See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Military Shares Public's Declining Support For Bush, War
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nc ... s/story/2826967p-9276680c.html
Published: Oct 29, 2005
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2005-10-29 19:57:40 by Brian S
Keywords: Declining, Military, Publics
Views: 144
Comments: 73
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- More than half of North Carolina military members surveyed in the latest Elon University poll disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and his overall job performance. Nearly 53 percent of military members said they strongly disapproved or disapproved of Bush's handling of his job. And just more than 56 percent of that same group strongly disapproved or disapproved of how he has dealt with the Iraq war. Overall, 53 percent of those surveyed for the poll released Friday did not approve of Bush's job performance, while 57 percent did not approve of his handling of the Iraq war. "We see that those most involved in the Iraq situation, the military, are not so different from the general public after all and share the same concerns about Iraq," said Hunter Bacot, the poll's director. "Conventional wisdom might suggest that the military would be more supportive of Bush in Iraq, but that simply isn't the case if you look at the numbers." North Carolina has one of the nation's largest military presences, with major Army, Marine and Air Force installations based in eastern North Carolina. North Carolina-based active-duty and reserve units have seen extensive action since the United States attacked Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Of the 539 adults surveyed for the Elon poll, 80 - or 14.8 percent of the sample - were active-duty, reserve, retired or veteran members of the military. The telephone poll was conducted between Monday and Thursday and has a margin of error for the entire sample of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points. The margin of error, which reflects the confidence that the results speak for an entire group, is higher for smaller groups, such as the 80 military members. Just over half of those people surveyed said the United States should no longer be in Iraq, while nearly 43 percent agreed that the country should remain there. The rest said they did not know or refused to answer. Roughly half of those polled - 52 percent - said they do not know if the war in Iraq was worth fighting. The poll showed about 15 percent believe the war was worthwhile and 29.1 percent do not think so. Military members were somewhat more supportive of the United States' presence in Iraq than the general population, with exactly half saying the nation should be there and 41.3 percent saying it should not. More than half of military members - 51 percent - said they did not know if the war was worth fighting, while 19 percent said the war was worth it and 29 percent said it was not The low approval numbers for Bush seen in the poll continue a pattern of declining support for the second-term president seen in previous Elon polls and nationally. The percentage of those surveyed who say they strongly approve or approve of Bush's job performance was down to 41 percent in the current poll from a recent peak of 55 percent in February 2004. Approval of Bush's handling of the Iraq war has dropped from 52 percent in September 2003 to nearly 39 percent now. Approval of the president's handling of the economy ticked up slightly in the current poll, to 37 percent, from the 36 percent approval registered in April. The peak was 42 percent in September 2004. Elon's Institute for Politics and Public Affairs has been conducting its poll since 2000.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-10) not displayed.
.
.
.
#11. To: christine (#7)
I think it's really hard to get out of Iraq without having the whole thing blow up in Bush's face. He seems to be trying to keep things in a holding patter so that he can dump the mess on the next administration. But I think the public might not stand for this for another three years. The only other alternative may be to attack someone new and hope the American people will rally again. I don't think they would, but that's just my gut reaction.
So is that what it is tonight, a vast, dark and powerful conspiracy by the lib'brul media? Are you saying the press should not have reported this surprising fact?
Three more serfs just lost their lives honoring the previous 2012 who died for the neocons. Three U.S. soldiers killed in attacks Richard W.
Good evening Gracy. It doesn't look like you've quite got a grasp of the subject matter at hand, so we can't legally, lawfully debate. There is also something about 'debating a minor' and 'abusing those incapable of defending themselves' restricts my ops order here too, in effect setting my 'rules of engagement' to those more capable of argument if you will ...
Did you ever read the Pentagon Papers or a synopsis of them? The gist of it was that the the US pressed on with the war long after they knew the situation was lost. They hoped to save face by pushing to responsibility for the failure onto future administrations. This is why Nixon went berserk and did the break in.
It doesn't look like you've quite got a grasp of the subject matter at hand, so we can't legally, lawfully debate. So you're down to childish mud slinging already. Grow up. The adults are talking here.
Jim, do you need attention?
Dear. I had not heard this. RIP, guys. (As long as we are there, this will continue to happen.)
What I need is, is an idler arm replaced; the bolts are cracked loose, but now I can't get the stud from the control arm to move down and out of the old idler arm ...
Grow up. The adults are talking here. To quote Al Borland: "I don't think so Tim."
Congress declared war on Germany, the War on
Iraq is intervention at best. This may surprise you, you stupid little
jackboot, but George Washington didn't have an "exit strategy" either. ps:
you are an ignorant, vile asshole, I hope you die of AIDS.
"I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S. Burroughs
Congress declared war on Germany, the War on Iraq is intervention at best. Congress also passed resolution(s) regarding Iraq, and Germany had not directly attacked us either, yet we 'declared war'. I guess I'm going to put you on Bozo for awhile too, kind of a 'time out', FRiend.
To quote Al Borland: "I don't think so Tim." You're a terrible advocate, did you know that? When people start threads to laugh at you you've lost your audience. Are you here to hurt Bush's poll numbers? That's what you're doing.
Germany was allied with Japan, who most certainly had attaked the US, pigfucker.
"I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S. Burroughs
This is a deliberate bald faced lie that you're telling to mislead the people here. Germany was openly allied with Japan when we declared war - but you knew this. Are we to assume that since Bush's local advocate is a slimey liar, Bush is too? That's the message you're sending.
Ywah> Well then you must restrict you debating to retarded rocks you stupid prick.
Riiiiiight...The pointy end of the batteries go towards the pointy end of the dildo you want to shove up your ass neofaggot.
Clinton....did...bad! Bush good, see?
"I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S. Burroughs
I rather suspect that the fellas are all gung ho initially because they have the opportunity to use the skills they have honed to a fine degree.......but as time goes on and on, with no winning in sight, or returning home for years, the reality of the lies and lack of planning and mistreatment of the military personnel start to set in. Soon they will realize they were duped and sent off lacking the basics like body armor, armored vehicles, adequate forward planning and exit strategies, and certainly the lack of care for families and injured soldiers on returning home. Once reality sets in, they aren't so gung ho. Getting killed or maimed, physically or mentally, for life isn't worth the oil or georgie's obsession with his daddy allegedly being targeted to die.
There ya go again, quoting that stalwart merikan, good ol henry k!! *PUKE*
Jeeze, Dak ol' buddy, I guess we're gonna have to start a 'Free Dakmar' fund to get you out of trouble along with Flintlock and rowdee. Can't leave y'all in l'il jimmie's l'il gitmo all weekend. LOL!
I'm sure a well educated person, such as your self, knows that it was Germany that declared war on the US. Right? I'm also sure you can point out the formal Iraqi decleration of War on the US. No rush.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
it was Germany that declared war on the US. Right? And Iraq had never ceased hostilities with us ... Remember tbe no-fly zone we had to enforce, with force? The repeated firing of rockets at our jets (of course, the HARM missiles would take out the RADAR sites when that happened)?
...with the rockets we sold him. Not to meantion the self propelled Artillary and millions in loans we gave him. And Iraq had never ceased hostilities with us ... After we attacked Iraq first in defense of a hardline Islamic nation that never liked us in the first place.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK! FREEDAK!
.with the rockets we sold him. I think the bulk of that 'crap' was Soviet era/Russion crap the former Soviet block countries sold hom.
Your fibbing to us again. Why don't you provide us with a link to support your silly claim.
hahahahahahahaha!
The crime to name a covert CIA official pales in comparison with conspiring to lead the nation to war under false pretenses.
After we attacked Iraq first in defense of a hardline Islamic nation that I'm on the verge of loosing phase-lock on this one; the continued hostilities resulted from action he took in rolling into Kuwait and we then pushed him back. Or so I thought it went down that way ... So, what treaties did we have in effect with Kuwait in the late 80's early 90's?
After State told him we didn't care much about their regional conflict. We duped him into invading as a pretext to go in and hammer him.
BUSH: The man is practicing fuzzy math again. There's differences. Under Vice President Gore's plan, he is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965.
Recall that Saddam asked April Glaspie if he could invade Kuwait before going in. She said yes. More precisely, she said that America would not interfere with an Arab matter. Saddam went in with our permission. But you knew that.
The crime to name a covert CIA official pales in comparison with conspiring to lead the nation to war under false pretenses. I wonder, have you by chance read the Duelfer report? I noticed your tagline is the reason I ask ...
Here is the opening section of the "Key Findings" executive summary section, and excdefrpoted below are the first two bulleted items: Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted. - Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy. - Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections--to gain support for lifting sanctions?with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
Why do you have to cherry pick facts this way? Are you afraid to give us a link? Does the next sentence, which you didn't post, blow you out of the water?
I mean _Jim, how many times have you been caught out in a bald faced lie just this evening - three?
I need my medicines
"I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S. Burroughs
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program." The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years. Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty. "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday. So much for that.
BUSH: The man is practicing fuzzy math again. There's differences. Under Vice President Gore's plan, he is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965.
He should be.. Duelfer nearly gutted the Administrations Iraq claims.
BUSH: The man is practicing fuzzy math again. There's differences. Under Vice President Gore's plan, he is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965.
U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01 The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq. Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program." The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years. Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty. "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States. But after extensive interviews with Hussein and his key lieutenants, Duelfer concluded that Hussein was not motivated by a desire to strike the United States with banned weapons,but wanted them to enhance his image in the Middle East and to deter Iran, against which Iraq had fought a devastating eight-year war. Hussein believed that "WMD helped save the regime multiple times," the report said.
The crime to name a covert CIA official pales in comparison with conspiring to lead the nation to war under false pretenses.
yep, see what I just posted. lmao.
The crime to name a covert CIA official pales in comparison with conspiring to lead the nation to war under false pretenses.
oh! you posted the same report!
The crime to name a covert CIA official pales in comparison with conspiring to lead the nation to war under false pretenses.
Comments (52 - 73) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIsn't it curious then that not only is there no exit plan for Iraq, but that it's also onward to Iran and Syria!
#12. To: _Jim (#10)
one wonders what those stats would be if the press were honest in their treatment of all subjects they cover ...
#13. To: lodwick (#2)
Whotf would want a smirking chimp to lead them into battle?
#14. To: avian virus (#12)
#15. To: Arete (#13)
Three more serfs just lost their lives honoring the previous 2012 who died for the neocons.
#16. To: _Jim (#14)
Good evening Gracy.
#17. To: _Jim (#14)
#18. To: Arete (#13)
Three more serfs just lost their lives honoring the previous 2012 who died for the neocons.
#19. To: avian virus (#17)
#20. To: avian virus (#16)
#21. To: _Jim (#9)
Like the one we had for Germany and other European countries
after WWII?
#22. To: Dakmar (#21)
#23. To: _Jim (#20)
Grow up. The adults are talking here.
#24. To: _Jim (#22)
#25. To: _Jim (#22)
Germany had not directly attacked us either, yet we 'declared war'
#26. To: _Jim (#14)
There is also something about 'debating a minor' and 'abusing those incapable of defending themselves' restricts my ops order here too, in effect setting my 'rules of engagement' to those more capable of argument if you will ...
#27. To: _Jim (#19)
What I need is, is an idler arm replaced; the bolts are cracked loose, but now I can't get the stud from the control arm to move down and out of the old idler arm ...
#28. To: avian virus (#25)
Are we to assume that since Bush's local advocate is a slimey liar, Bush is too?
#29. To: Brian S (#0)
#30. To: christine (#7)
Where are they going to get the "dumb, stupid animals" for it?
#31. To: Dakmar, Flintlock, rowdee, christine, all (#22)
I guess I'm going to put you on Bozo for awhile too, kind of a 'time out', FRiend.
#32. To: _Jim (#22)
Congress also passed resolution(s) regarding Iraq, and Germany had not directly attacked us either, yet we 'declared war'.
#33. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#32)
#34. To: _Jim (#33)
The repeated firing of rockets at our jets...
#35. To: Esso (#31)
#36. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#34)
#37. To: _Jim (#36)
I think the bulk of that 'crap' was Soviet era/Russion crap the former Soviet block countries sold hom.
#38. To: rowdee (#35)
#39. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#34)
#40. To: _Jim (#39)
I'm on the verge of loosing phase-lock on this one; the continued hostilities resulted from action he took in rolling into Kuwait and we then pushed him back.
#41. To: _Jim (#39)
So, what treaties did we have in effect with Kuwait in the late 80's early 90's?
#42. To: christine (#38)
#43. To: christine (#38)
Key Findings
So, we can take it from that that the threat was indeed a gathering threat, with Saddam just biding his time until sanctions could be lifted and he would be back in business with full-scale WMD programs ...
#44. To: _Jim (#43)
#45. To: _Jim (#43)
#46. To: Esso (#31)
#47. To: _Jim (#43)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
#48. To: All (#47)
Are you afraid to give us a link?
#49. To: _Jim (#43)
#50. To: Jhoffa_ (#48)
Duelfer nearly gutted the Administrations Iraq claims.
#51. To: Jhoffa_ (#47)
.
.
.