http://www.msnbc.com/news/956458.asp?0cv=CB20 When is Enough Enough? _ In a new Newsweek poll, Americans say they’re spending too much in Iraq with too little to show for it. And with the 2004 approaching, Bush is losing ground _ _ _ By Jennifer Barrett NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE_ _ _ Aug. 23 — _Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the U.S. mission in Iraq, saying the United States should reduce its spending and scale back its efforts there, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. _ _ _ _ _ SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of Americans polled say they are very concerned (40 percent) or somewhat concerned (29 percent) that the United States will be bogged down for many years in Iraq without making much progress in achieving its goals. Just 18 percent say they’re confident that a stable, democratic form of government can take shape in Iraq over the long term; 37 percent are somewhat confident. Just 13 percent say U.S. efforts to establish security and rebuild Iraq have gone very well since May 1, when combat officially ended; 39 percent say somewhat well. _ _ _ _ Nearly half of respondents, 47 percent, say they are very concerned that the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq will lead to a large budget deficit and seriously hurt the U.S. economy. And 60 percent of those polled say the estimated $1 billion per week that the United States is spending is too much and the country should scale back its efforts. One-third supports the current spending levels for now, but just 15 percent of those polled say they would support maintaining the current spending levels for three years or more. How much longer should U.S. troops remain in Iraq? Click here to take our poll _ _ _ _ Against this backdrop, President George W. Bush’s approval ratings continue to decline. His current approval rating of 53 percent is down 18 percent from April. And for the first time since the question was initially asked last fall, more registered voters say they would not like to see him re-elected to another term as president (49 percent) than re-elected. Forty-four percent would favor giving Bush a second term; in April, 52 percent backed Bush for a second term and 38 percent did not. _ _ _ _ Despite the costs and the continued attacks against both U.S. and United Nations personnel, most Americans support maintaining current military levels in Iraq—for now anyway. Fifty-six percent approve of keeping large numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq for two years or less; 28 percent would support a stay of one to two years, while another 28 percent would support a stay of up to one year. Eighteen percent support keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq for three to five years, three percent for six to 10 years, and 11 percent for more than 10 years (just five percent want to bring troops home now). _ _ _ _ Sixty-one percent still believe that the United States was right to take military action against Iraq in March; 33 percent do not. But respondents are split on how effective the U.S. war with Iraq has been in fighting Al Qaeda and terrorism in general. Forty-five percent say the war has reduced the terror network’s power by removing an oil-rich regime that supported terrorism while 38 percent say the war has actually increased Al Qaeda’s power by inspiring a new generation of terrorists to take up arms against the United States and its allies. _ _ _ _ The failure to capture Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, and the slow progress in Iraq have also affected Americans’ views on the Bush administration’s efforts to fight terrorists at home and abroad—but not drastically. A slim majority (54 percent) still approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, though Bush had a 74 percent approval rating in his handling of Iraq in mid-April _ _ _ _ Fifty-seven percent say Bush is doing a better job than Democrats in finding and defeating terrorists abroad, while 21 percent say Democratic party leaders in Congress are dealing better with terrorists. At the beginning of last year, nearly three-quarters of those surveyed thought Bush was doing a better job than the Democrats on fighting terrorism overseas—just 9 percent gave higher marks to Democrats. Fifty-seven percent say Bush is best at handling the fight against terror at home, down from 74 percent in January 2002. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) now think the Democrats do a better job at handling homeland security, versus 11 percent in January 2002. _ _ _ _ The biggest shift in opinion, however, comes in Bush’s handling of non-terror issues. A plurality of voters now think the Democratic leaders in Congress have a better approach to dealing with the economy, tax cuts, healthcare, education, social security, the environment and energy policy. In January 2002, more thought Bush had the best approach to handling all the issues above, except the environment. _ _ _ _ Forty-five percent of respondents now think the Democratic party leaders are doing a better job of finding ways to stimulate the economy (36 percent say Bush is)—a huge shift from January 2002, when 55 percent thought Bush was better on the economy and just 29 percent thought Congressional Democrats were. Over the past year-and-a-half, Americans have also shifted their views of Bush’s tax cuts—45 percent prefer his cuts to those supported by Democratic leaders now, but that’s down 12 percent from January 2002. _ _ _ _ Nearly half of those polled (47 percent) say Democratic leaders have the best approach to health care (31 percent say Bush does), a flip from January 2002, when 45 percent preferred Bush’s approach and 36 percent liked the Democrats’. Bush has lost the most support for his handling of education issues. Just 39 percent prefer his approach now—down 16 percent from January 2002. Forty-three percent say the Democrats are now doing the better job in their approach to education issues. _ _ _ _ Similarly, more Americans (45 percent) say Democrats have the better approach to handling Social Security issues. About one-third (32 percent) say Bush has the best approach to Social Security, down 12 points from January 2002. On the environment, 53 percent prefer the Democrats’ approach, while 29 percent support Bush’s handling of environmental issues versus 43 percent and 38 percent respectively in January 2002. Finally, 42 percent of Americans prefer the Democrats’ approach to energy policy, while 33 percent say Bush is doing a better job on the issue (versus 33 percent and 46 percent respectively in January 2002). _ _ _ _ Bush has the lead over Democrats in his handling of foreign policy in general, with 48 percent of Americans preferring his approach to foreign-policy issues (37 percent prefer the Democrats’ approach). _ _ _ _ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The NEWSWEEK poll is conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, which interviewed by telephone 1,011 adults aged 18 and older on Aug. 21 to Aug. 22. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Would Americans think Bush is so great on foreign policy if they realized his so-called decisions were scripted ten years ago by the Project for the New American Century? Bomb Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea; militarize space; f*** everybody else. Is that foreign policy?
Roxtxia, since you were the guy who claimed that the US government helped plan and execute the 9/11 attacks, excuse me if I don't take your opinions regarding American foreign policy seriously.
It's true that his conspiracy theory is a little nutty, but the funny thing about that is, I take his more seriously than I, and probably a lot of other people, take yours. Tone makes a difference.
Sam, I am not surprised that you give credence to the theory that the United States government coordinated the 9-11 attacks. I am also not surprised that you consider the tone of a message to be as important as the substance. -emotional thinking -style over substance -typical Liberal mindset
Lol! Typical....so, jh, what was your response to the substance of this thread/article again? Time and again you claim liar and are proven wrong...time and again you site FACTS, which are proved wrong, and time and again you attack messenger instead of message, avoid uncomfortable points and concentrate on sidelines, as in this thread, and yet you are the first to cry foul when you feel others doing any of the above...even when, as here, you are in the process of doing exactly what you are criticizing them for doing. Getting back to the substance of this thread, the biggest drop, and biggest concern for Bush, is that between how many would re elct...52 percent to 44 percent, quite the drop. Om This Week today they were discussing the fact that Bush is basically seen to be failing on all fronts: Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, diplomatic relations, etc. Doesn't make for the best rallying cry. I do think, however, that a pr coup like finding Osama or Saddam, as unconnected as I feel the latter is to actual issues, would go a long way to reversing many of the current downward trends in Bush's support. A bigger future concern for the administration, and one that is much discussed among politcos, but not so much among everyday peopl, is the increasingly apparent and reportedly growing schism within the actual administration itself/ That Poweel et al didn't see eye to eye with Rummy, Wolfowitz and Cheney has always been knoen, but the fact that Powell is resigning, that he is being more and more vocal about what he percieves to be gross errors on the part of the other side, and increasingly appealing for swallowing our pride and admitting to the UN that we do, as it happens, need them, that our plan might have been incomplete and our actions hasty...these could become increasing areas of division in the White House as matters progress.
LOL, the pattern is clear MacBeth. You keep claiming that I have been PROVEN wrong, yet you never produce any proof, despite my requests. You and Sam keep up with your empty statements- you only look silly.
LOL, Powell is not resigning. MacBeth, once again, you have your FACTS wrong. The economy is turning, WMD will be found, Osama is dead already probably, and Saddam will be dead by the election. It is WAY too early to be concerned with polls.
God...I proved it in our very last conversation...you said that you had never disputed the fact that most Americans didn't want to enter WWII prior to D-Day, is posted your quote saying just that. There are hundreds of examples, jh, but every time you just pretend they don't exist even though it's in black and white... For example...here...you bashed a guy for avoiding the substance and concentrating on the tone of the messenger...and that was your entire contribution, as I pointed out, to this entire thread about Bush's waning support. I don't think that anyone is even surprised anymore when you do these kinds of things...Some have told me that they won't even respond to you anymore because it's pointless. It's pretty clear that you are incapable, physcially incapable of admitting you are wrong in a serious argument about this, whatever the facts reveal. We all saw all the claims you made about WMD finds...you once said that you had qualified them all as unproven, etc. and that was another example where I went back and showed example after example of you posting finds with no such qualifier...and your response was to ignore the whole qualifier aspect, despite that being the point, and argue over whether or not those finds had officially been disproven. Avoid the unconfortable facts and try and sidestep into another argument. That is what you do, jh, and we pretty much all know it.
It was reported in here a few weeks back that Powell had refused the position in a second term. I have heard nothing to contradict that. If that has been contradicted, I was unaware. See, jh, that's how you handle it if you have your facts wrong, or if you might...
on a related note, this article in today's NYT WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — Senior senators from both parties urged the Bush administration today to send thousands more American troops to Iraq and said many billions more dollars were needed to stabilize and rebuild that country and Afghanistan. Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who was in Baghdad the day the United Nations headquarters was bombed, said that "at least another division," about 18,000 American troops, was needed. "Time is not on our side," he added on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, appearing on the same program, put the need at 40,000 to 60,000 more troops, a substantial increase over the current 139,000. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who accompanied Mr. McCain on his trip, said that while he considered the troop level in Iraq to be sufficient, billions of dollars of additional spending is required there and in Afghanistan. "I am a fiscal conservative, and we're in debt," Mr. Graham said on "Fox News Sunday." "But the infrastructure needs in Afghanistan and Iraq are billions. We are underestimating the cost of this conflict, and we in the House and the Senate need to appropriate a lot more money." Their comments came after a particularly violent week in Iraq, with the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing 23 people, and mounting fears of more such terrorist attacks. L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American civilian administrator in Iraq, said on the Fox News program that scores of foreign terrorists were pouring into Iraq, adding that it was plausible to think that they were viewing it as a place to make "a last stand" against the United States. Asked about one recent estimate that up to 500,000 troops might be needed in Iraq, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," "No, I don't agree." American forces there, he said, are "supremely confident in their ability to deal with the threat." But while the military is "stretched thin" around the globe, the general added, it could send more troops if commanders on the ground in Iraq made the request. The Bush administration has said it hopes that other nations will provide more troops for Iraq but sees no need to send more Americans now. "It's not a question of more troops," Mr. Bremer said. "It's a question of being effective with our intelligence, of getting more Iraqis to help us." The quality of intelligence being offered by Iraqis has risen sharply, he added. In addition, he said, nearly 60,000 Iraqis have been recruited to help in police, border-guard and other security units. The senators cautioned that failure to do more now could cause the costs of engagement in Iraq to rise significantly later. "We either spend the money now, we make the sacrifices now, or we pay much greater later," Mr. Graham said. Mr. McCain said the occupying forces needed "to spend a whole lot more money" to restore basic services in Iraq. Mr. Biden was sharply critical of the administration's reluctance to support a multinational United Nations force for Iraq, and he scoffed at its assurances that scores of other nations were sending troops. Now, he said, those countries were contributing an average 400 troops each. He predicted that American forces would be in Iraq for three to five years, at a cost well over $100 billion. But Mr. Bremer, while praising the United Nations contribution in aiding Iraqis, said it was "hard for me to see how the U.N. itself can play a further military role" in Iraq. He and General Myers said the growing numbers of Iraqis in security positions had eased the demands on the occupying forces. Mr. Bremer acknowledged, however, that the trustworthiness of some of those Iraqis could be problematic. The possibility that Iraqi guards employed by the United Nations played a part in the bombing there, he said, was "certainly a working hypothesis — one of many."
LOL, this is the same crap you said 6 months ago; since then: no WMD's have been found (I guess you implicitly gave up your old claim that they were found) The economy is sluggish at best (yes, the stock market increased, and preliminary gdp figures for q2, were good, but there are just as many corresponding negative indicators, most notably unemployment, deflation remains a concern, and the deficit spirals out of control) Osama is still alive, and we aren't close to catching him and Saddam is still alive. You're 0 for 4. Why do you think support for Bush and the war and such is dropping like a stone? Or that conservatives are starting to take a beating? Momentum has turned.
Powell refuted that Washington Post story as unsubstantiated rumor, and scolded the Post editors. See, that is how you follow the news. btw, I have a record here of thanking people for correcting me when I am wrong. You will get to experience this if you ever correct me. Good luck.
1) By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, August 4, 2003; Page A01 Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, have signaled to the White House that they intend to step down even if President Bush is reelected, setting the stage for a substantial reshaping of the administration's national security team that has remained unchanged through the September 2001 terrorist attacks, two wars and numerous other crises. Armitage recently told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that he and Powell will leave on Jan. 21, 2005, the day after the next presidential inauguration, sources familiar with the conversation said. Powell has indicated to associates that a commitment made to his wife, rather than any dismay at the administration's foreign policy, is a key factor in his desire to limit his tenure to one presidential term. Rice and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz are the leading candidates to replace Powell, according to sources inside and outside the administration. Rice appears to have an edge because of her closeness to the president, though it is unclear whether she would be interested in running the State Department's vast bureaucracy. With 18 months left in Bush's current term, many officials said talk of a new foreign policy team is highly premature -- particularly because Bush's reelection is not assured. No one inside or outside the administration agreed to be quoted by name or affiliation in discussing possible Cabinet choices. But on the eve of the country's first post-Sept. 11, 2001, presidential campaign, in which foreign affairs will play a prominent role, the national security lineup for a second Bush term is already a major topic of conversation, at least among those who make and analyze U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet is already the third longest serving CIA chief and is expected to depart, perhaps before the current term ends. Tenet's role in the Iraq weapons controversy has led to calls on Capitol Hill for his dismissal, fueling speculation he will quit soon. The current administration has been characterized by fierce policy disputes, often between Powell and more hawkish members, and a reshuffling likely would significantly change the tenor and character of the foreign policy team. Although Bush appears to value the range of opinions he has received from his chief national security advisers, he may feel free if he wins a second term to realign his foreign policy more closely to the harder-edged, conservative view exemplified by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. Powell has staffed key positions in the State Department with close associates, and many of those officials also are expected to leave at the beginning of a second Bush term, giving the new secretary of state the opportunity to substantially re-staff the department. Some observers have speculated that Powell, who made an extensive presentation before the United Nations in February on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war, has been embarrassed by the failure to find much evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs. But Powell, both publicly and privately, has said he has no regrets about his comments to the Security Council, arguing that they hold up well if read carefully. Powell has declined to answer questions about his plans. "I serve at the pleasure of the president," he said last month. "That's the only answer I've ever given to that question, no matter what form it comes in." Bush recently named Rice as his personal representative on the Middle East conflict, a move that some State Department officials view as an audition for secretary of state. Republican political operatives have also touted Rice as a possible candidate in the 2006 race for California governor. But Rice's image has been tarnished by the fallout over the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq's weapons, raising questions about her scrutiny of the materials and the veracity of her public statements. Rice "is an honest, fabulous person, and America is lucky to have her service, period," Bush said at a news conference before departing for his August vacation. Wolfowitz, the administration's foreign policy intellectual and prime advocate of a confrontation with Iraq, would be a more daring and controversial choice. A senior Senate Democrat said Wolfowitz would have little trouble winning confirmation in a Republican-controlled Senate. But others said that because Wolfowitz is considered more of a strategic thinker than a manager, he could be tapped as Rice's replacement as national security adviser if she became secretary of state or entered politics. Long-shot candidates for secretary would include Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the centrist chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who is a strong supporter of Powell. Lugar is so respected by Democrats that his name was also floated during the Clinton administration. Another dark horse is former House speaker Newt Gingrich. The Georgia Republican appears to be openly campaigning for the job, arguing in speeches and in a recent Foreign Policy magazine article that the State Department under Powell has failed to adequately support Bush's policies. Among other key members of the foreign policy team, Rumsfeld is deeply involved in modernizing the military, as well as in the Pentagon's ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and appears willing to stay on beyond the start of a second term, officials said. If Rice became secretary of state, that would open up another key slot -- national security adviser. Although Wolfowitz is considered a strong possibility, Rice's deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, could move up, much as Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger did when President Bill Clinton won a second term. Officials also said another strong candidate is I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff and already a principal foreign policy adviser inside the White House. A dark-horse candidate for national security adviser is Steve Biegun, chief foreign affairs aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who is said to have impressed Bush when he served as executive secretary of the National Security Council early on in the administration. There appear to be few obvious choices for a new CIA director. Armitage, known as a sharp manager willing to tackle tough projects, is viewed by some officials as the ideal replacement for Tenet. But Armitage has insisted to others that he will leave the administration on the same day as Powell, one of his closest friends. Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a former CIA case officer, is considered a strong possibility, as is Wolfowitz if he is not tapped for secretary of state or national security adviser. Two mid-level administration officials who could move up are Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and Richard L. Haver, assistant to Rumsfeld on intelligence (and to Cheney when he was defense secretary in the administration of President George H.W. Bush). Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, head of the National Security Agency, and retired Adm. William O. Studeman, a former NSA director and former CIA deputy director, are regarded as highly qualified for the job. Two retired senators who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.) and Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) -- are considered long-shot candidates for CIA director. But Thompson, a sometime actor who now appears in the television series "Law and Order," has one unusual attribute: He already played the CIA director in the 1987 Kevin Costner movie "No Way Out" Do you have something which contradicts this? 2) The economy is turning? Do yoiu have anything to substantiate this? 3) WMD will be found? Do you have something to support this? 4) Osama is probably dead? Do you have anything to substantiate this? We all know that you want these to be true, and we all know why...but do you have anything more than the usual empty blanket opinion statements that you list as facts?
69% is not quite 90%, but this latest statistically and methodologically correct poll is much closer to the internet poll Glynch posted earlier than even I would have suspected.
MacBeth, I get tired of being your personal search engine. This is about the 10th time I have run to get you news that informed people should have read. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-04-powell-state_x.htm Yes, we were in a recession, and now we aren't. No, that is my opinion, and I qualified that statement to you in two other threads as an opinion. Yes, he has not been seen or heard from since the Tora Bora bombing. Recording of him have been ruled fake by the best European labs, videos of him prove nothing. My opinion that Osama is dead is FAR more logical than Sam's claim that Osama is alive. I know many here wish Osama to be alive so President Bush looks bad, but in my opinion, you will be disappointed. ....oh, the irony. LMAO, you just were proven wrong with one of your facts, and now you are getting pissy, right?
Answer the question: Did we find WMD's yet or not? No, I have no prove that he's alive. I also have no proof that you're alive either, but that doesn't mean that you're dead. When every public intelligence report over the past year and a half seems to say that he is alive, and when we are still actively trying to get him, that makes me tend to believe that he is alive. If only I had search, you must have some wartime posts where you say he's dead after we allegedly killed him twice with those goofy bombings. Maybe it was treeboyI was thinking of, but I wouldn't be surprised if you've said he was dead too. But I digress, wasn't this whole spiel about facts? And you're bragging on the fact that Saddam will be dead someday? Well, I can't argue with you there, thus far there is no evidence that he is immortal. Again, juan, great arguments tonight. Keep digging up the dirt on Wesley Clark and you may distract us from the hubris train that is heading towards you and the heroic GOP.
