|
| quote: | Originally posted by sponger
Both, since that article on that poll is what your post was about.
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines
Americans divided over eavesdropping: poll
Fri Jan 27
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of Americans approve of the White House's domestic eavesdropping program to fight terrorism, but nearly two-thirds worry that Americans' civil liberties could be threatened by U.S. antiterrorism programs, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll.
The poll, published in Friday's New York Times, found Americans were more accepting of the surveillance program if they believed it was intended to protect them.
Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said they approved of President George W. Bush's decision to authorize eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism," The Times reported.
When pollsters asked about the surveillance program and did not mention terrorism, 46 percent of respondents approved of the program and 50 percent said they disapproved, the newspaper said.
The National Security Agency program, exposed last month by The New York Times, was authorized by Bush to monitor the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of U.S. citizens without first obtaining warrants as a means of aiding in the hunt for al Qaeda suspects in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
Critics say the program violates the U.S. Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without the approval of a special secret court.
Sixty-four percent of Americans surveyed said they were very or somewhat concerned about losing civil liberties as a result of antiterrorism measures put in place since the September 11 attacks, according to The Times.
Seventy percent of respondents told pollsters they would not support government surveillance of the communications of "ordinary Americans," the paper reported. But 68 percent said they would be willing to support such monitoring of "Americans the government is suspicious of."
The White House has been conducting a public campaign to reassure Americans this is a limited program and the government is not engaged in a mass spying operation.
On Thursday, Bush insisted his authorization of the spying program was legal. He also said a measure passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks gave him the authority to use whatever force was necessary in his declared war on terrorism.
The Times/CBS poll surveyed 1,229 adults by phone from Friday to Wednesday. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060127...pping_poll_dc_2
Okay, so there are the original write-ups for both polls. I really don't know why this post is all of a sudden such a topic of interest given that you kids don't seem to give a shit any other time - but I am more than happy to play along.
| quote: | Yes i omitted it for good reason : "analysts generally agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates". And that estimate was "as high as 100,000" so i still don't see where he got 200,000.
here is another source: While estimates during the war had ranged from 10,000 to 100,000 Iraqis killed, Western military experts now agree that Iraq sustained between 20,000 and 35,000 casualties.
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002.
But yet Mosqueda accuses the US of "slaughtering" 200,000 iraqis. Or maybe he got confused and meant to say that Saddam slaughtered 200,000 iraqis after the war, but that number would be way too low.
of course the official death toll is contested, but not whether 20,000 iraqis were killed or 200,000!
"The Defense Department later disavowed them altogether"
You just made my point with that article, that 200,000 is just plain wrong.
Oh and thanx for that link to that anti-war website, im sorry but those kind of websites have just about as much credibility as a late night infomercial. (heard that line on some show)
"While 250,000 Iraqis were killed outright by the U.S."
Did you bother looking at the source of that statement??
New York Newsday_, August 10, 1991. Thats the intitial post war estimate, which was obviously way too high. |
Honestly though, I could care less if 200,000 was an acurate number or not - or whether he was referring to both direct and indirect military or a combination of military and civilian casualties. And whether the number was really 20,000 or 200,000, that's still one hell of a lot of blood in my book. Now you can divert the topic to debate whatever link you want (in any thread that you may want to make), but while you're in this thread try sticking with the original thread topic instead of going off on your own little tangent about a link which I posted in order for you to see how divergent some opinions can actually be. (you missed the point altogether)
| quote: | | they are loony not because they criticise this admin. but because of the crap they say. You complain about WH propaganda, but do you really think youre going to get unbiased info. about the iraq war from an anti war website?? Not likely! |
Where did I ever say that website was unbiased? I peruse all of those sites just like I still read the hegemonic shit that comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and the whole crew at PNAC. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that doesn't stop me from trying to understand where all sides are coming from.
I don't put on the blinders just because it's something that may sound a little far fetched. I mean, if you knew who was really in control of our government (as per written accounts by some of our most illustrious ex-presidents) you would probably just consider them as radical conspiracy theories. But they're not.
|
I'm going insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you completely and suddenly self-aware of how backwards your thinking is?!?!? 
