5% Is All That's Left

[ECW]

In a new CBS-NYT poll out a few days ago this question was posed:

If you had to choose, whom would you say you trust the most with successfully resolving the war in Iraq?

The military got 68%.
Congress got 21%.
George Bush got 5%.

Of the political capital that he stated he had after the 2004 election that he was going to use, all that's left is a measly 5%. Incredible. Congress isn't doing much better but, Christ, five percent?

Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

On the eve of what is sure to be a contentious debate on Iraq, the results underscored the benefits to the White House of entrusting the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, to make the case that an increase in American forces this year had been successful enough to continue into next year.

Today, General Petraeus will appear on Capitol Hill along with the American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, in what has become the most anticipated testimony from a military commander in decades.

The poll found that both Congress, whose approval rating now stands at its lowest level since Democrats took control from the Republicans last year, and Mr. Bush enter the debate with little public confidence in their ability to deal with Iraq. Only 5 percent of Americans — a strikingly low number for a sitting president’s handling of such a dominant issue — said they most trusted the Bush administration to resolve the war, the poll found. Asked to choose among the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed most trust in military commanders.

That is almost certainly why the White House has presented General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker as unbiased professionals, not Bush partisans. President Bush has said for years that decisions about force levels should be left to military commanders, although the decision to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq this year and keep them there was not uniformly supported by military leaders. It was primarily made in the White House, and specifically by the president in his role as commander in chief.

Some Democrats took issue with the characterization of General Petraeus as operating free of influence from the administration, suggesting that they would like to diminish his credibility heading into days of intense sparring over how much more time Mr. Bush’s strategy for Iraq should be given.

“I don’t think he’s an independent evaluator,” Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said on “Fox News Sunday.” A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, responded sharply, saying, “Attacking him in this way is reprehensible.”

Still, the poll showed how difficult the White House’s task of sustaining support for an unpopular war had become. There is a deepening disillusion over the war’s course and its purpose, with the highest numbers of Americans, 62 percent, saying that the war was a mistake, and 59 percent saying that it was not worth the loss of American lives and other costs.

A majority, 53 percent, said they did not think that Iraq would ever become a stable democracy. Still more, 70 percent, said they did not think the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was doing all it could to bring stability.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans said the United States should reduce its troops in Iraq now or withdraw them. Asked if a timetable should be established for a 2008 withdrawal, a position many Democrats in Congress have advocated, 64 percent favored doing so.

more...
~link~ (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10poll.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

[bobbylien]

I don't think any politician really fully understands just how upset the American people are with the way this war has been handled. Anyone who stands with Bush on the war won't stand a chance in 08 outside of the most absolutely hardcore areas.

[Todzilla]

I don't think any politician really fully understands just how upset the American people are with the way this war has been handled. Anyone who stands with Bush on the war won't stand a chance in 08 outside of the most absolutely hardcore areas.



That's why Democrats need to push much harder and make it the campaign issue of 2008. So far, I'm not seeing it.

[exigent]

That's why Democrats need to push much harder and make it the campaign issue of 2008. So far, I'm not seeing it.


cuz we dont see enough mike gravel on the mainstream news.

[Alonzo]

I don't think any politician really fully understands just how upset the American people are with the way this war has been handled. Anyone who stands with Bush on the war won't stand a chance in 08 outside of the most absolutely hardcore areas.



That's why Democrats need to push much harder and make it the campaign issue of 2008. So far, I'm not seeing it.


And what happens to Iraq when we withdraw?

Honestly they don't have an answer that would satisfy the majority of the population. Especially when the question asked is in regards to the strengthening of terrorist groups.

[exigent]

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who can give two shits about Iraq. Our presence there is strengthening terrorist groups more than pre invasion times. Our money and resources should go to securing the borders, bringing the soldiers back so we arent stretched out, increase military readiness, etc.

I'd be less sour about the patriot act if it was an addendum to what I just stated.

I didnt care much about the Iraqis before the war and I probably care less now, especially since they have proven to the world their incompetency in accomplishing ANYTHING on their own.

[Drocket]

I didnt care much about the Iraqis before the war and I probably care less now, especially since they have proven to the world their incompetency in accomplishing ANYTHING on their own.

I really don't think that's fair. They're quite competent - at what they choose to be competent at. Stabilizing a government that was forced on them by another country, not so much. Not really because they CAN'T, but because they don't want to. You could do the same 'experiment' on any country in the world and you'd get the exact same results.

You're right, though, in that there's really not much that we can do for them, not at this point. They have to work things out themselves.

[TheStripey1]

I don't think any politician really fully understands just how upset the American people are with the way this war has been handled. Anyone who stands with Bush on the war won't stand a chance in 08 outside of the most absolutely hardcore areas.



That's why Democrats need to push much harder and make it the campaign issue of 2008. So far, I'm not seeing it.


It's not 2008 yet... give them time... :unreal: they might get their act together soon...

and besides, do you think that bush et al will make the situation any better in Iraq by then? I don't. They stand by their incompetence.

[Pookie]

I'm not sure that the Iraqis really want democracy. If they did, wouldn't they be taking a much stronger stand to do so? Seems to me they aren't pulling their fair share, and after all, it's their own country.
Yes, most Americans are a bit disillusioned with this war. And a bit disillusioned with the Bush administration on more counts than just the war. I don't have a clear idea of what to do, though. Pulling out and leaving the Iraqis on their own is one thing, but we need to be there to rebuild their infrastructure. I mean, geez, you'd think at least we could keep the lights on!
Mercy. I just don't know. It seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I'll have to really think about a better answer; right now this is all I have.
Purrs,

[Drocket]

and besides, do you think that bush et al will make the situation any better in Iraq by then? I don't. They stand by their incompetence.

Frankly, I don't think the Bush administration is trying to make things any better. I think they've realized that that's impossible at this point. The only thing they're trying to do is keep things from falling completely apart in Iraq before they can pawn the problem off on someone else in 2009. That's basically all Praetus's "plan" is at this point - a delaying tactic. A couple thousand troops home for Christmas to take a bit of the political pressure off, some more next spring/summer because of the simple reality that the military can't keep up the surge any longer. Once we hit fall 2008, it'll be easy to justify not making any major policy changes during 'a time of transition'. Then in January 2009, Hillary takes office and Bush flees the White House cackling gleefully. It's her fault, all her fault! Hahaha!

I suspect that this is a large part of the reason the Democrats aren't pushing more on the subject. Call it "Vietnam Syndrome", since it's basically the same problem they had back then - if they call for a pullout, they'll be blamed for losing the war. It's already lost, but that really matters less than the publicity campaign. Just look at how many people repeat the mantra that we only lost Vietnam because of the dirty hippy peaceniks - it's complete and utter bullshit, but the warmongers repeated it long enough and often enough that it's sunk into the public conscious. It doesn't matter if it's true or not - all that matters is that it feels true (to stupid people, at least, which unfortunately make up a large percentage of the public.)

Whoever finally forces a pullout of Iraq will, in the long run, get the same blame. The reality of the statement matters less than the fact that the screaming madmen on the right will harp on it for all eternity.

[ECW]

I still remember how the righties blamed Truman for "losing" China because the Communists over ran Chang Kai-Shek's army on Truman's watch. Republicans are great for demonizing their opponents when there is a war that "should" be fought but not so great when it comes to sending their children to fight in those wars.

It's why Petraeus is out in front of this effort at extending the surge. Bush read the poll numbers. The military has more credibility than he does so let his personal "yes man" take the lead and Bush will follow. Notice he didn't want to do that with Casey or Abizaid or Shinseki because they were not the "yes men" that Petraeus has become.

Even though they won't say it anymore, it's still stay the course. Full Speed Ahead.

[lily]

Pulling out and leaving the Iraqis on their own is one thing, but we need to be there to rebuild their infrastructure. I mean, geez, you'd think at least we could keep the lights on!
Mercy. I just don't know. It seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I'll have to really think about a better answer; right now this is all I have.
Purrs,


Pookie......I'm going to have to disagree with you on this and anyone that knows me, knows this has been my biggest gripe from day one. We don't need to rebuild their infrastructure.......the Iraqis need to do this. Given them the jobs. We're going to be paying for this for the rest of our lives anyway.......so let them have the jobs. It will build up their economy, the Iraqis will earn money, spend money and be taxed on money..... and you know and I know that nothing gives you more satisfaction than saying[/b] "I did that". It will give them back their country.[hr]


Frankly, I don't think the Bush administration is trying to make things any better. I think they've realized that that's impossible at this point. The only thing they're trying to do is keep things from falling completely apart in Iraq before they can pawn the problem off on someone else in 2009. That's basically all Praetus's "plan" is at this point - a delaying tactic. A couple thousand troops home for Christmas to take a bit of the political pressure off, some more next spring/summer because of the simple reality that the military can't keep up the surge any longer. Once we hit fall 2008, it'll be easy to justify not making any major policy changes during 'a time of transition'. Then in January 2009, Hillary takes office and Bush flees the White House cackling gleefully. It's her fault, all her fault! Hahaha!

Drocket......you hit the nail right on the head. When I read cheerleading for failure, the libs need Bush to fail in this war, and all the other talking points, meant to stop debate. What it boils down to, is Bush knows he can't win, just keep stringing it on until the end of his term. No Republican is going to win this election thanks to him, so pass it off to a Democrat, hope and pry that he's screwed this up just enough so that it's impossible to do anything at all and then wait until 2012 and start it all over with a Republican.........and hope and pray that he really doesn't care enough about what he's doing and starts a war with Iran........and then I honestly don't think there will be anything left to have an election for.

[Pookie]

Disagreeing with The Pookie is a TERRIBLE sin! How COULD you, Lily?
LOL! It's exactly what I love about you people. Lily is a great example. She said kindly that she disagrees and states quite clearly WHY. And I get the benefit of looking at a situation from a different perspective.
Thank you, Lily. I'll think about what you said. Seems that you and others here have brought up things I might have overlooked or not thought about.
Purrs,

[Pogo]

And what happens to Iraq when we withdraw?

Honestly they don't have an answer that would satisfy the majority of the population. Especially when the question asked is in regards to the strengthening of terrorist groups.

That seems pretty straightforward to me: let the UN run the show.

[heyjude]

I think the UN is a great idea. But the US should have to pay for rebuilding of their infrastructure. We attacked Iraq without provacation, and destroyed it. We owe it to them to fix it. And we should pay them to do it. Obviously, Halliburton and Bush's other friends are not fixing anything. Just lining their own pockets, which is probably the agreement they made with Bush.

[Pogo]

I think the UN is a great idea. But the US should have to pay for rebuilding of their infrastructure. We attacked Iraq without provacation, and destroyed it. We owe it to them to fix it. And we should pay them to do it. Obviously, Halliburton and Bush's other friends are not fixing anything. Just lining their own pockets, which is probably the agreement they made with Bush.

We can't even maintain the surge for much longer, let alone send in forces sufficient to restoring security and eventually peace. We're in a delusional holding pattern that is wreaking hell on our armed forces.

If we let the UN run the show then there's at least a chance that the other world powers would step up to the plate and do what needs to be done, which IMO means carving what was once Iraq into three separate states. Iraq is dead for all practical purposes, I would say.

[Buck Laser]

I think the UN is a great idea. But the US should have to pay for rebuilding of their infrastructure. We attacked Iraq without provacation, and destroyed it. We owe it to them to fix it. And we should pay them to do it. Obviously, Halliburton and Bush's other friends are not fixing anything. Just lining their own pockets, which is probably the agreement they made with Bush.

We can't even maintain the surge for much longer, let alone send in forces sufficient to restoring security and eventually peace. We're in a delusional holding pattern that is wreaking hell on our armed forces.

If we let the UN run the show then there's at least a chance that the other world powers would step up to the plate and do what needs to be done, which IMO means carving what was once Iraq into three separate states. Iraq is dead for all practical purposes, I would say.


That's a decent idea, but the Powell Doctrine (you break it, you buy it) pretty much puts the onus on the US to fix what it broke. Sadly, most of the billions we've spent there have done NOTHING to rebuild the infrastructure. But an awful lot of defense contractors are MUCH richer now.

[Pogo]

That's a decent idea, but the Powell Doctrine (you break it, you buy it) pretty much puts the onus on the US to fix what it broke. Sadly, most of the billions we've spent there have done NOTHING to rebuild the infrastructure. But an awful lot of defense contractors are MUCH richer now.

Truth be told, though, the UN isn't a whole lot better than the Bush administration, but we clearly need a lot of help if we're going to get the situation under control.

[Truth_and_Power]

doesn't seem like much of a poll question.. military vs. president?

[heyjude]

[/quote]
We can't even maintain the surge for much longer, let alone send in forces sufficient to restoring security and eventually peace. We're in a delusional holding pattern that is wreaking hell on our armed forces.

If we let the UN run the show then there's at least a chance that the other world powers would step up to the plate and do what needs to be done, which IMO means carving what was once Iraq into three separate states. Iraq is dead for all practical purposes, I would say.
[/quote]

In a recent poll taken in Iraq, 98% of the Iraqis are opposed to the idea of splitting the country up. If we believe in democracy at all, we cannot impose such a solution on them. They do have an absolute right to the country they want. Part of the problem we have there is trying to impose a government on them they don't want. :sadly:

[ECW]

If 98% of Iraqis don't want to split the country up, they have a funny way of showing it. Maybe they just want to kill everyone else they disagree with so they can have the whole place to themselves.

[Drocket]

Maybe they just want to kill everyone else they disagree with so they can have the whole place to themselves.

Yeah, that's kind of the plan.

[TheStripey1]

I still remember how the righties blamed Truman for "losing" China because the Communists over ran Chang Kai-Shek's army on Truman's watch. Republicans are great for demonizing their opponents when there is a war that "should" be fought but not so great when it comes to sending their children to fight in those wars.

It's why Petraeus is out in front of this effort at extending the surge. Bush read the poll numbers. The military has more credibility than he does so let his personal "yes man" take the lead and Bush will follow. Notice he didn't want to do that with Casey or Abizaid or Shinseki because they were not the "yes men" that Petraeus has become.

Even though they won't say it anymore, it's still stay the course. Full Speed Ahead.


yep... stay the course... bush and his neo con sheeple's favorite mantra... stay the course...

just like his address to the nation last night... same shit, different speech...

Hey! Why don't bush's children enlist and help out with implementing their father's policies? The first twins claimed they supported them when they hit the campaign trail on his behalf during the '04 presidential race... so? why haven't they enlisted to prove that they meant it?

:fight:[hr]


I think the UN is a great idea. But the US should have to pay for rebuilding of their infrastructure. We attacked Iraq without provacation, and destroyed it. We owe it to them to fix it. And we should pay them to do it. Obviously, Halliburton and Bush's other friends are not fixing anything. Just lining their own pockets, which is probably the agreement they made with Bush.

We can't even maintain the surge for much longer, let alone send in forces sufficient to restoring security and eventually peace. We're in a delusional holding pattern that is wreaking hell on our armed forces.

If we let the UN run the show then there's at least a chance that the other world powers would step up to the plate and do what needs to be done, which IMO means carving what was once Iraq into three separate states. Iraq is dead for all practical purposes, I would say.


That's a decent idea, but the Powell Doctrine (you break it, you buy it) pretty much puts the onus on the US to fix what it broke. Sadly, most of the billions we've spent there have done NOTHING to rebuild the infrastructure. But an awful lot of defense contractors are MUCH richer now.


I wonder if all the bush loving war mongering neocon partisan hacks we run into day in and day out on these boards get any of that filthy lucre?

I bet not... so I wonder why all those blwmnphs do it?


do they hate america?