Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Frist, 526 votes, 36.9%
Romney, 205 votes, 14.4%
Allen, 147 votes, 10.3%
President Bush (write-in), 147 votes, 10.3%
McCain, 66 votes, 4.6%
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee,54 votes, 3.8%
"Other" (write-in), 43 votes,3.0%
New York Gov. George Pataki, 38 votes, 2.7%
Secretary of State Condi Rice (write-in), 32 votes, 2.2%
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, 22 votes, 1.5%
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 15 votes, 1.1%
Former Georgia Rep. Newt Gingrich, 13 votes, .9%
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, 3 votes, .2%

The above came from Reuters and is the results of the straw vote for the republican presidential candidate.
 

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I'm cool!
Joined
·
14,062 Posts
Some background -

Why Has McCain Become A Bush Cheerleader?
Chris Matthews reports at MS-NBC that John McCain plans to instruct delegates at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference to vote for George Bush as a write-in candidate instead of voting for him as the preferred nominee for 2008. Matthews says that McCain asks this to show support for the President, presently in a rough patch, and to keep the GOP's focus on 2006:

It's early on at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference down here, but already we've learned some big news.
Sources tell me that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., plans to shock his supporters tonight by asking them to NOT vote for him in the presidential straw poll that will be conducted by The Hotline on Saturday.

Instead, McCain will urge his followers to write in President Bush's name. McCain will tell his supporters that this is not about 2008, but rather about 2006 and supporting the president.

According to McCain's supporters, he'll say: "I think we have bigger things to worry about. So if any friends here are thinking about voting for me, please don't. Just write in President Bush's name."


McCain has supported Bush in elections and on the war, but has not given Bush much support for his legislative agenda. He has also gone out of his way to play the "maverick" during the last six years, often crossing the White House on key issues. His defection on the Byrd option to defeat the obstructionism that Democrats employed against over a third of Bush's nominees to the appellate courts cost Bush a number of his judicial appointments, including Henry Saad and Brett Kavanaugh.

In short, McCain has made a pest out of himself, and seemed to enjoy playing the centrist gadfly that attracts all of the media attention. So why has he suddenly taken on a role as Bush's chief defender?

Two reasons spring to mind. Since the beginning of the year, McCain has tried to patch up his standing with Bush supporters in the party. McCain discovered that while he polls well in the general electorate, his numbers among actual Republicans would prevent him from winning the primaries. Repairing his image as a sell-out and an enemy of free speech will take a huge effort, and this toadying at the SRLC appears to be part of that. It also is unusual enough to ensure that McCain will get his invites to the Sunday-morning talk shows to which he appears addicted.

Matthews picks up on the second reason. McCain does not enjoy a lot of popularity in the South, and he likely would have finished poorly anyway. Matthews thinks that George Allen will score well at the SRLC straw poll, but Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee will be certain to show strength as well. A third-place finish (or worse) might convince the big fundraisers that McCain will not generate the kind of momentum needed early in the effort, and the big power players will flock instead to Allen and Huckabee, and perhaps even Mitt Romney as a dark-horse candidate.

So in order to get attention at a conference that would be inclined to discount him, suck up to the Bush supporters, and appeal to the party stalwarts who feel he stabbed the GOP in the back with his Gang of 14 antics, he plays a little rah-rah for Bush and attempts to shame everyone into making the entire event irrelevant. It's a clever ploy, one that might even work to a limited extent, and will almost certainly steal all the thunder and momentum from this effort to establish some credibility for Republican candidates early in the process.

In other words, if it's true, it's a typical self-centered McCain publicity stunt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
LMAO Eric. These straw votes are fiction for sure but interesting as to which ho is on the presidential corner waiting for the corporate dollars to show up.

Straw polls, it must be said, are notoriously terrible predictors of what ultimately happens in a presidential nomination race. Previous winners of straw polls have included the late Sen. Alan Cranston, D-Calif., (who beat eventual nominee Walter Mondale in Wisconsin in 1983) and Republican Rev. Pat Robertson (who beat eventual nominee George H.W. Bush in Iowa in 1987). From USA Today

[grin]
 

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I'm cool!
Joined
·
14,062 Posts
[Q]Erik the Red originally wrote:
That poll is as relevant as asking Fritz and Frank how things are going in Iraq
[/Q]

[q]Sunni insurgents 'have al-Zarqawi running for cover'
By Oliver Poole in Baghdad
(Filed: 11/03/2006)

Insurgent groups in one of Iraq's most violent provinces claim that they have purged the region of three quarters of al-Qa'eda's supporters after forming an alliance to force out the foreign fighters.

If true, it would mark a significant victory in the fight against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa'eda in Iraq, and could partly explain the considerable drop in suicide bombings in Iraq recently.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

"We have killed a number of the Arabs, including Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians, Kuwaitis and Jordanians," said an insurgent representative in the western province of Anbar.

The claims were partly supported by the defence ministry, which said it had evidence that Zarqawi and his followers were fleeing Anbar to cities and mountains near the Iranian border.

It is this move that is believed to have prompted a statement a fortnight ago from the insurgent groups in the central city of Hawija that they were declaring war on al-Qae'da. It is being interpreted by intelligence experts as a response to an unwanted influx of foreign fighters seeking refuge. Iraq's Sunni Muslim insurgents had originally welcomed al-Qa'eda into the country, seeing it as a powerful ally in its fight against the American occupation.

But relations became strained when insurgents supported calls for Sunnis to vote in last December's election, a move they saw as essential to break the Shia hold on government but which al-Qa'eda viewed as a form of collaboration. It became an outright split when a wave of bombings killed scores of people in Anbar resulting in a spate of tit-for-tat killings.

In reaction, the insurgent groups formed their own anti-al-Qa'eda militia, the Anbar Revolutionaries. The group has a core membership of 100 people, all of whom had relatives killed by al-Qa'eda. It is led by Ahmed Ftaikhan, a former Saddam-era military intelligence officer.

It claims to have killed 20 foreign fighters and 33 Iraqi sympathisers. Many more are said to have fled. The United States has confirmed that six of Zarqawi's deputies were killed in Ramadi.

Osama al-Jadaan, a tribal chief, has claimed that with the support of the Iraqi army his supporters have captured hundreds of foreign fighters, and has sought to prevent jihadis entering the country from Syria.

[/q]

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/11/wirq11.xml

If it weren't for Frank and I you'd never get any idea of what was going on. As it is, you choose to stick your hands over your eyes, with you thumbs in your ears and whisper "Chimpybushmchitlerburton" over and over to prevent any unwanted information from seeping into your brains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
[Q]stripstrike originally wrote:
hey fritz, is that guy psychic??? the dateline on your cut and paste is for the 3rd of november of this year...
[/Q]

European
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
[Q]Erik the Red originally wrote:
That poll is as relevant as asking Fritz and Frank how things are going in Iraq
[/Q]

That is exactly what Saddam would say......[tongue]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
Lets look at that in terms of insurance, with Bush being the insured. Bush simply bought some insurance by taking out Saddam. Saddam was a poor bet at best, at never providing assistance to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. And Bush's insurance would have expired if attacked post 9/11. Occassionally you buy insurance that you dont need, and in hind sight Bush may have done that..Now the insurance is paying off dividends, no documented attacks since 9/11.[smile]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
[q]Saddam was a poor bet at best, at never providing assistance to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. [/q]

You are blissfully unaware of the ignorance of that arent you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Let's look at in terms of poker.
Bush is playing Texas Hold'em and he has a big stack. He wants to put the opponent all in.

Now, the hand has to be played. Bush can win big and so he has bet big. However, he can also lose BIG. We've seen the flop and there was nothing there. We are probably playing the turn now. Will it be a good card?
The final card is the river. Bush thinks we ought to stay in and continue piling on the bets. Maybe the opponent will fold without us having to play all our cards.

The problem is that the opponent doesn't appear to be interested in folding. He wants to play the hand out and has nothing to lose by going all in. Even if he doesn't go all in he is going to lose anyway and there is no next hand.

Now, we have put ourselves in the position that we have to play the cards out and use our power position at the table to control the game. Will we win? Well we do have a pocket pair but the board has not matched a set yet.

Maybe we will win. But its a very big gamble to take.
 

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I'm cool!
Joined
·
14,062 Posts
[q] Jack Kelly: All bad news, all the time
In covering Iraq, mainstream media give terrorists a boost
Sunday, March 12, 2006

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

More than 8,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have deserted since the Iraq war began, USA Today reported Tuesday.

Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio ([email protected], 412-263-1476).

"Some lawyers who represent deserters say the war in Iraq is driving more soldiers to question their service and that the Pentagon is cracking down on deserters to discourage antiwar sentiment," wrote reporter Bill Nichols.

" 'The last thing (Pentagon officials) want is for people to think ... that this is like Vietnam,' said Tod Ensign, head of Citizen Soldier, an antiwar group that offers legal aid to deserters."

Mr. Ensign is full of horse manure, as Mr. Nichols demonstrates in his story. The data show desertions have plunged since 9/11, and are much lower than during the Vietnam war.

The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in the 2001 fiscal year, but only 3,456 in 2005, Mr. Nichols noted. In 1971, the Army reported 33,094 desertions, 3.4 percent of its total force. In 2005, desertions represented just 0.24 percent of 1.4 million of active service members.

Mr. Nichols also quoted military spokesmen who said most deserters desert for reasons unconnected with political protest, and most return voluntarily.

Though it ran under a headline that emphasized the negative, the USA Today story is an example of journalism as it ought to be. Mr. Nichols reported a fact relevant to the war on terror, and put it into context.

The opposite is true of "reporting" by most news organizations in the wake of the destruction of the Golden Mosque in Samarra Feb. 22. Journalists who accused President Bush of "cherrypicking" intelligence to support the war in Iraq have cherrypicked facts and quotes to give the false impression there is civil war in Iraq.

"Much of the reporting has exaggerated the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday. "The number of attacks on mosques had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated. The behavior of the Iraqi security forces had been mischaracterized."

For instance, The Washington Post reported on Feb. 25 that 120 Sunni mosques had been attacked in retaliation for the destruction of the Golden Mosque, holy to the Shiites. In a March 3 news conference, Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said:

"We can confirm attacks on about 30 mosques around the country, with less than 10 of those mosques moderately damaged, and only two or three severely damaged. We visited eight mosques (in Baghdad) that were reportedly damaged. We found one broken window in those eight mosques."

Exaggeration and misinformation are hallmarks of chaotic situations, and it is hard for journalists who do most of their reporting from the safety of their hotels to sort fact from fiction. But Secretary Rumsfeld noticed a pattern in the errors:

"Interestingly, all the exaggerations seem to be on one side," he said. "The steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and give heart to the terrorists."

Here is how The Washington Post reported what Gen. Casey said above:

"He said 350 Iraqi civilians had died in a surge of sectarian killings, militia violence and revenge attacks on about 30 mosques around the country after the bombing."

This incensed "Greyhawk," the Army officer who runs the Web log Mudville Gazette: "The media is free to dispute the general's claims," Greyhawk wrote. "But in this case they aren't, they are simply using his words selectively to support their own previously published fictions."

There is sectarian violence in Iraq -- as there is in India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland -- but no civil war.

The Iraqi army held together and performed well in the aftermath of the attack on the Golden Mosque, reports Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer and writer who was embedded with U.S. troops during the troubles. The Iraqi army deployed more than 100,000 troops, who kept order without killing a single civilian, he noted.

Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders continue to negotiate forming a national unity government. (Two days after declaring negotiations were "in ruins," Edward Wong of The New York Times had to write: "The main Sunni Arab political bloc is close to returning to suspended talks.")

There is no civil war in Iraq, but al-Qaida would dearly love to provoke one. Knowledge of that fact should make journalists more careful about separating rumor from fact. But many apparently have chosen instead to act as the propaganda arm of our enemies.

[/q]

Like Eric and Etoufee...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Meanwhile the liberal litist media continues to refute Fritz' blogs...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Six car bombs killed at least 46 people and wounded 204 others in Baghdad's largest Shiite neighborhood Sunday, Baghdad emergency police said.

A seventh car bomb was found and defused in the same Sadr City neighborhood. At least some of the Baghdad blasts took place in markets.

In the aftermath of one market attack, burned victims could be seen being carried to ambulances and angry residents kicked the decapitated head of one man, apparently believing he was involved in the bombing.

Sadr City is home to many poor Shiites and is often patrolled by militia members of the Mehdi Army.

Those men -- perhaps as many as 10,000 -- are loyal to firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the son of the late religious figure for whom the neighborhood is named.

An AP report said Mehdi Army members, armed with automatic rifles, sealed off the neighborhood after the blasts.


Elsewhere...

After a security breach at Baghdad International Airport, the U.S. government has prohibited commercial air travel for U.S. government employees out of the Iraqi capital. (Watch a report on security at Baghdad International Airport -- 5:13)

A mortar round landed near a movie theater in central Baghdad, killing two civilians and wounding six others

Gunmen attacked a civilian car in southwestern Baghdad, killing the three occupants.


I love the smell of carbombs in the morning, they smell like freedom...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Check it yourself at Military.Com

"The number of wounded dropped from 7,990 in 2004 to 5,939, according to the Defense Department. There hasn't been much change in the number of deaths, however. Pentagon figures show 844 U.S. troops were killed in the Iraq war during 2005, compared with 845 in 2004. " These, of course, are only the American dead.

Can we stop the old Senator McCarthy ploy of blaming the correspondents (who are "embedded" with the troops and are being killed) for bringing the truth to the Americans as being disloyal or aiding al-Qaida. Sounds like Viet Nam all over again.

The greatest assistance al-Qaida has is the White House and Congress. Their actions in a Islamic world has created a boom in the T-Shirt business.....with bin Ladens face imprinted on them praising him and Allah.

GWB appointed Dr. Zalmay Zhalilzad as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentialry of the United States in Iraq.
On 3/13/06 he tells the LA Times:

BAGHDAD — The top U.S. envoy to Iraq said Monday that the 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime had opened a "Pandora's box" of volatile ethnic and sectarian tensions that could engulf the region in all-out war ..."

He goes on"Khalilzad described a highly combustible atmosphere in Iraq that dates at least to the polarizing Dec. 15 legislative elections, which handed Shiites a dominant role in the government."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,432 Posts
[Q]Erik the Red originally wrote:
Perhaps Fritz you should take your next holiday there
[/Q]Get real! Fritz loves war, but he would never dream of actually participating in one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Capt. George.....Fritzer could send his unedited, endlessly long and only remotely connected to the subject posts to the insurgents...they would be bored to death.[grin]
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top