that was part of the original objective.

In summary:  withdrawing = WINNING

Just make sure you know how to do it without making things much worse.

"In summary:  withdrawing = WINNING"

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. There are many on the left who believe that the situation in Iraq will improve if we leave. They believe that we'll win in Iraq if we get out faster. I respect that view. But I still believe that there's a SMALL faction on mostly the far left who want Iraq to go bad because of their intense hatred of President Bush. But again, the vast majority of Democrats disagree with this view, as the poll shows.

I disagree RINO Hunter.

I think that if we left next month, withdrew ALL of our troops and brought them home, then we would be the victorious country in the war.

In that circumstance, the only loser would be the 'country' of Iraq. 

It's probably more responsible to try and clean up as much of the mess you made while winning, but not everyone does that after every war that happens.  Why are we now responsible for turning Iraq into a peaceful, modern, democratic society?  Is that the Pottery Barn rule again?

If Iraq is not a beacon of hope, peace, and democracy when we leave, it doesn't mean we LOST.

Also - please provide an example of someone who wants to lose in Iraq 'solely based on their hatred of President Bush'

That's a gross mischaracterization of the three scenarios I outlined above.

A majority of Americans do not approve of the job Bush has done.  There are actual reasons behind that, it's not just 'Bush Derangment Syndrome' which the Right Wing blogosphere invented to make Bush look like a victim. 

I challenge you to show me one example of one person in this country that wants us to 'lose' in Iraq SOLELY because of their hatred of Bush.

Show me that, and I'll show you a 'compassionate' conservative.

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. There are many on the left who believe that the situation in Iraq will improve if we leave. They believe that we'll win in Iraq if we get out faster.

It's not a question of win or lost.  In my opinion, we don't have the moral authority to be there especially after what was done by the Bush administration to get us involved in this conflict.

Can you cough up any examples of these far lefties who want Iraq to go bad because of their hatred for Bush or did you pull that directly out of your ass, or should I say pulled it directly from your hivemind conditioning?

Well, you did have a prominent Democrat who said that it would be bad news for the Dems if we succeed in Iraq. That's basically the same thing. James Clyburn was the rep. openly rooting for us to do poorly in Iraq.

Only by taking it out of context. Are the Democrats running this war? He was asked about the democratic agenda clearly a reference to the election being a referendum for ending the Iraq war. Good news was seen by him as bad for THAT. So you can try again but once again WHERE was the linkage even in THAT to some bizarre hatred of Bush? Ya got nothin. Its ludicrous. You made an unsupportable baseless assertion that comes ONLY from your hivemind programming.

You pitiful little buffoon. I have refrained from addressing you in the past because others routinely dress you down and send you yelping like a beaten dog after each debate you attempt here. I can't let this pass. It really makes me angry, to hear that Democrats want us to lose a war. It is no different than saying that Democrats want to see our troops killed. It is beyond belief. What???? Do you think there has never been a democrat who has sacrificed his life for this country?? Well I got news for ya, noone I know who is a democrat has ever rooted for us to lose a war. Yeah there may be some lunatic fringe out there like REDKING, but on a whole we are all Americans and to propogate this bull$h#t that somehow Democrats are not as patriotic as you is despicable. Here is the fact, sir. I am a Democrat. I fought for my country. I seen others die, who were Democrats. You haven't done anything, as a conservative, to fight for your country in a war you believe in. You are a COWARD. As a matter of fact, I think a poll should be done here at MMFA in which we can show how most conservatives llike YOU are yellow, worm sucking, COWARDS. You hide behind your mommy, while the real men and women go off to fight. You sit at home on your computer and propogate divisiveness while kids die in Iraq. COWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Huh? 19% of Democrats ADMITTED in the poll that they want to lose in Iraq. I didn't label them that way; they labeled themselves that way. And again, it's only 19% who feel that way, not a majority. You completely distorted my words and simply launched baseless personal attacks. You're simply a hateful far left zombie. You've got nothing.

Dont' pull that crap here today. You have endlessly supported this war in so many threads it is too difficult to count. Then, you try to utilize a FOX poll in the same way Hannity and Romney did to say that 19% of Democrats want the UNITED STATES to lose in Iraq. You are equivocating this poll to make the supposition that 19% of all Democrats want our troops to die and subsequently lose the war. It is beyond the pale to make that leap and present it as fact to support you arguments here. All the while, you cheerlead a war you don't have the courage to participate in. I stand by my statements of COWARDICE. that goes for you or any other of your minions who talk up the merits of war but won't serve. The best way to support our troops in your case is to walk on down to the recruiters office and sign up. Until you do, YOU GOT NOTHING.

No, I never said that going into Iraq was a good idea. That's simply false. I'm simply rooting for my country to win. It's called being patriotic, not being cowardly. And no one said that 19% of Democrats want US soldiers to get killed. You're putting words in our mouths again. What I and others have done is simply cite the poll WORD FOR WORD. The poll said that 19% of Democrats want us to lose in Iraq. But go ahead and try to refute a scientific poll.

You are a liar. That DOESNT cite the poll word for word. STOP LYING. The difference between the two has already been pointed out its not our fault you arent bright enough to GET the simplest point.

You're simply being patriot and rooting for your country to win.  I'm sure the hundreds and thousands of soldiers who will die in the next couple of years, along with their siblings, their parents, their children, friends, and neighbors, as well as the tens of thousands of wounded vets and their families will be able to sit back and think that it was all worth it so you could wave your big "WE'RE #1" styrofoam hand while shouting "U--S--A...U--S--A!"

Way to go Chris!

These war enablers won't be cornered. They always slither out. They didn't want to go in, but now they say by God were there so lets make the best of it.

As long as it's somebody else getting the worst of it, not them or theirs.

You shouldn't have had to serve to have an opinion, but to come here day after day and quote mindless Fox prayer polls as scientific is ridiculous. Anyone who believes all of the crap that Fox spoon feeds them should be in uniform.

They should have to have their share of the nightmare to take to bed with them for the rest of their lives.

YOU are so simpleminded its pathetic. They didnt say they WANTED the US to lose the war they were asked if it would be better for the world. There are NO GOOD OPTIONS LEFT. As has already been pointed out to you in a brilliant analogy one poster WANTED to save the American and Japanese loss of life that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about that doesnt mean he WANTED to see a couple hundred thousand Japanese incinerated in a flash. This is very simple. Why do we even bother posting to you? You just ignore what is said and mindlessly repeat the propaganda programmed into your head in true Pavlovian fashion. You seem to have ZERO ability to understand even the simplest points.

Rino, You continue to post day after day about how the Dems want to loose the war but yet you have no idea what ‘winning the war' means and no date to end it. By the same asinine logic you applied to Dems, I could say you as a Republican, don’t mind young men and women dying. You, as a Republican, don’t mind that men and women have come home with missing body parts unable to work in their former jobs or resume their former lives. You, as a Republican, don’t mind that some men and women have come home with the brain functions of children younger that their own children. You, as a Republican, don’t care about military families. You, as a Republican, don’t mind that over 150,000 men and women have been away from their families for over 4 years. You, as a Republican, don’t really care about ‘family values’ cause you sure don’t seem to care WHEN and IF family members come home. You, as a Republican, don’t care that there are thousands of children who will now grow up without one of their parents. You, as a Republican, don’t care that there are thousands of children who will NEVER know one of their parents. You, as a Republican, don’t care that like Vietnam we now have a whole new generation of ‘homeless vets’ and yet you claim to support the troops.

As Chris said, STOP the bullshi**ing crap about the Dems want to lose the war. You as a Republican have NO higher moral ground to stand on! Using your 'asinine logic’ I could say that you as a Republican don’t care about the young men and women who have given and still give their lives for our country!

You guys should really stop criticizing me for something I didn't say. You shouldn't get all mad about something that neither I nor anybody else said. I simply cited a SCIENTIFIC POLL which said that 19% OF DEMOCRATS want us to lose in Iraq. I never said that a majority want us to lose. Again, quit lying about what I said. What's with you guys today?

But either way there's still more Democrats than Republicans or independents who want us to lose in Iraq.Rino

Rino, YOU are the one who claimed that the only poll YOU considered creditable was Rasmussen but yet YOU want to call the Fox poll of 900 respondents, SCIENTIFIC?. YOU stated that there are more Dems who want us to lose but you have nothing to back that up except the Fox poll of 900 respondents, 19% who claimed they were Dems. That's hardly SCIENTIFIC!

Rino:  It could not have been a "scientific poll."  FOX News and its listeners do not believe in science.

QUIT LYING about what THEY said. Saying the world would be better off is not saying I WANT. I might be better off if my stupid neighbor had a heart attack and died. That doesnt mean I WANT my stupid neighbor to DIE. This is so simple and its YOU that needs to stop lying.

If they think that losing in Iraq is better for the world, then wouldn't they want us to lose in Iraq? Are you saying that they don't want what's best for the world?

What is the point of explaining anything to you for you to IGNORE AGAIN? The point is there are times when ONLY BAD CHOICES ARE LEFT. Its like I said. I would be better off if my stupid, annoying nieghbor died of a heart attack that doesnt mean I WANT him to die. This is so simple. No matter how often you introduce the false dichotomy it wont become less of a logical fallacy. FACT you claimed you were citing the poll WORD FOR WORD. FACT that was a LIE.

Like there are more Republicans than Democrats who want to get as many Americans killed in Iraq as is humanly possible. No what is best for the world is not necessarily what is best for American and visa versa. That same simplistic thinking that infuses virtually every one of your posts makes this one worthless. As was pointed out that might make people think Bush might invade Iran and THAT would be worse for the world. Bottom line if America voluntarily gave 10% of our gross national product away as international charity it would be better for the world but not better for the US. Try thinking someday rather than these dumb kneejerk accusations based on nothing except your misunderstanding of basic English.

Hey Mitt you dunderhead, how is going back to our strongest allies in Europe and making nice with them going to WEAKEN the USA again? Is he for real?

Let's review. 7 years of Bush. We've got 2 wars, still going on. Worst terrorist attack perpetrated on American soil. Budget overruns. A highly divided electorate. Budget surplus beat down. Economy tanking (I heard someone use the "R" word today). High paying jobs heading overseas and being replaced with lower paying ones. Poverty level at an all time high. Educational system being destroyed because we're teaching kids how to take tests now instead of actually, you know, learning. Respect for the US is pretty much down around the world, and our friends aren't as close as they used to be at one time. Yeah, we're so strong right now it's amazing.

8 years of Clinton. Balanced budget. Budget surplus. Booming economy. A couple of minor military skirmishes that resulted in not too many American lives lost (let's face it Somalia was a giant clusterf***). Respect for the US is high around the world.

What would you rather have Mitt? Hillary might not have "run" anything in her tenure, but let's look at the things that she has seen, and possible experience that she has gained in her time on the Earth. Couple of terms as the wife and confidant of a governor. 8 years as first lady, where she took on a role of leadership, and also I'm certain talked about, and consulted with Bill on many different things. She may not have run much, but she certainly has the experience behind her, and has a good solid background, not to mention, her closest advisor was a 2 term President of the US, so I'm sure his experience would count for something.

Since when did 20% constitute an entire party? Or was that a discussion that happened on the last thread about this?

According to the libs here 20% constitutes an entire party. At least that's how they've been trying to distort my words.

While YOU distort the poll.

Let's see, first we have to believe that a "FOX News" poll was conducted properly.  Next, we have to believe that the respondents all believed that "losing the war in Iraq" meant exactly the same thing. Then, you have to assume that 39% of the supposed 900 people questioned identified themselves accurately as Democrats, which is 351 people. Of those supposed Democrats, 19% answered Yes to the question asked, which is 67 people. Gee, this poll sounds completely unassailable, and most definitely must describe what "Democrats think." I can see why Hannity is so tied to it, with his standards of journalistic integrity.

Let me see.  Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter abandoned Iran.  We got the Iran - Iraq war, women being stoned to death, the Invasion of Aphganistan.  Ronald Reagan ran from Lebanon.  That country is still screwed up pretty bad.  Bill Clinton ran from Somalia, essentially ignored the first World Trade Center attack, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole.  I guess its time to run from Iraq.  What harm could possible come of it.

Conservapedia is not a research tool, it's satire.

There is far too much wrong with your assessment of history to even contemplate trying to straighten it out.