War 40, Congress 20

[dude1394]

Funny line.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber...6/warcongress/

War 40, Congress 20

The War is twice as popular as Congress.

Under Democratic leadership, the 110th Congress is the least popular Congress since pollsters began measuring this. Various polls peg the disapproval at various numbers at various times. But one thing doesn’t change: Worst Congress ever.

Democratic apologists say that this is because Congress has failed to end the war. Well, that may explain the low marks on the Democratic end. But the 63 votes so far this year on the war obviously are turning off independents and Republicans.

Let us review. In November, Gallup pegged the Congressional job approval at 20% with 69% disapproval.

In December, Gallup found that 40% of Americans think the Surge is working, 39% say not working.

And while 57% now say going into Iraq was a mistake, 41% say it was not a mistake.

Apparently 69% say electing this Congress was a mistake. Only 20% apparently believe this Congress was not a mistake.

While obviously the questions are slightly different, the pollster is the same: Gallup.

Its war survey is here. Congressional job approval is here.

[Janett_Reno]

Yea war is funny. Try telling the people that defend us. You make fun of our troops and it is ashame. You try to make Iraq and Iran a game. To make politics a game and put our troops in the middle as they lose their life. You need to wake up and see what is important in life and stop playing games because our troops are playing for real and they put their life on the line for you. Maybe you need to think about that.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Yea war is funny. Try telling the people that defend us. You make fun of our troops and it is ashame. You try to make Iraq and Iran a game. To make politics a game and put our troops in the middle as they lose their life. You need to wake up and see what is important in life and stop playing games because our troops are playing for real and they put their life on the line for you. Maybe you need to think about that.

Oh give me a break...Did I offend your delicate sensibilities.

War isn't funny, democrats are. I've NEVER made fun of our troops, NEVER. But anyone who would support what the democrat party are now willing to abandon those troops just when they have begun to win. That's not making fun, that's betraying them.

[Janett_Reno]

Bush loses ground with military families

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...66,print.story

Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.

Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

"I don't see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that's why they signed up," said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. "I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there."

Patience with the war, which has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, is wearing thin -- particularly among families who have sent a service member to the conflict. One-quarter say American troops should stay "as long as it takes to win." Nearly seven in 10 favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away."

Military families are only slightly more patient: 35% are willing to stay until victory; 58% want the troops home within a year or sooner.

Here, too, the military families surveyed are in sync with the general population, 64% of whom call for a withdrawal by the end of next year.

"You generally expect to see support for the president as commander in chief and for the war, but this is a different kind of war than those we've fought in the past, particularly for families," said David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland.

Today's all-volunteer force is older and more married than any before it. Facing a shortage of troops, the Army increased the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42 and called up reservists, who tend to be older and more settled than recruits fresh out of high school. The result is a fighting force that left thousands of spouses and children behind.

At the same time, deployments have grown longer and more frequent as troops rotate in and out of the war zone, sometimes three and four times, with no fixed end date in sight, a wearing existence that has contributed to opposition to Bush and his war strategy.

"The man went into Iraq without justification, without a plan; he just decided to go in there and win, and he had no idea what was going to happen," said poll respondent Mary Meneely, 58, of Arco, Minn. Her son, an Air Force reservist, served one tour in Afghanistan. "There have been terrible deaths on our side, and it's even worse for the Iraqi population. It's another Vietnam."

The survey, conducted under the supervision of Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 1,467 adults nationwide from Nov. 30 through Monday. It included 631 respondents from military families and 152 who have had someone in their family stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The margin of error for the entire sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points; for military families it is 4 percentage points, and for families with someone in the war zone it is 8 percentage points.

Other surveys have shown an erosion of support for Bush and the war among military personnel, including a 2005 poll by Military Times of their active-duty readers.

Now the disapproval of Bush appears to have transferred to his party. Republican leanings of military families that began with the Vietnam War -- when Democratic protests seemed to be aimed at the troops as much as the fighting -- have shifted, the poll results show.

When military families were asked which party could be trusted to do a better job of handling issues related to them, respondents divided almost evenly: 39% said Democrats and 35% chose Republicans. The general population feels similarly: 39% for Democrats and 31% for Republicans.

"The Democrats are not seen as the anti-soldier group anymore," said Charles C. Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University. He added that Bush's firm backing of the troops did not gain him any points because the entire country was now viewed as supportive of the military, even if not of the war. "He doesn't get extra credit for that."

"We support the troops; we don't support Bush," said respondent Linda Ramirez, 52, of Spooner, Wis., whose 19-year-old son is due to be deployed with the Marines early next year. "These boys have paid a terrible, terrible price."

The carnage -- nearly 3,900 killed and 29,000 wounded -- is contributing to the war's unpopularity, even though the number of dead is low compared with previous wars, Moskos thinks.

Medical advances on the battlefield have saved more lives but sent home more severely injured troops; for every soldier killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, eight are wounded -- nearly triple the ratio in Vietnam.

Asked about the Bush administration's handling of the needs of active-duty troops, military families and veterans, 57% of the general public disapprove. That number falls only slightly among military families -- 53% give a thumbs-down.

And most military families and others surveyed took no exception to retired officers publicly criticizing the Bush administration's execution of the war. More than half of the respondents in both groups -- 58% -- say such candor is appropriate. Families with someone who had served in the war are about equally supportive at 55%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now spin it. Let's face it dude, you ARE NOT a Republican. You are a NEO CON. You go around trying to spin things like you want them. If it is a lie or if you make fun, on others expenses, you do it because you believe in a neocon or a dictatorship system. Honestly people can see thru you supporting a Democrat for president when you claim you hate Democrats. You are in love with Rudy and do you want a list what he stands for? It is not for conservatism. A conservative is Romney or Huckabee, in which you can not stand because they are Republican.

Your neocon party is a minority but good luck on big oil, big spending and big war and lots more wars. As you and the neocons want Iran invaded, it won't happen because the Democrats, the troops, the Republicans have stood up and said no. Israel says do not believe the reports on Iran, that they do not have weapons of mass destruction and nuke capabilities to blow everyone up and are pressuring the neocons to invade no matter what is said. The same position you take.

Why did we go into Iraq? We went because of oil and because of Israel. We was also suppose to invade Iran and maybe even Syria. Was all this because of 9/11? No, nothing to do with it but a sell job by the neocons to get a foot hold in the middle east. What was 9/11? It was Laden and his group Al Queda attacking and running planes into the twin towers in NY, killing thousands. Where was the suicide bombers from? They was from Saudi Arabia. Why is this never mentioned? Because all our politicians are in bed with Saudi oil. That means Dems, Reps, Indeps, and neo cons. That country is not to be touched or a bad word said to. Because we are a hostage to the oil.

The neocons talk like we are chasing Al Queda and Laden around in Iraq and now he might be in Iran and Syria, to invade them also. All lies dude. Laden is not in Iraq and Sadam would have hung him. He is with our allies in Pakistan, which hate us. What about the stans in Russia and all over Africa where Al Queda is taking foot hold? The neocons do not care about Africa, Pakistan or other places Laden and Al Queda staging sites are at.

More spin you try to tell Republicans and Republcans tell you, you are wrong and you keep on trying to convince them, that Al Queda was in Iraq and that is why we invaded. That is not anywhere close to the truth. Again spreading false hoods but this is ok because Republcans and Democrats and the American people, along with military see right thru a neocon.

The truth was Al Queda was not in Iraq untill we invaded. Now the military and our people along with politicians are now asking, why did we really attack Iraq? You can try to spin it but you will not tell or try to tell the real reasons.

[dude1394]

Sheesh what a rant. Go back and look at about 20 or so posts where I've tried to explain to your dense skull why we went into Iraq.

It's actually written up for you it's, called the AUMF and your representatives overwhelmingly approved of it. So get off your silly "dictatorship" crapola. It's childish and stupid.

I don't really think I need you to tell me whether I am a republican or not, or whether Rudy is or not. You are projectiong the koskids definition of republican. Sorry you don't get to pick what a republican does/does not support.

[Janett_Reno]

Military Families Question Iraq War as Support for Bush Slips

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a9eBP4ZM28G8

Kent Fletcher, an Iraq war veteran, says he enthusiastically voted for President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Now, he is a registered Democrat who questions the need for the war, the way it has been managed and the treatment of returning veterans.

``Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat and the culmination of my career was that war and it wasn't necessary,'' says Fletcher, 32, a financial analyst in Bluffton, South Carolina, who served almost 10 years as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps.

A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows that Fletcher's skepticism about the war reflects a growing disenchantment within the broader military community, long a bastion of support for the Bush administration and Republicans. Among active-duty military, veterans and their families, only 36 percent say it was worth going to war in Iraq. This compares with an Annenberg survey taken in 2004, one year after the invasion, which showed that 64 percent of service members and their families supported the war.

The views of veterans and their families are now closer in line with overall public sentiment. The poll shows that 32 percent of the general population supports the war.

`Enormous Sacrifices'

The change isn't ``surprising,'' says Andrew Bacevich, a former Army colonel and professor of international relations at Boston University whose son was killed in Iraq in May. ``Military families have been asked to make enormous sacrifices.''

The poll conducted Nov. 30-Dec. 3 also finds that 37 percent of military-family members approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a little more than the general population. The 2004 poll by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications in Philadelphia found that twice as many military families approved of Bush's performance.

``I don't think our commander-in-chief has inclusive long- term goals sketched out,'' said Victoria Colhouer, 49, of St. Petersburg, Florida, whose son is serving in Iraq.

The same trend holds true on the question of the treatment of active-duty military, veterans and their families. The poll finds that only 29 percent of all poll respondents say they believe the Bush administration is doing a good job handling those needs. Among military families, who directly benefit from those programs, 35 percent say the administration is doing a good job.

Favoring Democrats

At the same time, a plurality of military-family members, 39 percent, say they believe Democrats are likely to do a better job handling those issues, compared with 35 percent for Republicans.

When it comes to candidates in next year's presidential election, military families are less reliably Republican than in earlier campaigns. Two Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois run slightly ahead of former Republican Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among those voters, and both Democrats trail only slightly former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The survey of 1,467 adults nationwide includes 631 military family members, active-duty personnel and veterans. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus 3 percentage points; for the military families it is plus or minus 4 points.

Max Ramos, 52, an Army master sergeant who was injured in Afghanistan in 2002 and is set to retire next month after 28 years of service, says he still supports Bush. At the same time, he understands that soldiers are angry about a military health- care system that is strained by the war.

`Person in Charge'

He says many of his military colleagues blame Bush because ``the person that is responsible for everything is the person in charge.''

In 2005, Fletcher, the Marine who switched party affiliations, published an editorial in the Huntington, West Virginia Herald-Dispatch newspaper scolding critics of Bush, who he said were also insulting the U.S. fighting forces.

``You don't have to spit on an Iraqi war veteran physically to spit on one metaphorically,'' he wrote. ``We are part and the same with the president's administration.''

Fletcher is now a member of Votevets.org, a group that promotes political candidates, particularly veterans who are critical of the Bush administration's Iraq war policies.

That shift in Fletcher's view may reflect a broader trend in the military about dissent. The Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll finds that 58 percent of military families -- the same margin as the overall population -- believe it is appropriate for retired military personnel to criticize Bush even in a time of war.

Separately, the poll also finds that almost half of Americans would support some form of military action against Iran over its nuclear program. The survey was conducted before the Bush administration released an intelligence assessment this week that concluded Iran halted nuclear-weapons development in 2003. The report has prompted a fresh round of criticism by Democrats of Bush's stance that Iran is a growing threat to the U.S. and its allies.

---------------------------------------------------------

Now do you want to tell the truth dude or keep spinning it? Want me to spell it our clearer to you? The neocons are an have wrecked the Republican party, in which you do not care because you are not a Republican and do not support them anyway. Did you ever see the day so many Republicans are changing parties to a Democrat? Did you ever think to see the day where Republican senators and house members are dropping like flies, retiring or quiting their jobs. The day where people are begging to get out of Bush adm. The neocons have spit on the Republican party and anyone that does not stand in what they do and it has hurt the Republicans because if they speak up, they have it hard and if they ride along and do nothing, then it looks like they are in for the neocon ride. They are between a bad rock and a hard place.

Not all are taking this like a mouse, Lugar, Hagel and Warner haven't and they have spoke, in which you hate those three Republicans. So why you spin that Sadam was a bad man, had weapons of mass destruction, and Laden and Al Queda might be in Iraq and we needed to attack someone because of 9/11 and it might as well be Iraq than anyone, that doesn't get you points by the military families, the American people are the Democrat or Republican parties.

[Janett_Reno]

Even Fred Thompson, a Republican conservative is speaking up. Now i do agree he is dead old and about to fall asleep most of the time, he atleasts speaks up, and got Fox News told fast.

Just like Bill Clinton stood up and told them and so did Fred Thompson. Fred might not answer where he stands but he told Fox, just where you get your information from and start spreading it around, support a Democrat in Rudy, elect him because a conservative is no good anymore and we do not support anymore conservatism. Fred said Rudy is not the nominee and conservatism might not be dead afterall. So Fox needs to stop spreading rumors. The same rumors you spread because that is where you get your news.

The truth is Rudy and Libberman are not Democrats either, they are it's and support the flavor of the week. So your Iraq war is not as popular as you want to make it out to be dude and you trying to spin why we need to invade Syria and Iraq will be hard to sell also. It will have to be more than they have wmd's and they are bad men.

[dude1394]

Here...I think someone might listen to you over here.
http://www.dailykos.com/

You can sell crazy some place else, we're all stocked up here.

[Janett_Reno]

As long as you are my biggest fan, i do not need daily kos. They might report on the Hatton/Mayweather fight tomorrow night. So i will keep it in mind.