It’s official: over HALF of my fellow Americans disagree with the majority of world leaders once again, and are standing alongside Senator John McCain and singing his song (video link courtesy of YouTube):
“Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran,
bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran… “
The scariest part of all this is the fact that these are “likely voters” according to Zogby International:
Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran
Most see Clinton as the presidential candidate best equipped to deal with Iran, followed by Giuliani and McCain—but many express uncertainty
A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.
The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of “lying” about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of “serious consequences” if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.
Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups. …”
“That’s it — the judge and the jury President Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Vice President Dick “Shotgun” Cheney and the neocon right has spoken out against Iran and we’re gonna fall for the ole’ this country is evil trick again” say my fellow Americans. No PROOF is needed; the littany of highly disputable accusations by those who would benefit the most from an expanded “Big Oil and Nation Buildin’ Bidness” in the Middle East is more than enough to convince over half of my fellow Americans that Iran poses an imminent threat to our families and friends over here on U.S. soil according to Zogby.
Am I the only one who is HORRIFIED at the results of this poll? Am I the only one who thinks that maybe… just MAYBE, the admittedly bungling and often useless United Nations should not only be consulted, but be united in support of a war against Iran before we even THINK about going it alone again as we did in Iraq with our Coalition Of The Billing?
You see, THIS is why the rest of the world hates this country and is now beginning to direct their anger toward U.S. Citizens on a PERSONAL basis. I can almost predict with certainty what will happen: the majority of us are all excited about taking the war to Iran; we GO to war against Iran; after a couple of years of miscalculations, mounting body counts of American Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen, the polls will become strongly reversed — GUARANTEED.
Here is another quite FRIGHTENING result of the Zogby poll:
“… When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. …”
And, why Hillary? Simply because she, too; a so-called “FORMER” Republican activist growing up, is a NEOCON who can’t wait to wrap her paws around that “Big Oil and Nation Buildin’ Bidness” of President Bush’s King George II and his buddies — that’s why. Explain to me how we go into Iraq for the oil according to Alan Greenspan, yet our gasoline prices shoot through the roof. Something wrong with that picture, you say? FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL, friends and colleagues.
To my fellow Americans — how about a LITTLE PATIENCE? A little DIPLOMACY? How about waiting for an INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS before we allow the neoconservative Republicans in the Oval Office to write their own articles of war against the sovereign nation of Iran before we follow the advice and wishes of Mr. McCain? Forget the domestic sanctions; i.e., the President’s declaration of war against Iran’s military elites; the Republican Guard; the WORLD has levied sanctions against Iran already and the U.N. hasn’t even BEGAN to join the chorus of the “John McCains” (52%) of our country as of the time of this writing.
While I wouldn’t say I’m ashamed of the majority of my fellow Americans, I’m quite DISMAYED that so many of them are so damned GULLIBLE as to fall for this propaganda once again; particularly when the stakes are so high and the price to pay just doesn’t happen to be backed up by the current contents of the U.S. treasury OR the cannon fodder live bodies serving in uniform at this time.
Again, I urge you to think… think… THINK before you open your mouths to the pollsters next time, my friends.
***
Some hand-picked favorite blogger reactions, H/T to MemeOrandum: The Van Der Galiën Gazette; The Moderate Voice; Don Surber (Right); PoliBlog (TM)
Loading ...
1:35 pm on October 30th, 2007 1
maybe we’ll get to text in our vote for the attacks name. like “Operation I Hate You France Why Do You Make Us Do Everything?”
how ’bout:
“Operation You Better Shut Your Pie-hole France!”
maybe:
“Operation Poppas Got a Brand New Baghdad”
i don’t know:
“Desert Storm III: Hey We Could Use Some Help Over Here (France)”
2:47 pm on October 30th, 2007 2
[...] Zogby Poll: Most Americans Have Drunk The Koolaid On The Topic Of Iran » This Summary is from an article posted at The Gun Toting Liberal™ — Slightly left of center… [...]
4:12 pm on October 30th, 2007 3
And when Our stealth bombers get their shiny new bunker busters courtesy of some snuck-in appropriation, and signed off by a congress and senate that get’s told “oh just it already or you won’t get your pork next year” and we get dragged into decades long conflict….
the dollar will plummet, we hit a recession, oil over 100 a barrel ( I’m paying triple what I paid for heating oil 4 years ago!) can we bum rush the WHite House and turn the Oval Office into a mosh pit because that’s what it’s become, it seems. Bunch o’ punks in charge.
Do you think Russia is going to sit this one out? Turkey will bum rush the Kurds, and GWB will be “what, me worry?”
….and Clinton got oral while GWB turns the Constitution into scat play props.
11:34 pm on October 30th, 2007 4
In Bush’s own words: Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again’
This poll is frightening. When did pre-emptive attacks become this nation’s preferred foreign policy method? Have we learned nothing from the Iraq debacle? The reasons against a pre-emptive attack against Iran could fill a book, and a quite voluminous one at that. Not least of which is that our invasion of a 3rd predominately Muslim/Islamic country will only invite more terroism, not less.
Has anyone bothered to look up just how many countries are in possession of nuclear or thermonuclear weapons. The U.S. has over 5,000, Russia close to 6.000. Other countries like Israel, Pakistan, India, England, China, among others also possess operational nuclear weapons. And we are going to war so Iran won’t produce ONE!
Americans must seriously examine this neo-con philosophy of pre-emptive strikes. Under their logic, a case could be made for attacking China and Russia who not only have the capability to attack America, but have actually held joint military sea exercises recently.
Did the president have a plan for dealing with Iran after the fall of Saddam? Iraq had actually served as a buffer between Iran and other Middle East countries. It was predicted that with the fall of Saddam, Iran would be emboldened to once again exert its power in that region. And like so many other predictions about what could go wrong if the U.S. invaded Iraq, that one has also come true. It was one of the reasons the president’s own father didn’t take out Saddam in the first Gulf War.
Americans must stop using 9/11 as the justification to attack countries. If Iran attacks us (highly unlikely) then I’m with the president 100% – I’ll be on the front lines yelling, “bring it on.” Let’s go after those who orchestrated 9/11 and bring some closure to that national tragedy. Let’s beef up the anti-terroism units in the various agencies and also institute strategies to re-build the military. We are strong, we are just, let’s stop acting like a bunch of imperialists gone wild.
10:19 am on October 31st, 2007 5
“Pre-emptive” is just spin for “Invasion”
Does Bush have a team of psychics now? For a supposed man who lives by “faith based” initiatives he’s missing the whole “Do unto others” oh I forgot, he’s a CINO.
It has become a demonised “Do unto others before they do it to you, post 9-11 knee jerk backlash”
1:31 pm on October 31st, 2007 6
You must keep in mind that polls such as Zogby have posted artificially low findings for candidates such as Ron Paul in dishonesty.
I believe that their poll figures for Iran are artificially high. I do not believe that half of Americans want to invade Iran. Regardless, the function of democracy is to protect the minority from the majority. 80% of Americans could want to invade Canada, but without a reason it is mass illegal sentiment.
1:54 pm on November 1st, 2007 7
Jo from Main, you said “If Iran attacks us (highly unlikely) then I’m with the president 100%” — I am curious, what if Iran attacks Israel (highly likely), would you be in favor of defending our perennial staunch ally by attacking Iran?
9/11 was the result of a pattern of inaction (or very weak action) by the United States in response to various terrorist attacks on U.S. interests overseas.
If nukes were available to those terrorists at that time they most likely would have used them. In that case, the death toll would most likely have been in the millions by now, instead of the several thousand who have died as a result.
I do NOT believe that the societies/countries who will likely be targets of the Iranian regime and/or of the terrorist groups they support, should wait until they are attacked with that ONE Iranian nuclear weapon. It is ethically and morally wrong for a government to expose its people to that kind of risk.
The regime in Iran is much more volatile, and much more likely to actually use a nuke against its enemies than any of the other countries listed by Jo from Main. Obviously, that is subjective, but I believe history and current events support that position.
4:43 pm on November 1st, 2007 8
“9/11was the result of a pattern of inaction (or very weak action) by the United States in response to various terrorist attacks on U.S. interests overseas.”
prove it.
“The regime in Iran is much more volatile, and much more likely to actually use a nuke against its enemies than any of the other countries listed by Jo from Main. Obviously, that is subjective, but I believe history and current events support that position.”
guess who’s the only country to already have used them?
AFTER the japanese we’re already thoroughly defeated.
and if iran even looks at israel the wrong way they’ll disapear from the map, and israel won’t need help with that either, not by a longshot.
from wikipedia:
A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crimes against humanity and/or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:
“Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?”
a must read:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
1:29 pm on November 2nd, 2007 9
9/11was the result of a pattern of inaction (or very weak action) by the United States in response to various terrorist attacks on U.S. interests overseas.”
prove it.
well, I think the problem was you had a bunch of agencies not communicating and connecting the dots…Khobar towers, USS Cole, even as far back as WTC 93…
A lot of seeing and not saying something, or those messages getting lost in the sauce.
As far as nukes go-it’s hard to talk about nuclear proliferation on one hand while you start parking missile defense systems in Poland. no one talks about the nukes Israel has…if we have their back why do they need them…what about Pakistan and India? China for that matter, and now ( thanks to “eyes on the prize” Bush ) N. Korea?
Pure brinkmanship all over again.
1:59 pm on November 2nd, 2007 10
Call it what you want, no one has used nukes since WWII. Should we let Iran be the first since WWII? Does anyone deny that the 9/11 terrorists would have used nukes if they had them at that time?
My statement stands; “I do NOT believe that the societies/countries who will likely be targets of the Iranian regime and/or of the terrorist groups they support, should wait until they are attacked with that ONE Iranian nuclear weapon. It is ethically and morally wrong for a government to expose its people to that kind of risk.”
2:47 pm on November 2nd, 2007 11
Oops — the latest coming out of Isreal suggests that may no longer be a true statement, bro… UNFORTUNATELY.
3:38 pm on November 2nd, 2007 12
Maybe it’s just the fact that the rest of the world doesn’t have a media that kowtows to the bureacracy. If they start asking the tough questions, like reporters are supposed to, that they won’t get put on the A-List to see the President mock the world by pretending to look for WMD’s. Surreal.
That is not to say AJ doesn’t have their own slant/agenda. I am more interested in the follow up, and if it is true, then we are deep in it.
I suppose an independent nuke commission is the only way to sift out the truth- becasuse Bush and cronies will spin it as nuke residue from the plant. However trace radiation from a plant and bomb would present differently.
3:57 pm on November 2nd, 2007 13
Shirley you can’t be serious hanginjohnny…”Maybe it’s just the fact that the rest of the world doesn’t have a media that kowtows to the bureacracy.” ALL mass media kowtow’s to their own bureaucracy. Al Jazeera would have no customers at all if they didn’t report what the Arab world wants to hear.
5:24 pm on November 2nd, 2007 14
errata.
and don’t call me Shirley! lol.
“Al Jazeera would have no customers at all if they didn’t report what the Arab world wants to hear.”
see previous:
“That is not to say AJ doesn’t have their own slant/agenda. I am more interested in the follow up, and if it is true, then we are deep in it.”
and more interesting- nothing on the wire yet it seems. The only media outlet that I know of that doesn’t bootlick is the AP. Theyr’e non-profit, unlike Reuters, which is.
9:23 pm on November 2nd, 2007 15
an old buddy comedy starring a young janet reno:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4298137966377572665
4:53 am on November 3rd, 2007 16
It is so interesting to read some of the comments here that are in support of attacking a sovereign nation becasue one day they MAY get a nuclear bomb and then MAY attack another country with their one nuclear bomb. Why stop at Iran then. We’re supposed to hate Cuba, Venuzuela, Syria, North Korea and any other country that doesn’t worship at our doorstep. Let’s nuke ‘em all before they get nukes. That really should make the world a much safer and more peaceful place. I will give bush and co credit, they do a great job at selling war. They tell us who to hate and we hate ‘em. And if the previous poster thinks China and Russia are just going to sit idly by while we bomb country after country…
Please do some independent research to learn what is the real threat Iran poses to the United States. I guarantee that you will learn that Iran can not DESTROY this country as bush and co would like you to believe. It took a while for people to see thru the misleading runup to the Iraq war and now Americans agree that it was a mistake to invade and occupy Iraq. Please don’t let it be 3-4 years before you come to the same realization about Iran.
7:54 pm on November 3rd, 2007 17
It is exactly this way of thinking that led to the 9/11 attack.
I completely agree that Iran cannot destroy this country. If, however, Iran and/or their terrorist agents were to detonate even a “small” nuclear explosive device in a major U.S. city, the death toll would be in the millions. If our government, or any government, were to allow that to happen to their country, then their behavior would be immoral, unethical, and criminal.
I don’t want to nuke anyone, and at this point we can prevent ourselves (and our allies) from being nuked without using nukes.
We’re supposed to hate Cuba, Venuzuela, Syria, North Korea and any other country that doesn’t worship at our doorstep” — You don’t really believe that comment do you?
Why are the liberals always so worried about what other countries think about what the U.S. does??? Yet they never seem to be concerned about what the U.S. thinks about what those other countries do. It’s like, the U.S. should get rid of all its nukes, but if Iran wants nukes, that’s fine. These bleeding heart liberal contradictions are much more worrisome than Iran.
The last couple of sentences in Jo’s post seem to imply that all Americans view the Iraq war as a mistake. That is not true, there are many Americans, many, many millions of us, who still support the President.
And there are many millions more who believe that showing disrespect for the Office of the President, regardless of who holds that office, is equivalent to disrespecting this country and all her people. The use of “bush and co” or “bushco” in an attempt to treat the President of this country in a disparaging manner says volumes more about the writer than it does about the President.
9:55 pm on November 3rd, 2007 18
“there are many Americans, many, many millions of us, who still support the President.”
there’s actually a name for those americans… i think it’s ‘The DumbDumbs’.
“And there are many millions more who believe that showing disrespect for the Office of the President, regardless of who holds that office, is equivalent to disrespecting this country and all her people.”
glad to see you’re still towing that old third reich party line. with us or against huh? did we just timewarp back 5 years? sorry to remind you, but most people currently think supporters of the resident and his war are hopeless fruitcakes. and it’s funny to me now how the tables have turned, when for a few years after 9/11 nobody on the left would speak up, and we had to listen to blowholes like yourself 24/7.
you are a good red sheep.
and believe me, I AM disrespecting you, people like you, and what YOU stand for. NOT The Country.
“It’s like, the U.S. should get rid of all its nukes, but if Iran wants nukes, that’s fine. These bleeding heart liberal contradictions are much more worrisome than Iran.”
what? get a life.
“The use of “bush and co” or “bushco” in an attempt to treat the President of this country in a disparaging manner says volumes more about the writer than it does about the President.”
yeah, it says the writer has a one of those frontal lobes, unlike the cheerleading chimpanzee and the gene pool you both come from.
oops! sorry about the name calling, i’m so immature sometimes…
10:25 pm on November 3rd, 2007 19
“what? get a life.” — Is that the best you can come up with? Must be on a date with cannabis & rosie tonight huh?
“and believe me, I AM disrespecting you, people like you, and what YOU stand for” — Reminds me of a quotation I heard once; “Nothing is quite so disconcerting as receiving a compliment from someone who’s opinion you hold in low esteem.”
Do you really believe that I give a rat’s ass what you think DaveM?
I’m not the one who gets all his news from YouTube.
It is clear that you disrespect what I stand for, because what I stand for are the Principles that made this country great.
And, by the way, I’ll wager my gene pool against yours any day.
10:33 am on November 4th, 2007 20
Disrespect and Disagreement are two completely separate things. If you read disagreement with the the president’s policies as disrepect than I submit you have not learned all of the valuable lessons from U.S. history. This country was founded on protest and disagreement. When I used the term bush and co., you took that as disrepect. I wrote it simply as a abbreviated way of saying George W. Bush and his administration. It is interesting though that you didn’t mention how often bush uses the term “DemocRAT” in a disparaging way when in the context he is using it the proper term should be Democratic or Democrats. But I don’t like to quibble over words. I like to get at the crux of the problem and not spend too much time on what is may be considered insulting. I didn’t call you or anyone else any improper name.
And where in my post did I suggest that the U.S. get rid of all its nukes? And where in my post did I say that all Americans are against the war? That’s ludicrous. You will never get 100% disagreement about this or any other war, or for that matter any other issue. I simply made the comment that most people now (roughly 70%) are against this Iraq war. Lastly, where in my post did I say that I care what other countries think about us? I said we have been told (and not just by this admin) that we are supposed to hate the countries I mentioned. However, we do live in an international community (as bush and co point out to Iran frequently) and our actions do have global consequences. Personally, I like to do independent research to determine the merits of anything said to me. You say I’m a liberal — now if that means independent thinker, then I guess I’m a liberal — especially if the opposite is just to believe anything I’m told and not question it.
I also don’t get your comment that “it is that way of thinking that led to the 9/11 attack.” No legitimate authority who has published or spoke about what led to the 9/11 attacks has said that it is that way of thinking that led to those attacks. Maybe it was bush’s ignoring of a memo dated in August of 2001 that stated “Bin Laden Prepared to Attack U.S.” that contributed more to the attack than my way of thinking.
War and aggression are about as serious as you can get, and all Americans should question the legitimacy of going to war. The Iraq war is being fought in our name with our tax dollars and we not only have the right, but the duty to be in this for the right reasons. Yes we were attacked on 9/11, but not by Iraq or any Iraqi citizen. Are we imperialists?
Finally, I think it is because of our great respect for the Office of the President, the Constitution and all the other things that go with being American that people are critical of the current administration. Bush has admitted himself that he doesn’t have to follow established laws if they do not suit what he wants to do. Remember we are a nation of laws, not of men. I wouldn’t want a Democratic president doing some of the things bush has done either and I would readily criticize them if they did. Please, it is not a we against them issue (meaning left vs right). It’s just is it right to bomb a country who does not impose an immediate threat. Please do not say that we have the right to bomb any country we feel may one day attack us. Where would it stop? What is the evidence against Iran? Have they attacked us? Have they even threatened us? Have they even attacked another country in the recent past? Why is bush threatening WWIII because of this tiny, third-rate country whose only significance is its oil.
Pre-emptive attacks require a great deal of subjectiveness and quite frankly, the ability to predict the future. And I think we should do better intelligence gathering than was done before the Iraq war before we go attacking Iran. –No disrespect intended!
6:24 pm on November 4th, 2007 21
Jo – In my opinion, the repeated references to our President using lower case ”bush” while capitalizing the names of countries like Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc. is a demonstration of disrespect. Whether done consciously or subconsciously, the disrespect is there. And, in my opinion, even though liberals clearly disrespect President Bush, which is their right and prerogative, it is disheartening that they also clearly disrespect the Office of President of the United States. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that is my opinion. Personally, I believe (and practice as much as I possibly can) that it is possible to disagree vehemently with the President (as I did when President Clinton lied to Congress), without trying to treat him (or her) in an insulting manner (e.g. if I had said slick willie or that adulterer or bill or clinton, instead of referring to him as President Clinton). But that’s just an artifact of my conservative nature and the deep respect that I have for this country and its traditions.
Where in my post did I call you a liberal? Actually, Jo, I threw in the “L” word at the point where I started generalizing, i.e. regarding liberals in general.
I wrote: “The last couple of sentences in Jo’s post seem to imply that all Americans view the Iraq war as a mistake.” In response to your statement; “and now Americans agree that it was a mistake to invade and occupy Iraq.” If you now say that your statement was intended to mean that a portion of Americans or even a majority of Americans agree… then I won’t argue that point. Your original statement, however, did not convey that sentiment clearly.
Jo wrote; “What is the evidence against Iran? Have they attacked us? Have they even threatened us? Have they even attacked another country in the recent past?” — Even the democrats are no longer denying that IRAN is sending IRANIAN GUERILLAS into IRAQ to fight against the UNITED STATES MILITARY. Iran also is supporting the exsurgency (as opposed to insurgency, since most of the opposition is not of Iraqi origin) by providing them with weapons, explosives, etc.
Iran has also declared its intention to destroy Israel. This will be much easier for them as soon as they have nuclear weapons. Do you want to wait for another Holocaust before the U.S. acts? (By the way, the President of Iraq, Ahmadinejad, denies that there was a “Holocaust” before and during WWII.) So we can sit by and wait for Iran to get nukes, and then we can wait for them to use their nukes on the U.S. or one of our allies, at which time it will be too late to do anything because millions will be dead. (It doesn’t really take a crystal ball to see this coming, just a little common sense and a dose of history.)
Or we can prevent it. What is your choice?
And then, if we attempt to prevent another annihilation of innocents at the hands of Iran, then it is we who are starting WWIII. If Iran nuked Israel and it led to WWIII, would the liberals EVER be able to admit that they were WRONG and that we should have done something to prevent it? I think not.
I have heard on numerous occasions that many liberals believe that President Bush is obsessed with Armageddon. Do these liberals realize that President Ahmadinejad is a real nutcase and truly believes that it is his role in history to bring on the 5th Mahdi (who is supposed to be living at the bottom of a well somewhere in Iran until it is time for him to return and end the world)?
I will restate what I consider to be a very important part of the discussion; “If, however, Iran and/or their terrorist agents were to detonate even a “small” nuclear explosive device in a major U.S. city, the death toll would be in the millions. If our government, or any government, were to allow that to happen to their country, then their behavior would be immoral, unethical, and criminal.”