that article, and your parroting of it are a misrepresentation.

check the poll results. the question at hand had the following response...

19. Still thinking about Iraq, how much do you trust each of the following to recommend the right thing for the U.S. to do in Iraq – a great deal, a fair amount, not much, or not at all? [RANDOM ORDER]

2006 Dec 8-10 (sorted by “great deal”) Great deal Fair amount Not much Not at all No opinion



The U.S. military and defense department 40 41 14 3 1

The Iraq Study Group 20 46 19 7 8

Senator John McCain 19 44 23 6 9

President George W. Bush 18 28 24 28 1

The Democratic leaders in Congress 14 44 26 13 3

The U.S. state department 14 48 26 8 4

bush scored 18 percent in "great deal", not 20 percent. but the "fudging doesn't stop there. the margin of error here is 3 percent. so the results for both the president and congress are within the margin of error.

neglected are the "fair amount of confidence" people. here, bush's numbers rise only to 28 percent. the democratic congress go up to 44 percent. if we combine the "high" and "fair amount" of confidence voters, bush has 46%. congress has 58%.

you and the USA today writer are trying to say that america has more confidence in bush than congress. fact is that people do have more confidence in congress than bush by a 12 point margin, outside of the margin of error.

going further, this is reinforced by looking at the "no confidence at all" and "not much" confidence voters.here bush scores 28 and 24 percent collectively, for a total of 52%. congress scores a combined 39 percent with their "no confidence" numbers @ 13%.

at best, your position is pure spin, at worst it is a lie. either way, it is wrong. overall, people have much more confidence in congress than bush to resolve iraq.

The DEMOCRATS said before and after they election they would not cut off funding in Iraq to force an end to our occupation. That means any REAL change in the Iraq War Policy rests with Bush. He is the Commander-in-Chief as you conservatives like to point out.

I bet you will see a lot of change in health, college costs, keeping the tax cuts for middle income taxpayers and higher minimum wage, and move toward a balanced budget under the Democrats.

well terp, from what i've read of your stuff, you support bush. if i am wrong, please enlighten me. but your statement in the article "sunni's ready to cooperate with us" for example said this...

I'd encourage some folks to read this slowly. This is important news. Where we could be reading more bashing articles on how the situation in Iraq is deteorating, it is instead improving. The last group of political holdouts is seeing the light and realizing that cooperating with the U.S. is a much better way to achieve their goals than continuing the use of insurgent tactics.

how did that go? turns out you believed those lies while some of us saw thru the bush propoganda machine.

The DEMOCRATS said before and after they election they would not cut off funding in Iraq to force an end to our occupation. That means any REAL change in the Iraq War Policy rests with Bush. He is the Commander-in-Chief as you conservatives like to point out.

So you are already making excuses for the democrats?

I bet you will see a lot of change in health, college costs, keeping the tax cuts for middle income taxpayers and higher minimum wage, and move toward a balanced budget under the Democrats.

Of course the changes you listed will no doubt reverse the economy and move us backward again.  Will you hold democrats accountable for their actions as you do for republicans?

 

The DEMOCRATS said before and after they election they would not cut off funding in Iraq to force an end to our occupation

Prove it clown.

ok then,,,again, what is your position?

Ah, since you ask so nicely...  lets see (ramblin' thoughts run through head).

First, I'll admit that I am normally more skeptical of putting Democrats in charge of our military, or at least in charge of the purse strings for them.  U.S. History, at least history in the last 50 years (give or take) has shown many times that Democrats are not the best "deciders" of what is best for our military, or what the best use of our military is.  Jimmy Carter (remember failed efforts in Iran?), JFK (Bay of Pigs anyone?), Clinton and the Black Hawk Down debacle, the marass that he got us into by having our troops subject to command and control from the U.N. in Bosnia, and a host of other issues related to same.

Jimmy Carter's incompetent treatment of the military took years to erase and frankly much spending by the Reagan administration.  Now, lest you think I believe Reagan was a saint and was a great thing for the military, try watching The Pentagon Wars (rent it, get it, watch it if you've never seen it).  It is a fascinating and highly entertaining made-for-HBO movie that was based on a book written by someone that was in-the-know on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the fight over bringing it to the field.  Reagan spent a ton of money to buy a lot of "toys" for the military.  Some good, some bad.  But in that spending and in spending on trying to boost military pay, he boosted morale for our troops.  The operations in Grenada and also in Panama were great examples of how well our military can work if we let it.

Bush (the elder) did a pretty fantastic job of getting a strong coalition together for the first gulf war.  It could be argued that he should have gone further while he had the military power there, but it could also be argued that he had some smart advisers that were wise enough to see that if they didn't know their next move in Iraq, they needed to proceed very cautiously.

Bush (the current, he of George W name) did well with Afghanistan and then bit off a lot more than he seemed to have been ready to chew in Iraq.  I don't blame him entirely for it though as the problem is one that is evident even in folks I would hope consider themselves my friends here at JU.  Not trying to pick on or name names here, but I believe BakerStreet and some other folks had said in the past that we (the U.S.A.) and our military have to hold ourselves to higher standards, and that we can't sink to the levels of torture and other tactics that our enemies will allow themselves to fall to.

I've consistently called B.S. on that approach.  I believe that when you fight a war you have to approach it with an undeviating will to win.  You do whatever it takes, and you don't feel bad about embarassing your enemy in the ways we saw at Abu Grahib (sp?).  I'd have taken those pictures and many more like them and spread them throughout the "Arab World" with the incredibly strong message that messing with the U.S. would get you that punishment and much worse.  Idiots and Islamic wackos that think that they're getting 72 virgins as they cross into the promised land would find out that the 72 virgins are the A--holes of their crazed brethren all piled below them in a big ugly naked mess.

Now, to get back on the original topic of the USA Today article, am I pessimistic about the Iraq war?  I'd guess I have to say yes.  How much so, I really don't know.  Do I think Democrats would handle it better than the GOP?  NO.  Not with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Murtha or the likes of same at the helm.

Nor do I believe that the likes of the plans that Jim Baker and the rest of the commission on Iraq are exactly what is needed.  Much of that plan is a path to surrender and appeasement of the self-same people that have stirred up most of the trouble that is now going on in Iraq.  Asking Iran and Syria for help is a joke.  They want to help alright, and they want us to ask alright, and who knows, they may even help make things peaceful there for a while, but in the end it would be about setting up the type of government they want for their neighbor rather than what was the objective before -- setting up the type of government for the people of Iraq that we would like to see for them.  A Democratic government. A representative government.  One that would respect the needs of it's people.  Not one that works against the people of the nation.

At the very least we owe the Kurds (in the North) their own peaceful state.  If worse comes to worse, then Iraq should be partitioned into 3 states.  A Kurdish state, a Shiite state, and a Sunni state.  Let them have their own areas of the country and let the country be a United States of Iraq.  Each state governing itself within a larger framework of their own Republic.

It probably should have happened from day one, but it didn't and now getting the best result should still be the goal.

We need to secure the borders, and end the violence.   Perhaps Rumsfeld's last ditch plan (the one he was working on and/or was published as he was exiting the office) is the right move.  Get our troops into advisory roles and primarily out of harms way.  Put them on the borders, and let the Iraqi's take care of their own security in Baghdad and in the other hotbeds in the country.

Just my $.02

thanks for your well thought out response terp, i really do appreciate it. i have just a couple of comments on it...

i think your perspective is reflective of other hawks as far as the historical remembering of the past. some of which i agree with, some i don't. but those things are a lil off topic, so i'll move on...we don't need to start a whole nother debate there...

Not trying to pick on or name names here, but I believe BakerStreet and some other folks had said in the past that we (the U.S.A.) and our military have to hold ourselves to higher standards, and that we can't sink to the levels of torture and other tactics that our enemies will allow themselves to fall to.

actually, i have been a big proponent there. and baker and i have argued there. not to speak for him, but i think he is closer to your position. i could be wrong tho as i'm going off of memory...

Do I think Democrats would handle it better than the GOP? NO. Not with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Murtha or the likes of same at the helm.

ok, but...

At the very least we owe the Kurds (in the North) their own peaceful state. If worse comes to worse, then Iraq should be partitioned into 3 states. A Kurdish state, a Shiite state, and a Sunni state. Let them have their own areas of the country and let the country be a United States of Iraq. Each state governing itself within a larger framework of their own Republic.

well, that's joe biden's plan orig. democrat from delaware

Get our troops into advisory roles and primarily out of harms way. Put them on the borders, and let the Iraqi's take care of their own security in Baghdad and in the other hotbeds in the country.

that sounds an awful lot like some of the redeployment ideas that have come out of the democratic side.

again, thanks for your explanation terp, much appreciated. i don't agree with all of your assessments, but at least i understand your position better.

There's been no balanced reporting in the MSM at all. oh God, still blaming the media? whatever daiwa...have fun...

You can ignore the facts all you want. Read my full comments again - I did not "blame" the media, but their negative influence can hardly be denied.

You have fun, too, now.