CBS Poll: 75% Say War in Iraq Wasn't Worth the Cost

A new CBS poll finds 75% percent of Americans do not think the Iraq War was worth the cost in lives and money. This is 8% more than in 2011 when the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, and 30% higher than in August 2003.

Republicans, Democrats and independents alike view the Iraq war as not worth the costs.

A whopping 77% oppose sending troops back in now.

< Court Releases OLC Memo on Targeted Killings | Monday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Back in. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 07:32:17 PM EST
    Republicans, Democrats and independents alike view the Iraq war as not worth the costs.

    A whopping 77% oppose sending troops back in now.

    And yet - according to John Mt. Rushmore Kerry, the US is planning to mount a sustained military attack to oppose ISIS and support "Iraq" - whatever that is - at considerable expense.

    Ya gotta love this:

    So great are the concerns that Mr. Kerry stressed on Monday that if American action is taken soon -- President Obama has said that he is considering airstrikes -- it should not be interpreted as a gesture of political support for Mr. Maliki's Shiite-dominated government, but rather as a strike against the ISIS militants.

    Such a decision by Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry said, should not be considered to be an act of "support for the existing prime minister or for one sect or another."

    So, as the bombs are dropping, we don't want the folks who get in the way to misinterpret anything. Nothing personal.

    Bottom line: This is a cause that is a lost cause. Actually, it never existed as a cause. We went in there because Bush wanted to avenge his daddy and he used American soldiers as his personal playthings. There never was a cause. And when it became necessary to invent a cause, it became perfectly clear that it was unattainable.

    Hopefully, Obama will heed the wishes of the people and cease sending money down this rathole. But it seems as if he just can't help himself.

    They will do what they will do, (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:21:15 PM EST
    and what we, the people, want or think will have little to do with the decision.

    I read this today [bold is mine]:

    Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement on the conviction of Al Jazeera's journalists in Egypt calling the convictions and sentences "chilling" and "deeply disturbing", but still plans to try and position the US government closer to the military junta now running Egypt.  The journalists at Al Jazeera were convicted of aiding the Muslim Brotherhood and reporting false news which led to sentences of up to ten years for some of the journalists.

    The Egyptian government, now in the hands of military leadership who recently staged an election to legitimize their rule, has targeted journalists as well as democratic activists in its effort to consolidate power after criminalizing the Muslim Brotherhood and couping out former elected President Mohammad Morsi. The Egyptian Military is firmly in command once again turning the "revolution" that occurred previously in Egypt on its head. The revolution is lost.

    Despite Secretary Kerry's strong words against criminalizing journalism by the junta he has committed himself to trying to get closer to the new regime.

       After a 90-minute meeting with Mr. Sisi, Mr. Kerry said at a news conference here that he had come to reaffirm Washington's "historic partnership" with Egypt. "We want to see the people of Egypt succeed," he said, and so he and Mr. Sisi had discussed, "most importantly, our mutual determination for our countries to work together in partnership."

        Mr. Kerry expressed firm confidence that the United States would soon fully restore $650 million -- the first tranche of the $1.3 billion in annual aid -- to the military that the Obama administration had partly withheld after the takeover.

    Yeah, nothing says "we don't approve of your actions" like giving them hundreds of millions of dollars.

    I give up.


    Nonsense... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 11:14:45 PM EST
    ...nothing to do with the daddy thing, we went in because oil.

    Read please. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 04:20:03 AM EST


    AFP) -- Saying "this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," President George W. Bush embraced disarming and ousting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as a "uniquely American issue."

    "Other countries of course, bear the same risk. But there's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said at a political fundraiser here Friday. "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

    The rest, as they say, is history.


    This is your evidence that Bush (none / 0) (#24)
    by Green26 on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:45:54 AM EST
    started the Iraq war to avenge his daddy? Now that's pretty funny.

    You (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:59:28 AM EST
    have a bizarre sense of humor.

    Where could that silly idea have come from? (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    Yes alot of Bush people (none / 0) (#43)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:44:27 AM EST
    and alot of world leaders thought Hussein was a bad guy.

    Are you saying he was not a bad guy?


    He, (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:02:07 AM EST
    as you might recall, was our bad guy.
    You may have seen the photos of Rummy slobbering over him.
    Then, he was just fine. A good bad guy.

    Do you seriously think that we went in, spent a trillion dollars, killed about 4500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because he was a "bad guy"?

    If Bush had run that by the congress instead of his fabricated claims of imminent mushrooms clouds, how far do you think he would have gotten?


    As I said over and over (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:50:52 AM EST
    At the time.  Ok, he is a bad guy.  The world is full of bad guys.  
    What is so special about this one.   Please explain why "we need to DO something about him"?

    Oh, I just love these kinds of (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:55:38 AM EST

    No one's said Saddam was a good guy - at least no one here.

    Of course he was a bad guy - but that's not really the metric you should be looking at, or the question you should be asking.

    Was Saddam ever not a bad guy?  And if there was never a time when he wasn't bad, why were there long periods when we - the US - not just tolerated him, but aligned with him?   Was it a case of someone else being worse?  Was it that we needed him to be our friend more than we needed him to be our enemy?

    Well, gee - isn't this concept of relative evil a cornerstone of our foreign policy, influencing our decisions and subject to change depending on what our interests are and how much "peer pressure" we're getting from the world community?

    Sometimes the question I like to ask is whether all the lives lost, all the lives damaged and injured, all the families displaced, all the horror and hardship, all the money spent - and looking at where Iraq and the region in general is, and where we are - were worth getting rid of this one bad guy.  Who didn't have WMD, who wasn't responsible for 9/11.

    I don't think it was worth it.  Maybe you disagree.  But my thinking it wasn't worth it is NOT THE SAME as saying Saddam was a good guy - and if that's where you have to go to justify your own belief that it was all worth it, I wonder if you might not be in a bit of denial, and working with really weak arguments.


    Good (us) (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 01:24:02 PM EST
    hearts bad (him)

    Charming photo of Rummy glad-handing Hussein.

    In addition, there is this bit of lovely history:

    Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
    By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail
    US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.
    As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
    The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
    They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.


    Bubonic plague!

    Thanks Rummy.


    I was talking about the actual reason... (none / 0) (#27)
    by unitron on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:35:26 AM EST
    ...not whatever BS with which they tried to camouflage it.

    WMDs (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:04:07 AM EST
    was the bs reason.

    The real reasons are, in my opinion, a personal vendetta - I do not take Bush's statement lightly - control of Iraqi oil - and a foothold for American power in the middle East.

    Control of oil, and the personal vendetta are the two strongest motivating factors imo.

    The personal part also extends to the image of the "wimp" having been laid upon Bush the First - for not "finishing the job". So Bush the Second finished it. And finished us in the process.

    The Oil aspect cannot be overstated either. Bush and Oil go together like pigs and slop.


    Focus (1.00 / 2) (#33)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    I guess it helps you to focus to imagine that Bush was in charge and out to revenge his daddy...

    IMO, Bush was not in charge, he was a puppet, imo.  But that idea may be too complex for you and make it harder to focus your anger.  I understand. Keep it simple..


    Your comment (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 01:07:54 PM EST
    has a nasty streak going.

    You don't seem to simply be able to express a contrasting opinion without demeaning the person to whom you are responding.

    Too bad.


    Kurds are piping oil to Israel (none / 0) (#21)
    by desertswine on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 11:31:56 PM EST
    It is not as if there was (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    no significant opposition to invading Iraq in 2003.  Street protests, opposition from experienced military (e.gl, General Hoar, General Zinni), former National Security advisor Brent Scowcroft, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, the Vatican (not a just war). However, the Administration went on to commit the worst foreign policy mistake in our country's history.  The Iraq war was over and lost, almost before it started, but surely by 2003, or if you prefer, 2007.  But, lost it was.  And, the critical reasons set forth by the skeptical opposition proved to be true--no WMD, no democracy for Iraqi people, fears for Iraq and regional instability validated.  Saddam was hanged, true.  His sons executed. We installed a burgeoning Shia-Saddam, in Maliki.  But, he has become a lethal nuisance and needs to go.

    The reasons for a re-entry, or just a little bombing, are interesting to ascertain, in a sad way.  ISIS can now "menace not just Syria and Iraq, but Jordan and Saudi Arabia" claims Michael Gordon, NYT military correspondent and co-author with Judith Miller in the good old days of the run up to the 2003 invasion.  No babies thrown out of incubators as of yet, or as Bush claimed (or one of the claims--throw as many against the wall and see what sticks)--we need to invade Afghanistan to liberate women from wearing headscarves.  

    Hopefully, Americans will not yield their skepticism with the first reportings.


    Will the US take out Maliki (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 09:29:24 PM EST
    via drone?  He was apparently the fellow we helped obtain his current position.

    Yet, the same poll found (none / 0) (#25)
    by Green26 on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:55:37 AM EST
    1. 51% supported sending in 300 military advisors

    2. 56% supported using drones

    3.  36% support Obama's handling of foreign policy (assume he's getting disapproval on both ends of spectrum)

    And 51% oppose using manned aircraft.

    Something being made fun of in (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:48:15 AM EST
    The military realm is "the advisors".  Who can be against good advice?  They weren't honest with the American people.  These "advisors" are receiving combat pay.

    Vietnam I began with "advisors." (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:25:37 AM EST
    Vietnam II ends with "advisors."



    I love your TL photo Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 07:40:40 PM EST
    Love it love it love it

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:10:26 PM EST
    we have one of those 25% that thinks it was worth it posting around here.

    Iraq has been such a nightmare for this county. I wish Bush would come before the American people and explain exactly what happened. But then again, I'm sure he wouldn't tell the truth of what he did even though we all know he lied.

    No explanation is necessary. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 09:28:56 PM EST
    I think at this point we all know damned well what happened.

    Our invasion and occupation of Iraq was based upon a knowingly false premise that was willingly proffered by the previous administration to the American public, that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks.

    That is a documented fact which is no longer subject to debate, and further, it renders that entire wretched enterprise a war crime.

    And if some fool from that know-nothing 25% wants to challenge my evaluation, hey, bring it on.



    It is not a documented fact, (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:49:15 AM EST
    nor is it true, that the US knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Most in the US government and most western countries believed Iraq had WMD. Just because some people and some analysts didn't believe Iraq had WMD, doesn't mean the US leaders, including people like Hillary Clinton, lied about the WMD.

    This is only half true (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:55:33 AM EST
    We KNEW he hadn't manufactured any new chemical weapons, and they have to be maintained and they don't have a forever shelf life.  We also KNEW that he was on the record as having destroyed his stock and giving evidence to international inspectors.

    Some unsure that everything had been destroyed, but the chances that he had preserved anything that was operational after so many years was always slim.

    He had to appear to have access to something though in order to curtail attack from Iran, but we also understood that too and knew he would need a bluff.


    Hans Blix and his teams of UN inspectors ... (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:17:30 PM EST
    ... had scoured Iraq for 100 days, and had pretty much determined by the beginning of February 2003 -- six weeks before the invasion -- that there were no WMD in the country, a finding which obviously threatened to undermine all those hyperbolic Anglo-American claims to the contrary.

    Bush's response was to ratchet up the incendiary rhetoric, and by mid-March of that year he ordered the UN inspection teams to leave Iraq immediately, and then ordered the invasion to proceed as planned -- or poorly planned, as it turns out.

    Many Americans such as myself reluctantly supported the October 2002 Iraq AUMF because at that time, there was admittedly some measure of doubt in our minds -- induced in large part by the Bush administration's relentless propaganda campaign, it also turns out -- about Saddam Hussein's claims to be clean with the cease-fire terms of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

    We believed that the AUMF provided sufficient leverage to convince Saddam to let Blix and the UN weapons inspection teams back into the country, and make an official determination and finding. Sadly, they were never allowed to fully complete their mission, for the reason already stated above.

    There were also those Americans who were opposed to the AUMF, and who specifically warned the rest of us that Bush administration would inevitably interpret its passage as giving the neocons a free hand to do as they wished in Iraq -- and tragically, subsequent events proved them 100% correct.

    You really need pull your head out of the sand and face an ugly and unpleasant truth here, as have I and countless others who initially supported the AUMF a dozen years ago.

    Bush and Cheney not only lied willfully and repeatedly in misleading Congress and the American people during the run-up to the Iraq War, but they did so with the malevolent intent of invading Iraq anyway, regardless of their officially stated claims and shape-shifting rationales.

    Thus, nearly 5,000 American military personnel and untold tens of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives on account of the Bush administration's collective and purposeful duplicity.

    And that, friend, is a war crime.


    How do you lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:47:40 PM EST
    And get away with it.

    Congress has plenty of direct access to information, the notion they were "lied" to is pure revisionist history. The best information available was that Saddam was a clear and present danger that had to be stopped with force.


    Nonsense! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:00:43 AM EST
    Hans Blix published two reports prior to Bush's invasion showing no WMD, no WMD programs and full cooperation by Iraq.

    Dick Cheney and the neocons were wrong, wrong, wrong.....Why anyone should ever listen to them on anything is beyond me.

    Saddam Hussein was never, ever--ever, never a threat to the U.S.

    And the strategic blunder was monumental and the stupidity is hard to beat.  Since all you guys love to bandy about Hitler comparisons:  The U.S. invasion of Iraq was akin to Hitler's deicison to invade the U.S.S.R.

    By invading Iraq, we strengthened Iran.   Great job, W!  


    Well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 06:57:49 AM EST
    maybe a better word would be own up and take responsiblity for what he did both Bush and Cheney apologize to the American people and the families that lost their sons and daughters because of their lies.

    We better not hold our breath. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    The only way those two birds will ever be compelled to apologize for Iraq is by first dressing them in orange jumpsuits, and then having them frog-marched in shackles on live television.

    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 03:27:11 PM EST
    I'm not holding my breath for sure. Unless Hillary decides to frog march them in the jumpsuits that's the only wa anything is going to happen because we all know Obama isn't going to do anything about them.

    Korea (none / 0) (#2)
    by thomas rogan on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 07:35:15 PM EST
    If we had hustled our troops out of Europe in 1947 and saw Stalin invade it I'm sure 77% of people would say that World War II wasn't worth the cost either.
    The only successful wars (Europe, Korea, Bosnia) involved our keeping some boots on the ground during peacetime.  We have troops there still.

    Before the troops (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 07:42:13 PM EST
    were kept "on the ground" in the earlier wars and military actions that you cited, was not the reality, if not the consensus, that the US had prevailed & been what would be seen as victorious in those wars?  The point: The Iraq situation could not have resembled the cited wars in any way ... for one thing, the war (similar to the Vietnam situation) could only be called an unresolved mire at best.  Clearly, there was no classic "victory" in Iraq; and, there would be no reason--even under what you suggest--to retain troops in the area.

    Maybe when there is peacetime in Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:05:10 PM EST
    your analogy will apply. We had no peace to 'keep' by leaving troops there. They were sitting on a simmering civil war.  

    Yup, they had been pulled back (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:48:16 PM EST
    And only in heavily protected positions for a year before we were out.

    Korea was a "successful" war? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 10:10:12 PM EST
    What planet are you living on? That war was a stalemate, at best.

    Yes, proponents like you will repeatedly point out that we repulsed a North Korean invasion of South Korea in the summer of 1950, and you're absolutely right about that.

    But what you and your fellow armchair warriors conveniently and studiously avoid mentioning in any discussion of that war is one rather inconvenient little truth, which is what happened in Korea after the North Korean Army was repulsed and defeated.

    Our own subsequent invasion of North Korea became arguably the greatest strategic blunder and tactical debacle in the entire history of the U.S. military, one in which we initially overran the country, only to soon find ourselves in a predicament that narrowly averted becoming an outright catastrophe.

    And had China's People's Liberation Army not been a primarily non-mechanized peasant force that proved itself unable follow up its own initial dazzling battlefield successes, as quickly as our own troops were able to flee southward in total disarray -- well, let's just say that in the winter of 1950-51, we were damned lucky that our entire Eighth Army wasn't driven headlong by the Chinese right into the Sea of Japan.

    As it stands, we were clearly routed by the Chinese in North Korea and pushed completely out of that country, and back south below the 38th parallel. There's really no polite way to put it.

    The Korean War can be considered a "victory" only in the sense that at enormous cost in both men and materiel, and sometimes in spite of ourselves, the United States was somehow able to restore the military equilibrium and political status quo which had existed on the Korean peninsula prior to that conflict's outbreak in June 1950.



    Well, we might as well acknowledge (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    the real, intractable guest here, cause it's hard to ignore when it's an elephant.......OIL.

    And, "77% don't want us to go back in".......until they can only get gas on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

    Then, they'll be waving their little flags, chanting USA, USA, USA, as they cheer on the B-52's leaving America, heading East.

    It is time for Teslas (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:51:20 PM EST
    And the windy plains that will know nothing but drought now in the new climate we live in to come alive with wind farms.  I know my family is sitting on thousands of acres of windy land that you can't farm or ranch on now on the Colorado plains.

    Exactly. Costs a small fortune and (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 09:33:12 PM EST
    the battery spontaneously combusts.

    Tesla seems to me (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 09:40:02 PM EST
    That they are willing to work with the American people.  Have you driven one? What they have on the market right now caters to luxury buyers because nobody else is eager to sign on.  I am eager to sign on, and have driven one.  I would gladly have one, and you can charge them on post at Fort Rucker for free.

    I have not. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 09:46:19 PM EST
    It is a crazy hot car :) (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 09:48:19 PM EST
    Zippin fast, no grinding gears or anything :). Speeding tickets may be an initial problem.

    It's aparrently all about torque (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 10:26:08 PM EST
    Even a very powerful combustion engine has to build up torque but an electric engine has 100% of the torque available pretty much instantly.  Zzzzzip.
    I got a ride in a tesla recently and I even got to ride in a EV1.  One of my friends had a lease back when they were running around LA.  Disney installed a charger.  This is around the turn if the century.  Before the oil interests bought them all and buried them in the desert.  See "who killed the electric car".  He was not happy about giving it up.
    Sorry for the OT.  

    I was told the Tesla beats (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:36:48 AM EST
    The new street Camaros and Mustangs easily off the line.

    Carice MK1 (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:43:47 AM EST
    That is ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:38:22 PM EST
    ... awesome.

    Any real performance (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:42:05 PM EST
    car is traction limited off the line, its all about tires and suspension above a very modest power level.

    Night time charging should be fine for a long time, but once the electric fleet is large enough that people need to charge during the day the load could be an issue.


    They don't ALL spontaneously combust. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 02:53:24 PM EST
    Just a random and select number of them.



    Odds are probably (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    Better than GM.

    Windfarms would be a good thing in CO (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    as much of CO's electricity is "dirty" (produced by burning coal), and elec cars there do not have much, if any at all, emissions benefit over gasoline vehicles.
    But the Denver [electric] car would cause as large a load of greenhouse gases to enter the atmosphere as some versions of the gasoline-powered Mazda 3, a compact sedan rated at 33 m.p.g. in combined city and highway driving by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    In simple terms, the effect of electric vehicles on the amount of greenhouse gases released into the environment can span a wide range, varying with the source of the electricity that charges them.

    Assembled over nine months in 2011, the U.C.S. report provides clarification in several ways, examining charging costs under various conditions and offering comparisons among the Leaf, the Mitsubishi "i" electric and the Volt plug-in hybrid.

    Most revealing, perhaps, is the geographical breakdown of electricity generation.

    In a worst-case situation, with electric power generated from a high proportion of coal -- as it is in a wide swath of the country's midsection -- an electric car or a plug-in hybrid will generate slightly more full-cycle global-warming emissions, as the report calls the greenhouse gases, than the best gasoline-engine subcompact.

    In areas where the cleanest electricity is available -- regions served by hydroelectric, natural gas or nuclear generating plants -- greenhouse gas emissions may be less than half that of today's best gasoline-engine vehicles.

    The immediacy of the torque of electric motors is rockin' though.


    Porsche 918 spyder (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 07:27:15 AM EST
    Caught that BBC show Top Gear last night and they were driving this.  I thought the guy was going to wet his pants.  Especially off the line.  But then I'm sure it's was all just about "the tires and suspension". Pffft

    Overview: It took Porsche years to develop a worthy successor to the vaunted Carrera GT supercar, but at last, the 918 is here--and it's a plug-in hybrid! With a combined 887 hp and 944 lb-ft of torque from its mid-mounted V-8 and electric motors--one at each axle--the 918 delivers Bugatti-like acceleration, tenacious handling, and a 211-mph top end. And of course, it's every bit as exotic-looking as any near-million-dollar supercar should be, with a low-slung, targa body, and ultra-futuristic cabin. FIRST DRIVE REVIEW - 2014 PORSCHE 918 SPYDER »

    Ferrari, too. (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    Talk (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 12:07:39 AM EST
    to me about "tires and suspension" some time AFTER you drop the clutch on a 900 HP car with a drag suspension, its good for close to 3G's of acceleration something no street car can come close to.

    TV shows are supposed to make that stuff look exciting, but its not that big of a deal in reality.


    Yaaaaaaawn ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    Talk to me about "tires and suspension" some time AFTER you pull 7 Gs in an F-14 without any rubber or suspension playing a role.

    Makes it hard to stay awake in a drag car.  Those drag racers ... putting on a show for TV.


    You don't (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:16:54 PM EST
    need an F-14 to pull a lot of G's a lowly Cessna acrobat has plenty of ability to black out most people, and I used to fly one.

    Which is beside the point, I do know how traction and suspensions work and don't work, in both theory and practice.


    I guess that (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 08:51:17 AM EST
    Depends on your definition of "close"

    Porsche say that the 2014 Porsche 918 Spyder can generate up to 1.8g lateral acceleration on its street-legal trackday rubber.

    Not to mention ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:26:26 AM EST
    ... 887 horsepower, as opposed to 900.

    Practically like driving my minivan ....


    Wow (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:31:03 AM EST
    Makes your heart race just watching the damn video

    Not on any normal street (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:22:57 PM EST
    maybe on a track due to the build up of rubber on the track. Its mostly about the tires which have gotten very very sticky.

    The discussion was about off the line performance, which I repeat is entirely dependent on suspension and tire traction above a very modest power level and has nothing to do with engine low rpm characteristics because anything used in a drag situation will have a clutch or torque converter that allows launch at peak engine torque.


    Most (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:32:30 PM EST
    people only know what they hear on the news or read in the paper, when those sources have an agenda they put ahead of the truth the general public believes what it is told.

    I can't see how any rational person would think leaving Saddam in power was an option.

    Apparently, it was an option for many, (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 08:01:30 AM EST
    many years.  And not just an option, but a deliberate part of our foreign policy.

    Does that make Ronald Reagan irrational, that he cozied up to Saddam, did the ol' "wink-wink" on Saddam's use of chemical weapons?

    Or are we still trying to shape the truth to justify an illegal war based on manufactured "evidence?"

    ::rolling eyes::


    Yes (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 08:08:49 AM EST
    WAS an option (none / 0) (#65)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 12:10:08 AM EST
    it didn't stay that way, Saddam would have been a sure trigger to open war in the region, maybe even worse than Obama has made it.

    That's funny (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 06:11:57 PM EST
    I can't see how any rational person would think removing Saddam was worth invading Iraq and all the costs associated with it ... including the resulting power vacuum and all that goes with it.

    I also can't see how any rational person would think it was a good idea to provide him with WMDs in the first place.


    The *willful ignorance* of the 25% is beyond (none / 0) (#59)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 09:35:35 AM EST
    belief.  I guess they're the same crowd who thought Nixon wasn't guilty, the earth is flat and pigs fly.  

    O.K. I'll go along with you (none / 0) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    that Nixon was guilty, and, the earth is not flat


    Pigs don't fly?



    You're gonna have to trust me on this one, 'k? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:18:33 PM EST
    Out here (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 12:13:32 AM EST
    they have their own choppers.

    Technically is Nixon "guilty" of anything? I don't recall any trial, innocent until proven guilty works  for me.

    Might just been "phony scandals" and mean press.