The White House’s recent campaign to sell the American people on victory in Iraq hasn’t made much of an impact, according to a Gallup/USA Today Poll last weekend. It showed 60 percent of Americans saying the United States should set a firm timetable for getting out of Iraq and stick to it, regardless of the situation on the ground.
In short, the message of the 2006 midterm elections hasn’t changed: The American public still wants out of Iraq. But neither party in Congress seems to be listening.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
45 Comments
The Government has become the enemy and the only way we can fight back is to cut-off the funding.
They will NOT listen to reason, so start recalling members of Congress and replace them.
To Hell with the lot.
I agree with you, ED.This next election will not be about political parties.It will be about political leadership not listening to the people.
Yep… they dont listen….
“Gallup/USA Today Poll last weekend. It showed 60 percent of Americans saying the United States should set a firm timetable for getting out of Iraq and stick to it, regardless of the situation on the ground.In short, the message of the 2006 midterm elections hasn’t changed: The American public still wants out of Iraq. But neither party in Congress seems to be listening.”
Fortunately, we don’t decide foreign policy based on polls.
“Fortunately, we don’t decide foreign policy based on polls.”
Oh, I thought you said trolls.
My bad–
“Fortunately, we don’t decide foreign policy based on polls.
Posted by: outlander | September 11, 2007 at 02:11 PM ”
ummm hellllooooo, since when did we stop using polls to decide foreign policy (or any other governmental policy)
I suspect we will see a purge in old guard politicans in the next election cycle.
ummm hellllooooo, since when did we stop using polls to decide foreign policy (or any other governmental policy)
Posted by: brian | September 11, 2007 at 02:20 PM
Polling is a Clinton characteristic.
Which poll you going to use brian?
Your statement is false.
“ummm hellllooooo, since when did we stop using polls to decide foreign policy (or any other governmental policy)” Brian
Really? Oh please Brian. Do tell.
Interesting poll.
Currently, there are two men in front of committees with the emphasis being on one man, Petraeus.
But if you look at questions 39, 40, and 41 on the poll, it appears the military is not the problem. The poll appears to say the political side, both the US and Iraqi, is the problem.
Petraeus should not be the main speaker.
“I suspect we will see a purge in old guard politicans in the next election cycle.”
We’re still waiting on the new democratic majority to make any ripples in the status quo.
Perhaps Bush-Cheney Lite (Hillary) or Obama will work with a democratic congress and fix the problem. Obama’s plan is to open war with Afganistan, Hillary’s plan is to get elected.
The Government stopped listening to the American People when AIPAC bribed our congress into adopting or going along with the PNAC plan as a foreign Policy for the United States.
The American People do not want it, just AIPAC and those they coerce into voting for the funding.
Another Republican lie brought to light:
“But in fact, the Bush administration is a frequent consumer of polls, though it takes extraordinary measures to appear that it isn’t.
This administration, unlike Clinton’s, rarely uses poll results to ply reporters or congressional leaders for support.
“It’s rare to even hear talk of it unless you give a Bush guy a couple of drinks,” says one White House reporter.
But Republican National Committee filings show that Bush actually uses polls much more than he lets on, in ways both similar and dissimilar to Clinton.
Like Clinton, Bush is most inclined to use polls when he’s struggling.
It’s no coincidence that the administration did its heaviest polling last summer, after the poorly received rollout of its energy plan, and amid much talk of the “smallness” of the presidency.
A Washington Monthly analysis of Republican National Committee disbursement filings revealed that Bush’s principal pollsters received $346,000 in direct payments in 2001.
Add to that the multiple boutique polling firms the administration regularly employs for specialized and targeted polls and the figure is closer to $1 million.
That’s about half the amount Clinton spent during his first year; but while Clinton used polling to craft popular policies, Bush uses polling to spin unpopular ones—arguably a much more cynical undertaking.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0204.green.html
Obama has sold-out to AIPAC, I’m sorry to say, as I had high-hopes for him. I think that he could have made it with selling-out to AIPAC.
It’s a shame to lose one to the enemy.
without
Either the Iraqies stock up now or stock up later, it is really irrelevant, as they know we won’t be there much longer.”
Crocker said he believed Iraq had “almost completely unraveled” in late 2006 and early 2007. The increased security, if given more time, could pave the way for political reconciliation, he said.
The ambassador said he fears that announcing troop withdrawals, as Democrats want, would focus Iraqi attention on “building the walls, stocking ammunition and getting ready for a big nasty street fight” rather than working toward reconciliation.
Oops forgot crocker exerpt.”I do believe that Iraq’s leaders have the will to tackle the country’s pressing problems, although it will take longer than we initially anticipated because of the environment and the gravity of the issue,” Crocker said.
“Polling is a Clinton characteristic.”
Here we go again: Everything Bush has screwed up is Clintons fault. Hell maybe bush is Clintons bastard son! Damn that Clinton for invading Iraq.God, you neo-cons have a one track, futile and wrong mind.
of course they do….the media keeps telling them so. Seems like Viet Nam all over doesnt it. Same Dems plotting to lose…same media helping and seemingly completely unaware the other side is playing them.
The other side follows the CNN’s of the world to a T and plan according to what they say.
The media is in direct collusion with the other side.
“We’re still waiting on the new democratic majority to make any ripples in the status quo.”
if the repukes would join in with them they could bring change together.
but, rove and bush have trained some of the american public to hate others, so almost no one will reach across the aisle for the betterment of our country.
Something to think aboutMake no mistake – the consequences of American defeat in Iraq will be terrible and long lasting. There is in some corners a belief that we can simply turn the page in Iraq, come home, and move on to other things. This is dangerously wrong. If we surrender in Iraq, we will be back – in Iraq and elsewhere – in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. Last week, General Jim Jones testified before this committee and outlined what he believes to be the consequences of such a course: “. . . a precipitous departure which results in a failed state in Iraq,” he said, “will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists, jihadists . . . in the world, who will believe that they will have toppled the major power on Earth and that all else is possible. And I think it will not only make us less safe; it will make our friends and allies less safe. And the struggle will continue. It will simply be done in different and in other areas.”
“Some senators would like to withdraw our troops from Iraq so we can get back to fighting what they believe to be the “real” war on terror, which is taking place somewhere else. This, too, is inaccurate. Iraq has become the central front in the global war on terror, and failure there would turn Iraq into a terrorist sanctuary, in the heart of the Middle East, a host for jihadists planning attacks on America. The region could easily descend into chaos, wider war, and genocide, and we should have no doubt about who will take advantage. The Iranian president has stated his intentions bluntly, saying, “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.”
Senator John McCain(whom I do not support as a Presidential candidate, so don;t start going gaga on me.
“
“Viet Nam all over doesnt it. Same Dems plotting to lose…same media helping and seemingly completely unaware the other side is playing them.
The other side follows the CNN’s of the world to a T and plan according to what they say.
The media is in direct collusion with the other side.”
Posted by: mrbill
Viet Nam all over again?True so far!!
But it turns to stupidity when you push the new neo-con p.r. twist on Nam.
That is… “we were winning in Viet Nam, until the democrats caused us to lose the war.”
You sir, are almost to dumb to be an american. No wait, about 5% of the country agrees with you.
This is the plan Bush has admitted to…
Keep selling the Iraq war to the citizens so they will be agreeable to staying until the next election is over.
Because…if a democrat wins, they will be blamed when Iraq goes ka-put completely.
if a republician wins… well, little george isn’t sure what will happen, but it won’t be on his “watch” (lucky boy).
You must be proud to repeat over and over again the party line.Shame on you.
A little reality check: Iraq maybe the main front for the United States in the battle against terrorism, but it is not for the terrorists. What you say “Well Bin Laden has said it was!”, sorry you can not have it both ways.Recently the Meme has been we do not take our orders from the terrorist in response to Bin Laden’s latest tape. Yet we are going to stay in Iraq because Bin Laden said that is his focus? Might the term “reverse physiology” come to mind? The terrorists never win in a direct confrontation, that is not even the end goal for them. Bleed us, wear us down, force us to kill and destroy in a reaction to they actions that is the terrorists end goal! A focus on Military action only serves the terrorists and in turn makes their case to the others setting on the fence.
As to McCain, I once saw him as a great hope but now why would any of the words of someone it turns out to be a member of one of the many faces of the PNAC matter? The PNAC a group of Neo-Conservatives whom doctrine come from a confirmed COMMUNIST! Irving Kristol the “father of modern Neo-Conservatism” states he is a Trotskyite and at one time a member of the American Communist party.Boy does not give a warm feeling to know that the United States is now being controlled by a bunch of communist inspired, leftists whom got kicked out of the Democratic party for being too radical!
We should not pull out but pull back, stop aiding the terrorists in their recruitment, stop getting our marching orders from leftists and Al-Qaeda. The “Bush Doctrine” seem more the mindset of a school yard bully then that of wise and thoughtful men. You want to talk about a safe haven for the terrorists? Here is one of the short comings of the plan to control the middle east. As horror able as the ruling governments are in the middle east, they too see the Moslem extremists as a the greatest threat to them! If Saudi-Arabia which is a far more religious country then Iraq is had the house of Saudi suddenly disappear. It would clear the way for the extremists to gain control. Egypt, Syria and most of the other countries of the middle east are the same way! What happen when democratic rule came to Palestine? A confirmed terrorist (Hamas) organization came into power, gee total democratic rule coming to a country whose people are not ready for it or forced on them worked out well there!
I agree the General should never have been the main focus of the report, since it is not a military victory in Iraq that will bring an end to our involvement there. Nor would it end any future threat of terrorism from those in Iraq. Where this putty’s head thinking came from is a mystery, how there was ever a hope in it is just moronic! The only way the Shiite in Iraq will see themselves aligned with Iran is if Iran is attacked by the United States. Iran may be courting them with money, supplies and weapons, but that is not because they see them as a future Iran as much as it is way to stick it to the U.S. Kind of like when we did the same with Bin Laden and the fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Which BTW there is a letter from Bin Laden to the U.S. thanking us for the support and even calling us a friend on file in Washington D.C.!
The bloodbath will continue if we stay, and the bloodbath will continue if we pull out. We created this mess, the damage is done, and it will continue no matter what we do or don’t do.
Civil war in Iraq was predicted by those who actually knew what they were talking about before we ever invaded.
Bush to Announce Troop Cut in Iraq
WASHINGTON — President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress, The Associated Press has learned.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296455,00.html
Mary, whats sad is the admistration knew a decade ago and didn’t listen to themselves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9Im
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I
They obviously knew, but didn’t care…one reason was that Bush had a personal agenda to take out Sadamn because he tried to kill his daddy…plus the idea of establishing a base in Iraq and controlling the oil was way too tempting. 9/11 was the go ahead to try and do it.
Bush to Announce Troop Cut in Iraq
WASHINGTON — President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress, The Associated Press has learned.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296455,00.html
Posted by: Kansas | September 11, 2007 at 07:08 PM
This is not news. This was always the way it was to work. Cuts in troops would be to reduce the numbers of pre-surge troop levels.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/AP_Military_running_out_of_troops_0820.html
AP: Military is running out of troops to maintain Iraq surge
Nick JulianoPublished: Monday AUGUST 20, 2007
As predictions intensify that next month’s White House-produced progress report on Iraq could push for a continuation to President Bush’s troop surge, the Associated Press reports the military simply does not have enough troops to maintain its current levels in Iraq much longer.”The Army’s 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year,” Lolita C. Baldor reports for AP, based on interviews and military documents.Without enough troops to sustain current troop levels, the Pentagon will face some painful decisions if President Bush argues for a continuation of the surge. It can accelerate deployments of National Guard units, break the military’s pledge to keep soldiers in Iraq for 15 months or less or reverse its commitment to give troops a year at home with their families before returning them to a war zone.
Polling is a Clinton characteristic.
Which poll you going to use brian?
Your statement is false.
Posted by: Kansas
If George W. Bush actually had some favorable polls, I’m sure he would use those polls to factor his decisions.
But, since, GWB does NOT have favorable polling numbers, his arrogance will not let him change his positions!
Half the people who answer those polls couldn’t name the Vice President of the United States if you spotted them the C and the H. Last I heard the Constitution doesn’t provide for determining foreign policy based on polls.
Last I heard the Constitution doesn’t provide for determining foreign policy based on polls.
Posted by: Dave | September 11, 2007 at 08:31 PM
Last I heard George W. Bush doesn’t determined foreign policy based on facts.Terrorists from Saudi base in Afghanistan who ran to Pakistan attacked us and Bush goes to war with Iraq (who in case you just watch fox news had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11).And all the pitfalls that have come about were predicted but yet no plan just in case G.W.’s hopes, his wishing on a star did not work.
Pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq will not end terrorist attacks on Americans and American soil. Killing and capturing terrorists and keeping them demoralized and on the run will foil their attacks. Those who want to pull our troops back are the ones who are willing to allow the next major attack on us.The treacherous attacks of 09/11/01 inflicted 2,974 fatalities, not including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes, 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground and 125 at the Pentagon. Among the fatalities were 343 New York City Fire Department firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers and 37 Port Authority Police Department officers. An additional 24 people remain listed as missing. The dead included eight children on American Flight 77 and United Flight 175, the youngest age 2.We will not forget, those who fell, those who defended, and the Muslims all over the world who celebrated.
Parkay, what this administration isn’t telling the American people is that fighting terrorism involves more intell work and special forces working together. Its more of a surgical style of military work. Having ground forces in Iraq only increases the number of terrorists and our tensions with the middle east. Terrorist are guerrilla fighters, hit and run, cowardly style fighting, they have to be to have a chance at fighting the U.S., having large ground forces to fight terrorism is like trying to kill a fly with a bomb. This war in Iraq was never about terrorism, if you look at what we have done in Afghanistan, that was exactly what they did, put in special forces and recon teams, not large ground forces. Dos anybody not realize this.
The only thing good that came out of Iraq was smashing the dissent of terrorist that traveled to Iraq to attack us, and home grown Iraqi terrorist, or insurgents if you want to call them. It basically worked like a bug zapper, attract the bad guys to Iraq, and kill them there. But that part is over, theres nothing we can do in Iraq, the only good we really did, was pave some Baghdad streets, plant some trees, and build some houses and a few businesses, and half the time, people involved in the rebuilding process were getting paid for sitting on their butts. You had guys working for Haliburton driving convoys of empty trucks to make it appear they were doing work, to get paid.
War is big business, people die, so people can make money. It boost our economy for the upper crust.
http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=176
Theres a wealth of unbiased information at the link I provided above. Might make you nauseated.
“Half the people who answer those polls couldn’t name the Vice President of the United States if you spotted them the C and the H.”
Oh, and like GW Bush knew the names of foreign leaders when he was running for president the first time.
Wanna bet he writes those names on his shirt cuff now?
Parkay,
Are you for or against the cut and run from Afghanistan. Any and everything you say we are doing Iraq we were doing in Afghanistan. To take the fight to some one that had nothing to do with 9/11 and pull resources from fighting the ones that did I am sure makes prefect sense to you. The way you put it makes you sound bigot and or racist.
“Pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq will not end terrorist attacks on Americans and American soil.”
And attacking Countries that had nothing to do with the attacks on this country will show the ones that did, who are hiding out else where, will protect us, huh. Are sure it did not just create more hated for us?
If we were to invade Canada how long before al-Qaida in Canada shows up 5mins, 10mins.
Anybody can be involved in these types of business if they really wanted to. Especially into todays market, where the government outsources to private companies by granting large contracts. Some of these businesses the government hires are incompetent, or are trying to extend their selves beyond their means, and cut corners. The worst thing, is this administration unlike past administrations has endless ties to large corporations that are or were involved in the Iraq War, Iraq Occupation, or the Iraq Rebuilding process. We put the same Adminstration in Office two term in a row, and their main goals we’re to extend extend American influence (power), and make money in the process, while uniting Americans against terrorists, because the neo-cons believe our individual freedoms make us selfish and materialistic and from their teaching from a professor at an Illinois college, they wanted to give something to Americans, a goal, whether it be real or not, that would unite us, and make us proud to be Americans. Well it worked after 911, up until they decided we should invade Iraq. Oh, and this administration had numerous reports warning of a potential terrorist attack before September 11 2001, and they willingly ignored those reports, knowing it would be a good launch pad to invade Iraq, what they didn’t know, was how big the terrorist attack would be, and those @$$holes could of at least stopped half of it.
So Phantom! What are we to do — wait for Iraq to get ready to tackle their political problems while our country struggles with problems of it own? I think not! And if you think the terrorists haven’t figure out what this adminstration is going to do guess again! Internet gives them all the information they want. They can certainly get all the info they want just by accessing the web! Hell, they know what the Dems and or the Repubs think before those parties even think it! It was a no-brainer that Bush was planning to withdraw some of the forces before the General and Crocker sat before the congressional hearings! The American people want us out of Iraq! If it takes a timetable to force this president’s hand then so be it! He was the one who got us in this mess!!!!
We’re are passed being nice. Bush plays hardball with the American People and its’s time we played hardball right back.
They cannot be reasoned with.
We elected a new congress to show them we mean business.
They refused to get the message.
Now is the time for an all-out assult by cutting-off all funding.
If bird-brain Bush wants to “call” that move, well let him.
There will be no money until he brings the troop home.
The hardship that creats is nothing compared to leting them die.
A Hungry GI is better than a dead one, except in the eyes of the AIPAC { a collection of turncoats }.
It’s time to get tough with these punks in the White House.
Cut-off the funding and let that Jerk Veto it if he wants no money at all.
The Cut-off Bill we stipulate we will fund the transportation of troop removal from Iraq to the United States.
Nothing else!
Now the Democrats in congress need to get-off the ass and pass the no funding bill.
Now the Democrats in congress need to get-off the ass and pass their no funding bill.
Now the Democrats in congress need to get-off their asses and pass their no funding bill.