Has Bush changed?

[Arrian]

OFITG,

Take it from this Bush hater - exit polls are not particularly accurate. The 2004 election wasn't "stolen." The result sucked, yes, but it was legit.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

UN as an organization to help out with rebuilding of Iraq

If you think Bush is doing a bad job, why the hell would you want the UN there?

[Winston]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
[...]at exit polls Kerry won by 3% but in the elections Bush got 2.5% more votes.

In the rest of the (democratic) world it would be a scandal, [...]

Only in places where people would be stupid enough to lend much credence to exit polls, one of the most disingenious and unnecessary concepts ever invented.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
I mean Bush already vindicated taking twin towers down,

Welcome to ignore.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
OFITG,

Take it from this Bush hater - exit polls are not particularly accurate. The 2004 election wasn't "stolen." The result sucked, yes, but it was legit.

-Arrian

OK... from what I can tell the official consesnus is that "more Kerry voters participated in exit polls" from what I know exit polls are usually correct elsewhere, depenable on the sample but around 1% error is OK, now 5.5% is 550% more than OK... well we can let this rest .

Anyhow

If you think Bush is doing a bad job, why the hell would you want the UN there?

Well for starters it would be more acceptable to the whole world/Iraq. Than you could really shift the whole thing off your back and Iraq would became a "de facto" problem of the world.

More money would be thrown in the country as a benefit, and even Muslim countries could get involved in "solving the problems". Surely the scope would increase, US would still be a major presence (without US, there is no UN anyhow) but the chances of a peacafull resolution would be higher, after all the "US" mandate than does not lie anymore with US voters commited to Iraq war, but with them being commited to International Effort to rebuild hte country. It has a differnet weight, and I am sure that another 20/30k maybe more soldiers would help the situation. Just India could commit more people, and they said they would if this was a UN operation.

Welcome to ignore.

Well why not discuss it?

In other words ALQ got what they wanted. They wanted a war where the west without pretext shows its "true nature". It got the polygon where the people of the occupied country can much easier associate with their crazy ideas and indeed they got the platform both in US and in the Muslim world where the war "us" vs "them" makes sense.

That is why he has vindicated the strike. If US acted as it did in the past, stopped with Afghanistan as it should, and used it to prop up democracy in ME with a legit government supporting it and whole world standing behind it. Now that would do wanders to go towards the goal. With the war Bush indeed fulfilled many wishes that AlQ profess to be their goals.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

just to expand a little more...

200 bn in Afghanistan could have effectively launched the country economy and built something that they others in ME would envy. It could have been used to build the infrastucture that would not be destroyed by pissed of locals, but would be appreciated and used to change the country to a functioning democracy in perhaps as little as 10-12 years.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

ehhh, what does that have to do with pretty obvious fact that at exit polls Kerry won by 3% but in the elections Bush got 2.5% more votes.

After teh exit poll arguements in 2000 several prominent rightwing talk show hosts began urging their listeners (read: Conservatives) not to take part in exit polls. The belief was they weren't accurate and taking part only reinforced the argument that they were accurate.

If a significant percentage of right wingers deliberately don't speak to exit pollsters then of course there will be a skew towards the other side.

[Arrian]

Hell, I'm liberal and I totally ignored the exit pollers. I think it's stupid. It's a manifestation of national ADD - the results will come in overnight. But... that would mean waiting, like, for HOURS!

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

OK fair enough, I guess US has its own special circumstances, but I just read something else today on that subject... will make another thread (about the voting machines, AFAIK it's meant to be new)

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Funny you should mention that...



Rest of the article here.

It is interesting that, when I joined the Foreign Service in early 2004, people were champing at the bit to get into Iraq -- it was seen as a way to be a part of history, as well as being a career-making assignment. Now, less that two years later, jobs there are going begging. (Of course, staffing problems aern't helped by the fact that we've decided to stand up our largest embassy worldwide in a war zone.)

The article talks about jobs going unfilled, but doesn't talk about a second aspect -- who is filling those jobs. To be sure, careerists, patriots, and adrenaline junkies are all filling some of those positions. But the way State works at the mid-level is that you lobby your superiors for your assignments; as a result, a certain percentage of State Iraq jobs aer probably being filled by those mid-level officers who can't get any other assignment at State. That's right: Baghdad may be being staffed up, at least in part, by State's least competent, least desireable officers.

Say it loud, say it proud: Mission Accomplished!

Thanks for the inside scoop.


But I hope they don't make you go there, that's BS.

Sometimes the best person for the job is the one that has to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. But that's unfair (to say it lightly) when taking the job increases their risk of, well, dying.