Posted on 08/23/2006 8:52:59 AM PDT by angcat
SOME WEDNESDAY SPIN! Most in US see no tie between Iraq, terror war: poll Tue Aug 22, 10:29 PM ET A majority of Americans no longer see a link between the war in Iraq and Washington's broader anti-terrorism efforts despite President George W. Bush's insistence the two are intertwined, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Tuesday. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said the war in Iraq was separate from the U.S. government's war on terrorism. The findings were a considerable shift from polls taken in 2002 and early 2003, when a majority considered the two to be linked, The New York Times said. As recently as June, opinion was evenly split, with 41 percent on both sides of the divide. Now only 32 percent considered Iraq to be a major part of the fight against terrorism, the newspaper said. According to the poll, 46 percent said the Bush administration had concentrated too heavily on Iraq and not enough on terrorists elsewhere. Fifty-three percent said going to war in the first place was a mistake, up from 48 percent in July, The New York Times said. Bush's approval ratings remained unchanged at 36 percent. His popularity has been damaged by the unpopular war in Iraq, in which the U.S. military death toll is 2,610. As recently as Monday, Bush defended the invasion of Iraq as crucial to preventing more domestic terror attacks. "If you believe that the job of the federal government is to secure this country, it's really important for you to understand that success in Iraq is part of securing the country," Bush said during a news conference. The unpopularity of the Iraq war has many Republicans nervous about the party's chances in the November midterm elections in which Democrats are seeking to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. The Times/CBS News poll of 1,206 adults was conducted Thursday through Monday and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
MARK STEYN!!!
That is simply awesome.
[...demonstrations are the way our side fixes that...]
Really? Maybe we don't work through demonstrations,
but the recent Islmofascists, Mexican invaders and Gay
protests tell me that maybe we should work through
protest. Because these groups are gaining influence
through intimidation. Every politician I know is afraid
of these groups because legally or not, they VOTE!
Okay, Teresa...go eat some gin-soaked raisins and take a chill pill!
Sounds like most of us when we started out. My first 2 jobs out of high screwal had no health care. I didn't get health care until I joined the military at 22.
So what's the point? If we made it, they will too.
Shoot, I missed the whole thing!!! Work is getting in the way of my FReeping.
Thank you. It's frustrating because it's so unrealistic. One lameo poll and somehow we're to believe that the conservative majority has flaked out and thrown out their values with the bathwater to pick Giuliani. Garbage.
LOL
WABC had the Bush lover in New Orleans! I'm shocked! Rocky is his name.
I was wondering if I heard that right... Mark Steyn is a guest host? WooHoo!
Sure you did...you said Rush was "out of touch"...same as saying young people shouldn't work for what they have, which is same as saying I should pay for your/their health problems.
I agree Jo!
Correct. I am hoping against hope for a candidate who will actually carry on this fight, and in a very vigorous way. We can carry on the fight on the social issues, and I am sure we will. Look at the long, hard slog on abortion, but we are winning public opinion, I believe. In the White House, we need a warrior, and a very persuasive one.
Zell is more of a Republican then Giuliani. Nice as he is, Giuliani is a typical liberal New Englander RINO. All the angst and frustration towards Senate RINOs by the majority of Republican voters is the FACT I choose to stand by. Those same millions of Republicans who are so frustrated by RINOs in the Senate, will not pick a RINO for President who will oppose all the same legislation that they are frustrated that the RINO Senators oppose. It's a total lack of logic in the argument.
NO NO today is open line Friday!
I know he does guestt appearances.
Heck, the way he writes, he could be slubbering stutterer and I'd still tune in.
Hi AQ. I'm still working on that test.
Totally. Even taking into consideration Newt's issue in the 90s that cost him his SOTH position, he's a strong conservative that has been outspoken on social conservative issues for decades, during and after his days in office. Newt's no RINO.
So as President, we're supposed to believe that Giuliani would nominate Judges that disagree with him on issues, because he said so, while seeking the office. I have two problems with that. No Preisdent has knowingly ever nominated Judges who disagree with their positions, from any party, and it's not new for people to say things to get in office. He said that because it's what he knows most Republicans want conservative Judges. I can't think of a single pro-choice pro-gay marriage RINO that ever strongly supported conservative constructionist Judges. And no President has ever done that. Their nominees always share their positions, and Giuliani is a RINO who is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.
There is more at stake. And handing the White House to a RINO isn't the way to get it done. There has been plenty done in spite of RINOs in the House and Senate and in spite of the Democrat liberals. Taxes which spurred the economy and shrank the deficit, Judges, and immigration and border control and abortion and traditional marriage legislation that would have passed without RINO opposition. RINO's are part of the problem, not the solution and Giuliani is a RINO. It's that simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.