Forum poll on Bush's handling of Iraq

[dazzleman]

Approve of his handling of it. Disapprove strongly of Rumsfeld's handling of it.

Rumsfeld is Bush's appointee, so I don't think you can really separate the two.

I have some concerns but I have supported the war from the start.  I don't think that enough planning went into the occupation and how we would create a legitimate Iraqi government that was strong enough to take over when we left.  

[dazzleman]

I would dissapprove of anything short of reinstating Saddam with an abject apology and reparations.

I would dissapprove of anything short of you recieving a flamethrower to the face and genitals.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

[12th Doctor]

One more thing, John.  If Iraq is a "disaster" as you now seem to think, then this country is never going to be able to go to war again, because the first time a picture of a dead America soldier airs on TV, people will lose their nerve.  Let things play out.  We will win in the end.  Don't let feelings of dread get the best of you.

[John Dibble]

I generally disapprove of the way he has handled the issue, though being honest it could be a lot worse.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Strongly disapprove.

[The Duke]

How could anyone except Kool Aid drinker's approve?

Agreed, he certainly has not been aggressive enough.

Approve of his handling of it. Disapprove strongly of Rumsfeld's handling of it.

Approve of his handling of it. Disapprove strongly of Rumsfeld's handling of it.

Ditto. Having supported the war, I can't really say I disapprove now

Dave

I have to agree with States, and Jake to a lesser extent.  Its ture that Rumsfeld is the lead guy on running the war and Bush just made the strategic choice to go in, but Rumsfeld has offerred his resignation to Bush and Bush wouldn't take it.  So Bush has to take the bulk of the blame.  As for Dave, like you I supoorted and still support the mission, but I do have to vote no confidence on the handling of the war.

John, what has been up with you lately?  We are closer to a resolution than we ever have been and you choose now to loose faith?  You need to take some time to think, man.  Isolate yourself from the media for a few days.  Is it really that you think he is doing a bad job, or do you just not like what you see on TV?  Remember, my friend, things are not nearly as bad as they would seem when you sit around and watch turntable coverage on CNN/Fox.  Sure, there are things that could be done better, but do you really, on the whole, disapprove of Bush?

I await your response.

One more thing, John.  If Iraq is a "disaster" as you now seem to think, then this country is never going to be able to go to war again, because the first time a picture of a dead America soldier airs on TV, people will lose their nerve.  Let things play out.  We will win in the end.  Don't let feelings of dread get the best of you.

I haven't lost faith at all.  My position has always been and continues to be that the handling of the war was incompetent.  The war plan itself was adequate, even clever at times, though I differred in a few key ways from the plan they used.  As for the occupation, the handling is simply indefensible, and there's been no point in my time on this Forum or outside this Forum where I've said otherwise, they just have no idea what their doing.

All that said, I have always believed and still believe that due to the incomparable greatness of the American soldier and the unquestionale decency of the cause he fights for, that we will win.  We will win, though, not because of Bush but in spite of him.  We will win because the American soldier is unbeatable on the field of battle.  We will win because of the heartwarming and indominable spirit of the Iraqi people, particularly the Kurdish Peshmerga who have fought this war long before we were, who have seen a small amount of freedom and want more, more, more.  And we will win because the tactics of our enemies are simply put, repulsive to any decent human being, and they are rightfully hemmoragging support in the Islamic world, because the average Muslim does not want to committ mass murder in the name of Allah and the average Muslim will not tolerate those who do.

I will give Bush some credit.  Even though I think his strategy will (in fact, already has) directly lead to more American deaths than needed to happen and has left Americans no appetite to finish this long war, which goes beyond Iraq, don't forget, I still credit his remarkable obstinance.  He is a stubborn bastard, and that is exactly what we need.  His plan will eventually work, of this there can be no doubt, because it rests on the character of the American soldier and the Iraqi people to overcome all obstacles, and the performance both have given exceeds even the most optimistic expectations.  My complaint is not that we will fail, but that he will have expended more blood and treasure than we had to, perhaps more than the country will bare to expend, and war-weary voters may demand a weaker, Clintonian  policy after 2008 (Remember, by 2008, this war will be in its seventh year, and longer than any Aemrican war except Vietnam).  George Bush has created a serious long term danger to the Republic and the GOP, and its not a fabrication of the liberal media.

[AkSaber]

I approve merely on the grounds that he is our president and he already made the decision and I approve of an elected official doing what they feel is right for the people that elected him.

I feel pretty much the same way.

[12th Doctor]

How could anyone except Kool Aid drinker's approve?

Agreed, he certainly has not been aggressive enough.

Approve of his handling of it. Disapprove strongly of Rumsfeld's handling of it.

Approve of his handling of it. Disapprove strongly of Rumsfeld's handling of it.

Ditto. Having supported the war, I can't really say I disapprove now

Dave

I have to agree with States, and Jake to a lesser extent.  Its ture that Rumsfeld is the lead guy on running the war and Bush just made the strategic choice to go in, but Rumsfeld has offerred his resignation to Bush and Bush wouldn't take it.  So Bush has to take the bulk of the blame.  As for Dave, like you I supoorted and still support the mission, but I do have to vote no confidence on the handling of the war.

John, what has been up with you lately?  We are closer to a resolution than we ever have been and you choose now to loose faith?  You need to take some time to think, man.  Isolate yourself from the media for a few days.  Is it really that you think he is doing a bad job, or do you just not like what you see on TV?  Remember, my friend, things are not nearly as bad as they would seem when you sit around and watch turntable coverage on CNN/Fox.  Sure, there are things that could be done better, but do you really, on the whole, disapprove of Bush?

I await your response.

One more thing, John.  If Iraq is a "disaster" as you now seem to think, then this country is never going to be able to go to war again, because the first time a picture of a dead America soldier airs on TV, people will lose their nerve.  Let things play out.  We will win in the end.  Don't let feelings of dread get the best of you.

I haven't lost faith at all.  My position has always been and continues to be that the handling of the war was incompetent.  The war plan itself was adequate, even clever at times, though I differred in a few key ways from the plan they used.  As for the occupation, the handling is simply indefensible, and there's been no point in my time on this Forum or outside this Forum where I've said otherwise, they just have no idea what their doing.

All that said, I have always believed and still believe that due to the incomparable greatness of the American soldier and the unquestionale decency of the cause he fights for, that we will win.  We will win, though, not because of Bush but in spite of him.  We will win because the American soldier is unbeatable on the field of battle.  We will win because of the heartwarming and indominable spirit of the Iraqi people, particularly the Kurdish Peshmerga who have fought this war long before we were, who have seen a small amount of freedom and want more, more, more.  And we will win because the tactics of our enemies are simply put, repulsive to any decent human being, and they are rightfully hemmoragging support in the Islamic world, because the average Muslim does not want to committ mass murder in the name of Allah and the average Muslim will not tolerate those who do.

I will give Bush some credit.  Even though I think his strategy will (in fact, already has) directly lead to more American deaths than needed to happen and has left Americans no appetite to finish this long war, which goes beyond Iraq, don't forget, I still credit his remarkable obstinance.  He is a stubborn bastard, and that is exactly what we need.  His plan will eventually work, of this there can be no doubt, because it rests on the character of the American soldier and the Iraqi people to overcome all obstacles, and the performance both have given exceeds even the most optimistic expectations.  My complaint is not that we will fail, but that he will have expended more blood and treasure than we had to, perhaps more than the country will bare to expend, and war-weary voters may demand a weaker, Clintonian  policy after 2008 (Remember, by 2008, this war will be in its seventh year, and longer than any Aemrican war except Vietnam).  George Bush has created a serious long term danger to the Republic and the GOP, and its not a fabrication of the liberal media.

I agree with you, for the most part, I simply think that you are being too alamist about the situation.  I'm certain that we have lost more people than we had to in every single war that we have ever fought.  There were plenty of people (plenty of soldiers) who were war weary in 1945... until we uncovered the concentration camps.  I think it is sad that the mass graves in Iraq have gotten so little coverage, or that a majority of Americans simply don't seem to care.  I blame the later, at least, on the media.  And I also blame the fact that, out of four stated reasons for going to war, the people only remember one (WMD) on the media as well.

I would have done things differently, but hind sight is always 20/20.  All in all, I don't think they have done a terrible job over there, certainly no worse than we did in WWII, it is simply that the public's perception of what is "acceptable" has changed, and I fear that your starting to reflect some of that.

[WiseGuy]

How could anyone except Kool Aid drinker's approve?

Agreed, he certainly has not been aggressive enough.

Approve of his handling of it. Disapprove strongly of Rumsfeld's handling of it.

Approve of his handling of it. Disapprove strongly of Rumsfeld's handling of it.

Ditto. Having supported the war, I can't really say I disapprove now

Dave

I have to agree with States, and Jake to a lesser extent.  Its ture that Rumsfeld is the lead guy on running the war and Bush just made the strategic choice to go in, but Rumsfeld has offerred his resignation to Bush and Bush wouldn't take it.  So Bush has to take the bulk of the blame.  As for Dave, like you I supoorted and still support the mission, but I do have to vote no confidence on the handling of the war.

I agree.  I would have much rather he used strategic missile strikes to knock out the areas where we believed the WMD were.  However, what's done is done, and it would be far worse to pull out now than to continue the mission.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

I would have much rather he used strategic missile strikes to knock out the areas where we believed the WMD were.

Out of interest, where exactly were these places?

[minionofmidas]

I would have much rather he used strategic missile strikes to knock out the areas where we believed the WMD were.

Out of interest, where exactly were these places?

Colin Powell pointed them out to the Security Council; should be googleable.

[The Duke]

I agree with you, for the most part, I simply think that you are being too alamist about the situation.  I'm certain that we have lost more people than we had to in every single war that we have ever fought.  There were plenty of people (plenty of soldiers) who were war weary in 1945... until we uncovered the concentration camps.  I think it is sad that the mass graves in Iraq have gotten so little coverage, or that a majority of Americans simply don't seem to care.  I blame the later, at least, on the media.  And I also blame the fact that, out of four stated reasons for going to war, the people only remember one (WMD) on the media as well.

I would have done things differently, but hind sight is always 20/20.  All in all, I don't think they have done a terrible job over there, certainly no worse than we did in WWII, it is simply that the public's perception of what is "acceptable" has changed, and I fear that your starting to reflect some of that.

You can't blame the media for bad PR.  Reagan got his message out in a world with no Fox News.  George Bush is a totally inadequate public defender of this war.  Every George Bush speech on Iraq now can be boiled down to, "rape rooms and torture chambers and blah blah freedom blah blah September the 11th 2001."

Excuse me Mr. President, why don't you give a press conference to address what you believe are false public impressions?  Why don't you tell the people about Iraq's links to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda?  Why don't you show the names and faces of Saddam's American victims?  Why don't you list off the SCUD missiles and refined uranium and other illegal weapons materials, whose existence in the hands of a proven lunatic is of concern to every American!

More importantly, Mr. President, let the people know who we're fighting in Iraq?  Super, you bring up World War II, is there any American in 1945 who didn't know who Heinrich Himmler was?  Or Goebbels?  Or Goering?  Compare that to today, when I'd safely venture that most Americans have no idea who Abu Zarqawi is.  This may be the most dangerous terrorist in the world, the fact that Americans don't know the name of this barbarian is a sign of near criminal negligence on the part of the President and his staff.  If people knew who this man was and what he's doing and why he's doing it, I think it would not be so hard to give Americans the courage and confidence to support this war.

And tell us what is at stake in Iraq.  Iraq is not a child that needs to be cared for, it is an ally whose democratically elected govenrment has begged us to defend her from carnivorous neighbors and facist infiltrators.  If we do not stand by our allies in their time of need, they will never stand by us in our time of need.  They will see our weakness and seek comfort in the arms of powers they view as being made of sterner stuff.  Americans supported 50 years of Cold War policies on the grounds that we had to defend our allies or lose them forever, and with it our prominence on the world stage.  They understand that Mr. President, so tell them!

Mr. President, why have you not put forward this simple, understandable, moral, pragmatic, wise, case for finishing the job in Iraq?  Why do you insist on couching everything in terms of fighting Saddam Hussein instead of Abu al-Zarqawi?  Saddam is defeated, and everyone knows it.  Constantly reminding people why we went in is not going to convince them to stay.  We won the debate of whether to go to war!  It was won three years ago, when 77 Senators and 65% of the American people backed the use of force resolution.  That debate is over, Mr. President, why won't you even acknowledge this new debate has begun?

Tom Brokaw did not lose the American people, Mr. President.  You did.

And now, there is a legitimate fear that if you do not recover and find the man inside you who stood on top of the rubble in lower Manhattan and lifted this nation from its knees that the race to find your successor will be a race where the winner is determined by who proposes the most cowardly retreat.  If we're still here four Novembers from now with Russell Feingold in a dead heat with Chuck Hagel, we will know that the man who gave away this Pax Americana was George W. Bush.  And people like us who should have been there to steer him straight weren't there, they faded into the background and became cheerleaders, when they of all people should have known better.

I don't think this will happen, but I admit it could.  I still believe we will win in Iraq.  Just as I believe in the the Iraqi people I believe even more strongly in the American people.  And I believe that when presented with the Feingold's and the Gore's and the Dean's, they will reject that kind of thinking, as they always have before.  They'll look at the other side and see John McCain, a man whose soul still bares the scars of the sacrifices he made for his country and they will remember why we fight.  They will see Rudy Giuliani, who watched from Battery Park as the heart of his beloved city was ripped out before his very eyes, and they will remember why we fight.  And they will see Condie Rice and know that this is the only country in the world where the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper can rise to become the highest ranking diplomat in the world, they will remember that there is still something out there worth protecting, and they will remember why we fight.

But again, Mr. President, the American people will not find resolve because of you.  They will find it in spite of you. 

[12th Doctor]

I agree with you, for the most part, I simply think that you are being too alamist about the situation.  I'm certain that we have lost more people than we had to in every single war that we have ever fought.  There were plenty of people (plenty of soldiers) who were war weary in 1945... until we uncovered the concentration camps.  I think it is sad that the mass graves in Iraq have gotten so little coverage, or that a majority of Americans simply don't seem to care.  I blame the later, at least, on the media.  And I also blame the fact that, out of four stated reasons for going to war, the people only remember one (WMD) on the media as well.

I would have done things differently, but hind sight is always 20/20.  All in all, I don't think they have done a terrible job over there, certainly no worse than we did in WWII, it is simply that the public's perception of what is "acceptable" has changed, and I fear that your starting to reflect some of that.

You can't blame the media for bad PR.  Reagan got his message out in a world with no Fox News.  George Bush is a totally inadequate public defender of this war.  Every George Bush speech on Iraq now can be boiled down to, "rape rooms and torture chambers and blah blah freedom blah blah September the 11th 2001."

Excuse me Mr. President, why don't you give a press conference to address what you believe are false public impressions?  Why don't you tell the people about Iraq's links to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda?  Why don't you show the names and faces of Saddam's American victims?  Why don't you list off the SCUD missiles and refined uranium and other illegal weapons materials, whose existence in the hands of a proven lunatic is of concern to every American!

More importantly, Mr. President, let the people know who we're fighting in Iraq?  Super, you bring up World War II, is there any American in 1945 who didn't know who Heinrich Himmler was?  Or Goebbels?  Or Goering?  Compare that to today, when I'd safely venture that most Americans have no idea who Abu Zarqawi is.  This may be the most dangerous terrorist in the world, the fact that Americans don't know the name of this barbarian is a sign of near criminal negligence on the part of the President and his staff.  If people knew who this man was and what he's doing and why he's doing it, I think it would not be so hard to give Americans the courage and confidence to support this war.

And tell us what is at stake in Iraq.  Iraq is not a child that needs to be cared for, it is an ally whose democratically elected govenrment has begged us to defend her from carnivorous neighbors and facist infiltrators.  If we do not stand by our allies in their time of need, they will never stand by us in our time of need.  They will see our weakness and seek comfort in the arms of powers they view as being made of sterner stuff.  Americans supported 50 years of Cold War policies on the grounds that we had to defend our allies or lose them forever, and with it our prominence on the world stage.  They understand that Mr. President, so tell them!

Mr. President, why have you not put forward this simple, understandable, moral, pragmatic, wise, case for finishing the job in Iraq?  Why do you insist on couching everything in terms of fighting Saddam Hussein instead of Abu al-Zarqawi?  Saddam is defeated, and everyone knows it.  Constantly reminding people why we went in is not going to convince them to stay.  We won the debate of whether to go to war!  It was won three years ago, when 77 Senators and 65% of the American people backed the use of force resolution.  That debate is over, Mr. President, why won't you even acknowledge this new debate has begun?

Tom Brokaw did not lose the American people, Mr. President.  You did.

And now, there is a legitimate fear that if you do not recover and find the man inside you who stood on top of the rubble in lower Manhattan and lifted this nation from its knees that the race to find your successor will be a race where the winner is determined by who proposes the most cowardly retreat.  If we're still here four Novembers from now with Russell Feingold in a dead heat with Chuck Hagel, we will know that the man who gave away this Pax Americana was George W. Bush.  And people like us who should have been there to steer him straight weren't there, they faded into the background and became cheerleaders, when they of all people should have known better.

I don't think this will happen, but I admit it could.  I still believe we will win in Iraq.  Just as I believe in the the Iraqi people I believe even more strongly in the American people.  And I believe that when presented with the Feingold's and the Gore's and the Dean's, they will reject that kind of thinking, as they always have before.  They'll look at the other side and see John McCain, a man whose soul still bares the scars of the sacrifices he made for his country and they will remember why we fight.  They will see Rudy Giuliani, who watched from Battery Park as the heart of his beloved city was ripped out before his very eyes, and they will remember why we fight.  And they will see Condie Rice and know that this is the only country in the world where the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper can rise to become the highest ranking diplomat in the world, they will remember that there is still something out there worth protecting, and they will remember why we fight.

But again, Mr. President, the American people will not find resolve because of you.  They will find it in spite of you. 

John, I agree with your sentiments 100%.  What seem to be saying, then, is that you are not really criticizing the conduct of the war, but rather the administrations seeming inability to make people understand our perspective.  Here, I agree with you completely.

[The Duke]

John, I agree with your sentiments 100%.  What seem to be saying, then, is that you are not really criticizing the conduct of the war, but rather the administrations seeming inability to make people understand our perspective.  Here, I agree with you completely.

No, I disagree with their conduct of the war too.

For example, they chose to make Iyad Allawi, a former Ba'athist stooge President of Iraq under the interim government.  The decided to marginalize Ali Sistani and Ahemd Chalabi, and other pro-democracy figures who are legitimate American allies, not allies of convenience like Allawi, who didn't discover his love of America until the CIA tried to install him as President of Iraq nine years ago.  And what happens in the election?  Th supposedly unelectable Chalabi gets elected to the second highest position in parlaiment, and the supposedly radical cleric Sistani turns out to be a conciliator, while the supposedly popular Allawi is tossed out on his rear.  The administration's treatment of pro-democracy Iraqis has been inexcusable, its most egregious example their attempt to frame Ahmed Chalabi for espionage.

Even before that transfer of power, they made Paul Bremer the Viceroy of Iraq (First they had made Genral Garnr the Viceroy, but typical of their inept postwar plan, this on the fly move had to be rescinded).  His total inability to lead the reconstruction effort is what lost us control of post-war Iraq to begin with, and his flagrant disregard for managing emerging  threats in Iraq, such as the Mahdi militia, is in large part what has gotten us here.  Remember, it was not for a year after the statue of Saddam fell that there was any organized insurgency to speak of.  Under this man's nose it grew, and exploded on our television screens in April of 2004 with no warnings or premonitions.  When Paul Bremer scurried out of Iraq before his own deadline had even passed, they country lay in ruins, engulfed in violence, with a former Hussein stooge as the leader of interim government.  For this, George Bush handed Paul Bremer and his partner in crime, George Tenet, a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The adminstration's dealings with the insurgency are unforgivable.  They are totally disconnected from reality.  They have refsed to acknowledge the foreign domination of the insurgency's command structure, refused to acknowledge the role of Iran and Syria in ropogating the insurgency, refused to acknowledge the centrality of a military solution and the ineffectualness of political conciliation of rabid Jhadists.  They have soft pedalled every major military engagement with insurgents, most notably in Fallujah, where thousands of insurgents escaped the grips of US troops because the Administration chose to let them escape the city in advance of the American force.  How many car bombs and IEDs killing how many innocent Iraqis and brave Americans could have been stopped if George Bush had cared more about protecting this country than he did about what the New York Times would say about him the next morning?

Even during the invasion itself.  WHere was our finest Armored Division during the initial invasion?  It was on ships in the Red Sea!  After over a year of preparations, we had failed to secure Turkish consent to open a Northern Front, and as a result our too small invasion force was shrunk even further by careless diplomacy and poor planning.  And we failed to confront and smash the Iraqi Army itself.  Our light invasion force was deemed incapable of surviving a head on attack on the Republican Guard, so we tip toed around them, allowing thousands of dedicated Saddamites to take their guns and their military training and form the backbone of the early stage of the insurgnency.

While Bush has a PR problem, it is not his only problem.  He and his top ranking officials have proven themselves incompetent.  Mistake after mistake, and the response is not adjustments in strategy or a redication of prupose, but a recitation of talking points and new patronage to the same people who screwed up to begin with.  The buck has to stop somewhere, Mr. President.  I believe it stops with you.

[The Duke]

And also, public relations is an integral part of the conduct f the war, they can't be seperated.  The whole strategy of our enemies depends on public relations,on image, on making certain people feel a certain way.  How can we win a war of ideology when the leader of our side can't even express what we believe?

[12th Doctor]

Once again, I agree with all of your points, John.  I have brought them up myself.  And I also agree that PR is important to any war effort.  However, I don't see much point in harping on past failures and missed oppertunties, at least, not now.  Ten years from now, I would be happy to talk this up with you all day, but I don't see how ripping on the Administration right now does anyone much good.  Yes, we should learn from the mistakes of the past.  Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, McAurther, Churchill and others are probably rolling in their graves right now at how we let the Republican Gaurd go thinking that, if we just cut them off, then they wouldn't know what to do, and would surrender.  Hooker is a shinning exapmle of how movement alone in insuficient to secure victory.  Every little puke who goes to West Point shoudl know this.  Why they allowed them to esscape is beyond me (though I have heard that West Point has slacked off in the past 30 years when it comes to teaching the fundamentals of warfare).  The soldiers from the Privates to Tommy Franks have preformed magnificently, it is the guys at the Pentagon that I have lost faith in.  That includes the Cheifs of Staff (who after all of these years are still haunted by the specter of Vietnam) and the sub par Defense Secretary.  I don't expect Rumsfled to do everything 100% right, but I do expect him to learn from his mistakes, which I doubt he has.

The first year of the occupation was basically a waste of time.  However, one needs to put this in perspective.  When was the last time we acctually occupied a country?  A lot has changed since then.

As for the insurgency itself, I think the Bush Administration knows precisly where they are coming from.  They just don't know what to do about it except try to secure the boarder.  As for Fallujah, can you imagine what would have happened had we hit it hard and civilians would have been killed!?  We would never hear the end of it from the Liberals, the UN and the Muslim world.  We wouldn't be having this discussion right now, because President Kerry would be making arrangments for a pullout.  I agree that killing a couple hundred civilians then would have stopped the deaths of thousands later, but then that blood would have been on our hands, not the terrorists.

There have been plenty of mistakes that have been made to go around, but that has a tendency to happen in difficult times.  We'll get them.  We will win.  Almost all the factors, except American public support, are on our side.  The Iraqis are with us.  We just need to bear down.  If we do, 20 years from now, this might not be a text book case, but we will have a freer Middle East, an Iraqi ally and the judgement of history on our side (even if that judgement comes with a mouthful of criticism.

[CPT MikeyMike]

All that said, I have always believed and still believe that due to the incomparable greatness of the American soldier and the unquestionale decency of the cause he fights for, that we will win.  We will win, though, not because of Bush but in spite of him.  We will win because the American soldier is unbeatable on the field of battle. 

As an OIF vet and as a soldier that volunteered going back in 2 month. Thank you for your confidence in us.

I know that your opinion about the American soldier is absolutely correct. Of course, no soldier wants to go to war but it is our duty when it is called. Because of the training and skills the American soldier has, I know that we will prvail in Iraq. Granted there have been some bumps in the road, but clearly America is winning the war. Sadly, the liberal media failes to point out the success of how our military is conducting operations in Iraq.

[The Duke]

All that said, I have always believed and still believe that due to the incomparable greatness of the American soldier and the unquestionale decency of the cause he fights for, that we will win.  We will win, though, not because of Bush but in spite of him.  We will win because the American soldier is unbeatable on the field of battle. 

As an OIF vet and as a soldier that volunteered going back in 2 month. Thank you for your confidence in us.

I know that your opinion about the American soldier is absolutely correct. Of course, no soldier wants to go to war but it is our duty when it is called. Because of the training and skills the American soldier has, I know that we will prvail in Iraq. Granted there have been some bumps in the road, but clearly America is winning the war. Sadly, the liberal media failes to point out the success of how our military is conducting operations in Iraq.

Thank you for your service, sir.

[Emsworth]

I approve of the political and military handling of the war. However, I strongly disapprove the handling of fiscal issues associated with it. The building of the Iraqi infrastructure is not the responsibility of the American taxpayers.

[The Duke]

I approve of the political and military handling of the war. However, I strongly disapprove the handling of fiscal issues associated with it. The building of the Iraqi infrastructure is not the responsibility of the American taxpayers.

Well, we'll either pay for it in dollars or blood.  I choose dollars.

[Alcon]

Interestingly, the result for this poll is identical to the national poll numbers, save for 2% or so from both Approve and Disapprove going to Unsure.

[True Democrat]

Disapprove, but strongly approve of the War in Iraq.

[??????????]

Interestingly, the result for this poll is identical to the national poll numbers, save for 2% or so from both Approve and Disapprove going to Unsure.

Maybe so, but the polls should have been broken down better to account for answers like True Independents.

[Alcon]

Interestingly, the result for this poll is identical to the national poll numbers, save for 2% or so from both Approve and Disapprove going to Unsure.

Maybe so, but the polls should have been broken down better to account for answers like True Independents.

Why should it have been broken down?

The question is about Bush's handling of Iraq.  Support of the War in Iraq is an entirely different matter, and generally is asked seperately in polls.

[The Duke]

Interestingly, the result for this poll is identical to the national poll numbers, save for 2% or so from both Approve and Disapprove going to Unsure.

Maybe so, but the polls should have been broken down better to account for answers like True Independents.

Why should it have been broken down?

The question is about Bush's handling of Iraq.  Support of the War in Iraq is an entirely different matter, and generally is asked seperately in polls.

Yeah, but I think a lot of people in the media act like the two questions are the smae thing, and it creates a false impression of public opinion.