Tactics Ammunition Drudge This! Articles Archive Policy Archive Weblog Archive Cons With Cons Search This Site
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
[However, Kennedy adjusted the numbers to account for undecided black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and said the runoff election currently stands in Blanco's favor. With that adjustment, Blanco would get 53 percent of the vote, compared to Jindal's 47 percent]
Republican Primary Trial Heat (among Republican voters): Cecil Underwood 30% Robin Capehart 8% Sarah Minear 8% Dan Moore 3% Monty Warner 3% Doug McKinney 2% Other 3% Undecided 43%
Democratic Primary Trial Heat (among Democratic voters): Joe Manchin 46% Darrell McGraw 11% John Perdue 5% Jim Humphreys 4% Lloyd Jackson 3% Jim Lees 3% Spike Maynard 2% Robin Davis 2% Other 1% Undecided 25%
"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"
Right Track: 38% (42%) Wrong Track: 50% (44%)
* * * * *
Ipsos-Reid 9/16 - 18
"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"
Right Track: 37% (39%) Wrong Track: 57% (56%)
* * * * *
Fox News 9/23 - 24
Who should control congress?
Democrats 41% Republicans 36% Neither/Unsure 23%
* * * * *
Democracy Corps 9/14
Who should control congress?
Democrats 47% Republicans 42% Neither 1% (unch) Not sure 11%
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Why are They Still Here? 14 Dead, No WMD
“They said they came here to get rid of Saddam. But Saddam has left, so why are they still here? “It is not a matter that we want Saddam back, it is a question of Islam against the crusaders. Fallujah is the city of mosques. The Americans must leave.”
Why are we still there? Why, to install democracy of course. Not surprisingly, after yesterday's catastrophe in Iraq where US soldiers opened fire on Iraqi citizens, killing 14 and injuring dozens, installing democracy seems unimportant.
Note that no US troops were killed or injured as they defended themselves against this perceived threat. I don't blame them one damn bit. If I were in that situation and I thought I was being fired upon, you bet your life I would open fire to defend my fellow soldiers and myself.
The problem is that they're put in that situation in the first place. The point is that this invasion never should have happened.
President Bush, In his NBC interview last Thursday, admitted that he and his administration sent American soldiers off to die based on a rationale of deceit.
"No longer was the U.S. necessarily on the hunt for the actual weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, the president said. Rather, the investigation of suspect sites in Iraq by coalition forces would prove that Saddam Hussein 'had a weapons of mass destruction program.' The same day as the interview, at an Abrams Army Tank plant in Lima, Ohio, Bush noted that 'whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth.'
This, of course, follows months of reassuring Americans that WMD would be found. Earlier this month, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer called the weapons "what this war was about"; and just Tuesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that with the help of captured Iraqi leaders, the WMD "will be found." But now the administration seems to be preparing the country for news of evidence that WMD once existed in Iraq -- with no actual WMD -- and calling it a victory.
Part of this might be because, of the 55 Iraqi leaders Central Command has deemed 'most wanted,' 14 have been captured and, according to a report in the Associated Press, each -- including Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and chemical and biological weapons chieftain Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi -- is denying that Iraq had any WMD before the war.
The new talking points continued to proliferate following the interview with NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, with both official pronouncements and well-placed leaks. This may ultimately work in the United States, where many Americans are pleased with the toppling of Saddam's regime and hopes for a free and democratic Iraq. But the MIA WMD are not escaping notice in the rest of the world, nor is the shift in rhetoric. And it is all further damaging U.S. credibility and fanning the flames of anti-American sentiment.
[….]
Some senior officials of the "coalition of the willing," however, are taking this backpedaling even further. On Monday, while British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that he remained confident that they will be found, his foreign secretary, Jack Straw, sounded a slightly different tune, saying that Iraq "had" WMD "recently." In case anyone missed the point, Straw's spokesman noted to reporters that "he used his words very carefully. The point he is avoiding making is that the war is justified only if we find weapons of mass destruction." The spokesman went on to describe the discovery of chemical or biological weapons as a 'bonus'."
In fact, this invasion will NEVER be justified. The issue that made this invasion illegitimate was always the ulterior motives associated with the Administration's decision to invade. "Evidence" was forged, exaggerated, distorted and fabricated. Inspectors were undermined. Selling points for the invasion wavered to whatever the Administration thought was most palatable to the American public on any given day. And international "diplomacy" was a joke at its very best. There was NEVER any intention to forego an invasion of Iraq. The plan had been set. The oil, the pipeline and the Mideast military base was ours.
Weapons of mass destruction were never an objective. They were only an excuse. So if someone claims that the justification for this invasion is somehow contingent upon the discovery of WMD, gently remind them with a 2x4 that they are playing into the Administration's hand and that the WMD issue is but one more distraction in the Administration's portfolio of 'wag the dog' assets.
An ARG Poll just out shows Lieberman leading in awareness, favorability, and ballot preference among likely Democratic primary voters in South Carolina.The catch is that a whopping 47% of likely Dem primary voters remain undecided in the race. Another point is that if North Carolina Senator John Edwards can't pull out a win (or at least a close second) here, then you can pretty much wipe him off the primary ballot. I know that's jumping the gun a bit, but Edwards has to make a strong showing here in order to be taken seriously, regardless of the millions he seems able to raise. Right now, Edwards is pulling a lame fourth place. The 47% undecided can make for an interesting race. It can also make for a very bitter, destructive race. Remember, Bush is the target, not each other.
The full results: Lieberman ~ 19% Dick Gephardt ~ 9% John Kerry ~ 8% John Edwards ~ 7% Al Sharpton ~ 3%
Let's take a look at what the polls are telling us. Starting with the Democratic primary contenders, we see Lieberman heading the pack, swiping the lead from John Kerry:
According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll (Conducted April 22-23, 2003. N=386 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 5), candidates that would most likely be supported for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2004 are: Joe Lieberman ~ 22% John Kerry ~ 18% Dick Gephardt ~ 16% John Edwards ~ 8% Howard Dean ~ 6% Bob Graham ~ 5% Carol Moseley Braun ~ 4% Al Sharpton ~ 3% Dennis Kucinich ~ 3% Other ~ 1% No one ~ 5% No opinion ~ 9%
And how are things shaping up in Iowa? According to Zogby International (conducted April 25-27, 2003. N=387 likely Democratic caucus voters statewide. MoE ± 5.1), Gephardt has increased his lead while Lieberman takes a big hit: Richard Gephardt ~ 25% John Kerry ~ 13% Joe Lieberman ~ 9% Howard Dean ~ 6% Gary Hart ~ 4% John Edwards ~ 4% Dennis Kucinich ~ 3% Carol Moseley Braun ~ 1% Al Sharpton ~ 1% Bob Graham ~ 1% Someone else ~ 3% Not sure ~ 31%
With the following Favorability Ratings:
Favorable - Unfavorable
Richard Gephardt ~ 67% ~ 16% Joe Lieberman ~ 57% ~ 22% John Kerry ~ 51% ~ 13% Gary Hart ~ 31% ~ 43% John Edwards ~ 25% ~ 10% Howard Dean ~ 22% ~ 8% Bob Graham ~ 22% ~ 17% Carol Moseley Braun ~ 18% ~ 22% Dennis Kucinich ~ 11% ~ 11% Al Sharpton ~ 8% ~ 45%
I apologize to supporters of Gephardt and Lieberman, but I find it very difficult to believe that Gephardt, who blew the opportunity to pick up seats in the house (but succeeded in repeatedly kissing Bush's ass) will get the Democratic nod. I also think the ultra-hawk Lieberman is surviving thus far on name recognition alone. I have yet to meet a person who can take him seriously. Gary Hart? Are you kidding me. He was destroyed politically way back when. The thought of him somehow making a comeback and overcoming the skeletons in his closet is beyond my comprehension. He's out. Howard Dean, an ideological favorite, has pissed-off the liberal Dems by backpedaling on his post-war rebelliousness and I don't think he has the views to pull in the moderates or the hawkish Dems. Bob Graham doesn't seem to be taking this primary seriously and the voting public doesn't seem to be taking the remaining three candidates seriously. Thus, we are left with the two Johns:
John Edwards is still a wild card and is being violently targeted by the right-wing. So trial lawyer or not, the right is afraid of this guy. My guess is that the fear is a result of Edwards being a successful Democrat in the south,…a nightmare for a party who relies almost solely on that region for its survival.
John Kerry is a war hero, something that is particularly important in this election to mitigate the beneficial effects of National Defense on the GOP. So far, it seems that the worst thing the GOP can pin on him is that he is rich. Ironically, most of that wealth comes from his right-wing father-in-law's ketchup fortune.
In any event, I would be very happy with a John-John ticket…and I think the rest of the nation would be too.
Of course some have expressed the need for the Dems to put their candidates where their mouths are and perhaps bring a woman or minority into the fray as VP…perhaps Landrieu? I have no problem with that, but I wonder who would fit the bill. Any suggestions?
Next, let's find out who the American people would be more likely to vote to (re)elect, Bush or the Democratic candidate?
According to a FOX News Poll (Conducted April 22-23, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3), If the 2004 presidential election were held today, this is who voters would choose: Bush ~ 47% Democrat ~ 31% Depends ~ 16% Not Sure ~ 6%
Pardon me, but this doesn't seem very impressive for a president who just decisively won a war and supposedly decreased the risk of terrorism across the globe.
Similar mediocre findings resulted from a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. (Conducted April 22-23, 2003. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Results shown are among registered voters, except where indicated.) Bush ~ 49% Democrat ~ 36% Other ~ 3% Not Sure ~ 12%
Bush supporters will inevitably point out that Bush needs only grab a small percent of the 'undecideds' in order to surpass the 50% mark. I say that is nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the percent for Bush can only go down. History has shown and common sense suggests that, once a face and a position is placed on the opposition, the support for that opposition inevitably increases. These types of polls essentially ask the following…"Would you support Bush, a sitting president who gets constant press and is allowed to continually sell his position to the American people without meaningful opposition or would you like someone else, with no name or face and with a platform that has yet to be determined?" Even with that, 36% of Americans choose the nameless, faceless, positionless "other". That can't be good for Bush, a flag-waving, wartime president coming off a glorious victory over the scourge of the Middle-East.
Last and perhaps least, Bush's approval ratings are not spectacular. Consider that Bush Sr., while in a similar position (but with an even worse economic environment) was busting out approval ratings in the 80's, according to a CBS News Poll (Conducted April 26-27, 2003. N=925 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3) George Jr. is bringing in only a 67% approval with a 24% disapproval.
Bush, Iraq, North Korea and Geopolitics News Summaries
N. Korea: Sanction Move Could Trigger War (LA Times) North Korea said Wednesday that it would regard any U.S. move to seek U.N. sanctions against the communist country as "the green light to a war." The warning came after South and North Korea agreed to try to peacefully resolve the nuclear crisis, though Pyongyang has said further talks with the United States are useless unless it drops its demand that the North first scrap suspected atomic weapons programs.
'Old Europe' presses ahead with plans for an EU army (UK Telegraph) "Old Europe" threw down the gauntlet at the feet of Britain, the United States and the Atlantic Alliance at a mini-summit yesterday, unveiling plans for a new Euro-army with its own military headquarters. France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg vowed to press ahead with a full-fledged defence union, brushing aside warnings that the move would entrench the European Union's bitter divisions over Iraq and could lead to the break-up of Nato.
Powell Sees No Progress from N.Korean Proposal (Reuters) Secretary of State Colin Powell said that a North Korean proposal to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programs would not lead in the right direction. "It is a proposal that is not going to take us in the direction we need to go. But nevertheless we will study it," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Powell said the North Koreans said the proposal, presented to the United States in Beijing last week, would "lead to the removal of the nuclear capability and maybe even deal with their missile capability."
Inside Iraq's Giant Oil Industry, A Maze of Management Tensions (WSJ) The Pentagon is embarking on one of the most audacious hostile takeovers ever: the seizure and rejuvenation of Iraq's huge but decrepit state-run petroleum industry. Before the war, Iraq pumped about as much oil each day as Exxon Mobil Corp., the biggest publicly traded petroleum company. The Iraqi system, with the world's second-largest reserves, is potentially the second-largest oil operation of any kind, after Saudi Arabia's Aramco. In southern Iraq Tuesday, U.S. and Iraqi engineers were pumping 15,000 barrels of oil a day, said a person familiar with the work. Though that's a trickle compared with Iraq's prewar levels of 2.5 million barrels a day, officials expect to reach 65,000 barrels Wednesday and 170,000 in coming days, all of which will be used domestically.
Associate of Al Qaeda-Linked Fugitive Caught in Baghdad (FOX News) An associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) has been captured in the Baghdad area, a defense official confirmed to Fox News on Tuesday. Zarqawi, who is still at large, and his group have been linked to Al Qaeda by the United States -- Zarqawi himself a senior associate of Usama bin Laden -- and was believed to have traveled through Iran to Iraq in May and June of 2002 for medical treatment following the collapse of Al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan.
Putin Opposes U.S., Britain on Iraq Sanctions (Reuters) Russian President Vladimir Putin, setting himself at odds with Washington, said on Tuesday that U.N. sanctions against Iraq should not be lifted until the existence of illegal weapons had been cleared up. Speaking after talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair Putin focused on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, the original justification for the U.S.-led invasion of the Arab country. "So far we have no answers and as long as we have no answers we cannot feel safe. We need to have a legal basis to put an end to this," the Kremlin leader told a news conference, adding that the United Nations was the only body competent to do this.
Palestinian MPs Approve New Cabinet in Reform Drive (Reuters) The Palestinian parliament on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a new cabinet led by reformist Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas in a crucial step toward launching a new U.S.-backed Middle East peace plan. Applause swept the special Palestinian legislative session in the West Bank city of Ramallah as deputies voted 51-18 with three abstentions to endorse Abbas's cabinet list.
Powell to Visit Syria and Lebanon, but Delays Israel Trip (NY Times) Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, preparing for an intensive new phase of American diplomacy in the Middle East, said today that he would travel to Syria and Lebanon this week. At the same time, administration officials said that a long-awaited plan intended to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians would be published on Wednesday. Mr. Powell will meet with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in Damascus on Saturday and pay a visit to Lebanon the same day, the Bush administration announced.
Jewish Leaders Back 'Road Map' (Washington Post) Splitting with the dominant organizations in the American Jewish community, 14 major Jewish philanthropists voiced strong support yesterday for the Bush administration's plan to resuscitate Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Leaders of Jewish lobbying groups here have been deeply skeptical of the "road map to peace" that the White House will unveil this week. But the philanthropists, including Edgar M. Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, said in a letter to congressional leaders that the plan "provides Israel with a distinct opportunity to escape the bloody status quo" of the past 21/2 years.
U.S. Enraged as Cuba Returned to U.N. Rights Body (Reuters) Cuba was reelected without opposition on Tuesday to the United Nations' top human rights body, prompting a fierce response by Washington that it was "like putting Al Capone in charge of bank security." The voting took place in the 54-nation U.N. Economic and Social Council, which two years ago ousted the United States from the Human Rights Commission for the first time since Washington helped found it in 1947. The United States was returned to the body in a vote the following year. In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters: "Cuba does not deserve a seat on the Human Rights Commission. Cuba deserves to be investigated by the Human Rights Commission."
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
Sun Tzu Files 
and 
indicate whether the poll numbers are up or down from the previous poll. Incumbents are in italics. (prior results in '()')