Bush rating on Iraq improves, new poll finds

[ducks]

17 minutes ago



Approval of President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war has risen, according to a poll released on Wednesday on the eve of a speech by Bush in which he is expected to endorse a plan for a gradual troop withdrawal.

Just 30 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, but that was an 8-point jump from July, said the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

The boost came primarily from Republicans, men and independents, NBC reported.

In his televised speech on Thursday night, Bush is expected to accept the recommendation of the U.S. commander in Iraq to draw down about 30,000 "surge" forces by next summer.

The plan by Gen. David Petraeus would bring U.S. troop numbers down to about 130,000, roughly the level before Bush ordered a troop increase in January to help stabilize Baghdad.

Senate Democrats already have rejected the Petraeus plan, saying it falls far short of what American wanted.

Fifty-six percent of Americans said the war was not worth the U.S. casualties or the costs involved, compared with 35 percent who believed ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it, the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey found.

More than 3,700 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since the war began in 2003.

Asked what was the most acceptable outcome to the war, 24 percent of those polled said U.S. troops should remain in Iraq until it became a stable democracy, while 26 percent wanted the troops to leave now and 37 percent wanted them to leave within the next year, NBC reported.

The poll of 1,002 adults was taken from Friday to Monday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070913/ts_nm/iraq_bush_poll_dc_1&printer=1;_ylt=Ao_M8Qm6bFYGEIvWuRL7Ywxg.3QA

[clambake]

I don't like polls...unless they reflect favorably on me

[PixelPusher]

Just 30 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, but that was an 8-point jump from July, said the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

The boost came primarily from Republicans, men and independents, NBC reported.
Operation "Round Up The Strays" is completed. The Base herd has been made whole again.

[Nbadan]

...Keep in mind that they consider 35% a quorum...

[boutons_]

"You put 30K in,
You put 30K out,
And you shake it all about.
You do the Hokey-Pokey,
And you turn yourself around.
That's what it's all about!"

dubya is playing the world for fools, as if we were born yesterday, and as if he had ANY credilbility left, playing for time until 20 Jan 2009.

He doesn't want the inevitable sectarian slaughter that he and dickhead alone have enabled to occur on his "watch", and he doesn't give a flying fuck how many US military die as he fiddles for time.

[Wild Cobra]

Total withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula is the only viable option.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
And being a quitter about threats will do that? Remember, US sovereignty has not been attacked since we went on the offensive.

[Holt's Cat]

And being a quitter about threats will do that? Remember, US sovereignty has not been attacked since we went on the offensive.

Why stop now?

1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. Russia
4. Luxembourg

After all, our national offense is the best in the league.

[Holt's Cat]

The 2007-08 championship is ours!

[Holt's Cat]

As to being a "quitter"....do I want to quit reading every day about someone's loved one returning home from a distant land dead because this nation cannot admit a mistake? Fuck yes I do.

Do I want to quit seeing hints about yet another undeclared war on another nation? Fuck yes I do.

Some of you have way too much loyalty to a president's legacy than to the Constitution of the United States or to your fellow citizens for that matter.

Quit your shilling and go to Hell.

[Wild Cobra]

As to being a "quitter"....do I want to quit reading every day about someone's loved one returning home from a distant land dead because this nation cannot admit a mistake? Fuck yes I do.

Do I want to quit seeing hints about yet another undeclared war on another nation? Fuck yes I do.

Some of you have way too much loyalty to a president's legacy than to the Constitution of the United States or to your fellow citizens for that matter.

Quit your shilling and go to Hell.
My My Ron Paul. Did I strike a nerve?

At least I actually support the troops instead of spitting on their mission.

[Holt's Cat]

Their "mission" is a flawed and foolish policy. Damn right I spit on that.

[PixelPusher]

At least I actually spit on the dead troops instead of spitting on their mission.
fixed.

(see this thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77558))

[Holt's Cat]

When does it end? Of course, when you declare war on an activity (ie "terrorism") and not on a state I suppose that it's indefinite.

[Wild Cobra]

fixed.

(see this thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77558))
I see, now you resort to slander.

Must have really weak arguments.

[MannyIsGod]

For someone who claims to be in the 99.whatever percentile of intelligence you sure do have a problem understanding the meaning of the world support.

If you had your way, we'd still be fighting in Vietnam.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And being a quitter about threats will do that?

The following dialogue is from an "educational" film about the Communist threat that WC's mother showed him during his "History" class at home school:

(Man with sincere, deep voice): You don't want be a quitter now, do you Jimmy?

(Jimmy): No, mister, honest I don't.

(Man with sincere, deep voice): Good, now go out there and fight those commie bastards.

[xrayzebra]

I see, now you resort to slander.

Must have really weak arguments.

Most of them are weak people, just look at their comments
on this and other threads. Never a decent argument or
comment. Just that Bush is wrong, the United States is
wrong, No WMD found, You are wrong, I am wrong,
Anyone who supports their country is wrong, everything
that is wrong in the world is caused by the United States,
everyone hates us. We caused world warming......and on
and on and on. And the really big one, if we would just
get out of Iraq the world would return to peace and
tranquility and we would all live happily ever after. And
magically no one would ever attacked us again. Of
course according to boutons, Bush caused the attack on
the WTC but he and others keep forgetting that Clinton
was in office when they started planning the attack and
of course it's Bush's fault that the Cole got attacked, but
Clinton was in office and it was Bush's fault that our
Embassies got bombed, but Clinton was in office, it was
Bush's fault our barracks got attacked, but Clinton was
in office. I don't blame Clinton, I blame the damn
terrorist, it wouldn't have mattered who was in office
they same deeds would have occurred, with the same
results. That is what you dumb-asses cant get through
you thick skulls. Only one comment I have read on this
thread was significant, and I doubt he even realizes how
much of the truth he spoke. And that was Holts Cat


When does it end? Of course, when you declare war on an activity (ie "terrorism") and not on a state I suppose that it's indefinite.

And that is a true statement.

[clambake]

take your meds, ray

[xrayzebra]

take your meds, ray

See what I mean WC, they make my argument.

BS statements are their forte.
:dizzy

[Oh, Gee!!]

stop forteing, Xray.

[clambake]

See what I mean WC, they make my argument.

BS statements are their forte.
:dizzy
he see's what you mean before you say it. He's Agent 99

[Holt's Cat]

And that is a true statement.


How about instead of spending trillions and shooting up the world and having thousands of Americans come home in coffins we just focus on improving our security at home at a fraction of the cost?

[Yonivore]

How about instead of spending trillions and shooting up the world and having thousands of Americans come home in coffins we just focus on improving our security at home at a fraction of the cost?
So, how do you propose we prevent our enemies from developing or acquiring methods, unfettered by our military intervention, that will eventually -- maybe sooner -- be able to defeat whatever domestic security veil you think the government can muster and deploy.

Isolationism only allows those who pine for our destruction to devise their methods without interference.

Or, are you from the school that if we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone?

That would also mean severing all of our business ties to any country in which Islamo-fascists are offended by our presence. Not very good for economic stability or security, if you ask me.

[Holt's Cat]

So, how do you propose we prevent our enemies from developing or acquiring methods, unfettered by our military intervention, that will eventually -- maybe sooner -- be able to defeat whatever domestic security veil you think the government can muster and deploy.

Isolationism only allows those who pine for our destruction to devise their methods without interference.

It is not "isolationist" to encourage free and open commerce and relations with all states.



Or, are you from the school that if we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone?

That's the general concept. If the US hadn't been meddling in the ME since the before the end of WWII this problem wouldn't exist.



That would also mean severing all of our business ties to any country in which Islamo-fascists are offended by our presence. Not very good for economic stability or security, if you ask me.

No it doesn't.

How is it bad for US economic stability and security to seek free trade and peaceful diplomatic relations with all nations on the planet?

[Holt's Cat]

Maybe we should stop supporting dictators (ie Hussein, the Shah) and terrorists (ie bin Ladin) before that comes back to bite us in the ass.

[Yonivore]

It is not "isolationist" to encourage free and open commerce and relations with all states.
Not all states feel that way. In fact, al Qaeda doesn't and other Islamo-fascist organizations don't want any trade with or influence from the west. How do we deal with them?

Oh, yeah, their pretty fanatical and intransigent in their position so, negotiation has not worked well in the past.


That's the general concept. If the US hadn't been meddling in the ME since the before the end of WWII this problem wouldn't exist.
Says you. I get the feeling the inevitable globalization of cultures and trade would have caused this conflict no matter what our legitimate or illegitimate activities in the region, 50 years ago (and longer), had been.


No it doesn't.

How is it bad for US economic stability and security to seek free trade and peaceful diplomatic relations with all nations on the planet?
Well, there's a pretty significant number of people -- around the world -- that don't want free trade and peaceful diplomatic relations; they want a 13th Century Caliphate.

How do we address them?

[Yonivore]

Maybe we should stop supporting dictators (ie Hussein, the Shah) and terrorists (ie bin Ladin) before that comes back to bite us in the ass.
Unless the alternative is worse...

Do you ever recognize that geopolitics is a fluid and ever changing dynamic?

[Holt's Cat]

Not all states feel that way. In fact, al Qaeda doesn't and other Islamo-fascist organizations don't want any trade with or influence from the west. How do we deal with them?

Oh, yeah, their pretty fanatical and intransigent in their position so, negotiation has not worked well in the past.

They don't want our military in the ME supporting dictatorships.



Says you. I get the feeling the inevitable globalization of cultures and trade would have caused this conflict no matter what our legitimate or illegitimate activities in the region, 50 years ago (and longer), had been.


It probably has to do with supporting dictatorships with our military and intelligence agencies.




Well, there's a pretty significant number of people -- around the world -- that don't want free trade and peaceful diplomatic relations; they want a 13th Century Caliphate.

How do we address them?

Probably by not engaging them in a 13th Century manner.

[Yonivore]

They don't want our military in the ME supporting dictatorships.
They don't want our iPods either or indoor plumbing, either.


It probably has to do with supporting dictatorships with our military and intelligence agencies.
Yeah, that would explain Iran's recent crackdown on their "westernized" population for heresy and morality violations.


Probably by not engaging them in a 13th Century manner.
Oh no, we're using 21st Century methods.

But, seriousy, how would you engage them?

[Holt's Cat]

They don't want our iPods either or indoor plumbing, either.

Sure, a few militants do not.



Yeah, that would explain Iran's recent crackdown on their "westernized" population for heresy and morality violations.

Of course, why is there a theocratic government in Tehran?



Oh no, we're using 21st Century methods.

...and 13th Century strategy.



But, seriousy, how would you engage them?

How to engage? How about removing our standing army and navy from around the world and not favoring any nation over another, instead dealing with all? There is no real reason for us as a nation to favor Israel over other ME nations. We should have open dialogue and trade with all.

[Holt's Cat]

Unless the alternative is worse...

Do you ever recognize that geopolitics is a fluid and ever changing dynamic?


Sure. Which means it's easy to get caught in a bind. Or perhaps supporting dictators and movements today which will turn on us tomorrow.

[Wild Cobra]

he see's what you mean before you say it. He's Agent 99
No, I wouldn't want to be one of my childhood crushes.

http://www.triviatribute.com/images4/barbarafeldon4b.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

See what I mean WC, they make my argument.

BS statements are their forte.
:dizzy
Yep. Most boards remove flamers. Some are only baiters. I would like to see the flamers dealt with, baiters are to be expected in a political discussion.

[clambake]

Yep. Most boards remove flamers. Some are only baiters. I would like to see the flamers dealt with, baiters are to be expected in a political discussion.
What do you call someone that blames the death of US troops on bad kharma?

Dickhead?

[Holt's Cat]

Obviously "flamers" and "baiters" are those who disagree with the lightweight.

[clambake]

Obviously "flamers" and "baiters" are those who disagree with the lightweight.
forget about him, he's still worthless.

As much as I want to cut Petraeus some slack, I have this gut feeling that Fallon described him perfectly. All you have to do is refer to the past bush decisions on generals.

[Wild Cobra]

What do you call someone that blames the death of US troops on bad kharma?

Dickhead?
I was baiting. I posed it as a question, and recieved more idiots than I expected.

[clambake]

I was baiting. I posed it as a question, and recieved more idiots than I expected.
not buying it. you exposed your ignorance. everything you say has references to people as american traitors, including our fallen troops. go fuck yourself

[clambake]

go listen to your moron hero. it's time

[Nbadan]

At the end of the Beeg Speech yesterday, Bush said 'We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy.'

I can't think of more than one country with troops still on the ground in Iraq besides the U.S. - Australia.

Can anyone help a brotha out? Who are these 36 nations?? Not counting Hawaii and Alaska (no kidding)...

[ChumpDumper]

There are troops from many countries on the ground.

Most of them aren't allowed to take part in combat operations.

[Nbadan]

According to wikepedia, most of the 36 have withdrawn

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq)

[Nbadan]

..and It's 40 Nations...

....At least according to Black Bush (as portrayed by Dave Chappelle) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bxOzMz2jlrs)