If you will read carefully, I said that Gen. Petraeus is not a panacea – a cure all. I don’t think Democrats are trying to undercut the General. I do think some Republicans are trying to create the image that Gen. Petraeus is a magic bullet of sorts. He is a capable general, but not a miracle worker.



I join Vermillion in asking that you support these assertions with some corroborating information.

Notice this from the board’s “Survival Guide.”



http://www.americasdebate.com/?page=guide#...and_maintaining

Ted your credibility is being flushed. How many times do we have to ask for supporting information?

Do you deny the Dems unanimously approved the General? Do you deny the “surge” troops are only now getting to Iraq? Do you deny the Dems want to cut funding and/or implement a plan that is in stark contrast to The generals plan?

Which part did you miss? They approve the man but not his strategy and try to cut of the troops needed to accomplish the plan and the money – what did I miss here Bof?????

You made this bold statement: "I don’t think Democrats are trying to undercut the General."

After hammering me for “sources” – how about yours? How can they oppose every part of his plan including the men he needs and money and not “undercut” him. Can’t wait for your sources Bof.



How is this:

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders outlined plans Thursday to compel President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S.
"Our troops must be out," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who has spent weeks trying to craft legislation to fulfill her party's electoral mandate to end the war.
Senate Democrats, including Feingold, announced plans to push a binding resolution that would begin troop withdrawals no later than 120 days after the resolution was approved, and would set as a goal the withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008.

In the House, Pelosi and senior lawmakers laid out a more complex timetable that would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces as soon as the end of this year, if the Iraqi government failed to meet key goals, such as disarming sectarian militias

Democratic leaders initially appeared to favor a more modest approach that set limits on Bush's plan to deploy 21,500 additional troops, most of whom will be sent to Baghdad to try to contain violence between Shiites and Sunnis.


How may more do you want. They started with 19 and are still trying to come to an agreement on witch defeat plan is best.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/petrae...2007-01-24.html

“Ask and ye shall” receive Ted. I don’t think you can connect approving Gen. Petraeus, with Bush’s surge plan. Above is what Senator Clinton said during the confirmation process. Even as she was prepared to confirm Gen. Petraeus, she was speaking out against the surge.

Edited to add:

Although the L. A. Times article you linked in your post covers both Senate and the House, much of it is about Speaker Pelosi. Civics 101 - Ted - the house and Speaker Pelosi have no say in confirming nominations.

BTW: Ted you still haven't addressed where you got the $200.00 per barrel of oil idea. I must assume, unless you post something to the contrary, that you just pulled this out of thin air.

“

Yes and did you read what The General said to Congress. Read below and then tell me again – how can they approve this many and his stated policy and tactic and then push to cut the troops and pull back. So0 we call him a “very good soldier” and then cut his throat?? Doed this stupidity make sense to you?

I connect the“surge plan” to your LINK Bof - read what he said below. So anytime you want to back up your idea that –“ I don’t think Democrats are trying to undercut the Genera” I can wait.

Prompted by presidential hopeful and Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Petraeus spoke out against congressional attempts to pass resolutions of disapproval on the new White House strategy in Iraq, which includes a troop increase of 21,500
.
“This is a test of will,” he said, adding that as commander he would like “the enemy to feel that there is no hope.” He stressed, however, that he respects freedom of speech and the discussions taking place in Congress.


As to $200/barrel oil – this has been discussed numerous times as a potential of war and conflict. Even threatened.
http://www.aztlan.net/chavez_oil_$200_barrel.htm
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002954.html
http://www.relocalize.net/node/4312

No to the first, and they have been there for several weeks but it is still very early to the second.



Absolutely and completely, yes. despite your rantings, the Democrats have been doing exactly what you fear the most: NOT interfering. They have been giving the diminishing number of republican hawks all the leeway they need to hang themselves, and given the same republicans NO excuses to pin the blame on anyone but themselves (where it obviously deserves to be placed). The surge was asked for and it has been granted. Nobody is interfering with Petreus, nor the surge in any way.

If you choose to deny this (and we all know you will) please provide some evidence rather than making stuff up...




Apparently, reality. The democrats have not 'tried' to cut off troops or funding, Ted, the Democrats control both houses because of Republican blunders and the public's disgust at them: if they 'tried' they would have suceeded. Unless the President has been vetoing things I'm not aware of.




Show me ANY evidence at all to support your oft repeated but completely made up contention that the democrats have cut off funding or troops to peteraus or the troops surge. PLEASE ted, show us all you aren't just making things up AGAIN.




Thats TWO plans Ted. TWO. 2. Not nineteen, Two. You do understand the difference between 2 and 19, yes? TWO plans, one of which has been dropped. You have stated time and time again there are 19 democratic plans, you said it a dozen times in different threads. Now you are being asked to back that up Ted, or admit that (once again) you just made it all up. We are waiting...



FOCUS Ted, please. You have stated MANY times that a precipitous withdrawal from iraq would les to $200 dollar barrels of oil. This is the REPEATED statement you KEEP making you are being asked (again) to justify.

So what did you do? Type '$200 barrel oil' into google and cite the first three links without reading them. Bravo Ted. way to destroy your shattered credibility.


Had you read your links, you would notice the second one is an article about how oil could NOT reach $200 a barrel. (much laughter) The third one is a threat made by the Iranian foreign office which was dismissed by the US government as empty rhetoric and almost impossible.

The first I cannot read as it is filtered out by the University filter as a 'racism and hate' webpage. Interesting.


So you have provided two links that DIRECTLY contradict your oft repeated invention. Well done Ted, well done indeed.

There is another way of looking at this. There was opposition to the surge in Congress, even before General Petraeus confirmation hearings. This included republicans like Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.

Note that the CBS story is dated January 6.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/06/...in2334974.shtml

The Petraeus hearings were a couple of weeks earlier. Notice the January 23 date on the Petraeus confirmation hearings.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/23/cnr.02.html

Could it possibly be that Petraeus took the job knowing there was considerable opposition to the surge in Congress?

No let’s examine your links to $200.00 per barrel oil. They involved Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran. Your statement transferred this to American “failure” in Iraq.

Link 1



http://www.aztlan.net/chavez_oil_$200_barrel.htm

Link 2



Matthew Simmons did say he thought the price, adjusted for inflation, would reach $200.00 within five years.

The article you linked disputed Simmons' prediction.




http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002954.html

Link 3



http://www.relocalize.net/node/4312

You must think we don’t read your links Ted.

How is not approving the funding “not interfering”. Oh I see it is only political grandstanding since they don’t have the stones (or the votes) to really cut the money. I see – just a stupid show that can and will do nothing but demoralize the troops and encourage the enemy – got it.


According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Bush and Congress have about three months to resolve their standoff before a lack of funds would begin to adversely affect operations in Iraq.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/04/03/bush_renews_veto_threat_on_iraq_bills/

How unfortunate that you chose to cut-and-run from the rest of the post, I was quite looking forward to seeing how you addressed having your made-up things proven entirely wrong yet again. I won't say I am surprised though...


owever, to the one point you DID address...



OK, so you accuse them of interfering because they cut the money, then insult them for being cowards because they didn't cut the money.

(Boggle)

Ted, you need to take a deep breath and think before you type. The Democrats have NOT interfered with the troops surge, they have NOT cut off funding, they have NOT rejected a budget or request for funds, they have done NOTHING, NOTHING to interfere with the surge. Stop making up accusations that they have, its simply and utterly not true.

You even admitted that yourself in the middle of your 180 turn in one sentence, but NOW you are accusing them of being cowards, and not having the stones to interfere. I have never seen anyone make an argument and then rebut their own argument in the same sentence. THAT takes some skill Ted.


In fact they are not interfering because they are allowing Bush his last trow of the dice, allowing him to continue his uninterrupted 4-year pattern of failure, and quite deliberately NOT giving desperate hawk-republicans an excuse to pitifully attempt to 'shift the blame' for the massive 4-year fiasco of the war. I think it's brilliant personally. Leave Bush and his cronies nobody at all to blame for the mess but themselves.

Oh, and stop pretending that would 'demoralise' the troops: polls have clearly shown the troops WANT to have a phased pullout of Iraq, by a large majority. Same with the Iraqi people. And the American people. Another one of the facts you cut-and-run from.


I take it we can expect an answer to the rest of my post soon? (Don't worry Ted, its a rhetorical question)

Ted your link isn't active. I'll fix it for you.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt..._on_iraq_bills/

To the best of my knowledge, the foundes gave Congress powers over the purse. Are you saying they should exercise this constitutional authority to suit Bush. Separation of powers anyone?

I don't know how you do that since I don't believe you know what a "surge" is. The bush administration carefully crafted the term "surge". According to here (the broswer on my laptop is sick):

http://dict.die.net/surge/

"Surge" means:



Ted, what you describe and what you are waiting for is an escalation. The surge has already happened. If you believe the surge is still in progress, then it's not a surge.

No problem – cut funds war is over. It’s the grandstanding I find disgusting and reprehensible. We all know they don’t have the votes – don’t we Bof.




Com e on DR you know that in this case they are discussing a tactic that requires more troops – and they are not all there yet – what is your point?

You are right, the Democrats do not have the votes to cut off funds. The beauty of a split government is that the Republicans don't have the votes to pass funding. This is not the first time we've had gridlock in Washington, nor will it be the last time. We both know it's a matter of whether Democrats or Bush blinks first. I hope it's Bush. Live with it.

BTW: My screen name is BoF not Bof. Try getting it right tED. It's so simple even a caveman can do it. Seriously though, this is not really a big thing, but it's your inattention to detail Ted, (see how easy it was to get it right this time) that compromises your credibility.

Firstly: so now you are admitting they have done nothing to impede the war effort, thus admitting your previous point was just you making things up again?

Secondly: No Ted, only through your black-tinted glasses is that even remotely true. They have not cut off funds in one shot because they don't want to, they never wanted to. They know it would lead to a chaotic removal of forces from Iraq in a mater of weeks and be an absolute blunder, both politically, militarily and morally. This is the ultimate straw man, creating evil reasons for why the Democrats have not done what you wish they would do so that you could abuse them for it.

They have not interfered so that the American people can see exactly what happens when Bush Jr and his srinking circle are left to their own divices in Iraq. 4 year of utter failure, mistakes and mismanagament up until this date, and now letting the 'troop surge' go unhindered, so Bush jr can hang himself with his own rope. It's win-win for the Democrats: if the surge works, then Iraq is pacified, the region stabilises and fewer Americans die. If the surge fails, as it seems well on its way to doing, then the Republicans can be held up as the architects of failure of every single stage of this debacle from start to finish, all entirely on their own, complete fiasco for four and a half years.

And lets be clear, Bush has been given ALL the rope he needs. he called for s 'surge' or 21,000 men, and has since quietly increased that by 5,000 combat troops, then by another 28,000 support troops. The surge has already doubled from Bush jr's speech. In early April the DOD stated a seperate 12,000 national Guard were being sent to Iraq, over and above the surge. Now we are up to 70,000 men. (Note, many of these men are not 'new' troops, but troops on the ground whose tours have been lengthened from 12 to 15 months.) Of those, over three/quarters have already been deployed to Baghdad, and the remainder are to be deployed as tours expire, allowing troop surge levels to remain constant. Thus the troops curently in Baghdad are likely as many as are going to be deployed there, give or take small numbers.

And lets be clear, Petreus himself declared that is the Troop surge fails, Iraq is doomed. We even have our own Ted admitting openly that if the violence has not abated by end of summer beginning of autumn, the plan will have failed. (though we predict he will 'forget' that comment when the time comes)

Of course there will always be SOME people with a Jonestownsian devotion to Bush Jr who will try, desprately try, to shift the blame for Bush's war to ted kennedy or pelosi or anything democrat, but they will just be making things up. Now who do we know on this board who does that all the time?




Actually Ted, most of them ARE there already, and the surge is not going well at all so far. Too early to predict failue or sucess of course, but the signs are not good ones.

Lets be clear the 'surge' in violence has not just been fighting against the Americans, which everyone predicted would happen, it has also been sectarian violence which Bush cronies said would diminish.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...aq/17103681.htm

"20 corpses were found in Baghdad today. 17 were in the west(Kharkh): 4 in Dora, 3 in Bayaa, 2 in Amiriya, 2 in Mahmudiya, 2 in Jihad, 2 in Amil, 1 in Mansour, 1 in Hurriya.

Right BoF they don’t so the grandstanding is just stupid. Needless to say Bush is not going to “blink” and shaft the General and his strategy – will not happen.

Obviously the left wing of the Democrat party wants to run now and is really angry that cannot just make it happen – get over it.

You have reverted to your chain of invetive, Ted....

"grandstanding"
"stupid"
"shaft"
"left wing"
"run now."

None of this has any meaning. It's just what Bush and Cheney have been trying to do, successfully until recently - sell a failed policy by jerking people's emotional strings. Have you had your coffee yet this morning? Wake up Ted, the American people have tuned this type appeal out, whether it comes from you or George W. Bush. That's what the 2006 election was about, and unless your party can come up with something more meaningful, the trend toward Democrats will continue through 2008.

Congratulations though. You didn't use the word "moron," "idiot," or attack that allegedly drunken, adulterous, murdering man with horns and a tail, Ted Kennedy.

There's hope.

Hey I had a large cup how about you BoF? I see you love the “failed policy” jargon as you might expect I feel the same way about this phrase. And no words I use (that you dislike) can compare to what Bush and Chaney have been called here and by your Dem buddies – so give me a break. If You don’t like what I say fell free to not read it sir.

FYI the policy has not “failed” until the war is over and we lose – which Dems can’t wait for to gain political advantage.

You might want to wake up sir and realize the American people don’t want to lose at any cost and many are willing to give the General and his strategy a chance to work before declaring defeat as you have. Too many of you on the far left forget that the “election” victory was not yours but given the Dems by more conservative Democrats. So you guys, much to your chagrin, don’t “run the party – although you try hard and evidenced by the disgusting 24 billion in “earmark” bribes to get the moderated to vote for the “cut the funds” grandstand. LOL

Ted,

More emotional, ad nauseam rhetoric - for example, "loose at all cost."

As a matter of fact, Ted, we've already won the war, but lost the peace.

Please notice the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Only 30% of the American people support the war. Since the poll was taken April 16, this must include the surge. Of the 70% who oppose the war, 59% strongly oppose it.

It's Bush on a limb, or maybe a skewer, against public opinion, hoping Gen. Petraeus can work a miracle or perhaps just stall for time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...ml?hpid=topnews

BTW: No, I haven't had my coffee this morning. I'm leaving for the coffee shop now. I'll check back in a few hours.

Well one survey can dispute another – depends on the questions and how they are asked – and even the Dems don’t all want to “set a timetable”.

Former Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., the new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), yesterday said he does not agree with efforts by Congress to set a deadline for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.
"I think most Americans want to win, they don't want to see us leave early, and if we leave prematurely, we may create a broader set of conflicts and invite a bigger problem in that region than before leaving,"
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200703...05657-5465r.htm

AMERICANS WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ
NATIONAL SURVEY SAYS PUSH TO RENOUNCE WAR IN WASHINGTON ON DIFFERENT PAGE THAN MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE ON IRAQ WAR

(Alexandria, VA) February 20 -- In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.
The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that "Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq."

By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security" and "the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism." Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that "even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war."

While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq ("creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home") is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.
By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree
http://www.pos.org/inthenews/20070220.cfm

Define winning Ted, the US long ago won the initial conflict and as some one said above then promptly lost the peace and carries on loosing that "Peace"

So define winning Ted.

Ted, your posts have reached the point where they frustrate me just as much as those of some early detractors, who claimed the surge would not work, simply because they opposed the war, and for no other apparent reason.
Why exactly do you think the surge will work? All I see is your using the surge as a political football to try and outscore Democrats. Your posts are long on diatribe and short on substance. If you support the troops and the surge plan as you say you do, lay off the bumper sticker rhetoric and lay out a concise argument. I implore you.....

Why exactly do you think the surge will work? All I see is your using the surge as a political football to try and outscore Democrats. Your posts are long on diatribe and short on substance. If you support the troops and the surge plan as you say you do, lay off the bumper sticker rhetoric and lay out a concise argument. I implore you.....


I have said why I believe the surge will work – simply because the without “security” in Baghdad the population that elected the government will never support it since they must live in fear of being killed daily. Before the surge the militias owned the streets of Baghdad – now people are moving back home. This is what the strategy is about.

As far as “bumper sticker rhetoric” I fail to see what you are talking about. I respond to people who merely post every bombing and piece of bad news in Iraq as proof we have failed and the “surge” is not working – this before the troops are even there. Is this right? Can we give the General the Congress approved a chance to make this work or not. That is the question.

Concise enough???

March 20, 2007 -- 'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/posto...ullu.htm?page=0

Concise enough???

No.

Your quote about Gen. Petraeus walking down the street, and not getting shot at doesn't mean the surge is working, or is going to work. It means the security around him did their job. As for the troop level, by and large, most units that are coming to Baghdad are already here. Not all have yet entered their sector in a meaningful way, but most are on the ground.
Petraeus is one sharp guy, I like him, but he is not the miracle that will save Baghdad........only the Iraqi's can do that.

And I agree only the Iraqi’s can do the job but they need a chance – and the former policy where we hid in the “green zone” while the militias ruled the streets at night clearly failed. And yes I blame Bush and his former commanders esp. the bad decision to disband the Iraqi army.

But IMO the current strategy is the only chance we have to pull the Iraq out of the ashes and I feel we should give the man a chance. He wrote the book on counter insurgency and if he fails I agree its essentially over.

The fact that people are moving back into Baghdad tells me it could be working. Still to early to tell and as the General told us the enemy will not sit by – as we saw this week with the car bombings.

I am not ready to say we have lost – how about you?

"The clampdown in the capital is credited with bringing a sharp reduction in civilian deaths in recent weeks, even though the number of attacks has remained fairly constant. "There are tanks and Humvees on every street corner," said an independent observer who returned from Baghdad last week. "There is a real change of atmosphere from earlier this year, before the operation began." According to David Kilcullen, senior counter-insurgency adviser to General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, heightened security has forced suicide bombers to detonate their devices at checkpoints well away from targets such as markets and other public gatherings, "killing far fewer people than intended, and far fewer than in similar attacks last year".
Colonel Kilcullen, an Australian former special forces officer, added that several bombs failed to explode, "showing a loss of skill as key bomb-makers are taken off the streets". Other reports show a steep decline in the number of bodies found dumped overnight, indicating that the "surge" is curbing the activities of death squads."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...icle2411393.ece

Ted, I don’t know where to start. Perhaps Harold Ford is a good place. Had I been living in Tennessee, I would have voted for Ford. Sure he has some name recognition, but he’s one voice, one opinion among many. This might be good homiletics in a sermon. Something like Deon Sanders believes in Jesus. Dion Sanders can intercept passes and can catch them - and run. That must mean he’s qualified to speak on religion. Likewise, Ford is no more an authority on the surge than you or I. Nice try, but you are stabbing in the dark.

Ted, I question this link. Public Opinion Strategies is a company that produces polls for clients.

Here’s something on their "about us" page:



http://www.pos.org/about/default.asp

In this case, POS was hired by The Moriah Group to conduct the poll.

Here's what Moriah says about itself:



http://www.moriahgroup.com/www/docs/2/work

So let’s review. The Moriah Group hired Public Opinion Strategies to conduct a poll. The question is, who hired the Moriah Group. It seems there are several layers of buffer. Could it be that Moriah was hired by RNC or some group connected with RNC that would add yet another layer of buffer?

I’m not sure POS conducts push polls. That would be something like, “Would you vote for Ted Kennedy if you knew what Ted of knows, that is that Kennedy is a “drunken, adulterous, murderous, idiot?”

Yet the questions are loaded. The one you chose was this one:



Ted’s link:

http://www.pos.org/inthenews/20070220.cfm

Whether or not I think the surge is working or will work, I do “care what happens in Iraq after the U. S. leaves.” To date I haven’t seen much coming from the Bush administration that I view as positive. Although General Petraeus is a good man, again he is not a panacea; he is not a miracle worker.

The commercial nature of the POS poll, plus the loaded questions invalidate your link as a serious piece of research. To add a little humor, Ted your research techniques are so poor as to remind me of this dancing bear cartoon.

http://idogcow.vox.com/library/photo/6a00c...1ee243685e.html

I’ll keep trying to find out who hired The Moriah Group.

And this implies that other surveys are more valid because their questions are not “loaded”. You read the questions – how are they “loaded”.

I guess if we disagree we just blow off the survey right BoF???




Ya sure and all the media who do surveys are strictly neutral?? Please explain less the innuendo, why the questions were not valid. I see no problem with them – but you disagree with the results and this makes it “wrong give me a break BoF.
” - How about you do a better job of explaining that rather than the ad holmium attacks on me.


Is this the point or is it more correctly the methods of the survey and the questions?

No, Ted, I'm not talking about method. I'm questioning the validity of a poll bought and paid for by someone and buffered to the point that we don't know who originally made the purchase. You can get anything, including a favorable poll, if you pay someone enough to do it.

Maybe you could find a non-commercial poll to support your opinion.

NO BoF. Who cares who paid for it. Do you think you can blow it off that simple because you don’t like the results?? Come on BoF try again. The questions just were not asked in other surveys – unless you know of some.

So either attack the questions or the method or claim the survey is a fraud (with proof). That is where the “validity” is. Not in your opinion.

Would we be having this conversation BoF if you agreed with the survey?? I seriously doubt it.

I would have questions about any poll that was bought and paid for by someone, including the DNC.

Your assumptions aren't much better than your research.

Likewise for you Bof. You have squat and I am supposed to believe that since the company may be commercial they are dishonest? Ludicrous logic. Let not discuss - not worth it if all you can do is blow off data you don't agree with.

Ted,

This has about run it's course. I've spent several hours today in point-counter-point with you. If you have an overpowering need to get in the last word, then by all means do so. I've spent several hours in point, counter-point with you today. I'm beginning to feel like I used to after I had taught adolescents all day. But that's just my statement. Vermillion, and others are independent agents. So, they can do as they choose, including arguing with you.

I haven't quoted anything from Cook, so I'll use it as an example of the difference in "paid for" and "objective" information. The difference is in paying someone to do a poll and standing in line to pay someone for a poll they've already done.



http://www.cookpolitical.com/about/default.php

Cook does the research and subscribers buy it, rather than being commissioning someone to do it. I don't think Cook cares who agrees or disagrees with his findings. Subscribers can take it for what it's worth and apparently they think it is valuable.

BoF

I don’t care about the “last word” I am just tired of your illogical position and don’t want to discuss further. The fact that there are numerous survey companies does NOT make the survey I posted invalid. You and Vermillion seem to like the tactic of attacking the person or the data source and ignoring the data. They did not chose to use the Cook folks – this does not make the data invalid does it.

If you have something more than you opinion that the survey I posted was wrong I an all eyes. Otherwise feel free to have the last word on this issue.

Just a point of clairification Ted. Cook does not bid on jobs, intellectually prostitute himself or sell his soul to organizations. He produces a product, puts it on line and charges a subscription fee to use it. It's much like going to B&N and buying a magazine. He was never in the running - never applied - for the job POS got. Do you even understand the difference?

That is hypocritical and you know it. Come on Ted, be realistic. POS SELF IDENTIFIES as a 'republican research agency'. It's not about other people on this board pretending is has a political agenda, POS OPENLY admits on their webpage that they have a political agenda. I have already confronted you on your use of POS, in particular when their 'numbers' disagree with every major independent polling agency, in particular the unimpeachable Gallup. Of course, you cut-and-ran from that the last time we discussed it (surprise!).

And the hypocricy is obvious Ted, everyone here knows if I cited numbers from a self-avowed 'democratic polling agency' you would have a coniption online. Lord knows you have done it plenty of times before. So do not try to pull on other tactics you would never accept yourself.




I have to say Ted, every now and then you surprise me, and I would be remiss if I did not aknowledge that openly. This, combined with your previous admission that the surge would be a failure if there were not visible and obvious results by the end of summer, is a rare bit of reasonableness quite different from your usual. I personally thank and commend you for it.

You see THIS position is reasonable. I may disagree with it, but at least it makes sense. Your previous positions (Crowing surge victory after a week, blaming everything on the democrats, making up arguments about democratic meddling, and so on) were not. I have pointed out every time you make things up or cut-and-run from arguments every time you do either (which is a lot), so to be fair I have to aknowledge when you talk sense.


Anyways...
The man IS being given a chance. Nobody has interfered with his surge nor the operation of. Bush has everything he asked for, the initial surge and the extra troops he has thrown in since, without any interference. The failure of the war to date lands squarely at Bush's feet and those of his shrinking circle of republican hawks. The sucess or failure of the surge will also land squarely at his feet, with no interference from the Democrats. As I said before, politically, I think its actually quite clever of them.

Petreus DID write the book (or a book) on counter-insurgency, sadly in that book he declared that Iraq could not be pacified without the addition of 120,000 troops. Hopefully he can pull something together on what Bush jr has given him, though the signs are not good so far.

Ted,

It’s a new day. I’m not as tired as I was yesterday. At my age one cannot sit behind a computer all day without stiffening up. Often after an army retreats, it moves forward after regrouping. I've regrouped today.



I have tried not to attack you, but your data is fair game. Attacking a source kind of nips things in the bud - to use an old cliché. In another thread, you mentioned going to graduate school.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=213515

Surely, you know not to use tainted information in a post and not expect to be called on it.

There are other things I could be doing, in fact I would rather be doing. I think, however, doing a through expose on POS worth the time and effort.

POS Methodology

If we are going to talk about methods Ted, you will notice that POS doesn’t even claim to have polled a “random sample.” Without random sampling, there are all sorts of ways to manipulate the outcome. Since you are so vociferous in objecting to my calling your poll “invalid,” I will soften that to say that the results are highly suspect.

http://www.pos.org/research/methodology.asp



The Republican claim made by Vermillion is accurate.

POS Clients

With the exception of Joe Lieberman, I cannot find any non-Republican candidate POS has worked for.

http://www.pos.org/research/political.cfm

POS Vice President



http://www.pos.org/about/vps.asp

Emphasis mine.

Ensign is, of course a Republican. Surprise, Surprise!



http://ensign.senate.gov/about/about_index.htm

Another POS Vice President




http://www.pos.org/about/vps.asp

POS Partners



http://www.pos.org/about/partners.asp

I could go on Ted, but I think I’ve made my point. The next time you use POS as a source, all I will have to do is link this expose and I will instantly debunk your source.

I don’t think I’m being unfair to you Ted. I haven’t called you an "alligator's tail" or something worse. I have cast aspersions on the objectivity of your source. You are invited to reenter the fray at will and if any other member, including the mods think I’ve treated you unfairly, they can speak up.

This organization helps clients win elections. It is not a reliable reflection of public opinion.

This is typical of Vermillion and BoF – we shoot the source when we don’t like the “results”. So anyone without a left bias is part of the “right wing conspiracy” and therefore suspect? Perhaps they used this group because that wanted to ask question not asked by the other “surveys” - We all know how important the “question” is to the result don’t we.

So if you would like to:
1. show me how they “rigged” or falsified the survey.
2. Show mw another survey with the same questions that had an entirely different result.

We can discuss. Otherwise you can have the last word and give me your biased “opinions” that the survey had to be wrong because of the people who did it – an unsupported argument at best –(Need facts/proof not innuendo) and a slanderous lie IMO.

Yeah, right, because lord knows Ted has never attacked a source because he felt it came from something too far to the right for his liking, Ted has never refused to discuss or cut and run from evidence because it came from the mainstream media, which he personally feels is too left wing.

It is typical of US, Ted? Some old aphorism about pot and kettle comes to mind...


Your argument is a losing one Ted, and you know it. POS SELF IDENTIFIES as a 'republican research agency'. It's not about other people on this board pretending is has a political agenda, POS OPENLY admits on their webpage that they have a political agenda. It's not a right-wing conspiracy or a secret, its the simple truth, a truth even POS admits.




We have been down this road so many times with you. There are many centrist polling agencies out there, and NONE so unimpeachable as Gallup: in decades nobody from EITHER side has been able to find any flaw in their work or their polling, no matter how much the results might disagree with their personal opinions.

I mean for heaven's sake Ted go to your own link and LOOK at the questions POS asked. I caould not come up with more loaded or biased questions if i TRIED.


FAR more importantly however, is that REAL independent polling agencies uniformly disagree with POS, and uniformly agree with each other. Your second 'chellenge: '2. Show mw another survey with the same questions that had an entirely different result', was ill considered Ted. Here is a poll with FAR more neutral questions and a much larger sample group conducted by an independent agency: and sure enough, totally different result:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Look at the second question asked in this Gallup poll from a week ago. It tells a story the EXACT opposite of what your openly right-wing republican 'research agency' determined, that more and more people want to create and stick to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. For your own edification, notice also how neutral the questions are, asking two scenarios both with clear positives and negatives. I'm sure the difference is not lost on you, even if you pretend otherwise.

THIS poll (thank you Gallup) is an accurate representation of the views of Americans today, regardless of wheither or not you like the reality or not. My favourite, and the most telling question to my mind:

"( 4/9-12/07) Which of these comes closest to your opinion? (1) Congress should block all funding for the war in Iraq no matter what. OR, (2) Congress should allow funding only for a limited period of time. OR, (3) Congress should allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit." N=497 (Form A)

Block All --- Time Limit --- No Limit --- Unsure
6% --- 61% -- 30% --- 3%

Don't mind if I do.

Of course when you quoted what I did from the POS webpage you omitted the second paragraph. Quite an omission "doncha" you think?



Until DeLay's fall from grace, it seems he was something of a trophy in Autry's case.



Ted you accuse people of attacking you. In the research I did on POS I took care not to attack you. Please do likewise. I would be careful about accusing others, including me of, "slanderous lies."

As usual you attack me as a prelude in any discussion. Typical for you but annoying at best. You seem to do it to everyone so I will just ignore you.



As to poll questions and polling groups you have still done nothing but attack the source with crass innuendo – that are dishonest because they work with Republicans – well the media bias is left so maybe that effects other surveys – for example look at the question you referred to below. Black and white and I like the “many years”. The question implies that if you agree with no timetable there is none and we stay in Iraq indefinitely – which is not the reality. The issue is having a “public” timetable. Do you see the marked difference in the question? This is as biased as it gets. “do you want to set a timetable or be there forever” – real objective.



Here is another great question:

"Based on what you have heard or read about the recent surge of U.S. troops in Baghdad, do you think the increase in the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad is making the situation there better, not making much difference, or is it making the situation there worse?
This one literally depends on the biased media reporting (less FOX) where (as with you) every bomb that goes off means the surge fails. Great question

So show me a question like these: OR show me proof the methods were fraudulent – this is what you are implying – NOW PROVE IT
.
By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that "Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq."

By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security" and "the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism." Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that "even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war



Is this proof of “lies” or fraud or anything BoF? Wow just mention Delay and we can invalidate anything we like right? The whole survey is a lie – except you cannot show me one shred of proof and I cannot imagine every left wing hack out ther has not tried – so get proof or I don’t buy it.


Thanks for you opinion!

Ted there is nothing else I could do to make you realize that POS is a compromised source. I have done this by quoting directly from their webpage. I really don't care whether you, as one individual on this board, "buys" it or not. This thread is open. If anyone else agrees with you, they can speak up.

Sorry for the dismissive tone, but it's sometimes necessary.

Nice try at playing the poor abused martyr card there Ted, but my 'personal attack' which wounded you SO deeply was apparently the comment 'We have been down this road so many times with you'.

Tell you what martyr Ted, explain to me exactly how that personally insulted, offended or attacked you, and then point out to me any way it is inaccurate. Do that and I will sencerely apologise. fail to do that and I will assume this is just you making things up again.



Yeah, thats close. Except no 'crass innuendo', just open logical statements. You really are going heavy with the Martyr card today aren't you?
\
Actually what I said is ANY agency which identifies itself as being politically members of one party or another is suspect when compared to TRULY independent polling agencies like Gallup. Frankly you are beating a dead horse here and you know it. You SEEM to be trying to argue that your republican polling agency is more accurate than Gallup, a literally unimpeachable polling agency used extensively by all sides of the political spectrum. Is that what you are seriously trying to argue here Ted?




I think it is a fantastic question. It just doesn't mean what you desperately want it to mean. They are measuring the people's reaction to the news media. Why on earth do you THINK they phrased the question that way?

Ted, are you seriously trying to prove that Gallup is MORE biased than your self-identified republican firm? I'm sorry, but thats not even worth discussing. If you choose to want to believe that then it is your business of course, you live in a country where anyone can believe anything no matter ow absurd. But it clearly has no reflection on reality.


Answer this for me Ted: If I gave you two polls, one saying Bush has a 31% approval rate conducted by Gallup, and AGRRED with by every major independing polling firm in the US, and another Poll showing he had a 10% approval rate from a self-identified Democratic left-wing election agency.... and then tried to insist the democratic one was the real one... tell me honestly Ted, how would YOU react?

We all know that on the off chance you decided to answer at all, you would blow a gsket and lay down all your usual insults about believing anything the left tells us. Now (hysterically) you are doing EXACTLY what you would abuse anyone else for doing. There is a REASON we have inepending polling firms, and there is a Reason gallup is unimpeachable by either side.


The worst thing is, you already KNOW all this, you have even cited Gallup's unimpeachability YOURSELF in the past when its results suited your personal view of the world.... so why on earth are you insisting on this silliness?

BoF And you have given me nothing but a ludicrous belief that the poll is “invalid” because of the source with no proof whatsoever. Real convincing. The fact that the phrasing of the questions is very different seems to mean little to you.


Obviously lots of people believe as I do, that the survey is valid and I could care less if BoF doesn’t “buys” it.

Yes you can do nothing else but give me more than your opinion – like some evidence your allegations are correct as opposed to speculation and innuendo. Have a nice day.

Yes I did Ted. You just chose to ignore it.



Think random sample Ted. It's the backbone of such polling. The methnodology section of the POS webpage is nothing more than a smokescreen to mask unusual methodology.

Well, it seems you cut-and-run from my direct questions and posted comments again (stunned astonishment!) but, lets all three of us (Ted, BoF and myself) agree on one thing: this is increasingly silly and dragging further and further off topic. So lets put this absurdist POS nonsense to bed shall we? You asked above, now ye shall receive.


This (below) is the February 5th 2007 poll question you posted from POS in an attempt to twist the desires of the American people to suit your personal political needs. POS is a self-identified right wing republican elction agency. They make no bones about it, they don’t deny it, they say it on their webpage. here is their poll, quoted by you:




Fine, lets look at some OTHER polls now, shall we?

Gallup: April 13-15 2007:
If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S. -- to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years, or to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time?"
38% = keep troops there until the situation improves,
57% = Withdraw on timetable regardless of situation.

OK, interesting. Almost the exact opposite of your POS poll, but this one by gallup, an actual independent polling agency. But lets'not stop there, lets try a different Poll.


CBS News Poll: April 12th, 2007.
Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?"
57% = Should withdraw on timetable
38% = Should NOT set timetable.


Hmmm… exactly the same numbers as Gallup. OK, lets try another different poll:



Newsweek Poll, March 29th 2007.
Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq that would have MOST troops out by September 2008?"
59% = Should set timetable
37% = Should NOT set timetable


Hmmmm… exactly the same numbers AGAIN! POS sure is taking a mighty beating here... Well, lets try ONE MORE polling agency…


Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, March 25th, 2007.
Do you think the U.S. should or should not set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq?"
55% = Should set timetable
38% = Should not set timetable.


Almost the same again! But lets be completely sure about this shall we? Lets check just ONE more polling agency, just to drive those nails home in the coffin:


Newsweek Poll/ Princeton Survey Research Associates International, March 15th 2007
Do you favor or oppose congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?"
59% = Favour
34% = Oppose.


Ted, you amusingly demanded (I’ll use your words):





Well, here are FIVE polls, all showing almost exactly the same things, all by actual INDEPENDENT polling agencies, and ALL showing the exact opposite of your right-wing republican election agency.


Please Ted, explain to us all how your one self-identified right-wing republican election agency is more accurate than the nearly unanimous polls conducted by five separate, independent apolitical professional polling firms.

Please, inform us, we are dying to hear…


PS: Hey, while you are at it, maybe you could justify your '$200 barrel of oil' invention, or your '19 democratic plans' invention, or any of the others we have been calling you to evidence for so long...
Just a passing thought...

You can only live in a fantasy world for so long. Hitler lived in one during the last days of World War II, moving little flags about on a map to represent panzer divisions that, in fact, no longer existed. One senses a similar mentality in Cheney's and Bush's, even in Petraeus's, sturdy insistances that we're winning this war. But life in a fantasy world eventually comes to an end: the Russian infantry sooner or later breaks into the fuehrerbunker. The analogous end of Ted's fantasy of an electorate that supports the war will be the 2008 elections, I opine.

But perhaps it will be the end of my fantasy that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to this war. The election will tell with public opinion, blood and iron will tell in Iraq, and in the mean time, I'm not really sure what point it serves to keep pounding on poor Ted. His preference for the results of this one poll, when all others point in the opposite direction, really is profoundly pitiful. Likewise his belief that we're actually winning the glorious struggle on the ground.

I'm just now reading A Woman in Berlin: Eight Weeks in the Conquered City -- A Diary, a vivid eye-witness account. In it, there is a man that everyone calls "Siegismund," since he's always insisting that victory (sieg in German) is almost at hand, even while his apartment building is being blasted by American aircraft and Russian artillery. His steadfast loyalty to a failing leader, and his instance that a lost cause will soon be won, reminds me of Ted's.

Once again you prove you cannot read. Notice that the trick is the words “set a timetable” – implying (as I SAID 5 TIMES) that no timetable means we stay forever – which is certainly not the case.

But when asked a more complete question like:

By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security" and "the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism." Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that "even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war
We get different results – amazing.

So please stop flailing around trying to prove something you cannot. The other polls don’t ask the question above and they are misleading since Bush himself has said he has a (non public) timetable – so essentially thses surveys agree with Bush – not you.

Nice try though.

The Gallup poll question is almost identical to this. Go here: PollingReport.com/Iraq. The results of this question are in direct conflict with your assertions, Ted. And, surely, you would agree that not all polls are alike, right? The Gallup poll is literally the benchmark by which all other polls are judged.

As a side note, PollingReport.com aggregates a bunch of polls to even out some of the biases. For example, I've noticed that the FoxNews poll puts Dubya's popularity numbers consistently lower than other polls (by a couple of points) whereas the NBC poll puts it higher (by a couple of points).

The poll you cite, Ted, is so far out from other more well-known and respected polls that one should be highly skeptical of its numbers.

I'm not sure if it is in the best interest to discuss polling numbers since the surge was primarily a White House decision to go against the Baker-Hamilton report.

Personally I would keep a list of notable analysts which are able to keep John Q. public updated and if there is an extension or expansion of personel deployed to Iraq. Then compare new comments to older ones at the beginning of the surge. The results are not flattering.

Ted, Ted, Ted... Please stop making things up. Your question, "keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security is almost IDENTICAL to the Gallup poll question: to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until