Bush Disapproval Rating on Iraq Exceeds 50% in Poll

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from TriPack:



Why do liberals take issue with being called liberal but conservatives take being called conservative as a badge of honor?

Many conservatives use the word liberal as a derogatory word, as a slur.

Genuine liberals use the term conservative on an ideological basis, not in a personal attack.

There is a difference.

True liberals don't want to destroy conservatisim as such, they simply want conservatives to see a different point of view.

The typical right wing conservative has a holier than thou attitude, as reflected by pundits like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.

Now, the far left is nuts, but moderate liberals such as Clinton worked with moderate conservatives for years, as have most mainstream Democrats.

Sluring someone for their political beliefs with labels is akin to a form of racism, bigotry, and should not have a place in any educated political system.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Madison:



but isn't their position that it is the foreign policy that is contrary to the national interest?

Perhaps the distinction is a fine one, but I think the idea was that once the policy or course of action had been formulated, then everyone was expected to shut up and close ranks. Obviously, that could be difficult if you felt the policy was disastrous. But the alternative is the President and the administration are undermined by domestic criticism, which gives support and hope to foreign adversaries. We clearly see that happening now, as the terrorists in Iraq have a rational belief that if they can kill enough Americns, the President's political opponents wil either prevail or force him to change policy.

 

[Avalanche]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush
Financier Contributes $5 Million More in Effort to Oust President
By Laura Blumenfeld
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 11, 2003; Page A03


NEW YORK -- George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly &dol;5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.



"It is the central focus of my life," Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is "a matter of life and death."

Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to &dol;5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to &dol;15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush.

Overnight, Soros, 74, has become the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right. And with a tight nod, he pledged: "If necessary, I would give more money."

"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world," Soros said. Then he smiled: "And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:



Perhaps the distinction is a fine one, but I think the idea was that once the policy or course of action had been formulated, then everyone was expected to shut up and close ranks. Obviously, that could be difficult if you felt the policy was disastrous. But the alternative is the President and the administration are undermined by domestic criticism, which gives support and hope to foreign adversaries. We clearly see that happening now, as the terrorists in Iraq have a rational belief that if they can kill enough Americns, the President's political opponents wil either prevail or force him to change policy.

We are undermined by domestic criticism?

Are we really so weak as a country that we should fear what other countries think because we live in a country that allows disagreement among people and politicians?

When we went to war with Al Queda in Afghanistan, there was solidarity in America and nearly all the world in backing our efforts .

When Bush told the people that we were under direct threat of attack by Iraq from WMD and we needed to act immediately, there was less solidarity world wide, and less at home.

Now that the evidence of WMD is lacking, and intelligence has been show to be lacking as well, many Senators are voicing their opinions that they feel somewhat duped. That is wrong?

If the President is off course, we and our elected officials who represent us should just say nothing because we fear what other counties might think?

I quite imagine if I had suggested that republicans not criticize Bill Clinton for his actions while he was in office, nor should they have tried to impeach him because of how our enemies would view our political structure and see that as weakness, you would not have agreed with that course of action in order to preserve the appearance of solidarity.

The president and his administration will only be undermined when there is sufficient cause for such undermining. If the polls showed unwavering support of Bush and his Iraq policies (which they don't) the outcry of criticism by Senators or former members of previous administrations would not come forth....as the bottom line seems to be election and re-election.

 

[Madison]

Quote from TriPack:


The point is that they didn't say it even if that's how they felt because they respected the role of being a member of a former administration, a respect that no longer exists.

this is true - certainly with the clintons, arguably with carter. Bush I has shown restraint all things considered, at least publically.

it seems inevitable, as the process has become so short-term media driven and the voters more ignorant of politics and global affairs.

 

[Madison]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Perhaps the distinction is a fine one, but I think the idea was that once the policy or course of action had been formulated, then everyone was expected to shut up and close ranks. Obviously, that could be difficult if you felt the policy was disastrous. But the alternative is the President and the administration are undermined by domestic criticism, which gives support and hope to foreign adversaries. We clearly see that happening now, as the terrorists in Iraq have a rational belief that if they can kill enough Americns, the President's political opponents wil either prevail or force him to change policy.

and that is preferable (and what usually happens) when the differences are minor or procedural -- but here it seems a different order of magnitude, with potential consequences so enormous and the behavior of the "leaders" so outrageous that those who disagree with the policy can't stay publically neutral.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Madison:



and that is preferable (and what usually happens) when the differences are minor or procedural -- but here it seems a different order of magnitude, with potential consequences so enormous and the behavior of the "leaders" so outrageous that those who disagree with the policy can't stay publically neutral.

Unless I misunderstand you, I would argue the opposite, that dissent is harmless in minor matters but that it is counterproductive in major matters like war.

I didn't invent this tradition, I am just trying to explain it, but I do think it has its uses. It is very clear to me right now for example that the partisan criticism of Bush over Iraq is encouraging those who are killing our troops. Certainly there is room for disagreement over things like who pays, but attacks like those made by Sen. Kennedy and routinely made by the Democrat presidential cnadidates increase the danger for our troops.

The point is that we had a vote on going into Iraq. That was the time and place to voice disagreement. Every Senator had a chance to make his case and cast a vote.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



We are undermined by domestic criticism?

Are we really so weak as a country that we should fear what other countries think because we live in a country that allows disagreement among people and politicians?

When we went to war with Al Queda in Afghanistan, there was solidarity in America and nearly all the world in backing our efforts .

When Bush told the people that we were under direct threat of attack by Iraq from WMD and we needed to act immediately, there was less solidarity world wide, and less at home.

Now that the evidence of WMD is lacking, and intelligence has been show to be lacking as well, many Senators are voicing their opinions that they feel somewhat duped. That is wrong?

If the President is off course, we and our elected officials who represent us should just say nothing because we fear what other counties might think?

I quite imagine if I had suggested that republicans not criticize Bill Clinton for his actions while he was in office, nor should they have tried to impeach him because of how our enemies would view our political structure and see that as weakness, you would not have agreed with that course of action in order to preserve the appearance of solidarity.

The president and his administration will only be undermined when there is sufficient cause for such undermining. If the polls showed unwavering support of Bush and his Iraq policies (which they don't) the outcry of criticism by Senators or former members of previous administrations would not come forth....as the bottom line seems to be election and re-election.

It's not a matter of what other countries think, it's a question of basically telling terrorists that if you can kill enough of our troops, we will force the President to pull out.

Bush never said we were under direct threat of attack. He said, based on Saddam's actions, that it could happen with little or no warning that we would face an imminent threat. I am getting sick of responding to this factoid.

I do not recall the Republicans publicly criticising Clinton's conduct in a military zone, at least not while troops were under fire. They were supportive of the ill-considered Kosovo mission, where our troops remain to this day.

 

[ARogueTrader]

CIA: Iraq security to get worse
Bremer meets with White House advisers to discuss situation
Tuesday, November 11, 2003 Posted: 10:44 PM EST (0344 GMT)





WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A recent CIA assessment of Iraq warns the security situation will worsen across the country, not just in Baghdad but in the north and south as well, a senior administration source told CNN Tuesday.

The report is a much more dire and ominous assessment of the situation than has previously been forwarded through official channels, this source said. It was sent to Washington Monday by the CIA station chief in Iraq.

It was not immediately clear if the assessment was what prompted the hastily arranged trip to Washington by Iraq civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer, who met Tuesday at the White House with President Bush and senior national security officials.

The report was discussed during the high-level meetings, sources said.

The senior administration source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Bremer agreed with the CIA assessment and added his personal comments to the station chief's memo.

In his Veterans Day speech Tuesday, Bush referred to "recent reporting" of cooperation between Saddam loyalists and terrorist elements from outside Iraq.

"Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists may have different long-term goals, but they share a near-term strategy: to terrorize Iraqis and to intimidate America and our allies," Bush told the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"In the last few months, the adversary has changed its composition and method, and our coalition is adapting accordingly."

Another senior administration official said those points in the speech were based on a U.S. intelligence report about the security situation.

A third U.S. official said the intelligence report was from the CIA and that it highlights what the official conceded are several "major ongoing security issues."

That official refused to characterize the report in further detail. But the senior administration source who did discuss the report said it essentially says things are "gonna get worse" across Iraq.

The source said the memo notes that:

• More Iraqis are "flooding to the ranks of the guerrillas." Many of these Iraqis are Sunnis who had previously been "on the sidelines" but now believe they can "inflict bodily harm" on the Americans.

• Ammunition is "readily available," making it much easier to mount attacks.

The assessment also notes that organization and coordination are getting "tighter" among foreign insurgents -- extremists including but not limited to al Qaeda and Hezbollah -- and those "displaced people" who lost power. (Full story)

On a related matter, this source said Bremer sent out his own separate two-page memo Monday in which he provided alternatives to the current seven-step U.S. plan for the transition of power from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi people.

U.S. officials in Washington and military commanders in Iraq have voiced concern about the recent increase of attacks against coalition and other targets in Iraq. Bush has urged his national security team to accelerate the training and deployment of Iraqi security forces.

On Tuesday, at least two mortar shells or rockets hit within Baghdad's "Green Zone," the heavily secured area that serves as the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority. (Full story)

Thirty-eight U.S. troops have died this month, bringing the number of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war to 398. Since President Bush declared an end to major combat May 1, 259 U.S. servicemen and women have been killed.

There is no reliable source for Iraqi civilian or combatant casualty figures, either during the period of major combat or after May 1.

The Associated Press reported an estimated 3,240 civilian Iraqi deaths between March 20 and April 20, but the AP said that the figure was based on records of only half of Iraq's hospitals, and the actual number was thought to be significantly higher.

CNN's Andrea Koppel and Dana Bash contributed to this report.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Clearly the war, as it continues in Iraq is not popular.

Is this lack of popularity due to the death of Americans, or is it due to the ever increasing costs, or is it due to the lack of planning, or is it due to the lack of WMD discovered and questions of accurate intelligence and or motivation that led us into this war?

Who can say with certainty, but clearly Bush has a problem with perception that the cost of this war, in terms of American servicemen and women's lives and increasing budget deficits.....isn't worth the expense.

This is not going to get better any time soon...and Bush had better act quickly and decisively to turn the tide of public opinion. The American people need to be reinspired about the need for this continuing war.

Oh, and not that it matters to Bush, but hs is not very popular with our chief ally either....

Poll: Bush unpopular in Britain
Tuesday, November 11, 2003 Posted: 6:53 AM EST (1153 GMT)

LONDON, England (AP) -- Many people in Britain believe the international standing of the United States has suffered under President George W. Bush and dislike his handling of the situation in Iraq, according to an opinion poll published in London's Times newspaper.

Bush and his wife, Laura, will make a three-day state visit to Britain next week and will be the guests of Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace. Prime Minister Tony Blair has been Washington's closest ally in the war on terror and its main coalition partner in Iraq, but many Britons opposed the war to dislodge Saddam Hussein and have criticized Blair's strong relationship with Bush.

In a poll published in The Times Tuesday, 59 percent of respondents said America's standing in the world has diminished under Bush's presidency, while 60 percent disapproved of his handling of the situation in Iraq.

Forty-seven percent said Bush didn't seem up to the job of being U.S. President, while 40 percent believed Britain benefits from the close relationship between Bush and Blair.

Regarding the war in Iraq, 49 percent believed that military action was the wrong thing to do, while 37 percent believed the opposite.

Blair said Monday that he accepted many people were opposed to the war, but insisted they should support attempts to restore stability and order to Iraq.

He also conceded that Bush's November 19-21 visit would spark protests, but defended the U.S.-led coalition's efforts to bring democracy to the Middle Eastern nation.

"In eight days time, President Bush makes his state visit to the United Kingdom," Blair said in a foreign policy speech at the Lord Mayor of London's annual banquet. "For many the script of this visit has already been written. There will be demonstrations. His friends wonder at the timing, his enemies rub their hands at what they see as the potential embarrassment.

"I believe this is exactly the right time for the president of the United States to come."

Andrew Burgin, spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition, said the group hoped for 60,000 people to join an "Unwelcome Bush" march through central London November 20. In Trafalgar Square, the group plans to pull down a specially erected statue of Bush, the coalition's Web site said.

"Protest if you will, that is your democratic right," said Blair. "Attack the decision to go to war, though have the integrity to realize that without it, those Iraqis now tasting freedom would still be under the lash of Saddam, his sons and their henchmen."

The Populus polling agency interviewed 964 adults by telephone between Nov. 7-9 for The Times survey. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.