Bush Poll Numbers Rise With Progress Reports From Iraq

Fox News ^

[Sub-Driver]

Bush Poll Numbers Rise With Progress Reports From Iraq

Thursday , August 09, 2007

AP

WASHINGTON — Even some critics of President Bush's Iraq war policies are conceding there is evidence of recent improvements from a military standpoint. But Bush supporters and critics alike agree that these have not been matched by any noticeable progress on the political front.

Despite U.S. pressure, Iraq's parliament went on vacation for a month after failing to pass either legislation to share the nation's oil wealth or to reconcile differences among the factions. And nearly all Sunni representatives in the government have quit, undermining the legitimacy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite.

Still, there have been signs of changes in attitudes, some on the ground in Iraq, some in the United States:

[11th Commandment]

Big question is why the President did not surge after the 2004 election and waited until both houses were lost in 2006????

Now politics aside, this shows that when the US Military is allowed to win, it does. Unofficial reports have insurgent kills at 250 per day. How long will families in Iran, SA and Syria tolerate sons and brother not coming home? However, the long-term prospect are not as good as a central Iraq government is proving inept to hold the country together.

[RexBeach]

What are the approval numbers on the Congress these days?

[yldstrk]

A leader with intestinal fortitude.

[RexBeach]

Holy cow! That’s one helluva a kill ratio!

[reagan_fanatic]

Look for a whole slew of negative articles from the DBM to counter this. They will not let this stand.

[SolidWood]

As I said on another thread, the Dems are changing their tactic to force our withdrawal. They will applaude the Surge, even lay claim on it, cheer our troops etc., while at the same time focusing their talking points and “criticism” (hate and rage) against the Iraqis themselves. The new Dem line will be that Iraq isn’t worth our effort. The Maliki Government IS weak and likely to be replaced by a new coalition, but this is NOT a reason for us to withdraw. We have to stay, and stay long, regardless of current political problems among the Iraqis.

[Mygirlsmom]

"The administration is aggressively engaged in shifting (public) attitudes. And our side has been less aggressive than it needs to be," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "

I realize that this is redundant, but we are AT WAR, and one party believes it is their JOB to aggressively shift attitudes against the country's victory???? It scares me to no end that so many people blindly accept what these monsters have become.

[KC_Conspirator]

2005 and 2006 were lost years. Bush and the GOP failed to deliver on hardly any campaign promises and were too busy cutting deals with one another.

[SolidWood]

I agree. Afterwards we’re all smarter, but we could have get Iran done in 2006 had the Israel-Hezbullah conflict been escalated properly, instead of imposing an UN administered time-out which will only benefit the Iranian-Syrian scheme.

[sanchmo]

Summer soldiers and sunshine patriots.

It’s unbelieveable how wildly “support for the war” swings based on the previous day’s headlines.

A republic... if we can keep it. < sigh />

[ghostrider]

Give Bush the credit for getting leading the US Military to victory or to defeat. He should also get the credit for leading the illegal immigrant invasion of the USA (a deed that would have been considered treasonous pre Fonda/Kerry/clinton).

[KriegerGeist]

"...this shows that when the US Military is allowed to win, it does. Unofficial reports have insurgent kills at 250 per day. How long will families in Iran, SA and Syria tolerate sons and brother not coming home?

I agree. From the news I read and hear though, that its the 'roadside bombs' and IEDs are still the major problem and cause of danger and death for our troops. Syria and Iran do not seem to be running low on their suppply of those. I just wish our military could be fully equipped with the new MRAP vehicles replacing ALL Humvees yesterday. Maybe even the new and improved body armor as well...

[tobyhill]

President Bush’s poll numbers going up, time to pump out the world is ending, Iraq is going to hell, Bush’s fault stories.

[Badeye]

‘Big question is why the President did not surge after the 2004 election and waited until both houses were lost in 2006????’

I’ve concluded its a direct result of his involvement in Baseball.

In the wake of the 2004 race, the President found himself sitting on a pretty impressive ‘lead’ holding the House, Senate, and of course his job.

So he played ‘not to lose’.

And by doing so, lost all momentum.

See it in baseball all the time, and football as well. Teams trying to sit on a lead, and end up losing as a result.

[FlipWilson]

There will never be any progress on Iraq so long as the President allows the democrats to keep moving the goal posts. Progress and success will constantly be redefined so that there is none and never can be any. The President failed to stop the dems from doing this before and simply can’t afford to now.

[FlipWilson]

Quote: “President Bush’s poll numbers going up, time to pump out the world is ending, Iraq is going to hell, Bush’s fault stories.”

Oh, but they have been. Everything is Iraq to the democrats. It is ALL they have. Stub a toe, get fired from your job, lose your car keys, it rains, it can all be traced back to Iraq. For example: A bridge collapses, thee is not enough money for crumbling infrastructure, that is because ALL (cough, cough) our money being spent on Iraq, Bush sent us into Iraq, ergo its Bush’s fault the bridge collapsed.

Here is an even better example: College teens murdered execution style in Newark, why aren’t there more police on the streets, the National guard should patrol the streets, but they are ALL (cough, cough) in Iraq, George Bush got us into Iraq, ergo the teens being murdered is George Bush’s fault. (I kid you not, I heard this insane logic on Jersey 101.5 Monday morning driving to work.)

[LS]

The thing is, my research has shown we ALWAYS have been killing a couple hundred of these guys a day when you combine Afghanistan and Iraq---for about four years. The media totally ignored it, or tried to conceal the numbers through the use of the term "civilians." But the Iraqi morgues clearly delineate between civilians and "other." The "other" is about 40,000 (combined in Iraq and Afghan) since 9/11---and that's just the number killed. I calculate we've wounded 200,000 (a lower wounded-to-kill ratio than our own troops because we have superior medical services); captured 25,000; and caused some 10,000 or more to desert.

Pres. Bush admitted to me in our meeting last year that he well knows these numbers, but that the government, "because of Vietnam," can't tout these.

[LS]

"Weak" compared to what? Maybe to us. But consider that France had its revolution in 1789. They didn't have a government that wasn't racked by civil war until the 1890s!!! And they didn't truly get a stable government until the 5th Republic in the late 1950s. England had its Magna Charta in 1215, but was still having civil wars 400 years later.

So, lessee, we expect the Iraqis to do what neither the French or the English did?

[LS]

Good analogy. We’ve said time and again that while the “new tone” may have been necessary for a short time, right after 9/11 it should have been ditched for an all-out propaganda offensive, against anyone who would stand in the way of victory.