Home > Uncategorized > New Gallup Poll on Bush and Iraq

New Gallup Poll on Bush and Iraq

While newspaper editorials remain virtually silent on the subject, the American public seems to have made up its mind. A new Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll out tonight shows that 2 out of 3 adult Americans now want U.S. troops to start to come home from Iraq. And 55% call the decision to attack Iraq in 2003 a “mistake.”

The same poll found President Bush’s approval rating plunging to 38%. It was even lower in a CBS poll earlier this week: 34%.

In the poll, 38% said some troops should be withdrawn from Iraq now with another 27% say they all should come home.

Bush’s handling of Iraq drew the support of just 35%, while 64 percent said they disapprove.

Of the 1,020 adults surveyed, 59% said President Bush can no longer manage the government effectively.

  1. Anonymous
    March 3, 2006 at 8:15 am

    But wait, he’s a popular President!

  2. Nick in Avila
    March 3, 2006 at 8:45 am

    The numbers all point towards Bush in a free fall. Thus far, his second term in office has been a total disaster, both foreign and domestic.

    The luck of W. has finally run out. The history of his adult life has been simple: W screws up and family friends step in to clean up the mess. Look at Texas Oil. Look at Texas Rangers baseball.

    But now this mess is simply too big. Daddy’s friends can’t help this time. The American people are smart and capable — Hiel Hannity and Rushbo can only spin so far.

    How much further can W. sink?????

  3. Rich from Paso
    March 3, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    As the only Iraqi War veteran that speaks on these issues in all of the Central Coast, I welcome you all to the new Vietnam… at home. All of this negativity stems from the FACT that no one outside of the military has a clue what they are talking about when it comes to the War on Terrorism or the War in Iraq. I have told all of you over and over again that this is a noble effort for decent people desparate to be free and extremely grateful for the opportunity. All I hear back are the Code Pinkos and their empty headed objections to violence in general. I see polling from CBS designed to denegrate the President and the war. I also suffer through a constant assault on what I did as though my efforts, my soldiers’ efforts and the lives of my friends who died there were all in vain.

    The bottom line is that America is becoming isolationists, which is what bin Laden wants us to become. America cannot bring itself to trust DPW to manage 6 terminals in port cities already managed by foreign interests. No American, in the media or jsut walking around, makes any kind of effort to get to know these people, the Arabs. I met and befreinded several dozen Arabs; they are just like us except for a deferent religion and way of doing things.

    My biggest fear is that in the Democrats and old media’s attempts to regain contol of Congress and the presidency that they will destroy America’s credibility overseas that we will be isolated from the world and victims of every tin-pot dictator that wants to rub America’s noses in it. Liberal Left, you are getting what you asked for.

  4. Bob from San Luis
    March 4, 2006 at 4:37 am

    Rich: Your Vietnam…at home analogy is a little off, if you consider the part the press is or isn’t playing right now. During Vietnam the press was very much in the thick of battles, and news correspondents brought the “war” right into our living rooms, during the nightly news. The press does not do that with Iraq, partly because their access is supposedly very tightly controlled by the military. Secondly the press does not travel by themselves anymore due to the lethal nature of their profession in this battle. I believe that more journalists have been killed in Iraq than in Vietnam for the whole of that conflict. I for one would like to hear more of the successes the military is having regarding rebuilding projects, infrastructure restoration and more services being available to the Iraqi people. Unfortunately the apparent blunders of early planning has affected the effectiveness of how well some of these projects are being completed, or at least reported. As far as the ladies from Code Pink and their emotional objections to violence in general, is war a desired situation, ever? War is supposed to be a last resort, with many holding the view that when a war breaks out, it signals a failure; either diplomatic or legal, a breakdown has occurred, unless war was the ultimate goal all along.
    The bottom line is that America is becoming isolationists, which is what bin Laden wants us to become.” – um, didn’t bin Laden want us out of Saudi Arabia, and after Sept. 11, didn’t we close the air-base we had there? If we are doing what bin Laden wants us to do, if wouldn’t be the first time. As far as trusting DPW, my issue is more about why is it that this Administration wants to do business with a country that is known to harbor terrorists, to launder their money for them and to ship their cargo through their (DPW’s) ports. I seem to remember the President saying “When it comes to the war on terror, you’re either with us, or against us”, so it would seem that the White House would have us doing business with what they labeled as “our enemies”.
    As far as Democrats and the “old media” destroying our credibility, too late, have you read the deal President Bush has brokered with India? Check this out, instead of less nuclear weapons, there will be more. This is supposed to make us safer? As for “every tin-pot dictator that wants to rub America’s noses in it.“, how many of those dictators America has helped prop up and either put into power, or has supported by helping to keep them in power? I am a liberal and what George W. Bush has created is NOT what I want.

  5. Rich from Paso
    March 5, 2006 at 12:12 am

    What war have you been watching? Not in your home every night?!? Unless your’re constantly watching the Weather Channel, you hear nothing except the current casualty figure from cowardly reporters afraid to leave the Green Zone in Baghdad. When they do decide to leave the cozy comforts of the Green Zone and venture out into the rest of the country, they end up doing stupid stuff, like Bob Woodruff doing a standup piece inside a movign APC and they get hurt or wrose. Now it is just like a civilian to place a premium on the well-being of “journalists” that are as inconsequental to the outcoming of the fight on the ground as the number of AA bateries at Wal-Mart. You must not be listening and reading the same stuff I am, including this blog. Okay, history lesson time. The Tet Offensive was a monumental blunder that resulted in the total destuction of one sides ability to win the war. Which side am I talking about? No doubt you said the U.S. side, but you would be dead wrong. The Viet-Cong were utterly destroyed during the Tet Offensive. So what the embassy got overrun on TV, we got it back. Ton Son Nhut Air Base was not overrun. Bewteen 60 and 100 THOUSAND Viet Cong and North Vietnamese died during the offensive where we loss in the neighborhood of 3,000. Then what happens? A man who never left his CBS studio declares the Vietnam War unwinable. Preposterous! With his declaration, the peace activists are emboldened to become even more virulent, burning buildings, spitting on sreturning soliders, etc. That emboldeneds the NVA to make a direct invasion of South Vietnam to rescue the few remaining surrogates left in the Viet Cong, and the rest is history. Fast forward to this Monday. The Shia shrine is bombed and things get more chaotic. Now there is supposedly a civil war in Iraq when no such thing is taking place. Now we have William Buckley (I’m sure he’s never been there either, but I don’t know for sure) and our own Dave Congalton seeing a civil war in Iraq that no one there is seeing. General Casey on the ground in Iraq said yesterday that there is no civil war and no increase in the foreign fighter presence in Iraq. See more here at Fox News. Howard Dean had already declared the war unwinable, but he was dismissed as the excrement head that he is. rep. Murtha has said the same thing, no report on his number of trips to Iraq. Sen. Liberman says we are winning but because he isn’t toeing the party line, he is scorned by his own party; the DNC is even trying to find someone to run against him for his views. Where are the statesmen in the Democratic Party? Used to be there were guys like Sam Nunn, Dan Glickman, Patrick Moynahan and Zell Miller that you could disagree with philosophically but would still add soemthing to the debate with their own ideas. Now every single Democrat is either campaigning for President or is just a Bush hater. Democrats are going to reap what they sow with the constant scandal-mongering. If the Democrats ever do get back (Heaven forbid!!!) the Congress or the White House, they deserve ever single accusation, no matter how outrageous or erronuous, because that is the environment they have created.

    War, as defined by von Clauswitz, is diplomacy by other means. It still advances our national foriegn policy. Just like the excrement-head city alderman (whatever)in San Francisco that said the SFPD and fire department can fight al Qaeda, the Code Pink ladies live in a fantasy land where we, the United States are the reason why we have the war on terrorism and no the other way around.

    Finally, no Bob, we didn’t remove our Air Force personnel after 9/11. Read what Ambassador Robert Jordan said to PBS’Frontline on the subject. It’s about 2/3rd of the way down the page. Osama bin Laden wants us out of all Muslim lands so al Qaeda can take over Iraq, resurrect the Islamic Caliphate, and unite all Muslims under the Caliphate from Morrocco to Indonesia. That is a fact; one that Liberals need to get on the right side of before it is too late.

  6. John in Morro Bay
    March 6, 2006 at 5:57 am

    Time to get out of Iraq. Now! Bush is so $%#@&^
    incompetent as a President and I resent this guy from Paso Robles suggesting he knows “truth” because he’s been there. All that means to me is that you’ve been brainwashed.

  7. Rich from Paso
    March 6, 2006 at 6:33 am

    John, you are obviously an expert on brainwashing since your brain has been rendered nice and squeaky clean from watching too much TV. You also prefer to listen to pundits and talking heads than to eyewitness accounts. Pathetic.

  8. Bob from San Luis
    March 6, 2006 at 8:09 am

    Rich: Your embedded links didn’t work, but I was able to look at a few items. I did read the part of the interview with the Ambassador Robert Jordan, and his comments may have given the impression that we still have troops there. We apparently don’t; check this out, it is a report on our turning over the operation of Prince Sultan Air Base to the Saudis. While I have no doubt that Osama wants us out of the region completely, I still contend that he wanted us out of Saudi Arabia specifically, and we are not there.
    You can denigrate Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and every other Democrat you want, but Congressman Murtha is somebody even you cannot dismiss, he has the bona fides required to call it like it is, given his record as a Vietnam Veteran, a Marine for what some 37 years? How can you even bring yourself to question him? You need to shake the Rush out of your brain so you can think clearly- Congressman Murtha is so much more of a supporter of the troops than even any Republican in office. Has Murtha ever voted to reduce spending on troops? Has he proposed cutting their benefits? Rich, you are way off the mark if you want to throw Murtha in with anyother Democrat, period. As far as Senator Liberman, he, like Zell Miller, is a Democrat in name only. There have been rumors that he might even change party affiliations if he should lose the primary in his home state. The other rumor has him in the running for Secretary of Defense, should President Bush come to his senses and fire Donald Rumsfield; so anything Senator Liberman has to say is more in the line of parrotting the Republican line. Thanks, but no thanks.
    You mentioned Vietnam, specifically the Tet Offensive, and unnamed mention of Walter Cronkite. He did go to Vietnam, he filed this report on February 27, 1968, where he closed that broadcast with this quote: “To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy’s intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.
    This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.”
    Most who comment about Walter Cronkite and his famous newscast always try to paint him as having said “it is not winnable” as saying he(Walter Cronkite) said we can’t win, we need to give up; reading the whole report you see where it sums up as saying the best we can hope for is a truce. Splitting hairs maybe, but it is more accurate.
    As to the reporters: Of course the reporters are not important in a battle, the soldiers are; the reporters are supposed to just report on what is happening. It is my understanding that the reporters can’t do an effective job of reporting what is going on in Iraq because they are in more danger in Iraq now, then most reporters ever were in Vietnam. I cannot say that with any certainty; I have not been to either location ever, I can only go on what I read and see on the tv. I confess that I don’t watch much news on tv however, I get most of my news off of the internet, and usually read follow up pieces in the Tribune, which since it is a Knight-Ridder newspaper, usually has some decent reporting. I in no manner mean to imply that reporters are more valuable than military personnel, but if they cannot do their job, we cannot understand what is going on. In my last comments I stated that I would like to see more reports of our soldiers/military doing the restoration of services, the rebuilding of schools and hospitals, but those stories don’t get reported possibly because the restorations and rebuilding isn’t taking place like it should.
    One final point Rich, if you didn’t see the show, here is a link to the segment of “Face the Nation” that Congressman Murtha appeared on, you can see for yourself that he is not simply (in your words)bashing President Bush, he is truly concerned with our troops, and with how effective our military can be.
    Rich, I don’t think that you are brainwashed; you obviously have the experience of being there that none of us do. Please trust your instincts as to what is the correct thing to do however, not just blindly support President Bush because he has an ‘R’ after his name or position. And please don’t give any credence to anything Rush has to say about Iraq; remember he deferred service because of a boil on his butt;a most appropriate analogy given how he seems to pull most of his talking points from that region of his anatomy.

  9. Bob from San Luis
    March 6, 2006 at 8:16 am

    Rich: Sorry, that first link was not function properly. This should do it.

  10. John in Morro Bay
    March 6, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Hey Rich,

    I’m pathetic???? Time out. All I’m saying is that one does not have to serve in the military to have a valid opinion about military action. I didn’t serve in Viet Nam either — are you trying to tell me that I shouldn’t be listened to on that issue, as well?

    I thank you for your service, but you have no special insight into Iraq. You were a grunt, doing your job, believing the spin your commanders gave you. We are doing nmore harm than good. Time to get out.

  11. Rich from Paso
    March 6, 2006 at 7:51 pm

    Bob, let me modify your praise of Jack Murtha: there is no bigger supporter of the troops in the DEMOCRATIC party. You mean to tell me that Sen McCain’s years in a NVA POW camp doesn’t give him any credibility when it comes to concern for troops and the right answers for Iraq? How about Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas that shared a cell in the Hanoi Hilton with John McCain after getting shot down? He flew combat missions in Korea and Vietnam. He has no credibility when it comes to the troops? Look, I have nothing against Jack Murtha. I concede that he has the credentials to speak on care and concern for the troops, but he is WRONG!!! He discredits himself when he denigrates Gen. Peter Pace, a man who has been there and done that, as a political hack of Bush. He discredits himself when he says stupid things like 70% of troops want to come home a year for now. Of course, soldiers want to be home in a year, THAT’S HOW LONG THEIR TOURS ARE!!! That statement by Murtha is just as stupid as the poll asking Iraqis if we should leave in a year. I’m surprised that the poll is not 100%. Of course they want us out of their country, who wants an occupying force in their country? But they are also smart enough to understand that we are necessary in order to establish working and effective self-government. My Iraqi friend refuses to legitimize the “insurgents” by calling them such. To him they are terrorists and criminals. I want to ask Jack Murtha these two questions: 1). How do you feel when people tell you that we lost Vietnam? And 2), why do you want me to feel the same way you do by making us lose in Iraq? I imagine he can’t answer these questions.

    To your point about Cronkite: I stand corrected, however it is important to remember that he advocating negotiations with North Vietnam, which eventually did take place. There is no one to negotiate with regarding al Qaeda or the Iraqi terrorists. Your point about bin Laden wanting us out of Saudi Arabia is irrelevant. If he just wanted us out of Saudi Arabia and we did it, then why is he still spoiling for a war with the West? Why did his operatives bomb Madrid and London? Allow me to answer for you, because he wants us out of Iraq specifically and the Middle East in general, just like I told you. Amb. Jordan contends that the Air Force was there until 2002/3, and I believe him.

    As for the DINOs (Dem In Name Only) in your party, tell you what, let”s do this: I will trade you the Joe Libermans, the Zell Millers of your party for the Lincoln Chaffees, the Olympia Snows and the other RINOs in my party one for one. For that matter, how can you call Joe Liberman a DINO? He was your vice-presidential candidate in 2000, for Christ’s sake. He was a big hero when he supported Al Gore. The problem you all have in your party is that you all are fickle. Just because Joe doesn’t toe the party line on the Iraq War, your party is going to drive him to be a Republican because the Republican Party has a big enough tent to house someone with differing viewpoints. Giuliani is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and fiscally conservative and would win the presidency straight up against Mrs. Carpetbagger Clinton. Your party can’t make any such claims. I don’t care how you spin this but the fact of the matter is that the Republican Party is the party of inclusion while the Democratic party is the echo-chamber party; differing ideas need not apply in the Democratic Party. Your party would turn on Jack Murtha if he suddenly reversed course and liked what he saw in Iraq. No matter what his credentials are, your party would savage him as having been subverted by Karl Rove, call him a traitor to his ideas and your party would have a candidate run against him in a New York minute. I guarantee it.

    I’m going to refute the whole “shake the Rush out of your head” comment because it’s not worth refuting, it’s just a ludicrous. I need to do that as much as you need to shake Airhead America out of your head. Please don’t try to take some anti-partisan high ground on me because it won’t work. You and I are equally partisan and we have our own favorites of who we like to listen to. I objectively evaluate Conservatives and Liberals as well as Democrats and Republicans. I just so happen to have my experiences as you pointed out, as a basis for my evaluations. On par, liberals and Democratic concepts, ideas and statements just don’t hold up against the reality I have witnessed. I encourage you to not let your hatred of what Bush has done in your name (as you say) to blind you to the inherent good that Bush has also done in your name. Stretch your imagination and I’m sure that you can think of some good things he’s done. Come on, try it.

  12. Rich from Paso
    March 6, 2006 at 7:59 pm

    John, you called me brainwahsed. You don’t know any more than what I’ve told you about what and where I served in Iraq. You think that we are all just at the whim of our commanders as to what is going on there? I’m here to tell you, I saw the intelligence, I read the after action reports, I talked to the guys doing the job on the ground as I did my job on the ground and we are all in agreement– our service in Iraq was and continues to be noble and the right thing to do, and a success despite what you are seeing in hte media. I know I’m not alone when I say this but I will gladly go back if it keeps my friends from dying in vain by pulling out too soon. For you and others in America not to accept our assessment of things in Iraq challenges the very validity of our service in Iraq, there can be no separation. If you support my service then you have to accept my opinion of what I saw. Thank you for your gratitude of my service, but please don’t turn right around and tell me that I was brainwashed. That is an insult I will not permit to stand.

    Final thoughts before your response; 1) Is there a War on Terroism? 2) Should we have gone into Iraq in the first place? 3) If the answer to 2 is no, how long have you been for mass murder and rape? And don’t tell me that all three are not valid questions.

  13. Bob from San Luis
    March 7, 2006 at 4:01 am

    Rich: I have “stretched” my brain trying to honor President Bush by listing his accomplishments during his five years in office. Other than giving even more tax cuts to the most wealthy in our country, I for one cannot come up with one single Positive accomplishment that I as a proud American Liberal can point to. I’m sure you have a list handy there next to your computer, so please enlighten me, list his accomplishment for everyone to see. Make us safer? Um, no further attacks, thankfully, but are our ports any safer? Are there inspections being conducted, any more than before? Is our air any cleaner? Our forests still protected? Have mileage standards for new vehicles been raised? Has research on alternative energy been funded to a level to help reduce our dependancy on foreign oil? Are our elections being conducted in a fair, transparent manner where everyone feels that their vote was counted, and counted correctly? Have corporate polluters been prosecuted? Are we any more ready for any natural disasters? Are corporate safety regulations more stringent or more relaxed, to protect workers? Have the government reduced our national debt? Foreign trade balance? Rich, please enlighten me as to how President Bush has made anybodies life better, not counting his millionare/billionare buddies.
    As for the Republican party being the “Big Tent” party: Oh my, wow. Sure, there are “Log Cabin” Republicans, there are some who are pro-choice, and I am sure that every minority is represented in the Republican Party; but do they really make a difference in how the party thinks or operates? Yes Rudy Gulianni is pro-choice and if you say he is pro-gay rights, great. I just don’t want to him or anyone else say that he is a “moral” or “more moral” person because he is a Republican. I forget, did he have one or two mistresses while he was Mayor of New York?
    You want to trade Lincoln Chaffe and Olympia Snow for Zell Miller and Joe Liberman? Great, except that Zell is retired remember. As far as Joe Liberman being the Vice-Presidential candidate with Al Gore, I for one was not comfortable with Liberman on the ticket, and quite possibly he is partly to blame for Gore’s defeat.
    Ambassador Jordan was correct about us leaving the Saudi Air Base in 2003; that doesn’t mean Osama didn’t get what he wanted in having us leave Saudi Arabia however. Does Osama want us out of Iraq, and the whole of the middle east? I have no doubt that he does. I think Rep. Murtha’s plan of having us pull back from Iraq but remain in the area ready for quick deployment seems the most logical plan put forth so far. As far as “turning” on John Murtha if he changed his mind on Iraq, well, since he seems pretty committed to his viewpoint at this time, his turning would be very curious, and I am sure many Dems would be suspicious at best, and probably many would not like him changing his mind, so you could have a point there, but the probability of that occurring seems extremely remote. By the way, you are absolutely correct about John McCain and Sam Johnson, but I am curious: How many Republicans have voted to reduce Veteran’s benefits? How many vote against allowing troops to receive hazard pay in combat situations? By all rights every single Republican in national office should be voting to support the troops in every way possible, but it sure doesn’t seem like that happens. Curious.
    About “losing” Vietnam and “winning” in Iraq: How would it have been possible to win in Vietnam, without bombing the entire country back to the stone age? The hearts and minds of the citizens didn’t seem to be there to support what the Americans tried to do. So tell me Rich, how do we “win” in Iraq? What does “winning” even look like? Does it mean killing all of the terrorists? If we could do that, would that mean we won? Is that even possible?
    One last thing, Rush Limbaugh’s main problem is that he doesn’t seem to attached to using facts when he “reports” on a story, like mentioning that Sherrod Brown is a black person; he is not, and Rush knows that now, but why would he even mention it on air without checking it out?

  14. Bob from San Luis
    March 7, 2006 at 8:01 am

    Rich: Here is a link to a Zogby poll, taken of 944 troops in country in Iraq, asking them privately their thoughts on many concerns about the mission in Iraq. Having read through it, I do see where the Guard and Reserves had a higher response about ending the occupation sooner than either regular Army or Marines. The numbers for regular troops is still pretty high though. Your thoughts, please.

  15. Rich from Paso
    March 7, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    Bob, I just don’t see any way of proving to you that President Bush isn’t the Great Satan that you make him out to be. of course that is no different than my feelings for President Clinton. Clinton didn’t do a damn thing for anyone in this country. Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan were what enabled Clinton to enjoy the benefits fo the prosperity of the mid 90’s. Anyhow, here are a couple of weblinks (I hope they work) to show some of President Bush’s accomplishments: unemployment rate is down to 4.7%
    Tax receipts are UP under the so-called tax cuts for the rich;
    interest rates are still below 4.5% despite Hurricane Katrina. Yes, there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11 and that is because Bush is fighting the War on Terrorism not treating them like common criminals. Is the air cleaner? Actually, its no dirtier than it was five years ago. Are the forests protected? Yes, I know this because I have protected them, literally. Everything else you asked are not possible to answer because they spring from your liberalism and are thus incongruent with a Republican agenda. Bottom line is that it is impossible for you to see any positives because you don’t want to see any. You’d rather have your misery as a measure of Bush’s “incompetence” or whatever. Also, my life is better under Bush, trust me.

    We could have won Vietnam if we bombed North Vietnam back to the stone age. We were so afraid of China and Russia that we fought the ground war in South Vietnam never ever once crossing the Demilitarized Zone (oxymoron) into North Vietnam. The NVA would have collapsed in two weeks if we took the war to North Vietnam, but it was believed that China and Russia would have engaged in direct military actions thus creating a 3rd World War. That is a school of thought.

    So, what does victory in Iraq look like. Victory is a politically, economically adn religiously stable country. how do we get there? We are about 65% of the way there already. Keep in mind that the Germans didn’t just roll over and play dead after WWII. There were German insurgents that kept fighting in Germany for 5 years after the end of the war. The war is only over after the enemy agrees it is.
    Bob, Rush apologized for getting Sherrod Brown’s race wrong 20 minutes after he said it and he said he was confused with someone else. I know this because I heard him say it, so cut him some slack or do a better of denigrating him.

    As for your Zogby poll… first let me say I just hate polls. They are almost always skewed one way or the other and are usually wrong. Kerry’s people listened to the exit polls in 2004 and were just perplexed as to how they could have lost Ohio. After all, they were ahead at 2pm. Must have been a Republican dirty trick, right? Wrong, it was trusting in polls early and then mailing in hte rest of the day. That having been said I have read your Zogby poll and here are my thoughts… 1) 944? That’s all of the soldiers Zogby could find for this poll? There are approx. 130,000 boots on the ground. That means the sample represents .7% of the total number of troops on the ground. I know hosw statistics work, but .7% is an awfully small sample size. Also there is no break down by rank or occupation. This would affect the results because as John from Morro Bay pointed out, grunts have a different impression and opinion of things than NCOs or officer do. 2) The troops are smarter than the press or liberals give them credit for. Look at this paragraph: “The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.” I think they are right on all counts. There are some in America that hate the U.S. for what we have done and want us out, some don’t believe in the concept of a pre-emptive war, others are just quiters and still others just don’t understand. They are hitting the hell out the head of the nail. 3) 93% of soldiers are smart enough to know that WMDs are not the sole reason for getting into Iraq and that 68% believe that removing Saddam Hussain was the reason. Since 74% were on 2 or more tours, it is not surprising to me that they want this over this year. Finally, the troops know who the enemy is and are focused on fighting them. The troops understand that while there may not be a large number of foreign fighters in Iraq, those crossing the borders are helping the insurgency. Right on both counts. I would have more faithin the poll if the sample size was larger and if the demographics were known, other than that, the conclusions are consistant with what I know. Thanks for asking.

  16. Rich from Paso
    March 7, 2006 at 8:53 pm

    Let me take another shot at the tax revenues being up with Bush tax cuts here.

  17. lol the internet ppl are funny
    March 7, 2006 at 10:10 pm


  18. Bob from San Luis
    March 14, 2006 at 7:03 am

    Rich: Hi, sorry it took so long to reply, my laptop was stolen from my house last week. I will be reading and commenting when I can, probably will not be as frequent though. I will defer to your experience in Iraq, and you will have a better understanding of polls like the Zogby one I linked to in my last response. I still don’t believe that we are in Iraq for the reasons that were stated by the President however, and you and every soldier can go on about the “noble cause” you believe in so much; I will not denigrate anyone for their belief that a noble cause is just, we were not told of this noble cause before we went there, it came up after we got there and didn’t find the WMDs, so I am somewhat suspicious of our “reasons” for a preemptive invasion. Democracy in Iraq would be a good thing for the entire region, if it ever happens, which I really do hope does.
    You stated that everything else that I listed in my liberal agenda wasn’t possible with a Republican agenda; does that mean that you or any or All Republicans believe that voting in a transparent, accountable manner is somehow a liberal ideal? Just because the Republicans are in power now shouldn’t mean that that will always be the case. Unless the voting is rigged, or controlled by some-other means, there should be a swing, like any other time in our countries history.
    Now, as to the unemployment rate being down to 4.7%; please look here and check the graph on the lower right hand side of the first page. Please note how the graph depicts the rates under both Clinton and G.W. Bush, and then tell me again how well the country is doing. One of the biggest mistakes most make when reading or even reporting unemployment figures is how many who have not been able to find work and are no longer on unemployment are simply dropped from the accounting of unemployed. The actual figure could potentially be much higher if actual figures were used.
    Your source for the tax receipts certainly was encouraging, but please look here and look at someone who is not trying to trumpet the “success” of the Bush policies, but has some apparently nonpartisan reporting on what is really happening.
    As for the interest rates being below 4.5% despite Hurricane Katrina, that is not too surprising since this administration has responded so dismally that it is a national embarrassment. How many people still haven’t been able to move back? Do we know yet exactly how many people died from flooding, or even potentially starvation? You are a brave man to even bring up Katrina; the Bush response is a black eye to our nation that even you cannot defend. Take care.

  19. Rich from Paso
    March 14, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    Bob, I will start from the end of your statement and work backward (just like a liberal – haha):
    Brave for bringing up Katrina? Typical liberal. Everything is Bush’s fault right? Where was Ray Nagin and all of the buses that sat underwater? He was crying at the Superdome wanting someone else to do his job for him. Nagin is the reason why Bush has any kind of black eye. If Nagin had been proactive instead of incompetent and ineffectual, Hurricane Katrina would have been a disaster for the City of New Orleans instead of for the people of New Orleans. Everyone, and I mean everyone, including President (don’t even try it), knew that the hurricane was headed for New Orleans. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco did nothing to help there people out. Where is your scorn for Nagin? Want to see how incompetent he is? Read this copy of the City of New Orleans emergency prepardness plan. In it it says that only the Mayor can initiate an evacuation order (Annex I, section III, subsection A) and we all know he did that one day before the hurricane hit as stated on CNN on August 29th. He was supposed to have called a precautionary evac 72 hours prior to the hurricane hitting and a general evacuation 48 hours before it hit. The emergency plan Of New Orleans also states clearly as fact that 100,000 people did not have the means of getting out of the city. So why is it that a boy has to steal a school bus to drive himself and some complete strangers out of New Orleans. President Bush didn’t cause that, Ray Nagin did. Well, enough about Nagin, for now. Kathleen Blanco is getting hers now. GHovernor Blanco refused to cede her authority to the National Guard until three days after the levees broke. General Russel L. Honoré (remember him? “don’t get stuck on stupid”) was only able to come in after she agreed to let the military in. Why? Two reasons: first, there is this law called the posse comitatus act of 1878. In that law, the United States military is forbiden from performaning any law enforcement activities except as demeed lawful under statute of Congress or acceptable under the constitution, so the military was blocked from coming in that way. Second, Gov. Blanco fought with Bush over who had overall authority in Lousiana. Bush and Nagin wanted the Federal government take over and the miltary to come in, but she refused for four days. Furthermore, it is the State of Louisiana’s responsibility to maintain the levees once the Army Corps of Engineers builds them. Not President Bush. It was the cops of New Orleans that fled there posts once the water came in, not President Bush. It was Ray Nagin that told people to go to the Superdome and not have food and water there, not President Bush. You talk about all of the people who have not been able to return to New Orleans, what you are not factoring in is that many don’t want to go back!!. The main reason why so many people were still in New Orleans is that they wanted to be in hte city when their welfare checks arrived on Sept. 1st. You need to read this article by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a black man. Don’t misunderstand me, I sat in horror like all America seeing the images come out of New Orleans, but as someone who has commanded troops, I refuse to place all of the blame on President Bush just because he is the President. there is a chain of command, he was engaged with his subordinated, he issued orders to Brownie (glittering jewel of ineptitude) and to Chertoff and felt that the Federal response to the impending disaster was on track. And it was. FEMA manages disasters; it is not a first responder. As with every other hurricane in American history, FEMA comes in after the hurricane hits to start the rebuilding and recovery process. Okay, enough about that.

    You bring up good points about tax cuts not directly translating into increased tax receipts. I like your source, they did in fact appear non-partisan. Hell, I’m thinking of sending them my 10 and 10 tax proposal to see if they will score it for me.

    Your graph you wanted me to look at shows a drop right after 9/11. Have you forgotten that the economy went into a mini-recession right after 9/11? Airlines stopped flying for two days. Sports stopped playing that weekend. Not to mention that the World Trde Center was gone. The economy took a huge hit that day and we are just now recovering from that and Katrina.

    As for your continued obsession with WMDs. If you bother to read the full transcript of Colin Powell’s speech to the UN and go down aobut 4/5th the way down you will see that he talks about Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq, you will see the death toll from his use of chemical and nerve agents on his own people and you will see that Colin Powell, and the President, did not want a man like Saddam Hussein in power with the will and the past behavior of one that would conspire with terrrorists against the United States. I admit that I was surprised to see so much reference to WMD’s in that speech. I had forgotten how much time Powell spent covering that aspect of the indictment against Hussein, but I had not forgottent that he talked about other things. If you look at the Authorization for the Invasion of Iraq Resolution 2002 here you will see in the preamble 5 reasons why it was necessary to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein. Read it and comment because, in my opinion, every reason the troops cite for going into Iraq is there in that resolution. Also it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002. That means that it had bi-partisan support, that means it includes Democrats and probably Jack Murtha. I haven’t found the voting record yet to confirm that.

    Finally, sorry to hear that your laptop was stolen. Damn shame. Guess I will just have to not check the blog as often until you get it replaced. Hope your insurance company has been taking care of you. Take care and have a nice day.

  20. Rich from Paso
    March 15, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    Bob, forgot to answer another point of yours. You misunderstood my point when you stated that your laundry list of bad things couldn’t be good under a Republican administration. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that in order to refute yur list, I would have to accept the premise that ports are unsecured, that air is bad, yada, yada, yada. The world is not going to hell because a Republican in general or Bush specifically is in the White House. Republicans and Democrats just have different methods for achieving the same ends. Even the science of the environment is in constant flux. Read this about how there is new study that calls into question the foundational theory of the greenhouse effect, for example. Furthermore, I am not a Bush Kool-aid drinker. I think Bush has let political interests keep him from doing his duty and securing our northern and southern borders. I think it is a shame that CA and AZ feel it necessary to send the national Guard in to secure the border. That is a Federal job not a stateone. But to argue in favor of Bush in order to refute your claim would mean that I would have to accept your premise.

    January 24, 2007 at 3:17 am


  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: