Posted on 01/22/2007 3:47:39 PM PST by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
We can win and we must win..
I am certain that we did not lose the war in numbers of enemy combattants killed and that we could have killed many more if our Armed Forces would have been allowed to fight a more total war as we did in WWII.
But if victory means the lasting establishment of an American-style democracy, I am afraid that we will fall short of that intention. Notice, for example, the exodus of Christians from Iraq. Does that give an indication of democracy?
Look around in the Middle East and notice the absence of a democracy - with the exception of Israel. Why should Iraq be different from the rest of its neighbors to the east, south and west? Even during the time of the Shah, who we supported, Iran was not a democracy and yet the country functioned.
Democracy, just because it works in the US, is not necessarily the ideal form of government in the Middle East. Many Muslim countries want to establish sharia law which is totally opposed to any form of democracy.
Getting back to those fleeing Christians. Ask them if they'd prefer Iraqi "democracy" or Saddam Hussein and you'll get a more realistic answer.
It has always been so. A small percentage of people are able to see what needs to be done and are willing to do it. The majority don't want to be bothered or don't want to acknowledge the problem. That's why strong, principled, visionary leaders are so important - to make the majority see the problem, and if not support then at the very least not obstruct efforts to do the right thing.
With the MSM directing the hearts and minds of so many it's a very difficult thing to do.
"A better plan: fight the Islamists HERE and to hell with civilizing the ones over there."
BRAVO!!
Then let them die for their freedom, not us. More Europeans than not would rather spit on Americans. They are free because of us. Maybe if they paid with their blood, they would have more respect for us.
I support the war in Iraq, and am willing to have my taxes cut if that's what it takes to pay for it!
even after Bush having explained that it would be a LONG, HARD fight. People are so caught up in instant gratification that the thought of anything taking longer than a microwave dinner their tiny heads.
yes
I couldn't agree more. If only we had one in the White Hosue.
1) Multiple worthless UN resolutions kept this game going way too long.
2) There were WMDs in Iraq. Parts of the report were released by Senator Santorum last June. Everyone wanted to say the WMDs were "old," "degraded," or "not enough to constitute a stockpile."
Well, my friend, one drop of nerve gas can kill and there are a lot of drops in a shell. As for the degraded argument, there are tons of "degraded" chemical weapons not far from my home in Edgewood Arsenal/Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. They are much older than anything Saddam had. If "degraded" munitions are so "harmless" why would they need to be stored here in secure areas? Prior to 911, 60 Minutes did a story on US chemical weapons storage and the hazards leaking munitions posed.
3) Madhi Obeidi, Saddam's nuke mastermind, wrote a book on how he was ordered to conceal the plans he had in his own backyard so they could be used when the time was right. Freeper jveritas has translated many, many documents on Saddam's duplicity in his quest to hide his secrets.
4) We didn't need to invade Iraq to become unpopular with the world. The UN Oil for Food scandal showed open defiance and corruption among our so-called allies. Forbidden materials, up to and including weapons, were supplied to Saddam right to before hostilities began.
5) Whether he had anything to do with 9/11 or not, Hussein still sponsored terrorism. Various thugs, including Abu Nidal and Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, found refuge in Iraq before the invasion. Not much happened in that country without Saddam's knowledge or approval. The finacial support of "martyrs" in the Palestinian intifada.
6) In the SOTU just after 9/11, the President first made mention of the Axis of Evil, which included Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He was roundly criticized for making such inflammatory remarks. Events have proven his assessment of these nations to be correct. I wish he included Syria and maybe Pakistan.
We now have Iran surrounded on both sides between Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe they were the target all along, but that's just my opinion.
Funny thing was, Bush 41 received criticism in the 90s for not taking Saddam out. Once Iraq was invaded in 2003, the same critics said Bush 41 had the wisdom not to get bogged down in this kind of fight. There are many more points to the argument, but we've covered a good bit and I'm not the best typist. Others can bring more points to the debate. Suffice it to say, it could have been executed better, but I do think it was and will be worth it in the long run.
Turkey and Iran would have to be considered partially successful democracies, or at least the best in the region, excluding Israel. Turkey's is purely secular and Iran's has an Islamic bent, as the Ayatollah and Council of Experts have final say.
Ahmadinejad's party just was trounced in local elections a few weeks ago. The people regard him as an idiot for antagozing the world and also because of his failed economic policies.
The worldwide hatred concept is crap, because the hatred was already there. Middle easterners protested with Clinton's caricature on banners just as they do Bush today. Growth of hatred is the result of the media coverage not the event itself.
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.