The good Dr. post some interesting numbers related to wartime elections.

<snip>

No wartime president has lost an election. Following are the victory percentages for each wartime election in the 20th-21st Century

World War 1
Woodrow Wilson won by 3.1 %

World War 2
Franklin D. Roosevelt won by 9.9 %

Korean War
Dwight D. Eisenhower won by 10.5%

Vietnam War
* John F. Kennedy won by .2 %
Lyndon B. Johnson won by 22.6%
Richard M. Nixon won by .7 %
Richard M. Nixon won by 23.2 %

Iraq War
George W. Bush won by 3%

Bush had the lowest percentage of any wartime presidential victory, except for Richard Nixon's victory in 1968 over Hubert H. Humphrey. The closeness of the election during World War 1 can be attributed to the unpopularity of that war, due to a significant number of german immigrants in the US and a sweeping sense of isolationism.

Vietnam was probably the most unpopular war, and Nixon probably the most unpopular president in history, and that can account for Nixons close race, but what does that tell us about Bush and Iraq?

* - Not really a war yet, more of an "gulf of tonkin affair"

Sources:
Encyclopedia Britannica
CNN

</snip>

This doesn't explain the loss of seats in the house or the senate, and the gay marriage bans for that matter, but interesting non the less.

the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

- 1984 George Orwell

Let me get this straight, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. They had no capacity to build weapons of mass destruction. They had no real plans do develop the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction. They were basically crushed by the first gulf war, and since then have had no real prospects for building weapons of mass destruction. However, Saddam Hussein really wanted to build weapons of mass destruction, and if U.N. sanctions were lifted, he would have started to develop a plan to start building these weapons. Somehow, this all still justifies war with Iraq. Check, one two, check, sibilance, sibilance, is this thing on? anyone? anyone?

Duelfer found no formal plan by Saddam to resume WMD production, but the inspector surmised that Saddam intended to do so if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Bush seized upon that inference, using the word ''intent'' three times in reference to Saddam's plans to resume making weapons.

Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Boston Globe

With recent (and not so recent) news regarding weapons of mass destruction and America's ever changing justification(s) for war, I felt the need for a little history. What follows is a list of entries on bitterpill.org related to war. In the end, these posts are my logical and emotional reactions to war, but it creates a bit of a timeline, for me anyway, of America's war in Iraq. I'm sorry, I meant the international coalition's war in Iraq (I forgot Poland).

John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation - March 01, 2003

We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government...

media-opoly - April 06, 2003

As I have watched our country move its people, forces and will towards war, I have been struck by the might of the modern political PR machines that help define public opinion and public consensus.

War, what is it good for - April 22, 2003

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

the certain agony of the battlefield - Aug 28, 2003

The War on Terror was never a war in the traditional sense. It is, instead, a kind of brand, an idea that can be easily franchised by any government in the market for an all-purpose opposition cleanser.

stand up and be counted - Nov 5, 2003

Even supporters said the continuing toll of casualties made it hard for them to explain their vote to skeptical constituents back home.

can't make them undead - Nov 17, 2003

It was my view then, and still is, that you don't make war without knowing why. . . You can't fix your mistakes. Once people are dead, you can't make them undead.

Jimmy Carter - Nobel Prize - Dec 10, 2003

In order for us human beings to commit ourselves personally to the inhumanity of war, we find it necessary first to dehumanize our opponents.

the good news about war and warriors - Jan 03, 2004

We are the strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe that we should ever apply that economic, political, and military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn't have been there. None of our allies supported us. Not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning.

as liberators - January 19, 2004

...our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators...

reexamine our reasoning - May 15, 2004

These men are liars and cheats and they gamble with your freedom and your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the reputation of your country.

ties, ties, ties with Al Qaeda - July 07, 2004

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Saddam's ass, Monkeys - July 12, 2004

We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder.

a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct - Aug 04, 2004

How does a government add up the numbers and deem a certain number of innocent deaths acceptable or even redeemable.

Because, if we had found weapons of mass destruction that we said we would find we would have proved that we could find what we didn't, because if we didn't find what we said we would, we would have proved otherwise.

Cheney Says Report Finding No Illicit Arms in Iraq Justifies War - New York Times

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a finding by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government produced no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

I want to serve my country. I want to help make the world free for democracy, and maybe suck a few pounds off of my butt and a little tuck around the belly area.

"Anyone wearing a uniform is eligible," Dr. Bob Lyons, the chief of plastic surgery at Brooke Army Medical Center, said recently, in his office in San Antonio. It is true: personnel in all four branches of the military and members of their immediate families can get face-lifts, nose jobs, breast enlargements, liposuction, or any other kind of elective cosmetic alteration, at taxpayer expense. (For breast enlargements, patients must supply their own implants.)

- All That You Can Be - The New Yoker

I can just here the war cry: "I want to be an airborn ranger, I want to have a breast augmentation."

the story that didn't run - MSNBC

The CBS 60 minutes story accused of using forged documents had apparently bumped a story regarding the forged Niger documents that helped the Administration lead the US into war with Iraq.

In its rush to air its now discredited story about President George W. Bush's National Guard service, CBS bumped another sensitive piece slated for the same "60 Minutes" broadcast: a half-hour segment about how the U.S. government was snookered by forged documents purporting to show Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium from Niger.

Update: apparently this latest post is a amateurish forgery, and is currently being reviewed by the editor.

Update update: Apparently it was the update to this post that was forged, and not the post itself. The update is currently being scrutinized by experts here at bitterpill.org.

What is the morality of war? This is a question that Robert S. McNamara poses in the documentary film The Fog of War. When talking with people about war, either the current war or war throughout history, what strikes me is the ability for people to detach themselves from the harsh reality of innocent death that war brings. We can talk about the justifications of war, the need for countries to defend or protect themselves, the need for countries to stand strong against aggression, but nobody wants to discuss in length the questions of morality, the morality of innocent people losing their lives for a war they may or may not endorse. How does a government add up the numbers and deem a certain number of innocent deaths acceptable or even redeemable.

Wars in general are intwined with a countries need to protect its economic interests. Wars are fought to protect or acquire land and resources. The ideas of democracy and fighting for freedom come as secondary behind economic and political interests. Many hawks before the war in Iraq agreed that invading iraq was not about democracy and freeing the Iraqi people, or protecting the United States from supposed weapons of mass destruction, but of a greater cause to help create stability in the region. A stabile middle east would plainly protect western oil interest. People will argue that oil interest have nothing to do with America's involvement in Iraq, but I would argue that this line of thinking completely ignores the history of western involvement in the middle east and Iraq itself. Regardless, It would be hard to pose an argument against the fact most wars are fought to protect economic and political interests, and when there a few interests to protect war is not undertaken.

How do you define that as moral?

We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

Iraq had ties, ties, ties with Al Qaeda.

Or maybe not: Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed - Washington Post

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda

A creative press release from the Vice President.

1. The 9/11 Commission shows no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
2. Dick Cheney says they don't have all the info.
3. The Commission says, "Then give us all the info."
4. Cheney releases a statement saying this is a no story because the Commission has access to all the sensitive info they need, and he is pleased with the report? P.S. It's the media's fault, again.

9/11 Panelists Rebut Cheney on Information - NYTimes

The leaders of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks on Tuesday disputed Vice President Dick Cheney's suggestion that he probably had access to more intelligence than the commission did about possible ties between the Qaeda terrorist network and Iraq.

Cheney Had No New Data on Saddam, Al Qaeda-Panel - Yahoo News

The Sept. 11 commission, which reported no collaborative links between Iraq (news - web sites) and al Qaeda, said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) had no more information than commission investigators to support his later assertions to the contrary.

Soon after the Sept. 11 commission said in staff report last month that there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two sides, Cheney continued to assert that long-standing links existed.

The Cheney team responds with:

"We are pleased with today's statement from the 9/11 commission, which puts to rest a nonstory," he said. "As we have said all along, the administration provided the commission with unprecedented access to sensitive information so they could perform their mission. The vice president criticized some press coverage of the draft staff report. He did not criticize the commission's work."