quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Well they do say that 70% of Iraqi's support the U.S.

Still, the other 30% is still a pretty uncomfortable percentage to simply discount or downplay. Not to mention all the terrorists and general America-haters in the region now flocking over there for the sole purpose of doing THE WEST (not just America mind you as is demonstrated by the attacks on the U.N.) harm.
Whomod, that is a completely biased and disingenuous statement.

Even in most democracies, you can easily find 30% of the population in any given country that doesn't support ( or is indifferent to ) their leadership.
George Bush Sr. had the highest approval rating numbers ( 90% ) I've ever for a U.S. President, in the months immediately after the 1991 Gulf War, and needless to say, that changed drastically within a year.

Most U.S. presidents, since I became politically aware in the late 1970's, have had support around 40% to 60%.
G.W. Bush about 6 months ago was considered to have exceptionally high popular support at around 65%. Last I looked, his numbers were down to about 56%. But even at his peak of popularity at 65%, those high numbers would fit into your conspiracy theory of "mass discontent" if 30 to 35% are not supportive of U.S. presence in Iraq. Many of that 30% might just be indifferent, and not hostile to Bush's Iraq policy.

Paul Bremer, the head of U.S. reconstruction in Iraq, was interviewed on PBS News tonight, if you're interested in a competent view of the Iraq situation:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/bremer_9-24.html

But it seems from what you said above that you'd rather re-spin the true situation to your own pre-conceived point of view, and, once again, blame everything on the Republicans.

And once again, you've misrepresented what Bush clearly listed as the reasons for going to war in Iraq in the first place, again alleging falsely that the SOLE reason we went to war was because of "imminent threat" of WMD's.
As I've pointed out repeatedly OVER AND OVER, that is a deliberate misrepresentation easily disproven by any of Bush's speeches leading up to the war in March, particularly his 1/28/2003 speech, and his 3/17/2003 speeches that the Democrats constantly distort:
www.whitehouse.gov

State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
(in particular, the concluding 18 minutes of his 60 minute speech )

Saddam Hussein has 48 hours to leave Iraq, on the eve of invasion, clearly stating the reasons for war in Iraq, on 3/17/2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html


As is clear in his speeches, the primary reason for the invasion were:
  • 12 years of Iraq's defiance of the U.N.,
  • 14 resolutions that called for Iraq's disarmament
  • Stockpiles of WMD's that his government's inventory paperwork, and the U.N. said were missing, and Iraq's unwillingness for many years to account for them.
  • Hussein's massive and systematic torture, murder and rape of his own citizens.
  • Saddam Hussein's support of terrorism throughout the Arab region. His support of various Palestinian terror groups is well documented. Saddam Hussein made no secret to the world that he would give $15,000 to the family of any Palestinian who would suicide bomb Israel. I've seen news footage of many ceremonies where the check was given to a Palestinian family, post-bombing.
  • It was no secret for many months before the war that the Bush administration intended this reconstruction of Iraq, in order to plant democracy in Iraq, and have it cause a domino effect, spreading democracy throughout the Arab region.

The allegation that the Iraq invasion/occupation was "SOLELY" because of WMD's is absolutely false, and absolutely completely a lie perpetrated by Democrats, and anti-American liberals worldwide.
Bush's speeches clearly say otherwise, that there were MANY reasons for invading Iraq.

And since you obviously ignored some of the facts about opinion polls of Iraqis, and the real ( unhyped, un-liberalized, un-slanted, un-sensationalized ) situation, as spoken unsoundbyted by some people who actually want the United States to succeed in Iraq, here are links I posted earlier, from The Wall Street Journal and PBS News.

(posted on 9/15/2003, at the bottom of page 6: )
quote:
The Iraqis who support us (60% in the most recent poll I saw) WANT us to stay long enough to establish order, for at least another year. You have to really dig to find THAT truth reported. Most Iraqis are afraid we'll leave too soon, and that Saddam Fedayeen will rise up immediately after we leave, and re-establish a police state.
Wall Street Journal: "What do Iraqis really think. We asked them."
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003991
and

quote:

Wall Street Journal: "What $87 Billion Buys.
Compare it to the price of another 9/11. "
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003995 )
( ... and this one, from 9/17/2003, near the top of page 8: )

quote:
I saw an interview tonight on PBS News with Bernard Kerik, who for the past four months has served as interim minister of interior in Iraq, and he said he doesn't understand the outcry for progress. He said he has been able to do more for Iraq's police force in Baghdad in four months than he was able to do as police commissioner of New York City in FIVE YEARS.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
( under today's date, 9/17/2003, under "Securing Iraq" )