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/...vWuRL7Ywxg.3QA
Operation "Round Up The Strays" is completed. The Base herd has been made whole again.
...Keep in mind that they consider 35% a quorum...
"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 head alone have enabled to occur on his "watch", and he doesn't give a flying how many US military die as he fiddles for time.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-12-2007 at 09:07 PM.
And being a quitter about threats will do that? Remember, US sovereignty has not been attacked since we went on the offensive.and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Why stop now?
1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. Russia
4. Luxembourg
After all, our national offense is the best in the league.
The 2007-08 championship is ours!
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? yes I do.
Do I want to quit seeing hints about yet another undeclared war on another nation? yes I do.
Some of you have way too much loyalty to a president's legacy than to the Cons ution of the United States or to your fellow citizens for that matter.
Quit your shilling and go to .
My My Ron Paul. Did I strike a nerve?
At least I actually support the troops instead of spitting on their mission.
Their "mission" is a flawed and foolish policy. Damn right I spit on that.
fixed.
(see this thread)
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.
I see, now you resort to slander.
Must have really weak arguments.
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.
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 bas s.
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
And that is a true statement.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.
take your meds, ray
See what I mean WC, they make my argument.
BS statements are their forte.
stop forteing, Xray.
he see's what you mean before you say it. He's Agent 99See what I mean WC, they make my argument.
BS statements are their forte.
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?And that is a true statement.
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.
It is not "isolationist" to encourage free and open commerce and relations with all states.
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.Or, are you from the school that if we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone?
No it doesn't.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.
How is it bad for US economic stability and security to seek free trade and peaceful diplomatic relations with all nations on the planet?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
