The findings completely contradict the balderdash about soldiers' sentiments being spewed by the Bush Administration, congressional war boosters, cowardly editorialists, and oppponents of the Wisconsin troop withdrawal movement. Some key findings:
- 29% of troops believe the US should leave Iraq immediately.
- 22% said the US should leave Iraq within the next six months.
- 21% said the US should leave between 6 and 12 months.
- 23% said the US should stay "as long as they are needed."
That means 72% of US troops believe the US should leave Iraq within a year.
The majority of troop withdrawal referendums on Wisconsin ballots urge the US to begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq beginning with the Reserves and National Guard. According to the poll, 89% of reserves and 82% of National Guard believe the US should leave Iraq within a year.
These findings demonstrate that the "Vote No" pro-war hawks opposing the Wisconsin referendums, many of them chickenhawks, have been engaging in wildly inaccurate and unethical smears of those who want the troops home. As noted by John Nichols in today's Cap Times: " . . . despite the fact that some of the most conservative members of the Republican caucus in the U.S. House have split with the Bush-Cheney administration and endorsed efforts to bring the troops home, the list of reasons to vote no makes repeated references to the need to counter 'the anti-military Left,' 'the extreme Left,' 'the Radical Left' and the 'Left wing of the Democrat Party.'" Are the 72% of American troops who want troops home within a year part of some Left conspiracy? Are the 29% of soldiers courageous enough to tell a pollster they want immediate withdrawal (and you know that many more feel that way but fear a backlash if they say it) part of some Left conspiracy?
President Bush should listen to conservative icon Bill Buckley. The founder of National Review now says this: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. "
5 comments:
Many people, including members of our city council, oppose the war and want the troops home. But we also oppose city council action placing the referendum on the ballot without the required criteria met.
Opposing the referendum does not mean you support the war or want the troops to stay. That is the type of "your're either with us, or against us" broad language this administration uses, but don't think you should use.
For the 1,000th and LAST TIME (at least from me):
1. Wisconsin Law has two sets of criteria for getting a referendum question on a ballot: (a) direct legislation via signatures or (b) city council action.
2. Thanks to Mr. Esslinger, City Council action (b) was possible. THE CRITERIA WERE MET. THE COUNCIL CHOSE TO VOTE IT DOWN. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THERE WAS ONLY ONE WAY TO GET THE REFERENDUM ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. IF YOU ARE A COUNCIL PERSON OR A FRIEND OF A COUNCIL PERSON YOU CAN BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO EASE YOUR CONSCIENCE, BUT PLEASE REFRAIN FROM DISTORTING WHAT WERE THE OPTIONS BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
This is the last time I will be responding to anonymous posters. I will continue to allow anonymous posts and delete only the libelous, but responding to them is just a waste of time for everyone (especially me)and demeans the site. Every day I get email from fans of this site asking me to moderate the comments or require names. I may have to move in that direction at some point, but I think a better solution is for the people who send me those types of emails to participate more and drown out the anonymous folks.
I beleive Dr. Palmeri made reference to "the Bush Administration, congressional war boosters, cowardly editorialists, and opponents of the Wisconsin troop withdrawal movement".
And it seems that he is objecting to the faulty logic in the arguments those parties listed use to persuade. I have heard the city attorney made misleading remarks which led to the lack of required criteria. Disturbing if true.
There seemed to be a tone of frustration in the post but I don't think "your're either with us, or against us" is grounded in the post itself,perhaps it is more an expression of personal animosity. It seems this blog has had plenty of that lately,perhaps detrimentally so.
Great temper tantrum. Work harder for the things you believe in and you would have your referendum. You might have even gotten elected if you would have worked harder. Or is that someone elses fault as well.
Talk about PATHETIC.
No, "with us or against us" very well captures the tone of many of Tony's arguments. That was well-put, and the truth to it is evidence by Tony's all-caps response.
Post a Comment