Polls mean nothing, in 6 months they will be back in the Bush Administration's favor and then back down again. If Dems do not want another Vietnam then why don't they support Bush, why don't they want to finish the job in Irag, Why do they instead go to Arab countries and speak out against America (Al Gore).:dis: Why don't they unite Americans and beat these terrorist bastards. Why, because they hate Bush that's why. They hate Bush so much that they are willing to lay down and get beat by a bunch of terrorist thugs. "Bring the troops home" that's their answer. Yea that is reallll smart? Lets tuck our tail and run home. That way some islamic extremist can take over Iraq and America will definitely get hit again.:dis: Why don't you dems support Bush, support America, so we can kick these terrorist in the ass! Then after we beat the s*** out of them, to make you dems happy we can form committees and talk about s***.:thumb:
It's not bi-partisan. Look inside the numbers (page 10 of poll results) and you'll see that 60% of republicans support Bush's handling of Iraq while only 10% of dems support it. I'm no pollster, but it's interesting that this poll surveyed (page 18 of the poll report) 409 democrats, 337 independents and only 272 republicans. Look at the details of all the questions and you'll see nothing bi-partisan about these results. The only bi-partisan response that stood out to me was the question about how congress is handling its job ... all agree they are doing a lousy job.
Though President Bush's approval rating, in a new CBS News poll released Monday night, was just one point lower than where it stood in October -- and thus well within the poll's three-point margin of error, Bob Schieffer teased the CBS Evening News by declaring: "There is little to celebrate at the White House where public dissatisfaction, that began with the handling of Hurricane Katrina, has driven President Bush's approval ratings to an all-time low" of 34 percent. It stood at 35 percent in CBS's October 2005 survey. Left unmentioned: How the poll-takers questioned many more Democrats than Republicans. A PDF posting of poll results lists 409 Democratic respondents versus 272 Republican respondents. CBS "weighted" the results to effectively count 289 Republicans versus 381 Democrats. And while in a couple of minutes of network air time you can hardly be expected to recite every poll finding, CBS managed to skip over several numbers which demonstrated the disconnect between the public and the national press corps. On "media coverage of Cheney hunting accident," for instance, the public overwhelmingly repudiated -- by three-to-one -- the media's obsession: 66 percent said the media devoted "too much time" compared to a piddling 22 percent who thought the press allocated the "right amount of time." Source: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060228.asp
since this is still being discussed I did a search for an interview for the author of this book Im reading. It was on the news about a month ago but surely it doesnt get enough play. Looks like SF's boy Hannity had him on the show which i rarely watch though occassionally I hear some of his radio bit. anyhow I suggest anyone interested in the WMD debate to pick it up. Its a quick and compelling read. Certainly has pre-war info that jives (i hate the word jibes) with about everything that was going down painting a better picture. SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: He was one of Saddam Hussein's top military advisors and the only man who disagreed with the dictator and lived to tell about it. Now Iraqi General George Sada is breaking his silence with a new book, "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein." General, when did you come to the United States? GEORGE SADA, AUTHOR, "SADDAM'S SECRETS": Well, I came two years ago. HANNITY: And up to that point, you were in Iraq? SADA: Yes, I was in Iraq. HANNITY: And you were Saddam Hussein's top military advisor? SADA: Yes, I was No. 2 in the air force. HANNITY: And how many years did you work under him? SADA: I worked since the revolution of 1968. HANNITY: From the beginning? SADA: Yes. I was retired in '86 and then I was recalled again when Iraq invaded Kuwait. HANNITY: Yes. You reveal in this book, there's been so much discussion about weapons of mass destruction, whether they had them, where they were stored, how they got rid of them, you know, when it came time for the United States to invade and where are they now? You answered these questions. SADA: Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people. It was used against Kurds in the north, against Arabs — marsh Arabs in the south... HANNITY: Some people say they were destroyed. Did we still have them leading up to the invasion? SADA: No, he had a very good organization that Saddam was created to show some of them but to continue to hide. HANNITY: So he had them. SADA: Yes. HANNITY: Where were they? And were they moved and where? SADA: Well, up to the year 2002, 2002, in summer, they were in Iraq. And after that, when Saddam realized that the inspectors are coming on the first of November and the Americans are coming, so he took the advantage of a natural disaster happened in Syria, a dam was broken. So he — he announced to the world that he is going to make an air bridge... HANNITY: You know for a fact he moved these weapons to Syria? SADA: Yes. HANNITY: How do you know that? SADA: I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. BECKEL: How did he move them, general? How were they moved? SADA: They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria. BECKEL: So I assume this would not have happened without the permission of Damascus. Is that correct? SADA: Well, of course, you know, when the aircraft would land in Syria, they must have some sort of agreement between the two. BECKEL: So the Syrian government knows exactly where these weapons are today? SADA: I think so. Because I am sure that these weapons have landed in Damascus. Where could they have gone? BECKEL: OK, let me ask you a question. This may be a little tough, but I have to ask you this, general. You talked about the use of these weapons, and it's been documented. They're horrible, you said. And you were in the military during that time. SADA: Yes. BECKEL: Do you have any personal regrets? Your military used these weapons, correct? SADA: Yes. BECKEL: And you were part of — and you were part of that military. So I guess my question is, do you now feel a great deal of regret for having used the weapons? SADA: Yes, of course. Iraq had used that weapons, it was a great time. And especially when it was used against our people, Kurds in the north and Arabs in the marsh areas. BECKEL: And during the eight-year Iranian war, it was used against Iranians, as well, right? SADA: Yes, to be very frank, it was used when the Iranian used to penetrate our defenses in our territories. BECKEL: Do the Iranians have chemical weapons of mass destruction, as well? SADA: Well, I cannot tell, but as you know they are building now a nuclear portion. BECKEL: Last question for you, did Saddam Hussein have a nuclear weapon capability? Was he moving towards it? And if so, when would he have had it if the United States had not invaded? SADA: Well, you see, Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981. BECKEL: So — so there was no — so there was no chance there were nuclear weapons or on their way to nuclear weapons when we invaded? SADA: Not in Iraq. BECKEL: OK. HANNITY: And let me ask you about this. You describe this conversation that you had with Saddam Hussein and your disagreement with him. SADA: Yes. HANNITY: Not many people got to disagree with Saddam Hussein and live to tell about it. SADA: Yes. HANNITY: What happened? SADA: Yes, actually, I had many times— I have disagreed with Saddam Hussein on many things. And for some reason, he used to believe me and he used to listen to me. And thank God that in the last war, we were so supposed to attack Israel by like eight aircraft, all equipped with nuclear — chemical weapons in two waves, one wave through Jordan and the other wave through Syria, without telling Syrians and Jordan about that. But I mentioned to the president, "Sir, this is going to be a disaster, because Israelis have got plans to destroy these airplanes before they go to Israel. Although whatever air defenses are good, but still some aircraft can penetrate." HANNITY: Was he an evil man? SADA: Well, I think to a certain degree, yes, he was. HANNITY: All right. Thank you for sharing that. Wonder if the mainstream media will pick up on your comments. Appreciate you being with us.
Honestly, I thought so too at the time. But events have proved that the elder Bush's decision was wise. There were better ways to deal with Iraq than invasion. And you have given me a chance to use my favorite presidential quote. The senior Bush knew this when he wisely decided not to Invade Iraq in 1991 when we had a 500,000-man army on the ground. In his his 1997 memoir "A World Transformed" he said, "Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy'. Had we gone the invasion route, The United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." If only the son had the wisdom of the father. I understand what you are saying, but check out Where are the legions: Global deployment of US forces. We have plenty of bases in the region. We surround Iran already. Turkey, Kazahkstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, and Diego Garcia. These bases are secure and on allied soil. American bases in Iraq are insecure and difficult to maintain. There are insufficient troops there to control Iraq, much less invade Iran. In addition, in the unlikely event Iran had to be invaded, Iraq would not be the best place to use as a base for a ground invasion. There is a densely populated mountain range between Iraq and Iran and all of the invasion routes are defendable. Iraq tried to invade Iran with a million-man army for 10 years and failed. The US would more likely seize an Iranian port on the Arabian Sea or the Persian Gulf as an invasion route through the sparsely populated desert.
