Newsweek Poll 34%

Patience is a fruit of the Spirit.

How anyone supported the war 2 years ago but not now is beyond my comprehension. The President never promised an overnight conflict.

 

I think people are beginning to see that no matter how much longer we stay the outcome will be the same; a radical Islamic state in Iraq quite probably allied with Iran. Do yo think that's a good outcome?

 

Iraq's foreign policy as a sovereign nation will be up to it after we leave. If it allies itself with Iran, then so be it.

But with the younger folks being much more pro-Western than the older folks in Iran, I am probably more optimistic about our future relations with Iran than some who post on this board.

 

The cmg school of driving<gig>

 

Tee hee

Church Mouse Guy: "Thirty four percent say they approve. "

Would you show me by quotes from the MSNBC source
how you dervied the 34% figure?

 

I believe so.

 

Church Mouse Guy: //Thirty four percent say they approve.//

Ed: //Would you show me by quotes from the MSNBC source
how you dervied the 34% figure?//

Quotes taken from the site shown in the OP:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8849936/site/newsweek/
I checked this source again and found it.

Here is what i kept seeing:
//Meanwhile, Bush’s approval ratings have dropped to 42 percent; 51 percent of Americans say they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.//

But this is there also:
//Aug. 6, 2005 - As U.S. troops endured a deadly week in Iraq, 61 percent of Americans polled say they disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling the war in Iraq, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll. Thirty four percent say they approve. This is Bush’s lowest rating on Iraq and the first time it has dropped below 40 percent in the NEWSWEEK poll.//

So it basicly says that Pres. Bush's overall approval
rating is 42% but his approval rating on the Iraq issue
is but 34%.

Count me both in the 42% and in the 34%.

 

A lot of people who originally fell for the bogus al Qaida-Saddam connection and the WMD scare are miffed.

I thought he did - the whole "Shock and Awe" deal. He pretty much did say that we would overwhelm the Ba'athist army with our superior forces and then the Iraqi populace would embrace us whole-heartedly for liberating them. Then, using the Iraqi revenues we would rebuild Iraq (for a tidy & continuing profit) and live happily ever after.

 

Here (<-linkie) is a pretty good discussion of the Shock and Awe and Rapid Dominance strategies. Rumsfeld was one of its main boosters.

 

A lot of people who originally fell for the bogus al Qaida-Saddam connection and the WMD scare are miffed.

I thought he did - the whole "Shock and Awe" deal. He pretty much did say that we would overwhelm the Ba'athist army with our superior forces and then the Iraqi populace would embrace us whole-heartedly for liberating them. Then, using the Iraqi revenues we would rebuild Iraq (for a tidy & continuing profit) and live happily ever after. </font>[/QUOTE]Pretty tidy Daisy you think you could drive cmg's
car and drive him straight ..I think he is getting
dizzy.&lt;gig&gt; Driving Mr.Dizzy

 

Poll results are frequently skewed by the questions asked.

If Newsweek would do more stories on what is actually happening and getting more of the soldier's perspective on Iraq, there is no doubt these numbers would be much better.

The big liberal east coast media is so full of hate for not only Bush but conservatives in general that only bad news is reported. The value of what is being done or even the GOP "opinion" of the goals being accomplished or even the eyewitness accounts of the positive things being accomplished are scarcely mentioned.

After observing the media for a long while, I have come to the conclusion that liberals don't really distort the news per se... they distort what is news.

Rule 1: Avoid reporting news that will negatively effect the liberal agenda as much as possible (ie. honest loggers who have been seriously injured by the "spiking" activities of enviro-terrorists in the NW or homosexual violence against Christians or children).

Rule 2: Emphasize news that will positively promote liberals and their agenda. (any news good or bad where government action can be viewed as the solution like "hate crimes", affirmative action, etc.)

Rule 3: Emphasize news that will negatively effect conservatives and their agenda. (ie. Matthew Shepherd, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Iraq casualties, little old ladies that supposedly must choose between food and medicine, and on and on and on...)

Rule 4: Ignore or downplay news that will shed positive light on conservatism. (ie. progress in the economy, positive developments in Iraq, positive developments in N Korean talks, etc.)

Most often it isn't the text of liberal reporting that is biased but rather the agenda of what gets reported.

If Newsweek wants to do something concerning Iraq, they should go back and compare it to past US wars, occupations, and re-constructions. For instance, WWII cost hundreds of thousands of US casualties. There were insurgencies in both Japan and Germany after the war that killed many. Vietnam was mostly an occupation and war against insurgencies... led by liberals that dictated strategy to the military... that lasted over 10 years and cost almost 60K American lives and many more Vietnamese.

The Civil War ended with an insurgency that still exists today... the KKK.

If Iraq can be established as a stable democracy, that will do more to undermine terrorism and create Middle East stability than anything liberals have said or done.

 

I believe so. </font>[/QUOTE]Sure, Just like they talked Hitler out of illegally rebuilding the German war machine in the 1930's.

 

I don't think the approval rating drop is because of the war. I think it is because of $2.29 /gallon gas pumps, $3.20 a gallon milk, and $1.99 loaves of bread.

 

It's hard for the public to maintain a positive outlook under the constant bombardment of negative media coverage and politicians aiding the morale of our enemies.

The enemy in the field is less dangerous than the enemy here at home.

 

But amazingly FDR didn't suffer the same unpopularity. The media got on board and recognized that his war had to be won for the security of the nation... to include freedom of the press.

Today's media seems incapable of imagining the consequences to American liberties and freedoms if we do not fight and win the war against terrorism.

None of our enemies since 1815 has seriously threatened our shores. Even the Soviets had no real desire to see all Americans die in a nuclear holocaust or even in terrorists attacks.

Islamic terrorists are supported by Islamic states (once including Iraq). They do represent a real threat to the US. A successful Iraqi democracy will help counter that threat.