Nearly two-thirds in U.S. have given up on Iraq (two-thirds of U.S. are losers)

MSNBC ^ | 1/22/2007 | Mark Murray

[tobyhill]

WASHINGTON - When President Bush delivers his next-to-last State of the Union address Tuesday night, he will confront this reality, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans appear to have given up on success in Iraq and also on his presidency.

In addition, the poll finds that nearly another two-thirds believe he shouldn’t move ahead with his troop increase to Iraq, if Congress passes a non-binding resolution opposing it. And it shows that just two in 10 want Bush taking the lead role in setting policy for the country.

“Essentially, the president is really in the cellar of public opinion,” says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this poll with Republican Bill McInturff. “As he faces the audience for his State of the Union, he’s going to find a mood dramatically different to the mood that greeted him at his second inaugural.”

[Austin Willard Wright]

If two thirds of Americans have given up on LBJ's War on Poverty, does that mean that two thirds of Americans are "losers?"

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"This is your problem and not mine."

Perhaps he just understands Islam better than you do.

[Tarpon]

I gave up on MSNBC as a credible news organization long ago.

[Porterville]

1/2 of the nation are fools. .

[FreedomNeocon]

So we need to fight Sadr, huh? He represents a good chunk of the people we liberated.

You know this wasn't planned very well when we find ourselves having to fight those we freed.

The more posts I read of your the dumber/trollish you sound.

Stop oversimplifying EVERYTHING to the n'th degree.

We liberated MILLIONS of people, including Sadr but not FOR Sadr. Furthermore, the fact that he is an enemy of ours does not come CLOSE to invalidating the original action.

Only in an almost psychotically myopic world where issues are pre-warped to offend you at maximum efficiency could you hold your various POV's stated in this thread

[sport]

That is exactly what the muslims and Democrats want them to do.

This tells the muslims that if they keep fighting and killing American Servicemen/women long enough that the American public will grow tired and demand we stop fighting.

This is why it is important for us to stay in Iraq and Afganistan too for that matter.

Anyone who believes that if we only withdraw our troops from iraq and Afganistan that the muslims will stop fighting us and begin loving us is, at best delusional and at worse certifible insane.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"This is why it is important for us to stay in Iraq and Afganistan too for that matter."

What is important is that we NOT fight this as some war of attrition, but actually fight it as a WAR. One where we don't prosecute our Marines at the drop of a hat....

[tobyhill]

Saddam was never contained, while under a cease fire he continually shot at our jets performing their jobs, he publicly declared war on us 3 times, he at least knew of terrorist training camps in Iraq, he kicked the weapon's inspectors out in '98, he thumbed his nose at every UN resolution while stealing from his own people's mouths and he had a track record of using WMD and invading sovereign countries.

[edpc]

What game? Containment?

Saddam's WMD....he refused to use them in 1991 as we sped towards Baghdad. He wasn't about to pass them on to terror groups, IMO.

And if it's terror supporters you're after, why not start with the Saudis? It ain't Iraqi oil money that funds the Wahabbi mosques in the UK, US and Europe.

Containment was not the agreement of the 1991 cease-fire. Disarmament was. He did not fully comply.

The coalition forces turned back 150 miles from Baghdad. Had they moved closer, or into the city, who knows what Hussein would have done. During the 2003 invasion, he knew he had nothing to lose. Many surmised the Iraqi field commanders feared war crimes trial if they used their chemical weapons, so they dumped them. Here is an excerpt from CNN April 2003:

On the outskirts of that complex, they found a large supply of chemical warfare suits. These are believed to have belonged to the Republican Guards. There were the chem suits, the boots, the masks, the canisters and atropine, the medication that would be applied if you had been exposed to nerve agents. Iraqis appeared to have been prepared for chemical warfare.

We certainly didn't have chemical weapons in theater....what were their concerns?

As far as terrorist supporters go, I am inclined to believe many other Middle East nations are involved. Pakistan, who I mentioned earlier, is also a problem, IMO.

I would have no problem with punitive action against nations like Saudi Arabia. We would have to drill ANWR and make synthetic oil from our large coal deposits before we isolated Saudi Arabia and Iran. It's a large cosmic joke much of the world's oil supply is located in the Middle East, but that's reality. Broad spectrum action like that has consequences. One thing at a time.

[SpringheelJack]

No, of course not.

Iran has always been recognized as the bigger threat ultimately, and I think one of the main calculations among administration officials who pushed for the war was that a free, democratic Iraq would provide us a heavy weight with which to lean on Iran. It's certainly something that I was thinking.

Well, so much for that. Iran's nuclear ambitions have now become uncontainable. We're stretched thin as it is, and with Iraq a mess, and Afghanistan slowly teetering towards instability, we have no big stick to wave at the Iranians. After the popped WMD balloon, pre-emptive war is a political non-starter --- it'll be 30 years before anyone can even broach it without being sneered off a podium.

People will pound their fists and declare how we're going to blow up Iran's weapons program, or how Israel's going to do the job for us, but it's a lot of empty bravado. I'm afraid it's actually reached the point where we're just going to have to hope and pray that the mullahs in Iran don't do anything crazy with their nuclear bomb. Feel safer? Neither do I.

[FreedomNeocon]

Oh yeah.. the "every Muslim must be an enemy" crowd. I have no love for you people either. The Dubai ports hysteria and all that.

I'm not a naive lib... I know there is MAJOR problem with Islam today. But I don't see how people like you can be so willing to force those that aren't to become so.

I mean.. hey your a cynic... ok... how about I put it this way. Why don't you try to 'pick off' half of Muslims who believe all the Islamic things but not the parts about blowing up in the name of God? Why do you DEMAND they all be enemies, could it be just so your preconcpetsions are?

I know alot of 'sick' conservatives who, now that the democarats are in power, are falling into that trap. Hoping things go to hell and everything sucks, just so they can be proven right about 'democrat leadership'.

I'm just different... not special, I think (hope) there are millions like me, never hope for bad things (even to validate yourself), rather spend your time trying to avoid bad things (even if it prevents the eventual validation of your prediction)

[sport]

I agree. You get no arguement from me.

[rrrod]

I know I will take flak on this but this war was won in 90 days. Period. You cannot teach an alligator to be a lap dog. The PC crap for the last two years is driving the ops down.

Our troops are hand cuffed by the admins mentality of putting democracy in a mussie country....aint gonna work.

Almost 20 years in the ME experience including time in Iraq before Saddam.

[cripplecreek]

Personally I feel that our current problems are rooted in the early days. We needed a hard occupation of the place immediately and we just didn't have it.

[Recovering_Democrat]

In addition, the poll finds that nearly another two-thirds believe he shouldn’t move ahead with his troop increase to Iraq, if Congress passes a non-binding resolution opposing it. And it shows that just two in 10 want Bush taking the lead role in setting policy for the country...

The same mood Harry Truman saw at the end of his Presidency. Pathetic. But, it just goes to show how fickle the public can be when hard choices are made.

Nevertheless, Bush is following the right path when it comes to fighting terrorism. And he has remained essentially the same on that issue--when he was at 90% and now when he is at 30%.

I think history will look well upon him for this issue, and disdainfully upon the liberals and Democrats who care more about their power than saving American lives.

[FreedomNeocon]

"This is your problem and not mine."

Perhaps he just understands Islam better than you do.

Well thats fine... if you are Pat Buchanon isolationist paleoconservative then fine. Just say so.

Don't come out acting like a democrat saying that somehow you were 'tricked' or 'lied' to, somehow fooled into this "obvious quagmire", which was a big mistake.

If you supported it then, and are suddenly isolationist because it got hard, then you are no better than the libs in my book. (well ok you are, but not on this issue)

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Oh yeah.. the "every Muslim must be an enemy" crowd. I have no love for you people either. The Dubai ports hysteria and all that."

I see you have your own version of reality, then....

"I know there is MAJOR problem with Islam today."

There ALWAYS HAS BEEN a problem with Islam.

"Why don't you try to 'pick off' half of Muslims who believe all the Islamic things but not the parts about blowing up in the name of God?"

That IS the "Islamic things".

" God? Why do you DEMAND they all be enemies, could it be just so your preconcpetsions are?"

Why don't you try a little research.

"Hoping things go to hell and everything sucks, just so they can be proven right about 'democrat leadership'."

We don't hope that at all. In fact, we're actively fighting people like you - Wilsonian liberal Republicans - for control of this party.

"
I'm just different... not special, I think (hope) there are millions like me, never hope for bad things (even to validate yourself), rather spend your time trying to avoid bad things (even if it prevents the eventual validation of your prediction)"

If you desire peace, prepare for war. Your pollyannish view of the world is naive.

As to Iraq, the best endgame we can hope for in that theater or operations in this larger war is a relatively free Kurdistan. You can NOT have a free country with Islam in its constitution. The two are diametric opposites. Perhaps you could be bothered to research Kemalism? I'm betting not.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Well thats fine... if you are Pat Buchanon isolationist paleoconservative then fine. Just say so."

I've studied Islam since 9/11. You have not.

"Don't come out acting like a democrat saying that somehow you were 'tricked' or 'lied' to, somehow fooled into this "obvious quagmire", which was a big mistake."

Not prosecuting this like a real WAR was the mistake. Conservatives take issue with the Iraq operation for different reasons than liberals.

"If you supported it then, and are suddenly isolationist because it got hard, then you are no better than the libs in my book. (well ok you are, but not on this issue)"

You are no better than the libs in my book. You are unwilling to even entertain the possibility that this PC approach to war is not likely to lead to an actual victory.

[TADSLOS]

The media, their liberal handlers and terrorists successfully woo the sheeple to their demise.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Personally I feel that our current problems are rooted in the early days. We needed a hard occupation of the place immediately and we just didn't have it."

Indeed. Part of it, I think, is the narcissistic mindset of most Muslims. The "Allah wills it" thing. WE didn't liberate them from Saddam. Allah willed it. Much the same as the 9/11 hijacker who claimed he wanted to kill Americans because of the Balkans - a situation where Clinton had us on HIS side. Of course, you see, Allah willed it. We had nothing to do with it, so no gratitude or recognition is required. We're still the Infidel. Still the kafir. Still the Great Satan.

Yes, they may be glad to be rid of Saddam, but that doesn't mean they all like us. It also doesn't mean they suddenly have the intellectual tradition capable of using Democracy to institute a republican form of government. Democracy is no guarantee of freedom on its own, you see...