THE PUBLIC & THE WAR
July 25, 2007 -- Are Americans having a change of heart over the war in Iraq?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

A new joint poll by CBS News and The New York Times shows that public support for the original invasion of Iraq has risen by a fifth - from 35 percent to 42 percent of those surveyed - over the past two months.

Moreover, there's been a similarly startling drop in those who say the war is going badly, from 45 percent to 35 percent. The number of those who say the war effort is going well is up by about a quarter, from 23 percent to 29 percent.

Back in May, in other words, twice as many Americans thought the war was going badly as thought it was going well. Now the numbers are only a few points apart.

To be sure, the poll shows overwhelming support for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq or a complete withdrawal. That's hardly surprising, given the spate of negative reporting from Iraq and the lack of political progress.

So what has changed over the past two months?

Reports from Iraq say that the troop surge is gaining real traction. Indeed, there has been a significant drop-off in suicide bombings. All of which suggests strongly that support for the Iraq effort has long been directly linked to the actual state of the military situation.

Another likely factor: The public's renewed appreciation that the insurgency is linked both to Iran and al Qaeda.

Sure, Americans have serious qualms over the way the war has been prosecuted - and particularly with the seeming inability of the nascent Iraqi government to begin shouldering its share of the military burden.

That's entirely understandable - and not unjustified, either. Even the fiercest pro-invasion partisans are disappointed over what has happened in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was toppled.

But if, in fact, Americans increasingly understand that the invasion of Iraq was justified, that has tremendous political implications for Campaign 2008.

The Democratic presidential candidates, who are falling all over themselves touting their anti-war credentials, may find that running a "Bush lied and thousands died" campaign doesn't resonate as well with voters as they now hope.

If that's the case, it hopefully also holds true that Americans won't allow the Democratic-controlled Congress to undercut the troops by forcing them to cut and run before their mission can be accomplished.

Good thing Clinton is coming to power, she will pull out of Iraq and bring this economy back to were it was during Mr. Clinton. Republicans will fall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where'd you find that gem? Wait...googling... Oh right, the New York Post.

Here's some bad news for the military...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070727/D8QKOF7O0.html

Good thing Clinton is coming to power, she will pull out of Iraq and bring this economy back to were it was during Mr. Clinton. Republicans will fall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She won't pull out of Iraq. Nor will any of the other serious Democratic presidential nominees.

Here's some bad news for the military...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070727/D8QKOF7O0.html

friendly fire huh?...the sour grapes of war.

She won't pull out of Iraq. Nor will any of the other serious Democratic presidential nominees.

well having miles of an underground embassy in Iraq...is as being there.

Good thing Clinton is coming to power, she will pull out of Iraq and bring this economy back to were it was during Mr. Clinton. Republicans will fall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ah yes? tell me about the great economy under Clinton, the Dot-Com Bubble, the 33% dive in the stock market, in the first 3 years of his administration, and it took three years of Republican Control of the house to make up for that crash, it was the Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich who forced Clinton to cut taxes and balance the budget, the Contract with America, remember it is the House who writes the spending bills, and from 2003 it was the Republicans who controlled it, and made the Taxes Cuts, and Balanced the Budget.

National Review, Dec 11, 1995 by Stephen Moore

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n23_v47/ai_17863046

During his Presidency so far, Bill Clinton has proposed four budgets (including two so far this year). His first budget back in 1993 contained the largest tax increase in American history. That fiscal plan did not, will not, nor was ever intended to balance the budget.

The budget deficit has been trimmed in the past two years, not because of the 1993 Clinton budget but primarily because of 1) sharp declines in defense spending in the wake of America's victory in the Cold War and 2) the end of the savings-and-loan crisis which temporarily inflated the deficit in the early 1990s. In fact, under the Clinton budget now in place, the deficit will rise to nearly $300 billion by 2000 and more than $450 billion by 2005.

THE Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- which President Clinton sanctimoniously argued in 1993 should be the official scorer of all White House and congressional budget plans -- essentially admits that the Clinton budget plan is a fraud. The CBO calculates that Clinton's new plan would balance the budget by -- well, never to be exact. In fact, the CBO predicts that under the Clinton revised budget plan, far from falling to zero, the annual deficit will rise by $50 billion (to $210 billion) by 2002. By contrast, the CBO says that the Republican budget plan would produce a small budget surplus by 2002.

The picture that emerges from a review of the Clinton Administration's fiscal record over the past three years is indisputable: this White House is about as deeply committed to a balanced budget as Mark Fuhrman is to racial harmony. In fact, the one Clinton appointee who inadvertently speaks the truth on these matters is Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who said earlier this year: "The President is against simply balancing the budget." Exactly.

THE PUBLIC & THE WAR
July 25, 2007 -- Are Americans having a change of heart over the war in Iraq?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

A new joint poll by CBS News and The New York Times shows that public support for the original invasion of Iraq has risen by a fifth - from 35 percent to 42 percent of those surveyed - over the past two months.

Moreover, there's been a similarly startling drop in those who say the war is going badly, from 45 percent to 35 percent. The number of those who say the war effort is going well is up by about a quarter, from 23 percent to 29 percent.

Back in May, in other words, twice as many Americans thought the war was going badly as thought it was going well. Now the numbers are only a few points apart.

To be sure, the poll shows overwhelming support for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq or a complete withdrawal. That's hardly surprising, given the spate of negative reporting from Iraq and the lack of political progress.

So what has changed over the past two months?

Reports from Iraq say that the troop surge is gaining real traction. Indeed, there has been a significant drop-off in suicide bombings. All of which suggests strongly that support for the Iraq effort has long been directly linked to the actual state of the military situation.

Another likely factor: The public's renewed appreciation that the insurgency is linked both to Iran and al Qaeda.

Sure, Americans have serious qualms over the way the war has been prosecuted - and particularly with the seeming inability of the nascent Iraqi government to begin shouldering its share of the military burden.

That's entirely understandable - and not unjustified, either. Even the fiercest pro-invasion partisans are disappointed over what has happened in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was toppled.

But if, in fact, Americans increasingly understand that the invasion of Iraq was justified, that has tremendous political implications for Campaign 2008.

The Democratic presidential candidates, who are falling all over themselves touting their anti-war credentials, may find that running a "Bush lied and thousands died" campaign doesn't resonate as well with voters as they now hope.

If that's the case, it hopefully also holds true that Americans won't allow the Democratic-controlled Congress to undercut the troops by forcing them to cut and run before their mission can be accomplished.

are you sure about those numbers because all the polls i have seen show about 2/3 of the country want us to leave iraq not think its going badly but want us to leave

Americans don't know what to think until the polls tell them what they think :p

are you sure about those numbers because all the polls i have seen show about 2/3 of the country want us to leave iraq not think its going badly but want us to leave


Well, CBS News and The New York Times are no friends of the war, and in their previous polls they were showing a drop in the support for the war, and for them to show this kind of change from their previous polls I would think that the change might be even more dramatic than what is being reported.

Frankly I don't believe it, the only people I hear supporting the troops in Iraq now are the ones who are horrified at the extent of damage the US has done and who just wish there was some way to take it all back. Its guilt and shame mostly, for being duped into believing the war was required.

Frankly I don't believe it, the only people I hear supporting the troops in Iraq now are the ones who are horrified at the extent of damage the US has done and who just wish there was some way to take it all back. Its guilt and shame mostly, for being duped into believing the war was required.

So much for sams eternal optimism. :crazy:

Now what about all the damage that your brothers in Terrorism are doing to Iraq? can that all be considered a mistake and do you want to take it all back?

You mean the ones reported by the news media that takes its info from the stellar US military. Not my idea of an honest source.

You mean the ones reported by the news media that takes its info from the stellar US military. Not my idea of an honest source.

No how about the ones from the rest of the world new that show most of the damage to Iraq comes from the terror campaign of your brother Moslem terrorist, it wasn't the U.S. who destroyed the Golden Dome,

BlogRunner: Samarra Shrine Attacked
The Golden Mosque in Samarra, Iraq, was bombed for the second time in more than a year on .... Terrorists Blow Up Part of Holy Golden Dome Shrine in Iraq ...
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/news/4/1/4670340A05764F1D/

Minarets on Golden Dome destroyed - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com
IMAGE: Destroyed golden minarets at the shrine of the Askariya mosque in Iraq. Getty Images .... They’re literally trying to blow up Iraqi democracy.” ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19200715/

FOXNews.com - 13 Iraqi Police Arrested After Golden Dome Destroyed ...
Before the curfew took hold, arsonists set fire to a Sunni mosque in western ... Later, the Interior Ministry said members of "a terrorist group" had been ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281552,00.html

Terrorsts Blow up Mosque « HELLO IRAQ
Mosque destroyed in Iraq during Funeral. • Thursday, March 10th, 2005. Posted in Terrorsts Blow up Mosque, Interrigating Terrorists?, terrorist attacks, ...
http://devildog6771.wordpress.com/tag/terrorsts-blow-up-mosque/

IraqSlogger: Gunmen Blow Up Sunni Mosque in Baghdad
On IraqSlogger - Gunmen Blow Up Sunni Mosque in Baghdad. ... News). › General: September too soon to assess Iraq (USA Today). › ...
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3660

Bid to blow up school building foiled
This was the second terrorist attempt on a girls school in Orakzai Agency. ... SC seeks record of mosque detainees ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on ...
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=6401

Yes yor terrorist brother have a great respect for their own religion don't they, yes they are serving Allah. :puke:

I thought this thread was about the public and the war?

And the bloggers get their news from the same sources we do, I doubt they are personally interviewing people.

Try Iraqslogger (http://www.iraqslogger.com/) though, they collect some real experiences.

But after reading about the fake al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, well anything is possible.

I thought this thread was about the public and the war?

And the bloggers get their news from the same sources we do, I doubt they are personally interviewing people.

Try Iraqslogger (http://www.iraqslogger.com/) though, they collect some real experiences.

But after reading about the fake al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, well anything is possible.

If you bothered to read and look at the sites I did use;

IraqSlogger: Gunmen Blow Up Sunni Mosque in Baghdad
On IraqSlogger - Gunmen Blow Up Sunni Mosque in Baghdad. ... News). › General: September too soon to assess Iraq (USA Today). › ...
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3660

I was talking about the personal experiences, if you notice I said they also use the same news sites :)

Be honest, Buff, you know the war was a mistake. Now the only option (and an almost impossible one right now) is how to decently leave the mess.

I had an interesting conversation with an elderly man I met yesterday on the bus. In his opinion, if the three brazilian dollars had been spent on alternative energy research, America would not only have regained its upper hand in world economy, but would also have gained the gratitude and respect of the world. Sad how shortsighted leaders can destroy a country instead of moving it forward into glory.

I was talking about the personal experiences, if you notice I said they also use the same news sites :)

Be honest, Buff, you know the war was a mistake. Now the only option (and an almost impossible one right now) is how to decently leave the mess.

I had an interesting conversation with an elderly man I met yesterday on the bus. In his opinion, if the three brazilian dollars had been spent on alternative energy research, America would not only have regained its upper hand in world economy, but would also have gained the gratitude and respect of the world. Sad how shortsighted leaders can destroy a country instead of moving it forward into glory.

Now the war isn't a mistake, Saddam had violated the cease fire agrements for over a decade, and even now it isn't a mistake because it has become a terrorist sink were we are killing them, and keeping them from carring out operations in America, and the fact is that if we do leave Iraq and pull back your terrorist brothers will not be satisfied they will continue to attack us, and it will happen here in America.


I had an interesting conversation with an elderly man I met yesterday on the bus. In his opinion, if the three brazilian dollars had been spent on alternative energy research, America would not only have regained its upper hand in world economy, but would also have gained the gratitude and respect of the world. Sad how shortsighted leaders can destroy a country instead of moving it forward into glory

Ah, yes? everbody around the world is looking out for our best interest? reaaalyyy?

Changing the subject again I see.

And everything is just fine in Brazil in their energy needs?

http://www.brazil.ox.ac.uk/BP%20Research%20Paper%20Number%203%20-%20Fiani.pdf

In 2001, six years after the first privatisation of state electric firms, Brazil
suffered from an unprecedented shortage of energy, a phenomena not experienced
since the early 1960s. Reformers claimed that lack of rainfall caused the shortage
and, because many reforms remained incomplete, private investment faltered when
concessions were held to expand generation and transmission capacity. In this paper
we claim that neither the weather, nor the unfinished nature of Brazilian energy
reforms explains the 2001 crisis. Instead, the shortage was caused by the fact that
reforms of the Brazilian electricity sector failed to consider the specific context of
Brazilian electric power generation, the extent to which this context requires specific
institutions, and the social problems associated with energy supplies in a poor
country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the ethanol program was not perfect and brought a host of environmental and social problems of its own. Sugarcane fields were traditionally burned just before harvest, in order to remove the leaves, kill any snakes and fertilize the fields with ash. The smoke produced each season produces the same amount of carbon polution as the sugarcane would have produced if it were left in the field to rot, which is relatively little. However, the smoke greatly impacts the sugarcane-growing parts of the country, turning the sky gray and air hazardous throughout the harvesting season. As winds carry the smoke into nearby towns, air pollution goes critical and respiratory problems soar.

Since sugarcane only requires hand labor at harvest time, this shift also created a large population of destitute migrant workers who can only find temporary employment as cane cutters (at about US$3 to 5 per day) for one or two months every year. This huge social problem has contributed to political unrest and violence in rural areas, which are now plagued by recurrent farm invasions, vandalism, armed confrontations, and assassinations.

The brazilian is a joke.

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing.

He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

Anyway I see you persist in duplicity or denial, either of which I am unwilling to promote.

The brazilian is a joke.



Anyway I see you persist in duplicity or denial, either of which I am unwilling to promote.

Really?, you are so good at it, why stop now?