Will saber-rattling against Iran hurt or help Bush?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Poll question: Will saber-rattling against Iran hurt or help Bush?

Or, actual war, if he were to push it that far... same question, would it hurt or help Bush in the election?

[bossfish]

1. Help...there are a bunch of bloodthirsty...

...motherfuckers out there.

[King of New Orleans]

2. Four more wars! Four more wars!

Guardsman and reservists are already unhappy with how much they've been called upon to serve in Iraq, imagine how they'd feel if they had to put family and career on hold again for Iran.

[merh]

29. Only Hurt Four More Years == War For Years

They can't stand him and worse, they can't stand how hating him makes them feel - as if they don't love the military, their unit and their country. They want to come home and to feel good about themselves. It is a conflict in their hearts that is so hard to deal with - they want to stop hating and fearing their creep-n-chief and so do I.

[sandnsea]

3. It will hurt

Fool me once and all of that. Bush can't just go around babbling about terrorists everywhere and expect us to go to war with every country in the world. Especially the way he goes to war. I think we'll be hearing alot of "he's got to be kidding" followed by "he's lost his mind".

[shockingelk]

4. recent CBS poll

I recall the recent CBS poll showed 60% saying the US should not wage war unless attacked first. It would seem saber rattling would be negative for that 60%.

Then again, most people disagree that invading Iraq made the US safer, yet they're pounding on the claim it did w/o offering their reasoning.

[sandnsea]

8. Saddam gone = safer

Iraq fucked up = not safer. Two thoughts in same head.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Gee that's so complicated!

Two thoughts at once? You're making my head hurt.

[bullimiami]

5. I dont know

Just one more stupidity test for the masses. Will we fail it once again? Is the boy who cried wolf a tired false parable at this point? Are we properly trained yet to jump though the doublethink hoop both smiling and scared? We shall see.

[fishface]

6. Since half of this country is populated by braindead Bush voters,

I'd have to say it'll help him..in the braindead areas.

[Cat Atomic]

7. I have no idea. I think it largely depends on how they present it.

If they just suddenly decide to invade, I think it'd be a political disaster for Bush.

However, the Bush administration could pull their own little Gulf of Tonkin and call their Iran strike "retaliatiatory". That might play well with alot of people- assuming the mainstream press goes along with the ruse.

I'm beginning to think it's just an incredibly irresponsible, geopolitical wedge issue, though. By putting this question in front of Kerry, they could hurt him politically. It would force him to either abandon the hawkish moderates or his own base. Republicans *are* stumping big time for Nader, after all.

This could be a big pro-Nader campaign... in a roundabout sort of way.

[Trekologer]

9. I think it will hurt...

Slowly, Americans are beginning to (rightfully) believe that much of the Bush administration's actions are politically motivated. They are starting to question the distracting actions, such as raising and lowering the terror threat level, thanks a lot to Michael Moore and F9/11, and wondering things like "So where's Bin Laden?" and "What happened to Afghanistan?". The Bush house of cards is beginning to fall down.

[radfringe]

10. it's booga-booga time

and the terramachine has rolled out a "new improved" threat based on intel from the agencies who gave you 9-11 and WMDs

channel surfing last night - it looks like the media are lining up to kiss bush*'s butt (again)

2001-2002 - Afghanistan - al-Qaeda is a threat - bomb'em
2002-2004 - No Wait! Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda are the threats - bomb'em
2004-200? - LOOK OVER THERE -- It's IRAN, IRAN is the threat - bomb'em

[Fleshdancer]

11. 6 mos before the IWR vote, I thought the attempt to invade Iraq would hurt

Bush. Apparently I was very wrong. I voted that it would hurt him this time, but obviously my track record isn't so good.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Wow, you actually think Iraq isn't hurting Bush?

Maybe you should, I don't know, read the papers once and a while or something. Haven't you seen the polls for the last year?

[Fleshdancer]

14. enough with the damn ugly attitude on this site!

If you don't understand me, ask for a clarification. The "I don't know, read the papers once and a while or something" is bitchy for no reason. Who are you attempting to impress speaking to people like that anyway?

The Iraq war is now hurting Bush but it took over a year for the tide to turn. Meanwhile, the 2004 election is how many months away? I was comparing the initial reaction to the Iraqi war to the hypothetical initial reaction to a war with Iran. Since the question specifically asked if the march to war with Iran would hurt Bush during the election, my previous statement still stands.

Yes I read papers. Yes I've seen polls for the last year, but that's not what I was talking about. Are we clear now?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. OK, I apologize

for not realizing that someone could actually be 'informed' and still produce such a nonsensical and vapid analysis of the situation.

Are we clear now?

[Cat Atomic]

19. She was obviously talking about the short term.

And Bush got a major boost from Iraq in the short term. Are you really too dense to understand that, or is your "snotty" button just stuck in the on position?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. You are asking me "Are you really too dense to understand"

and at the same time accusing ME of being 'snotty'?

:wtf:

[Cat Atomic]

22. A sharp tongue and a thin skin, eh?

Alright.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Sorry, but being puzzled by the hypocrisy of someone's post

does not equate to having a thin skin. I will admit to having a sometimes too-sharp tongue, however.

[Cat Atomic]

24. Look, all I'm saying is that it's

rude to solicit opinions and then mock those opinions. That's all. It pissed me off.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. And all I'm saying is that

your way of asking me to be more polite was to say:

"Are you really too dense to understand"

while simultaneously accusing me of being snotty.


It didn't piss me off, I just found the hypocrisy to be funny, although a little puzzling.

[Cat Atomic]

26. I don't see the hypocrisy, but ok.

I wasn't asking you to be more polite. I was pointing out your inappropriate treatment of someone who was trying to answer *your* question.

I don't pretend to be a beacon of civility- but I don't mind pointing out when someone else is being an ass, either. If that seems hypocritical to you, then fine.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. That explains it, I guess.

At the risk of appearing to talk down to you, which I assure you is not my intention, the hypocrisy is in being inappropriately rude while berating someone else for being inappropriately rude. Kind of like if Sen. Leahy had responded to Cheney: "you are an asshole for using profanity"... lol.


I wasn't asking you to be more polite.

Another comment I find a little puzzling. You were pointing out my rudeness, but not with the intention of convincing me to be more polite? What was your intent then? Simply to attack me? To what end?

[Cat Atomic]

30. I guess you missed my point.

I wasn't being *inappropriately* rude. And I wasn't asking you to be more polite, per se. I was saying that it's inappropriate to berate people who trying to answer *your* question in *your* thread. So I think I was appropriately rude.

I will stop posting now, and allow you the final word, because you seem determined to have it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. You guessed wrong.

The 'point' I was responding to was: I don't see the hypocrisy, but ok.

The fact that you still don't see it even after it has been pointed out to you, is unsurprising.


I think I was appropriately rude.

Good one! I fully expect you to continue to be 'appropriately rude', lol.

I will stop posting now, and allow you the final word, because you seem determined to have it.

Wow, what a zinger! So if I respond to your message, you'll have 'won'?
LOL, what an original concept, I've never seen anyone at DU try to end the conversation like that before! :eyes:

[Fleshdancer]

33. I'm glad someone here can read my post without insulting me

Thanks for speaking up on my behalf. I really don't know what's going on here lately...some people have become so insulting for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I don't recall ever posting on the same thread with this guy in the past and yet he attacks as if he's truly invested on hating me. Crazy.

Oh well, I guess that's what the ignore feature is for. :eyes:

[Fleshdancer]

32. obviously we're not clear now

what exactly is nonsensical about pointing out that Bush benefited from the Iraqi War for the first year?

And while we're at it, what is with the bitchy attitude?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. No we are not clear.

I am talking about whether or not saber-rattling against Iran will help Bush now and in the future, after his lies and duplicity on Iraq are apparent to all but the most brainwashed. I agree that if it were a year or two ago and he had gone after Iran instead of Iraq, at that point, it would have helped him in the polls.


And while we're at it, what is with the bitchy attitude?

I don't know. I prefer to discuss the issues and debate ideas rather than label other DUers as 'bitchy' or engage in namecalling. If I have a criticism, I like to direct it at the message rather than the messenger. So rather than personally attack someone as having a 'bitchy attitude' or an 'ugly attitude', I would be more likely to attack the comments they made that caused me to have that emotional reaction.


However, I was unnecessarily rude in my original response to you, and for that, I apologize.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

15. Fool me twice, shame on me...

See? It's not that hard to say! But seriously, I think that a large majority of people -- even those who say they still "support" Bush on Iraq, but be mightily pissed off if he tried to whip up a new war on the eve of the election. It would be just too transparent even for them.

[rpannier]

16. His rhetoric sounds the same

as it was leading up to the invasion of iraq.

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. If the sheeple buy the spin, it will help him

Seen the nightly news lately? Not only are they spinning the Iran bullshit, but now they're trying to claim that the Nigerian uranium story wasn't bullshit after all. And if they get away with that, they could get away with backing up a fleet of 18 wheelers, each painted "HALLIBURTON" in bright red, to a sand pit in the middle of the Iraqi desert, dumping in weapons (all of this captured live on video) and then 2 days later, claiming "We found Saddam's WMDs!!"

[BillZBubb]

20. It will help him

Americans love a tough guy leader willing to kick foreign ass. As long as he can come up with a plausible link to 9/11 it will help him.

On the other hand, if he uses WMD as the excuse, it will hurt him--he has no credibility on that issue.

[Beloved Citizen]

28. Another war is not what the American people...

...are looking for right now.