Americans Still Losing Confidence In Bush's Handling of the WOT

[jillian]

War on Terror Update: Thwarted Attack Has Little Impact on Public Confidence

August 17, 2006
Last week's news from London about a thwarted terrorist attack had little impact on public confidence in the War on Terror. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of American adults now say the U.S. and its allies are winning. That's down a point from 39% earlier in August and down from 44% in July. Confidence that the U.S. and its allies are winning has never been lower than 38%.

Thirty percent (30%) of Americans now believe the terrorists are winning. That's down from 33% earlier in the month but up from 26% in July.

Last August, confidence in the War on Terror hit its all-time low--38% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning while 36% held the opposite view. Heading into Election 2004, slightly more than half of all Americans believed the U.S. and its allies were winning.

Republicans, by a 60% to 17% margin, say that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War. Democrats, by a 42% to 20% margin, say the terrorists are winning. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided.

Men, by a 45% to 28% margin, believe the U.S. and it allies are winning. Women are evenly divided.

White Americans are more optimistic in their assessment than other Americans. Middle income Americans are more upbeat than those at either end of the income spectrum. Those over 50 are somewhat less optimistic than those under 50.

Crosstabs are available for Premium Members.

Current results are not precisely comparable to 2004 survey results. Our 2004 data was based upon Interviews with Likely Voters. In 2005, our data is based upon a sample of American Adults. It is likely that this change could have a 2-3 percentage point impact on the reported results.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/War on Terror_Monthly_Update.htm

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[jillian]

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...

 

[Annie]

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?:\\\

 

[Eightball]

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.

 

[red states rule]

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........

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/15276906.htm
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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[Annie]

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'.

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[Annie]

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?

 

[Gunny]

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?

The wars the US has won, winning was paramount, and we did whatever it took to gain final victory.

Every limited war we have ever fought in has ended under less than satisfactory terms.

We would indeed save time, effort, money and American lives if we just took out the enemy where found, instead of worry what the world and the whiney-ass left thinks about the fact that we killed somebody's housepet in the process. Noncombatant casualties are part of war. The fact that they exist in no way diminishes the fact that we have an enemy who could care less about them, and is dedicated to our destruction. As long as we adhere to rules the enemy does not, the enemy has an advantage to exploit, enabled by our own hands.

 

[Annie]

The wars the US has won, winning was paramount, and we did whatever it took to gain final victory.

Every limited war we have ever fought in has ended under less than satisfactory terms.

We would indeed save time, effort, money and American lives if we just took out the enemy where found, instead of worry what the world and the whiney-ass left thinks about the fact that we killed somebody's housepet in the process. Noncombatant casualties are part of war. The fact that they exist in no way diminishes the fact that we have an enemy who could care less about them, and is dedicated to our destruction. As long as we adhere to rules the enemy does not, the enemy has an advantage to exploit, enabled by our own hands.

Thank you! I agree with both you and Alan then! :gang1:

 

[OCA]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/War on Terror_Monthly_Update.htm

HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!! Jilly this should make you extremely happy, that you guys have lied and cajoled a majority of Americans to agree with your undermining of America in a time of war.

I'm nominating you for citizen of the year!

 

[Mr. P]

jillian just hates Bush an doesn't want him elected again. Should we tell her, or let her keep on wasting time bashing him? Sorta like watching a dog chasing its tail aint it?

 

[jillian]

The wars the US has won, winning was paramount, and we did whatever it took to gain final victory.

Every limited war we have ever fought in has ended under less than satisfactory terms.

We would indeed save time, effort, money and American lives if we just took out the enemy where found, instead of worry what the world and the whiney-ass left thinks about the fact that we killed somebody's housepet in the process. Noncombatant casualties are part of war. The fact that they exist in no way diminishes the fact that we have an enemy who could care less about them, and is dedicated to our destruction. As long as we adhere to rules the enemy does not, the enemy has an advantage to exploit, enabled by our own hands.

No...the wars the U.S. has won have had a CLEAR OBJECTIVE and a CLEARLY DEFINED ENEMY.

You can't fight an "ideology". If we had fought a "War Against Facism" instead of fighting "the Axis" during WWII, we'd still be fighting.

And your enemies feel the same way about taking out innocents. Gee...what a wonderful world.

And if you destroy every value for which your country stands, because of the acts of the enemy, then they have won without firing a shot.

 

[jillian]

jillian just hates Bush an doesn't want him elected again. Should we tell her, or let her keep on wasting time bashing him? Sorta like watching a dog chasing its tail aint it?

Niiiiiiiiiice....

I don't "hate" him. I think he's incompetent. And I am grateful most of the country has realized this (gives me hope) and am really grateful that after the mid-terms hopefully he won't have the power to do any more damage because there will be checks and balances.

 

[Psychoblues]

You speak the truth, jillian. No doubt the lemmings will try and dispute it. After all, they are just lemmings.

Psychoblues

No...the wars the U.S. has won have had a CLEAR OBJECTIVE and a CLEARLY DEFINED ENEMY.

You can't fight an "ideology". If we had fought a "War Against Facism" instead of fighting "the Axis" during WWII, we'd still be fighting.

And your enemies feel the same way about taking out innocents. Gee...what a wonderful world.

And if you destroy every value for which your country stands, because of the acts of the enemy, then they have won without firing a shot.

 

[red states rule]

Liberals do have a plan to fight terrorists, the voters rejected their plan however.

 

[Psychoblues]

The voters in every poll reject the WAR ON IRAQ. Just how are you counting the voters? The "Liberals" have already won this ridiculous argument.


Psychoblues

Liberals do have a plan to fight terrorists, the voters rejected their plan however.

 

[red states rule]

Polls show after the London Bombing attempt, the folks are reminded why they rejected the left when it comes to protecting them.

They remember how happy Harry Reid was when he bllowed, "We have killed the Patriot Act"

They remember how the left has opposed every method the Brits and the US used to nail the terrorist pigs

They have read how the liberal media is worried over what interrogation methods were used to obtain the bombing info

The tide is turning toward Republicans, and the left is starting to see it.