As I write, CNBC talks of a (unnamed) poll showing 52% to 45% saying "Iraq war was the right thing to do" (My translation: Feels good to kill Arabs); 51% to 48% say "Bush is better at handling the nations' problems" (especially those of his own making).
Yep, consumerist-besotted stupidity is alive and well in the USA. With the assistence of a compulsively lying media that has been assiduously filtering the truth about Iraq, and the rest of the world for that matter. You can be "cocksure" that these flagwaving morons are completely, cluelessly delusional. Just get in their face and (with a laugh) say: "Fool, you're gonna lose!" They could only sputter, "But, but we've got El Salvador, Albania and Mongolia on our side!" BTW, Poles are bailing the Triumph of the Willing...and ---------- Nader Asks for Antiwar Vote and Urges Iraq Pullout Date
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/20/politics/campaign/20NADE.html
Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said, "This kind of rhetoric is at odds with our nation's need for strong, steady leadership." The United States, Mr. Stanzel said, is "bringing democracy to Iraq, and that country will serve as a beacon of hope for people throughout the region."
Mr. Kerry's chief spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, said, "We cannot afford to fail in our efforts to stabilize Iraq." Mr. Kerry, she said, "is absolutely committed to that goal."
At his news conference last week, Mr. Bush pledged that the United States would "stay the course and complete the job" in Iraq.
In an interview Sunday on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," Mr. Kerry said the United States should transfer "real authority" in Iraq to the United Nations and "reach out to other nations" for military support. But he offered no hope for early withdrawal of American troops and suggested that more troops might be needed.
Mr. Nader said that between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, Mr. Kerry was preferable because "he would slow the deterioration of the country," but that the "difference is not significantly sufficient."
...and speaking of the lying media, notice how the corporate types have been more than happy to spread the left liberal lie about how "Nader cost Gore the election"?
"The consensus of Democrats is that Mr. Nader cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000 by winning more votes than Mr. Bush's victory margin in two states, Florida and New Hampshire, and by forcing Mr. Gore to devote resources to states like Wisconsin that he would have won easily if Mr. Nader had not been in the race."
mike larkin wrote:
> More evidence for the idea that hawks are usually the beneficiaries of their own failed policies. No wonder the
Republicans here at work are so cocky about the election.
You might want to exhibit some cockiness of your own, because the political payback if Bush is re-elected will quickly negate anything they want to do. If you think that people are pissed at Bush now, wait until after his re-election when people will figure out that the Democrats fucked them over with Kerry-Dukakis-Mondale and that they will have to make political change in a different fashion.
The Bush impeachment hearings should be pretty entertaining.
The unemployment riots will be fun too.
Chuck0