Bush would answer pollster "No" if he was polled on whether he approved of Iraq

[Thorgrim]

"I am frustrated with the progress. If you were to take it and put me in an opinion poll and said do I approve of Iraq, I'd be one of those that said, no, I don't."

-- President Bush, in an interview on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

It makes you think, if BUSH would say he didn't approve of how things were going in Iraq...who the hell would? Who are these people who are approving, what kind of mindset could they possibly have...maybe they turned off the TV in 2003 and stopped reading any news? Are we polling hermits in Wyoming?

[ballz2wallz]

If you were to poll me and ask me if I was satisfied with my experiments and the way they were progressing, I'd say no. Cause they're not going well. But that's why you keep pushing, keep trying, and keep working at it, because one day they will.

Who IS satisfied with the way things in Iraq are, when they're not going according to plan?

And what's the point of this thread?

[motivez]

That some people are actually satisfied with the [lack of] progress being made in Iraq. I mean, I'm guessing it's just very partisan Republicans who don't really keep up much with the news saying yes at this point.

I'm just glad that finally most people are seeing what others have been saying for several years now about the situation there rather than trying to cover it up with politics and rhetoric.

It's going bad, and now even the President admits it.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

That some people are actually satisfied with the [lack of] progress being made in Iraq. I mean, I'm guessing it's just very partisan Republicans who don't really keep up much with the news saying yes at this point.

I'm just glad that finally most people are seeing what others have been saying for several years now about the situation there rather than trying to cover it up with politics and rhetoric.

It's going bad, and now even the President admits it.

The difference is, what now? Some people think that when something doesn't go right, it's time to give up, while others think that it just means you need to keep trying.

You know the who wants what I believe.

[motivez]

I don't think anyone wants to give up, but rather put the onus of responsibility on the Iraqi's.

We've paid a heavy price and if the Iraqi's are not willing to stand up and do their part, should we continue to pay that heavy price in the face of that? Or should we say, well, we've given you the tools and will continue to give you support when needed, but it's your country and your time to sink or swim?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think anyone wants to give up, but rather put the onus of responsibility on the Iraqi's.

We've paid a heavy price and if the Iraqi's are not willing to stand up and do their part, should we continue to pay that heavy price in the face of that? Or should we say, well, we've given you the tools and will continue to give you support when needed, but it's your country and your time to sink or swim?

If they need more troops, what do we need to do? Give them more troops. That's the only option. To suggest we should prevent that is preposterous.

[motivez]

Sorry, but we've given them more troops plenty of times, and in fact, we've run this same scenario before.. guess what? It failed and the violence continued to increase.

I posted some articles about it in one of the other threads, I don't think repeating the same plan as before is going to have a different outcome this time, because it hasn't in other times.

This is the exact same thing that's been happening all along though. We've said, hey this isn't working, and other people have said, well, lets stay the course and maybe it'll start working at some point.

But the reality is, as long as we're always the ones doing the hard work and making the tough decisions for the Iraqi's it's never going to change. At least not in any reasonable time period.

Bush has said now that it's not an open ended commitment, but so far we've shown them that we're never going to leave if they don't make hard decisions and step up, so what incentive do they have to start cracking down on the militias, etc?

[ballz2wallz]

Different day, different scenario.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The difference is, what now? Some people think that when something doesn't go right, it's time to give up, while others think that it just means you need to keep trying.

You know the who wants what I believe.

What now? You either DOUBLE or TRIPLE your efforts of you give the fuck up. Neither of those are happening.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Who IS satisfied with the way things in Iraq are, when they're not going according to plan?

And what's the point of this thread?

I would probably poll the same. But don't give the President points for honesty. The same guy who has been accused endlessly of being the blind "stay the course" guy.

The fact is the poll data is what he would say as a citizen. He understands the frustration even with Republicans. It is not just the anti-war far left although they are far less honest in their critique which began even before the war started. What someone polls is not what needs to be considered by responcible leadership. Future conflict with the Middle East that could involve many more American lives are the stakes here. Bush thinks he is doing the right thing as elected even if it makes him look bad at the moment and may tarnish his legacy.

That is about as un-poll driven a Presidency as we have seen since the last one!

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

That is about as un-poll driven a Presidency as we have seen since the last one!

[RMNIXON]

She is Good:




WASHINGTON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday the United States should cut funding for Iraq and its military if Iraq's leaders fail to give the minority Sunnis a greater role in government.



Clinton, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, also said she opposed President George W. Bush's plan to add 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq, in part because it would siphon off U.S. military strength from Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents have been intensifying their attacks.


"He's taking troops away from Afghanistan, where I think we need to be putting more troops, and sending them to Iraq on a mission that I think has a very limited, if any, chance for success," the New York senator said on NBC's "Today" show.


Clinton, who visited Baghdad and Kabul last week, said previous attempts to cajole Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim leaders to compromise with the Sunni Muslims have failed.

__________________________________________________ _______________


This steers her clear of the Murtha "pullout Now" crowd and also adds that Afghanistan diversion to look tough on terror.

Honest Reporter:

So if troops can't stop the IED bombers in Iraq how can they do it in Afghanistan? Why should the Afghanistan government not be responcible for security after all this time? Will you send troops into the hostile Tribal Afghan/Pakistan border area to get Osama?


Senator:

[ballz2wallz]

We should cut funding if they fail to run their government the way we want them to?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

We should cut funding if they fail to run their government the way we want them to?

This is the kind of government we want to fund with billions of dollars?

Why not spend the money on funding an international force to stop the genocide in Darfur? You know, real good will instead of knocking over governments to try and show the world how cool we are

Why not send more money to Afghanistan so the Taliban resurgence is stopped?

Al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, was quoted in The New York Times and other publications as saying Israel was the aggressor in the Mideast conflict with Hezbollah, the Iranian- and Syrian-backed terror group that has been launching rockets from southern Lebanon. The ongoing conflict began two weeks ago when Hezbollah terrorists crossed the northern Israeli border, kidnapped two soldiers and killed three others.

"The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure,” al-Maliki is quoted in the paper as saying last Wednesday during a news conference in Baghdad. “I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression.”

During breakfast with congressional leaders Wednesday, al-Maliki said he didn’t support any terrorist group. He repeated that statement during his speech.

But Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., speaking after the address, said he asked al-Maliki directly if he believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and the prime minister wouldn't respond, and furthermore, questioned Durbin's right to ask him the question.

"I said, you raised criticism of Israel in this conflict, I think it is logical, it is reasonable to ask him what is your impression of their enemy in this struggle, Hezbollah. He still refused to reply to that," Durbin said.

Durbin also brought up comments by Iraqi Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who was quoted last week saying that Jews are to blame for all of Iraq's problems.

Durbin said Mashhadani said "outrageous things, not only about Israel and Jewish people, but even about America.

"To have a leader in the government so critical of the United States, which has given so much in defense of democracy in Iraq, is troubling," he added.

FOXNews.com - Iraqi Leader Tries to Reassure Congress About Hezbollah - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

This is the kind of government we want to fund with billions of dollars?

Why not spend the money on funding an international force to stop the genocide in Darfur? You know, real good will instead of knocking over governments to try and show the world how cool we are

Why not send more money to Afghanistan so the Taliban resurgence is stopped?



FOXNews.com - Iraqi Leader Tries to Reassure Congress About Hezbollah - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

So now you want a puppet government in Iraq?

We send money to many countries we don't necessarily agree with. I'm all for not sending money to anybody, but that'll never happen. Don't talk to me about what kind of government we fund in Iraq. You're just searching for ammo to attack the GOP and Iraq with.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So now you want a puppet government in Iraq?

We send money to many countries we don't necessarily agree with. I'm all for not sending money to anybody, but that'll never happen. Don't talk to me about what kind of government we fund in Iraq. You're just searching for ammo to attack the GOP and Iraq with.

We don't send over a trillion to the countries you are thinking of...not even close

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Different day, different scenario.

Not really, as pointed out in the article I posted in the other thread, this type of escalation with this exact type of mission in the exact same locations has been tried before with resounding failure.

The Iraqi's are going to have to be able to do it if we ever want anything resembling success to come out of there.

In your mind, what does it take for us to pull out if the Iraqi's continue to fail to live up to their responsibilities and obligations to move forward and meet timetables for specific things?

Number of troops, control over area of the city, dismantling of the militias, etc?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

"I am frustrated with the progress. If you were to take it and put me in an opinion poll and said do I approve of Iraq, I'd be one of those that said, no, I don't."

-- President Bush, in an interview on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

It makes you think, if BUSH would say he didn't approve of how things were going in Iraq...who the hell would? Who are these people who are approving, what kind of mindset could they possibly have...maybe they turned off the TV in 2003 and stopped reading any news? Are we polling hermits in Wyoming?

Bush doesn't approve of his job performance? Then why should anyone else? I don't take this response as being only inclusive of Iraq is doing poorly, so we need to fix it. I take it as admitting failure, something people have wanted to hear for a long time. It also shows that he doesn't have a solution. If he's saying he doesn't "approve" of Iraq he's not just saying he doesn't approve with the state of Iraq. That's an all inclusive statement. We don't have the quote in full context, but as presented it's an all-inclusive statement. That's a huge undertaking for a President to make during a time of war. And it greater shows why we need the Democrats to start getting their hand in Iraq, because obviously Bush and the GOP are confused.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

And it greater shows why we need the Democrats to start getting their hand in Iraq, because obviously Bush and the GOP are confused.

Check out my other threads on the De