Approval / Disapproval Ratings

Black Sheep

Expert Expediter
Just a bit of information from the latest Gallup Poll, even though I'm not really a big fan of polls. There are certain data that the mainstream media refuses to publish, one of which is the approval and disapproval ratings of congress. How many people have seen that the approval rating for the Democrat-controlled congress is 29%, with a disapproval rating of 64%??!! This approval rating is down from 37% when Republicans controlled congress.

Compare this with the latest Gallup results for Bush: approval 33%, disapproval 62%.

Maybe the surrender-based foreign policy proposals of Reid/Pelosi isn't as popular as some media outlets would have us believe.

Sources: RealClearPolitics.com and the Gallup Poll website.
 

Black Sheep

Expert Expediter
I should have included this in the previous post - at the time Harry Reid was talking about Vice-Pres. Cheney's "9% approval rating" the Harris Poll showed Cheney's approval actually at 25%. That same poll showed Reid's approval rating at 22%.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Probably because the approval that folks like Reid get come from ppl in the media. LOL

-Vampire Super Slooth Trucker!!!
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well I got an example I read about this morning.

The following question is part of a long list of a media poll questions about politics in general in the country that were used last month for an unofficial poll but quoted a few places.

There were 1100 registered voters polled.

The question was preface with questions about Mitt Romney and led up this question about religion; “Do you think that having a Mormon in politics will bad for the country?â€

Out of 1100 registered voters;

• 61% said yes
• 27% said maybe
• 12% said no

Out of the 61% who said yes

• 81% were registered democrats
• 8% were registered republican
• 4% were independent voters

Ok so having a Mormon in politic is a bad thing, right?

They got a clear answer that the American people are suspension of Mormons but failed to ask the question with what they think about the leader of the senate also being a Mormon.
 

simon says

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
What the polls really show is that people don't like or distrust either party. The hostility to Reid, et al, is just that the Dems are finger-pointing and manoevering, but won't really end the war. All the talk of timetables, benchmarks, is just so much BS, to somehow find a way to support the US presence in Iraq for a long time to come. The polls also show most Americans want us out of Iraq, and don't want a war with Iran either. Congress never ended the Vietnam war either...
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
"The polls also show most Americans want us out of Iraq, and don't want a war with Iran either."

Polls also show that most americans want jobs, tax relief and a protected border above anything to do with Iraq.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The polls show that the American people want us out of Iraq - who doesn't? However, they also show the majority of our people don't want us to lose or surrender in Iraq either. Our military needs to be allowed to go full-bore into those insurgents and terrorists so the politicians can get the Iraqi government stabilized. Even when that happens we'll have to maintain a military presence there for the forseeable future.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Call me cynical, but I think polls "prove" what the pollsters want it to, or they just disappear.
 

tallcal101

Veteran Expediter
Pilgram,it's called a Civil War.It's not about us,other then we are hated by most Iraqi's for destroying their country.
I know your smart enough to realize that,yes?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Hi TallCal,

Can you explain what you mean by a civil war?

Maybe I don't agree with the armchair journalist and semi-literal generals after reading the summary of the lastest conference report about Iraq that the Statigic Studies Institute just did, which indicates no civil war throughout the country. This is backed up by the last intelligence assessment on Iraq that recently confirmed that there are certain aspects of a civil war but not outside the 45 mile circumfrence of the capital.

On the other hand, the major factors involved with the terroist activity (which is the proper term - not insurgences) are almost all from other countries.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The terrorists and insurgents coming in from Iran and Syria would certainly like us to believe it's a civil war between Iraqi factions, but facts bear out that is not the case. There's no denying the evidence that Iran is supplying weapons, financing and personnel and that Al-Quaeda is firmly entrenched there and receiving this aid in order to continue the attacks. Why do you think the troublemaker Al-Sadr is hiding out in Iran? Sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the Iranians and their stooges, the Syrians, if we're ever going to put a stop to the terrorist activity in the region.

Regarding the destruction of their country - that's just not the case. Although we'll never read about it in the mainstream papers or hear it on network news, their infrastructure, utilities, schools, cell phone service, and their general economy is quite a bit better than when Saddam was dictator. We hear and read this repeatedly from people that have been to the regions outside Bagdad. Although all we see on TV is the turmoil around Bagdad, most of the country is recovering quite well and Kurdistan is virtually trouble-free.

The part about most Iraqis hating us - if you consider the population of the entire country, I doubt it. However, I will concede that they want us out. I'll also agree that the Muslim faith is not compatible with Western democracy. If we can at least drive the terrorists out of the region, we should at least hope for peaceful co-existance among the factions represented in a parliamentary type of government.
 

tallcal101

Veteran Expediter
Well,a couple of things,corrections if you will.

1)Prior to America invading Iraq (at the time a country that posed no threat to us)there were literaly no terrorists or insurgents.There was a Government that provided basic living conditions for most of the people(working sewers,air conditioning etc.)on a regular basis.
A tyrant he was,but not a threat outside his borders.

2)It was a country that was NOT experiencing suicide bombings everyday,nor was it a hot bed for extremists intent on killing Americans.There were no Americans TO KILL.That changed.

3)This President insisted on stiring up a hornets nest by invading a a Middle Eastern Counrty against the wish's of SOME of us(unpatriotic is how we were charectorized)and created the very problem that exists today.Brave American service people have died or been wounded for one mans demented pipe dream.
4)The world is a far more UNSAFE place as a result of the overthrow of a 2 bit dictator.It was dreamed up by a group of dim witted politicians who fired the Generals who told them they were making big mistakes.Let the civilians(draft evaders)fight this war.
And yes,it is a civil war Greg,and it was predicted by many of us 3 years ago.Your right wing think tanks can fill your head with any junk reports you wish to believe,but the clerics run the country down religious lines.They have been waiting to stir the pot,and with all their friends coming in to join the fun(killing Americans is considered a one way ticket to the promised land)they have reignited a centuries old religious war that had pretty well simmered.
Yes,Sudam killed his own people,and was taken to task for it.Now,we have created an evirorment that has rekindled the bloody sectarian violence that Sudam was shamed by the worlds for.Only now it's worse.And we are reponsible,and unable to stop it.

5)America is a far more dangerous place as a result of the "war on terror"which is synonomis with bumbling and clowning in the name of mutant politicians trying to bring freedom to Iraqis.The Iraqis would just as soon shoot us,or tell their freinds where our troops are,and have them shoot us or blow them up with IUD's.There is no path to victory without the support of the people.And we do NOT have that support.Most Iraqi's with money have left the country.

6)Why do I have to tell you this every 6 months?Do you think it is really going to be"victory"after the surge fails?And the death of another 200 or 300 troops?

7)Bottom line,America got just what it asked for,and Osama fiddles away in his cave.And plans the next attack.Safer,I thinks not mine good expidite buddies.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
“1)Prior to America invading Iraq (at the time a country that posed no threat to us)there were literaly no terrorists or insurgents.There was a Govenerment that provided basic living conditions for most of the people(working sewers,air conditioning etc.)an a regular basis.
A tyrant he was,but not a threat outside his borders.â€


OK, literally no terrorist or insurgents? Right!

First Tallcal, an insurgent is a person who revolts against civil authority, which in many regards the meaning is well miss placed in the context of Iraq. Terrorist you speak of have always been there and for one thing you and other liberals miss is that we could have stopped a lot of blood shed but that disgusting man, Carter failed us and the true cause of all the blood shed from 1979 to date.

Also about terrorist and something I know you have yet to understand or even experience, is the recruitment of a majority of the common terrorist is not always a religious thing but a problem of being disenfranchised from the society at large – on in another words people of a young age without hope, a path of education or a way to earn a living are more likely to become the terrorist outside of this country.

Have you yet talked to an Iraqi who lived under Saddam and his son’s regime? Most likely not.

Life was not Mercedes and Air conditioning; it was not all running water and indoor plumbing. We have made a lot of improvements to the quality of life over there, especially in health care. Now this does not come from the right wing blogs but rather the people who lived there and returned.

“2)It was not a country that was NOT experiencing suicide bombings everyday,nor was it a hot bed for extremists intent on killing Americans.There were no Americans TO KILL.That changed.

3)This President insisted on stiring up a hornets nest by invading a a Middle Eastern Counrty against the wish's of SOME of us(unpatriotic is how we were charectorized)and created the very problem that exists today.Brave American service people have died or been wounded for one mans demented pipe dream.â€


You know I agree with you on some of this.

The issue of invading Iraq has more to do with the UN and something that I think was really done for a number of reasons; one I really think was the people on our government knew about the oil for food scam that the UN was pulling and this was one way of bringing to the world. There are a lot of other issues that we will never know about and should not know.

Long shot? Yes, but possible.

“4)The world is a far more UNSAFE place as a result of the overthrow of a 2 bit dictator.It was dreamed up by a group of dim witted politicians who fired the Generals who told them they were making a big mistakes.Let the civilians(draft evaders)fight this war.
And yes,it is a civil war Greg,and it was predicted by many of us 3 years ago.Your right wing think tanks can fill your head with any junk reports you wish to believe,but the clerics run the country down religious lines.They have been waiting to stir the pot,and with all their friends coming in to join the fun(killing Americans is considered a one way ticket to the promised land)they have reignited a centuries old religious war that had pretty well simmered.
Yes,Sudam killed his own people,and was taken to task for it.Now,we have created an evirorment that has rekindled the bloody sectarian violence that Sudam was shammed by the worlds for.Only now it's worse.And we are reponsible,and unable to stop it.â€


No I don’t agree that the world is less safe than it was just because of Iraq. I think that the world is less safe because;
• Spain capitulated when they had two bombings
• France has yet to stop the riots to the point that the press is no longer allowed to print or speak of it
• France has yet to figure that they can’t just allow the former colonist to immigrate to their country without any integration into the culture
• Germany until recently has taken a back seat to the needed reforms to prevent them from becoming another France
• England is lost, their political correctness has gone so far to stop teaching history and now there is a complete need to apply thought laws to prevent Muslim bashing
• The UN has failed in Africa in general but specifically in Darfur, Somalia and Bosnia (no not in Africa) where Islam has gained a strong foot hold and recruitment efforts in these countries has raised a lot of terrorists. These are not countries that have to deal with the US directly but more of the multinational forces from the UN and NATO, especially in Bosnia where tensions has been brewing again. Many of the things we did were with the blessing of the UN and before I forget another country went into Somalia and pretty much killed a lot of Islamic fundamentalist.
• Russia is fighting terrorism with the separation of Chechnya and the Islamic fundamentalist who have taken over that part of Russia. They by the way have the same problems as do we with Iraq, an influx of people from Iran and Syria.

Ok the right wing think tank reports I get I haven’t quoted or used and this is not where I got my info, it is the couple places like the SSI at the Carlisle Barracks, a couple intelligence summaries that are public info through the government and one place I would like to mention but won’t but is far left. The thing is the civil war exists at the UN, countries that lost a flow of money from Iraq and by our great inept media in this country. For it to be a civil war there has to be more what is going on in the country. It is more of a religious war than anything else and the life outside of Baghdad seems to be still improving.

If this was predicted by all you 3 years ago, why didn’t the real experts the Iraqi people who live here predict it?

They have been fighting for 1100 years but will always pull together to fight an enemy. Amazing you just came around to this? I told you last year that they have been fighting along time and we were not the trigger for any violence based on religion. Saddam did a good job keeping his people living in terror and when something happened like the Kurds trying to break away, he simply killed all of them. He tried to follow Stalin’s example of civil control but we failed to use this to our advantage.

“5)America is a far more dangerous place as a result of the "war on terror"which is synonomis with bumbling and clowning in the name of mutant politicians trying to bring freedom to Iraqis.The Iraqis would just as soon shoot us,or tell their freinds where our troops are,and have them shoot us or blow them up with IUD's.There is no path to victory without the support of the people.And we do NOT have that support.Most Iraqi's with money have left the country.â€

America is far less safe for a number of factors, one is the need for the left to put ahead of our country the rights of others who neither belong here nor are here. Gitmo is a good example where we actually lost rights, it is not on our soil and there should have never been a court case brought into our system that allowed anyone who fought against this country to have access to. What bothers me is not that Gitmo exists but the way some were captured and the really good treatment some of the most undeserving people on earth get. Remember some of these people don’t care about anything but killing you or me.

The other thing is many people look at these court cases as part of our rights when in fact they have absolutely nothing to do with our rights other than to restrict them. The same goes for the leaks form the CIA and other sources through the media; they endangered all of us more than anything Bush has done. I read a really good brief on the ‘domestic spying program’ from the ACLU yesterday and really am ##### that this was stopped. The details of the program had nothing to do with a citizen but a communications channels that our government identified as being used by terrorist to plan attacks. Sorry ACLU, you screwed us and helped the terrorist.

As for Iraqis with money not returning, think again. I worked with some wealthy ones here and when war started, they all took a leave of absence and went there, on their return they have sent money there and will return for good once there is stability. Why do they live here? Because they are making money here and sending there to help Iraq, even the Iraqi gas station owner I talk to a lot, he saves as much as he can to send to relatives to help.

“6)Why do I have to tell you this every 6 months?Do you think it is really going to be"victory"after the surge fails?And the death of another 200 or 300 troops?â€

I don’t know, why? Why is it that the democrats keep putting out there while we the people want to have other stuff discussed? I would like to see Iraq be put behind two other subjects, border security and taxes but I know that this sound cruel and insensitive but the public does not really care about Iraq, as sad as that is.

You know what also kills? Words.

Word that tell everyone our country does not support the troops.

Words from polls saying the American people are not backing the president or the mission.

Words that tell our troops that it is alright to run from a task, no matter how formidable it is, it is alright.

Words that make them feel like pawns in the fight against left and right.

Words from people on the left like Sheehan and moore who tell us this was for oil or some other stupid reason and not many of them have been to Iraq.

As one Iraqi veteran has pointed out, the democrats have cheapen the lives lost by their need to add so much stuff to the Iraqi spending bill to get people to vote on it and not be truly concern about the needs of the troops first. If they were concern, the vote would have been an easy one.

“7)Bottom line,America got just what it asked for,and Osama fiddles away in his cave.And plans the next attack.Safer,I thinks not mine good expidite buddies.â€

You know there is more to this than what I or anyone can write on one forum. The problem that we have in this country is the ideals that have been used to guide people for the last 40 years or so which starting with the ideals that are the basis for political correctness to the need for laws that abridge our rights for the betterment of one minority or another to the fact that our education system is so sub-standard that kids graduating college still have problems with basic concepts of government. It is all connected.

It is rather sad that we, as people of this great country forget events that changed our lives forever, like 9/11 and worry about what others think of us in order to protect us and our way of life. We forget that people have been trying to kill us for decades, there have been governments that tried to destroy us but most of all we can not think beyond our tv’s or living rooms that it is possible that we may have to deal with another attack on our country and we are quick to blame the leadership that governs us now for all the problems.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"A tyrant he was,but not a threat outside his borders."

The Kuwaitis and Saudis might have a differing opinion on that statement. Granted, the first Bush had to go over there and kick him out of Kuwait but didn't finish the job. We can theorize over what would have happened if we had taken out Saddam before the full emeregence of Al-Quaeda, but that's a subject for another thread.

I'd like to offer an alternative scenario based on our having left Hussein in place and stayed out of Iraq. We know about the continued animosity that has existed between Iran and Iraq. We also know that he has possesed and used WMDs in the past, and he kicked out the UNSCOM inspectors for a reason. Fast forward as we watch the Iranians, governed by a radical mullah-ocracy and their puppet Ahmadenijad as they develop nuclear reactors with the stated intent of weaponized uranium. Do you think for one second that if Saddam was still alive and in power he would have been standing pat on his existing weapons while his next-door neighbors go nuclear? You can bet your last scud missle that he would be doing everything possible to match their nuclear development stride for stride, cutting deals with the Russians, North Koreans or whomever else could provide the goods. With these two crazies in a nuclear race, how do you think their neighbors like the Saudis, UAE, Turks and especially the Isralis would react? My guess is that they would be screaming for the US to do something because they already know the UN is useless. Don't forget the Isralis have already taken out one reactor in the past, so they probably wouldn't let either of these two get too far before doing it again. So in the end, our alternative might have been having two middle eastern countries going nuclear and having been chased out of Afghanistan Al-Quaeda would be collaborating with at least one of them.

Summary: although it's theoretical, it's entirely plausible that with Saddam still in power we could have a worse mess to deal with than we do now. I still think it's a good thing we got rid of him when we did. The next president will have to deal with Iran. Hopefully he will be more decisive, agressive and less PC than Bush.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
"Your right wing think tanks can fill your head with any junk reports you wish to believe,..."

You mean like moveon.org fills yours? At least the think tanks think. Unlike the extreme libs who only know emotion.

-Vampire Super Slooth Trucker!!!
 

tallcal101

Veteran Expediter
I have NEVER logged on to moveon.org
I get most of my news from NY TIMES,WALL STREET JOURNAL and various rags such as Rolling Stone,The New Republic and Mother Jones.
I will be voting the canidate in 08.My mind is open at this time.
I will not support Mr.new Flip Flop (Romney)nor will I support Ms. Clinton as a result of her wavering on the war.
Rudy has had too many wives and favors a womans right to choose,he can't win.John M is all washed up after his inability to seperate himself from the President and Iraq(he can't win either).Newt is as yet undelcared as is Gore.
Fred Thompson(I've liked him since the Watergate days)maybe too old,but I'm interested.
Obama maybe the front runner coming out of the gate if he sweeps a few red Primary states,which he may just do.He will be hard to stop if this happens.
Newt and Gore are dark horse's,anybodys guess.
I don't think the Republicans have enough positive's right now to be able to change the mood of the country, thanks in large part to Bush.
It's going to be interesting.Don't discount the sour mood in the country,or the polls.Americans are not buying the surge,or the rational about "what happens"if we loose.We have already lost,and the American people know it.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
WOW!!

Thanks for that tallcal, some of the best sensable comments I can honestly appreicate, especially after the lecture I got this afternoon from a group of misguided "new hippies".
 

simon says

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
"Regarding the destruction of their country - that's just not the case. Although we'll never read about it in the mainstream papers or hear it on network news, their infrastructure, utilities, schools, cell phone service, and their general economy is quite a bit better than when Saddam was dictator. We hear and read this repeatedly from people that have been to the regions outside Bagdad. Although all we see on TV is the turmoil around Bagdad, most of the country is recovering quite well and Kurdistan is virtually trouble-free."

Pilgrim: just don't know what pro-war source you are getting this nonsense from. Almost 700,000 Iraqis killed, most people who can are fleeing the country in droves (the brain drain alone is especially devastating), infrastructure is essentially destroyed, kids cannot go to school for fear of death, electricity in Baghdad about 4 hrs at a time, etc, etc. Almost the exact opposite of the above quote. The Brits are virtually surrounded in Basra. Iraq Kurdistan is perhaps the lone exception...

Iraq was one of the most advanced, secular countries in the middle east before the 1st Gulf war. However, even before the U.S. invaded in 2003, it was still better off than now. Tallcall is right on virtually point he made: cannot understand why you guys want to quibble with him. Among the elites outside of the administration, it is a known fact that the Bush Iraq war is a disaster. That is why now the blame game centers on the Iraqis themselves...Check out the op ed piece in Sunday's NY Times- one of the papers that supported the war in the first place.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Check this out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/page/2/

We all know what a "Pro-War Source" Newsweek is. One thing I try not to do on these threads is make gratuitous assertions, or claims without some sort of foundation. Granted, these days it's hard to determine fact from fiction on the TV news, mainstream media, etc. but sometimes you can find information provided by sources without some sort of political agenda. It's a bit cumbersome to cite sources for everything mentioned on these forums, but I'll be glad to do that if need be.
 
Top