Pew poll gives Bush good news on Iraq

Waiting for Bruce's usual comments on how inaccurate The Swamp's reports on polls are and how unwise it is to trust poll results.......

Fine. Things are going great in Iraq.

Then why is it such a hardship to set a late 2008 deadline?

I'm still trying to figure how the "surge" is going to change anything other than prove that we can occupy certain parts of Baghdad.

We can't continue with a force size of 160,000+,and the "civil war" participants in Iraq know this all to well.

If Herbie were President:

Any troop surges from now on would be with Iraqi soldiers, with the US helping with logistics and training from a safe distance. A referendum would be put to all Iraqi citizens, and make them declare strait up whether they want US presence there or not. If they say no, then we have a great excuse to leave - a sovereign nation told us to leave. If they want us to stay, then cooperate and turn in the terrorists who are ripping your country apart. Finally, Al Sadr, Bin Laden and that other nut case (Zawahiri?) would all be found and meet with unfortunate accidents.

If you would like to donate to Herbie's presidential fund, I am placing a piggy bank at the corner of Clark and Randolph tomorrow. Any spare change would be appreciated.

Improvements in Iraq are more of a hope than a fact. We have all heard these things before. Would that they were true. Our military has no new tactics, just more of the same more dilegently applied. The enemy will just slide out of the way. The French in Algeria closed off sections of cities and searched all the houses and arrested all the men of military age. These tactics did not work. We have four years of failure to be followed by how many more. We have 3200 dead soldiers to be followed by how many more.

Pew, this poll stinks. Thanks for trying to put lipstick on this pig, Frank.

YES!!!
This is the most important story of the day!
But everyone is more interested in debating Katie Couric's tuff questions to John Edwards and his 11.4% poll average.
Go Bush!
Paulo

Brilliant! The surge has done it. The last throes are finally ending. Bagdad is now a glittering beacon of Democracy in the Middle East. Bring the troops home and I'll happily admit I was wrong and Bush was right. Time to re-hang the Mission Accomplished banners and start re-deploying, right George?

Great! Everyone must realize in order for this to last we will have to continue to escalate. Right now they have 8,000 plus additional troops just in Baghdad. How many more to secure the rest of the country while in Afghanistan...

Bush is misunderestimated geneous.

You who hate him are alway rong.

You know why?

Because Jesus tells him what to do and Jesus ain't never wrong!

Prase Jesus and Our Great Leeder George Bush!!!!

YES!!!
This is the most important story of the day!
But everyone is more interested in debating Katie Couric's tuff questions to John Edwards and his 11.4% poll average.
Go Bush!
Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | Mar 26, 2007 10:46:48 PM

Once again quite telling. Paulo finds that the most important thing today is a knee jerk reaction poll that says "today" a few more people feel the surge is working and not the strugle of a woman with cancer. He sees that since only 11.4% poll average of John Edwards
means this is not a story worthy of discussion.
How small!

The definition of success in Iraq will be when headlines like the following examples are written over a period of months:

"Iraqi military and police units continue to make steady strides in securing the country."

Of equal importance:

"Local and foreign investments and their accompanying jobs are growing steadily throughout Iraq as security concerns abate."

Anything less means our military men and women are doing all the heavy lifting with no guarantee that the Iraqi civil war won't rebound after we draw down.

MISSION NOT-ACCOMPLISHED

I saw Iraq today and the skyline was filled w/ shiny rainbows and gumdrops were falling from above.

Will the Loony Left ever get a brain? I doubt it.

Herbie: the "troop surge" does include Iraqi troops. Increasingly, Iraqi troops are playing a role and getting better, though slower than hoped certainly.
And to John E., Tom O., Jeff, C Perry and BB, all it comes down to is that you guys want us to fail! You do not want success. You do not want a stable, democratic, free Iraq. You want failure. You want the U.S. to lose. You guys do not want success.
Gen. Petraeus's plan is working. However, it will still take time and there will still be difficulties. But since we have invested all this time, money and, most importantly, lives in the past 4 years, wouldn't it be better to let the general do his thing, win this thing and leave Iraq stable and with a government that can grow and develop? It took the U.S. years for that happen in the late 1700s and early 1800s. And we had help from the outside. After all this time, can we not give the Iraqis more time and more chances at success? And if there is success, aren't we better off and the world better off?

John D., I support and want victory in Iraq and I think we needed more troops there three years ago as well as now, but I just can't get too excited about a poll that says 38% think the surge will work in the long run. The administration needs to do a better job of explaining how this will help and laying out a complete plan for victory. I think bringing Gates in was a step in the right direction but judging by this poll there's still a lot of work to do. I'm sorry if you think not celebrating this poll means I don't want us to succeed. But I really, really do.

John D,
Herbie never said the surge was made up of Iraqi forces. "Any troop surges from now on would be with Iraqi soldiers" He says from now on, and he's giving his plan. I agree those other clowns want the US to fail because of the Bush hatred.

Herbie's mother

You do not want success. You do not want a stable, democratic, free Iraq. You want failure. You want the U.S. to lose. You guys do not want success.
Posted by: John D | Mar 27, 2007 8:26:34 AM

Because people disagree with John Ds' view on the war, he makes this analogy. Quite a "large" leap from someone with a "small" mind.

John D, I am far from being on the "loony left", but I recognize a problem when I see one. My understanding has been that for the last 4 years we were training Iraqi troops, and when they are ready, we will stand down. At some point the training wheels have to come off, and 30K additional US troops being needed in Baghdad is not encouraging to that end.

"And if there is success, aren't we better off and the world better off?"

Posted by: John D | Mar 27, 2007 8:26:34 AM

Hmmm...are we better off after we have created an Iranian ally next door?? Hmmm...is the world better off when we create a form of government that is beholden to a citizenry who is largely anti-American and anti-Israel?? Hmmm

"It took the U.S. years for that happen in the late 1700s and early 1800s. And we had help from the outside."

Gee, Johnny D, please enlighten us about this "outside help" we had at that time.

The history books I've read didn't have the French occupying the US after the revolution and proping up the early United States Government. In fact even DURING the revolution the French were never responsible for order and security within the infant United States, they merely fought the conventional troops of the British Crown. The history books I've read didn't have any other country helping us deal with instances like the Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

In fact by the 1790's we were actually involved in a limited naval war with France.

Mom, I'm tired of you embarrassing me. I can fight my own battles.

Jethro, we are not creating an ally of Iran or an anti-American govt. We are trying to create a democratic and free society in Iraq. What they do with that freedom is beyond our control.

Hey Paulo:

I've been posting this challenge to you for over FIVE WEEKS now:

Why aren't you busy researching to provide the support for your post:

Swamp thread: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/02/rapid_fire.html

[quote]
This is just the start of the "slow bleed" on B.Hussein Obama....and the Clinton's are behind it,just like they were on the Muslim Madrassa story.
Stay tuned...more to come.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Feb 19, 2007 10:44:03 PM
[/quote]

CAN YOU PROVE THIS PAULO? THAT THE CLINTONS ARE BEHIND THIS STORY? PLEASE POST YOUR PROOF HERE IN THE SWAMP ASAP!

How much time do you need? Or are you AFRAID to provide the support for your posts?

According to your post in this thread:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/libby_guilty_bu.html
[quote]
B.C--Can't you read,you dope,I answered your question last week.

Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Mar 6, 2007 3:46:28 PM
[/quote]

You say that you answered me. IF THAT'S TRUE, then post the link to The Swamp thread where you provided your proof to my challenge.

Better yet, post the link to the source of your proof.

The Insight Magazine story has been proven FALSE by CNN, Paulo. So where's your PROOF that the Clinton campaign was behind the story?

Herbie's mother (and I am sure that is not Herbie), I never said that Herbie said the surge was made up of Iraqi forces. Herbie was asking when Iraqi forces would be doing some forcing. I simply explained they are partaking, along side our troops.

Herbie: I never said you were a member of the Loony Left, that is why I commented to you directly, though I could have been more clear. My apologies if seemed I lumped you with the Loons. I wouldn't want to be lumped with them either. But I stand with my contention of giving Gen. Petraeus's plan a chance.

Jeff, I am not celebrating the poll. I could care less about polls. What I care about is getting the job done right. And I agree that the administration needs to do a better job of communicating. It had been doing a better job. Hopefully the loss of Tony Snow will not hamper those communication efforts.

Jethro (a proud member of the Loony Left): You typify your ilk. Nothing but "buts" and negativity. There are sane people running Iraq today. Hussein was funding Palestinian families of suicide bombers. Hussein bombed Israel in Gulf War. The current leaders of Iraq seemingly have no designs on hurting Israel.

At the time of this post,only 23 people responded to "Bush,Good News on Iraq"
If the headline was "Bush,bad news on Iraq" there would be over 150 posts.This proves,unequivocally,that the vast majority of Swamp Posters only care about "bad" news regarding Bush,Iraq and our military.

Paulo

All of us that think George Bush is an idiot are enemies the people to that administration apologist John D. I must say that we should leave Iraq now. We have 3225 dead American soldiers. We do not have a deadline.Do we have a deathline.We have been in Iraq for four years. I repeat four years.If we had decent leadership things would have improved rather than getting worse. Bush,Rumsfeld and a group of American generals from the Colin Powell "dog robbers" school have screwed this war up. What is your deathline John D. 10000?

Paulo,
Is this the good news you are referring to?:

"Democrats are united in their support of legislation calling for a U.S. troop withdrawal by August 2008, and most independents (61%) also favor this step. Most Republicans oppose this step, but there are substantial divisions within the GOP. More than four-in-ten moderate and liberal Republicans (44%) want their
representative to vote for legislation calling for an August 2008 deadline for a troop withdrawal, compared with only about a quarter of conservative Republicans (26%)."

Paulo,
Is this the good news you are referring to?:

"Democrats are united in their support of legislation calling for a U.S. troop withdrawal by August 2008, and most independents (61%) also favor this step. Most Republicans oppose this step, but there are substantial divisions within the GOP. More than four-in-ten moderate and liberal Republicans (44%) want their
representative to vote for legislation calling for an August 2008 deadline for a troop withdrawal, compared with only about a quarter of conservative Republicans (26%)."

c.perry posted regarding JohnD's post;
"What is your deathline JohnD. 1000?"

c.perry seems to have forgotten 9/11,the no-fly-zone attacks on US aircraft,terrorist attacks at home and abroad under BJ Clinton,terrorist attacks all over the world,the hostage taking of UK marines and sailors by Iran.
In c.perry's world it's better to serve the enemy on your knees than to fight and die standing up for freedom.
Go sign-up,they'll teach you to be a man.

Paulo

Johnny D:

Guess who else gave money to suicide bombers? Those nice people in Saudi Arabia. Why not go in there and take care of them - after all, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian.

As for the Iraqi leadership not having designs on Israel, remember who is in charge of Iraq. The Shi'a. You know. The same people that are in charge of Iran. Go ahead Johnny - see if you can put that 2 and 2 together and not come up with 5.

BobinATL, the Saudi GOVERNMENT was not paying the families of suicide bombers like the Hussein government.

Also, not all Shia, or Sunni are Israel-hating nuts. Not all Arabs are Israel-hating nuts. Hmmm, when was the last time Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. attacked Israel?

I know the complicated world is too difficult for you to comprehend or understand, but then what new with the Loony Left?

So, Johnny D, is the point of the war to protect Israel? Is that the whole definition of what "victory" in Iraq now is?

Tony, the point is to protect Democracy in the Middle East. Until Iraq can govern itself Israel is the only democracy n the Middle East. If Iraq falls, she'll be surrounded by a zealous radical Islamist movement. Israel's withstood some bad situations in the past, but there's no guaranteeing her survival should the region become more destabilized.

How simple are you Loony Lefters, Tony?

I never said protecting Israel is the definition of victory or even implied it. Protecting Israel is sometrhing we have to and should do, however.

Tony and the rest of your ilk, the definition of victory is for a safe, free, democratic Iraq. An Iraq that withstand its own against Islamic terrorists. An Iraq that is part of the friendly nations of the world.

It is heading that way, but needs time, mentoring, development, help. Pretty much the same as we got 200+ years ago, Germany 60 years ago, Japan 60 years ago, Kosovo 10 years ago and still to this day.

Jeff and John D,
Why should we give a damn what form of government countries have. The only thing we should care about is whether or not they are hostile to us. Jordan is not a democracy, does that matter? No, the government is an ally and is not hostile. Palestine democratically elected Hamas. If other countries want to be free they can fight for it themselves, without our blood and treasure.

John D, Want us to fail? I never thought we should be starting a war in Iraq, but I'm thrilled by the news that it appears we're making progress. That means our guys can come home sooner.

If you're looking for people who wanted us to fail, you should look at the guys who ignored the recommendations from the Pentagon for a larger occupation force at the start of this war. The guys who "retired" generals who didn't agree with their low-cost "light force" strategy. The guys who said this low-budget war would be paid for with Iraqi oil. The guys who kept troop levels low so that they didn't have the forces needed to secure know weapons depots, prevent looting and anarchy when the government fell, or secure the borders. The guys who disbanded the Iraqi army, taking away the livelyhood of thousands of men with military training, forcing them seek employment with militias or insurgents. The guys who threw away whatever Iraqi support we had by re-opening Abu Ghraib and torturing prisoners.

It looks to me like those are the guys who wanted us to fail. That, or they're just tremendously incompetent boneheads. Take your pick.

"Tony, the point is to protect Democracy in the Middle East. Until Iraq can govern itself Israel is the only democracy n the Middle East. If Iraq falls, she'll be surrounded by a zealous radical Islamist movement. Israel's withstood some bad situations in the past, but there's no guaranteeing her survival should the region become more destabilized.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 27, 2007 2:26:10 PM"

Lebanon was nicely evolving into a democracy until the US encouraged Israeli/Lebanon war strengthened the hand of Iran and Hez. there.

GWB seems to be doing everything in his power to empower...Iran.

jethro,

The neo-con dream of spreading democracy around the world
will destroy us financially and morally, as you know.

They, the neo-con apologists, have already accepted torture under another name. It's just a matter of time until it shows up at the local police station, (or voting booth?) After all, it's 'not torture', right? It's just beating, electrodes, whatever.

The financial destruction is obvious.

Feel good about it, America. Go to church, go to the mall,
'laugh about it, shout about it when you have to choose. Every way you look at it you lose.'

C.Morris, if you think a government compromised and controlled by a terrorist organization like Hezbollah is "nicely evolving into a democracy" then I think our concepts of what democracy are are so vastly different that we can't come to any type of real understanding.

Jethro, we should care what types of government other countries have because under the right tyrant they can become breeding grounds for terrorism. Christiane Amanpour reported about the abuses of the Taliban back in 1997 and no one did a thing about it because they didn't want to interfere with its sovereignty. All this despite massive evidence of abuse of that country's women and evidence that the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden. In Aghanistan's case, sanctions clearly weren't enough.

Does that mean we should attack Jordan? No, you're right that the monarchy there is progressive and lives up to its responsibilities to international treaties and agreements. I just can't see how another democracy in the Middle East, and protecting the one that's already there, are bad things.

Jeff,
The type of government that Afghanistan had then was not the problem. It was allowing enemies of the US to train on their soil that was the problem. They could have been a democracy, the problem would still be the same.

How is it good to for democraticly elected governments to be controlled by radical voters?? Do you not run the risk of having radical candidates elected into office? Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran??

That statement is patently untrue, Jethro, the Taliban militia's leaders (they WERE the government) were the ones who gave Bin Laden carte blanche to train in Afghanistan!

We already knew they had a horrible human rights record (in 1997!) based on the civil liberties for women that they rolled back when they came to power. The number of suicides among women and girls in the formerly-progressive Aghanistan would've been reason enough to send a peace-keeping force (had the UN been doing its job).

Anyway, you've gone on record saying the totalitarian Taliban government was not the problem in Afghanistan. Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Jeff,
It was their enabling of Al-Qaeda that was the problem. The way the Taliban treated women was irrespective to how they came into power or how they ruled the country i.e. democratically or authoritarily. Those issues about women's rights are horrible, but it is not the concern of the US government. The concern of our government is to protect our national interests. Your logic could only leave one to conclude that you believe we did not have enough foreign interventions in the Clinton years.

" if you think a government compromised and controlled by a terrorist organization like Hezbollah is "nicely evolving into a democracy" then I think our concepts of what democracy are are so vastly different that we can't come to any type of real understanding."

If that was in any way a true statement I'd agree with you Jeff, but as usual it is false.

Hezbollah had 12 of 128 seats in the Lebanese Parliament. That is hardly "comprising and cntrolling" the government now is it?

Remember the "Cedar Revolution" Jeff? You know, the one all the neocons pointed to to show how democracy was spreading in the mideast because of our invasion of Iraq?

"In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution ... drove out the Syrian occupiers ... and chose new leaders in free elections......In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government." 2007 State of the Union Address

Huh, even Bush disagrees with you. Too bad his actions (or lack thereof) don't match up with his words.

"C.Morris, if you think a government compromised and controlled by a terrorist organization like Hezbollah is "nicely evolving into a democracy" then I think our concepts of what democracy are are so vastly different that we can't come to any type of real understanding."

Jeff,

Ben-Gurion was considered a terrorist.

Jerry Adams and the IRA were considered terrorists.

The Israeli/Lebanon war last summer, encouraged by us, has enhanced the position of Hez. and Iran in lebanon and the region.

I repeat; GWB is doing everything possible to enhance Greater Iran.