Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jillian, Aug 17, 2006.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/War on Terror_Monthly_Update.htm
Funny, the last I saw, yesterday, 51% thought Bush's handling was good. Now a mandate, but majority. They did not agree with Iraq and were certainly confused by Israel/Lebanon. A significant % thought Iran enemy #1, with SA pretty darn close.
Not a mandate for administration track, but very different than what you and your poll are painting. Seems the people get it better than the administration or the pollsters, I'm not surprised.
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about in terms of the "people get it better"... since anything that would have measured your 51% would have been by a poll. I think you might be referring to the CBS poll which also shows that 82% of Republicans and only 23% of Democrats approve of the president's handling of the WOT.
And for the record, Rasmussen generally does its polling for Republicans...
I'm quite familiar with Rasmussen, funny thing it's not that biased. Actually I've seen plenty of weeks that they gave lower GOP ratings than other polls.
So you are saying that CBS polls are way off? What about CNN/Time? Gallop?:\\\
More like Mainstream Media(MSM) which sways public opinion (3)...... GWB who is at their mercy (0).
Some day when the American people as a whole or a majority start to look for news sources beyond Couric, and Oprah........we may see a more even playing field that will give a fighting chance for ethics/morals, and Cajones versus....phony intellectual sensitivity, and Neutered, hypocritical bravado.
I have faith in the Amercian people. do they want libs who want to follow the Marques of Queensbury rules when dealing with terrorists, or do they want the Republicans (who for the most part) who will take the fight to them.
This article spells it out........
Lieberman's loss shows Democratic Party is driving toward a cliff
By Les Francis
Last week was a bad one for us centrist Democrats, but it may well turn out to have been a disastrous week for the entire party.
I have worried for quite some time that the Democratic Party -- my political home for more than 40 years -- has been driving toward a cliff. Last Tuesday, Connecticut's primary voters jumped into the driver's seat and jammed the accelerator to the floor. The next day, the party's national leadership steered into the resulting slipstream and headed toward the abyss.
There were many reasons behind the failure of Sen. Joe Lieberman to secure our party's nomination for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate. Right or wrong, many voters thought he had grown remote and unresponsive to his constituents.
And there is definitely a national mood of anti-incumbency-building; poll after poll shows the public to be increasingly angry at -- and frustrated with -- decision-makers at every level of government. But certainly the issues that most fueled challenger Ned Lamont's victory over Lieberman were the Iraq war and the incumbent's relationship with the war's chief architect, President George W. Bush.
The Democratic left is, let's face it, essentially a pacifist political movement, and it has been so since the 1960s and the Vietnam War (which I, too, opposed). And, while they deny it, liberal Democrats are also increasingly isolationist -- witness where most Democratic members of Congress have voted on a host of international trade measures in the past couple of decades. Or listen to many activists who criticize efforts to spread democracy to other lands, saying, ``It is none of our business'' to try to influence the political orientation or constitutional framework of other nations.
One wonders where these same people might have come down when the Marshall Plan was being devised, or when America and its allies determined in the wake of World War II that they had to do everything in their power to contain communism.
Lieberman is an old-fashioned internationalist who sees the dangers facing the United States, Europe and other peoples of the world, which today are largely attributable to radical Islamist terrorism. He also has had the temerity to treat the president of the Unite States with a degree of personal respect that the vast majority of Democratic activists simply find repulsive. And that is a sad, sad commentary on the health of contemporary American politics, and on the psychology of today's Democratic Party.
I disagree, often strongly, with most of Bush's policy agenda. And although I supported the invasion of Iraq and continue to back the president's overall stance against international terrorism, I am very critical of how he and his administration have prosecuted the war.
I also believe Bush has had a number of opportunities to try to unite our country, and lessen the partisan animus that poisons our politics and coarsens the public discourse, and he has failed time and again to do so. In fact, it appears that he has allowed or directed his underlings to do just the reverse, and that is wrong. As a result, I consider myself a member of the president's loyal and vigorous opposition.
But, like Lieberman, I do not hate Bush. I do not even dislike him. I simply disagree with him.
However, in my circle of Democratic friends, many of whom are very close and treasured friends, that is not enough. It was also not enough for Connecticut's Democratic primary voters when it came time to choose between a moderate and civil Lieberman and his anti-war and anti-Bush opponent. To be a real Democrat these days it seems that one has to despise Bush.
Although national public opinion surveys reveal that three out of five voters now oppose the war in Iraq, a fact which may help Democrats in the midterm elections, a Democratic Party that is not credible on critical national security issues will not be trusted with leadership in the post-Sept. 11 era. Nor, in my view, should it be.
Ironically, at the same time last week that Democratic leaders were jumping on Lamont's misdirected and, I believe, ill-fated bandwagon, British law enforcement forces were breaking up yet one more terrorist network, this one bent on killing hundreds, and maybe thousands, of innocent Brits, Americans and others by blowing them out of the Atlantic skies. That, sadly, is the world we live in, not the one that Lamont and too many of my fellow Democrats apparently think we do.
The problem is there aren't any American bodies and swift, massive retaliation by Bush with a high body count and no noncombatant casualties. Sans that, he'll NEVER do a good enough job for a certain bunch of political hacks belonging to a certain lying, whacko extremist political party.
I heard Alan Dershowitz the other day, saying that terrorists hiding amongst civilians is the perfect tactic against democracies. It wouldn't work against any tyrannical system, as they would just kill everyone. Funny thing, he said considering what's happening on the ground in Iraq, Lebanon, and more and more in Afghanistan, we may have to rethink how we fight; it may not be so wise to be so 'careful'.
There really isn't a lot of thinking involved. It boils down to are we ready to accept a high count of noncombatant casualties to kill the terrorists. Judging by the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Israel went after Hezbollah, the answer is no.
The chickenshit powers that be still haven't figured out that their current tactics will result in nothing but defeat.
Gunny, I will defer to your experience. It seems to me that if we spent less time, effort, and money to avoid 'civilians' we would be done more quickly, more safely, and no less despised, probably more respected, than the world does now?
Separate names with a comma.