Bush says war was right

[Joe]

Discuss. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ight&printer=1

WASHINGTON — President Bush (news - web sites) declared Monday that "knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq (news - web sites)," signaling that revelations of flaws in the prewar intelligence had not changed his mind about the wisdom of attacking and removing Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) from power.

• Latimes.com home page
• Subscribe to the Los Angeles Times



Bush acknowledged that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq, but he said they might still turn up. "We still would have gone to make our country more secure," he said, adding that Hussein "had the capability of making weapons."

"He had terrorist ties," Bush said. "The decision I made was the right decision."

The comments, which the president offered during a brief White House news conference, marked something of a political gamble. Polls suggest that up to half the American public now believes that the war was a mistake, given that no weapons of mass destruction have turned up in Iraq.

"I don't think the president is helping himself when he says things like this. It's a real stretch to think that a majority of Americans would have been supportive of attacking Iraq in the absence of either a clear connection to Sept. 11 or an imminent WMD threat," said political analyst Charlie Cook, referring to weapons of mass destruction.

"Statements like this by the president only lend credence to the charges that he was determined to attack, no matter what," Cook said.

Political experts also said that Bush's comments showed he was eager to push back at Democratic claims that he had mishandled national security and the war in Iraq, considered to be the president's strongest suits. At the Democratic National Convention in Boston last week, Bush's opponents tried to build the case that the nation needed new leadership on those issues.

The president repeatedly has called Iraq a "central front" in the war on terrorism and says that a free Iraq would help spread democracy throughout the Middle East. He also has said that Hussein's capacity to make dangerous weapons, and to pass them on to terrorists, presented a security risk.

But his comments Monday were noteworthy in the wake of a Senate Intelligence Committee report last month that said the prewar warnings about Iraq's illicit weapons programs were largely unfounded. The report said the CIA (news - web sites) and other U.S. intelligence agencies had made a series of errors that led to incorrect conclusions that Iraq had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program.

Before the war, Bush said repeatedly that Hussein had stockpiled biological and chemical weapons and that the Iraqi leader had not complied with U.N. requirements that he disclose his weapons programs and take other required actions.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace," Bush told the United Nations (news - web sites) General Assembly in September 2002, "it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material."

Now, Bush faces a political problem as he revisits the reasons for war, said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst.

"He's caught between a rock and a hard place," Rothenberg said. "An acknowledgment of error would undercut the whole message of strength and toughness and leadership," possibly eroding the president's base of support.

On the other hand, he said, Bush's recent comments about the rationale for war may prompt some to view him as obstinate to the point of being unwilling to admit a mistake.

In a Times Poll of more than 1,500 registered voters last month, 45% said the war in Iraq was justified, while 51% said it was a mistake. The respondents answered after being told that the Senate Intelligence Committee had found no evidence that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction or rebuilding its nuclear program, but that Bush had maintained that the war was justified because it would make the Mideast more stable and the United States safer.

The president spoke with reporters Monday after announcing that he would urge Congress to create the job of national intelligence director to oversee a function now scattered among more than a dozen agencies.

Democratic challenges to Bush's performance on national security matters and the Iraq war were a main feature of the party's convention. In accepting the party's nomination for president, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) promised "to bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to."

Bush's comments were a firmer statement of an argument he had outlined previously.

On July 12, three days after the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its report faulting the prewar intelligence, Bush told workers at a nuclear weapons laboratory: "Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. 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."

Bush also turned aside a suggestion from Kerry on Monday that his policies had fueled the recruitment of terrorists.

Kerry, in an interview with CNN, said the Bush administration, "in its policies, is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists."

"We haven't done the work necessary to reach out to other countries," Kerry said. "We haven't done the work necessary with the Muslim world."

The president responded: "That's a misunderstanding of the war on terror. Obviously, we have a clear — a difference of opinion, a clear difference of opinion about the stakes that face America.

"The best way to protect the American homeland is to stay on the offense. It is a ridiculous notion to assert that because the United States is on the offense, more people want to hurt us. We're on the offense because people do want to hurt us."

[Fritz]

no shit. Did anyone think the prez would say going to war was wrong?

[yabanci]

Thanks for posting this breaking news, as I was confused about whether Bush supported the war or not.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Fritz

no shit. Did anyone think the prez would say going to war was wrong?

Maybe some are holding onto the fact that he might forget he was for it in the first place....

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Maybe some are holding onto the fact that he might forget he was for it in the first place....

No, that would be Kerry. Is he for or against the war this week?

[SFL Cat]

I want Kerry to reveal his "secret" plan he was telling Steffy Stephanopolous about on last Sunday's show.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

No, that would be Kerry. Is he for or against the war this week?

Well, true but its different. Kerry changes his mind either to make people happy or because he found out new information, or because something new was added to a bill that he didn't like. Different people choose to believe one of those things most likely.

My comment about Bush was that there are people who think Bush is so dumb that he might actually just forget....

[johneh]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

No, that would be Kerry. Is he for or against the war this week?

If George's kids got a serious disease that will lead to their death but a cure could be found - do you think he would change his mind about stemcell research?

Oh wait, I forgot, God speaks to Bush (funny how those who talked with God used to end up in the looney-bin, now they end up in the White House)

[MrBug708]

I missed the humor....

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by johneh

If George's kids got a serious disease that will lead to their death but a cure could be found - do you think he would change his mind about stemcell research?

Oh wait, I forgot, God speaks to Bush (funny how those who talked with God used to end up in the looney-bin, now they end up in the White House)

This suppose to be humor or a sad slam against one man's beliefs?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

This suppose to be humor or a sad slam against one man's beliefs?

Didn't you know? It is fine to have beliefs as long as you don't act on them.

[MIJB#19]

Pretty arrogant to quote yourself, George W. Bush.

Edit: Yes, I see the irony in this comment about having a signature where I qoute myself.

[Flasch186]

this is a silly thread. IMO, Bush isnt supposed toact on HIS beliefs, he is our servant and should act on ours. A small dilineation there.

[EagleFan]

From a silly thread comes a silly response?

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this is a silly thread. IMO, Bush isnt supposed toact on HIS beliefs, he is our servant and should act on ours. A small dilineation there.

A leader should act decisively on what he believes in. That is what being a leader is all about.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this is a silly thread. IMO, Bush isnt supposed toact on HIS beliefs, he is our servant and should act on ours. A small dilineation there.

That would be in a perfect democracy, but frankly, the USA isn't. There are 2 guys you can vote for and you have to either like one of the two's interests or you are screwed. Especially if your interests are politically left wing.

I can't say that having a five or ten party system works so much better. Here in the NLs, what you vote for is hardly ever what you get. The 2 or 3 goverment parties with contradictional ideas have to compromise 9 out of 10 times.

Really, I have no idea whether there even exists a perfect political system, or if it ever could be accomplished, but a two-party system can't be the ideal solution.

[sachmo71]

I'm tired of the hate.

And anyone who watched Last Comic Standing last night will know what Kerry's secret weapon is.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I'm tired of the hate.

And anyone who watched Last Comic Standing last night will know what Kerry's secret weapon is.

BUKKAKE

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

From a silly thread comes a silly response?




A leader should act decisively on what he believes in. That is what being a leader is all about.

That is such broad statement, wrought with problems. Hitler mustve been a great leader. how about Pol Pot? A leader, in a representative gov't. is supposed to be a civil servant and represent he beliefs of those he represents.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

That is such broad statement, wrought with problems. Hitler mustve been a great leader. how about Pol Pot? A leader, in a representative gov't. is supposed to be a civil servant and represent he beliefs of those he represents.

Your right. An affective leader is one who constantly takes polls to make desicions, and do what the polls say even when they believe that it would be wrong.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

That is such broad statement, wrought with problems. Hitler mustve been a great leader. how about Pol Pot? A leader, in a representative gov't. is supposed to be a civil servant and represent he beliefs of those he represents.

Garbage. A leader in a representative goverment isn't there to make "popular" decisions. If that were the case, why not remove the title altgother and base our domestic and foreign policy on the latest USA Today poll? Our president is supposed to make decisions that best reflect what he and his cabinet feels is best for the country. These decisions (hopefully) are based on multitudes of more information and with a greater propensity towards strategic thinking than the short-term public could ever have.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Garbage. A leader in a representative goverment isn't there to make "popular" decisions. If that were the case, why not remove the title altgother and base our domestic and foreign policy on the latest USA Today poll? Our president is supposed to make decisions that best reflect what he and his cabinet feels is best for the country. These decisions (hopefully) are based on multitudes of more information and with a greater propensity towards strategic thinking than the short-term public could ever have.

This is quite true. However, a leader should also learn from past mistakes (or should I just say experience) and I am not sure if Bush has ever critically evaluated his actions.

Example: Kennedy. Bay of Pigs was a disaster. He learned from it and as a result handled the Cuban Missle Crisis quite well.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

This is quite true. However, a leader should also learn from past mistakes (or should I just say experience) and I am not sure if Bush has ever critically evaluated his actions.

Example: Kennedy. Bay of Pigs was a disaster. He learned from it and as a result handled the Cuban Missle Crisis quite well.

What miskates has Bush made? I mean, the of invading of Iraq is debatable (and if it is, he can't learn from it if he didn't invade anyone yet).

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

This is quite true. However, a leader should also learn from past mistakes (or should I just say experience) and I am not sure if Bush has ever critically evaluated his actions.

Example: Kennedy. Bay of Pigs was a disaster. He learned from it and as a result handled the Cuban Missle Crisis quite well.

I don't believe he's choked on a pretzel again

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

What miskates has Bush made? I mean, the of invading of Iraq is debatable (and if it is, he can't learn from it if he didn't invade anyone yet).

EVEN DIE HARD REPUBLICANS WOULD ADMIT THAT SOME MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE. I must be on your ignore list so you havnt ever seen me list the mistakes, mistatements, misleaders, etc. EVERY single presidnet and every single person makes mistakes, to claim that doesnt apply to anyone is stupid. The handling of post war Iraq? Appointing a manufacturing guy, who outsourced his own company as manufacturing czar, while saying that he would do everything in his power to keep jobs here?

there are so many, a few on one interpretation and a ton on the other interpretation....just depends on your view.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by johneh

If George's kids got a serious disease that will lead to their death but a cure could be found - do you think he would change his mind about stemcell research?

Oh wait, I forgot, God speaks to Bush (funny how those who talked with God used to end up in the looney-bin, now they end up in the White House)

hey buddy just cause u misunderstood what talking to God means dont make fun of Bush...In fact if I were you I would envy the relationship he has with the creator.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by nfg22

hey buddy just cause u misunderstood what talking to God means dont make fun of Bush...In fact if I were you I would envy the relationship he has with the creator.

Isn't envy one of the seven deadly sins?

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Garbage. A leader in a representative goverment isn't there to make "popular" decisions. If that were the case, why not remove the title altgother and base our domestic and foreign policy on the latest USA Today poll? Our president is supposed to make decisions that best reflect what he and his cabinet feels is best for the country. These decisions (hopefully) are based on multitudes of more information and with a greater propensity towards strategic thinking than the short-term public could ever have.

A leader isn't supposed to make popular decisions? WTF? Thats the whole point of our government. He is supposed to REPRESENT us, not represent his own agenda or beliefs. BTW he isn't supposed to represent God either, he's a President, not a priest. He's supposed to represent the people who elected him President. Even though it was only 48% of the country.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

This is quite true. However, a leader should also learn from past mistakes (or should I just say experience) and I am not sure if Bush has ever critically evaluated his actions.

Example: Kennedy. Bay of Pigs was a disaster. He learned from it and as a result handled the Cuban Missle Crisis quite well.

That is a matter of debate. The Cuban Missile Crisis was about as close as we ever came to a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That is a matter of debate. The Cuban Missile Crisis was about as close as we ever came to a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union.

You got it exactly right. Kennedy went from being led by the military and following their advice and supporting the invasion of the Bay of Pigs to having learned to stand up to the military and following his own instincts and thereby preventing nuclear war as you so rightly point out.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

EVEN DIE HARD REPUBLICANS WOULD ADMIT THAT SOME MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE. I must be on your ignore list so you havnt ever seen me list the mistakes, miThe handling of post war Iraq? Appointing a manufacturing guy, who outsourced his own company as manufacturing czar, while saying that he would do everything in his power to keep jobs here? statements, misleaders, etc. EVERY single presidnet and every single person makes mistakes, to claim that doesnt apply to anyone is stupid.

there are so many, a few on one interpretation and a ton on the other interpretation....just depends on your view.

Yeah, I agree, I think we could of handled it better, but to question of invading Iraq is a debatable subject still. Sorry, I think I misread the person who posted it. I though they met from that person's own miskates (not past Presidents-but in any case, shouldn't this apply to all our politicians?). Yes, no one is perfect, not even the President (s). While I do believe we could of handle it better, I kinda have a hard time agreeing with learning from our miskates, we can only learn to an extend because each situation is differnet (example-we never really had to deal with this form of terrorism to this extreme). To be honest, I really don't read too much into alot of what you post and what the media says due to the slantness alot of the outlets put out (unless they all seem to be saying the same thing). Not sure what you mean by the handling of post Iraq situation.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

A leader isn't supposed to make popular decisions? WTF? Thats the whole point of our government. He is supposed to REPRESENT us, not represent his own agenda or beliefs. BTW he isn't supposed to represent God either, he's a President, not a priest. He's supposed to represent the people who elected him President. Even though it was only 48% of the country.

Good grief, I remember having this discussion in 5th grade social studies. The question: theoretically, what should the president do if he is 100% absolutely positive that a "correct" decision goes against the majority of the public? Even back in 5th grade, we all agreed he is to make the "right" decision. We elect officials to represent us, true. However, we have to assume that those officials have much more information than we as individuals can glean from the media. This is why I always find the immflamatory CNN polls hysterical. Example: "Should we be using flanking maneuvers in the town of Fallujah?" I always come away from these polls thinking, "How the hell should I know?" We're given a drastically limited amount of data and expected to pick the best option without the level of expertise required. Well, that's why we elect officials - they can concentrate on these issues, and yes, to the best of their ability, make the political decisions for us while we concentrate on raising our families, go to work and pay our bills.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Good grief, I remember having this discussion in 5th grade social studies. The question: theoretically, what should the president do if he is 100% absolutely positive that a "correct" decision goes against the majority of the public? Even back in 5th grade, we all agreed he is to make the "right" decision. We elect officials to represent us, true. However, we have to assume that those officials have much more information than we as individuals can glean from the media. This is why I always find the immflamatory CNN polls hysterical. Example: "Should we be using flanking maneuvers in the town of Fallujah?" I always come away from these polls thinking, "How the hell should I know?" We're given a drastically limited amount of data and expected to pick the best option without the level of expertise required. Well, that's why we elect officials - they can concentrate on these issues, and yes, to the best of their ability, make the political decisions for us while we concentrate on raising our families, go to work and pay our bills.

thats a non issue, obviously there are things that the pres. has more info and has to act ina ccordance to the info he has. Problem comes from, when he has information, that many, MANY people around him say is false or slanted and he still relies heavily on it AND uses some of that information to bolster his decision (ie. the Iraqi purchase of Uranium from Africa - he was told in advance of using the information in his SOU address that it was likely based on forged materials). Now, what about the stem Cell debate? most americans support it yet he does not...does he know something the public doesnt? Gay Marriage.....he must know something we dont, to go so far as to want to change the Constitution to keep them from marrying. What youre saying about right decisions isnt false but it only applies to some things, NOT ALL. Post war Iraq...he and Rumsfeld mustve known something we didnt cuz the way they dissolved the army worked out great for rebuilding.

[Bee]

Actually, I believe the president is on the side of the majority concerning gay marriage.

[andy m]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5887424

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," Bush said.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Problem comes from, when he has information, that many, MANY people around him say is false or slanted and he still relies heavily on it AND uses some of that information to bolster his decision (ie. the Iraqi purchase of Uranium from Africa - he was told in advance of using the information in his SOU address that it was likely based on forged materials).

I don't think having information of dubious value clouds the decision making process. i.e. I don't think the decision to invade Iraq was based solely on this info. I think the decision had already been made and this was a, "wow, and here's something else..." factoid.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Now, what about the stem Cell debate? most americans support it yet he does not...does he know something the public doesnt?

I personally am for that one, but I can see how his religious convictions tell him to support the opposite view.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Gay Marriage.....he must know something we dont, to go so far as to want to change the Constitution to keep them from marrying.

I'm not for an amendment for this, and I personally couldn't care less about this one. However, it seems (as another has pointed out) that the majority of Americans are against this. Sounds like Bush is only doing what his constituents want on this one.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

What youre saying about right decisions isnt false but it only applies to some things, NOT ALL.

Well, yeah. I don't think I ever said ALL.

[Huckleberry]

"I don't think the president is helping himself when he says things like this. It's a real stretch to think that a majority of Americans would have been supportive of attacking Iraq in the absence of either a clear connection to Sept. 11 or an imminent WMD threat," said political analyst Charlie Cook, referring to weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, so that's what WMD stands for. Thank goodness the article clarified.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Bee

Actually, I believe the president is on the side of the majority concerning gay marriage.

You believe a majority of Americans support amending the Constitution to deny rights to a minority class, a move unprecedented in American history?

[Flasch186]

many americans may be against Gays getting married but I cartainly dont believe that they think the CONSTITUTION of the US, should be ammended to keep them from doing so.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

You believe a majority of Americans support amending the Constitution to deny rights to a minority class, a move unprecedented in American history?

Yes

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

[Flasch186]

+ - 5% AND 6% w/o opinion.....saying YES is quite the assumption.

left out this poll:

"Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution saying that no state can allow two men to marry each other or two women to marry each other?"

most said no...

what it means to me, is that most republicans they polled say they oppose BUT w/ + - 3% it could be less than half agree and that most of everyone else DOES NOT agree.

ironic that this poll was on there too...

http://www.pollingreport.com/national.htm


ITS GREAT WHEN ALL THE INFORMATION IS PRESENTED.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I'm not for an amendment for this, and I personally couldn't care less about this one. However, it seems (as another has pointed out) that the majority of Americans are against this. Sounds like Bush is only doing what his constituents want on this one.

You're missing the point. What flasch means is that HE is against an ammendment so therefore that makes up the majority in his warped little mind.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

You're missing the point. What flasch means is that HE is against an ammendment so therefore that makes up the majority in his warped little mind.

Youre right, its a great idea, in this struggling economy (see #'s out today), to waste taxpayer dollars, (while running a record deficit), on trying to ammend the constitution to keep a minority from having equal rights, especially when its something most Americans are not in favor of (if you take the other side of the assumption [+/- and no opinions]). Im so happy that we have a president who is so resolute in his righteousness according to the Bible.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

You're missing the point. What flasch means is that HE is against an ammendment so therefore that makes up the majority in his warped little mind.

The only warped minds around here are the ones wanting to alter a document that protects freedom in order to restrict the freedom of a minority class, simply because they want to punish the members of that class. Those people are a serious danger to the values America was founded to protect and defend...which is so clearly illustrated by their lack of understanding or tolerance for those values.

The next step in rights-restriction policies such as this will probably be to make all homosexuals identify themselves by wearing a pink triangle, which will be made even more cost effective by merely modifying the millions of old Stars of David that were once worn by another class of people whose leadership wanted to take their freedom away.

[Joe]

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

You're right...I forgot that there already were all those old pink triangles left over from Auschwitz and other camps. We could just stock up on those and not have to worry about making new ones.

[Joe]

you already have yours, right?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

... something most Americans are not in favor of

Actually, whether it's this topic or any other subject of a Constitutional amendment, what "most Americans" favor/oppose doesn't matter one bit.

What is required is that 3/4 of the states approve an amendment.

Just for some fun with math, consider:

-- The 38 least populated states (as of the 2000 Census) make up a little more than 40% of the total US population. (113,446,982 of 281,421,906)

-- And again, just for fun (because we know the process doesn't exactly work this way), let's assume that all the state legislatures put their decision to a binding vote of the population of their state, needing 50% + 1 for them to approve.

-- And let's see, 1/2 the U.S. population of the smallest 38 states
(+1 per state) votes "yes" to a proposed amendment.
That'd be (113,446,982 X .5 + (38)) = 56,723,529 "yeas".
Which works out to needing just over 20% of the population agreeing
to approve a Constitutional amendment.

Now we all know this is just "fun with math" (I even said so at the beginning of this post), but I think it illustrates a valid point -- no Constitutional amendment ever requires the approval of half the U.S. population. It requires 3/4 of states to approve, and that can be quite a different matter altogether.

If you don't like it, don't blame me, I didn't write the Constitution.
Maybe you can get a Constitutional amendment to change it

On a related note, I thought it might also be interesting, just for the heck of it, to see how many amendments have been proposed just in the past decade or so. http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

{edited to add: All Constitutional amendments must, of course, pass through both chambers of Congress by 2/3rds vote before going to the states for ratification. Clarifying just in case anybody who knew that might think I didn't know it just because I didn't spell it out}

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

you already have yours, right?

Heh...no, I'll be able to marry in any state I like. I just feel it is important to protect equal rights for all Americans, even though I am not a woman, an African-American, or disabled. Or gay.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

On a related note, I thought it might also be interesting, just for the heck of it, to see how many amendments have been proposed just in the past decade or so. http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

Neat site, Jon. Thanks.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, whether it's this topic or any other subject of a Constitutional amendment, what "most Americans" favor/oppose doesn't matter one bit.

What is required is that 3/4 of the states approve an amendment.

Just for some fun with math, consider:

-- The 38 least populated states (as of the 2000 Census) make up a little more than 40% of the total US population. (113,446,982 of 281,421,906)

-- And again, just for fun (because we know the process doesn't exactly work this way), let's assume that all the state legislatures put their decision to a binding vote of the population of their state, needing 50% + 1 for them to approve.

-- And let's see, 1/2 the U.S. population of the smallest 38 states
(+1 per state) votes "yes" to a proposed amendment.
That'd be (113,446,982 X .5 + (38)) = 56,723,529 "yeas".
Which works out to needing just over 20% of the population agreeing
to approve a Constitutional amendment.

Now we all know this is just "fun with math" (I even said so at the beginning of this post), but I think it illustrates a valid point -- no Constitutional amendment ever requires the approval of half the U.S. population. It requires 3/4 of states to approve, and that can be quite a different matter altogether.

If you don't like it, don't blame me, I didn't write the Constitution.
Maybe you can get a Constitutional amendment to change it

On a related note, I thought it might also be interesting, just for the heck of it, to see how many amendments have been proposed just in the past decade or so. http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

{edited to add: All Constitutional amendments must, of course, pass through both chambers of Congress by 2/3rds vote before going to the states for ratification. Clarifying just in case anybody who knew that might think I didn't know it just because I didn't spell it out}

Unless Hillary Clinton was lying, they actually had to delay debating a national security ammendmant becuase they were debating Gay Marriage rights. Which is more important to ALL americans? This is just sooooo stupid to step on a minority cuz my, his, your god's book (which was written by humans) says they might not get in heaven, while at the same time telling you not to judge. A majority of Americans are not in favor of this and a majority of americans do not believe that Bush is doing a good job. I cant wait til we have a president in office who believes that evolution occurred, that stem cell research is good, that the environment matters, that the middle class is important, that a balanced budget is important, that were not the only country in the world, that gays are people too, that apply free enterprise to all aspects not excluding them from competitions with companies owned by their friends, that dont lie today like they did when the prisoner abuse scandal broke, that wont lie to invade a country. Help is on the way.