Poll: Bush Job Approval Dips to New Low

[SLCPUNK]

WASHINGTON - As the war in     Iraq drags on,     President Bush's job approval and the public's confidence in the direction he's taking the nation are at their lowest levels since The Associated Press-Ipsos poll began in December 2003.

About one-third of adults, 35 percent, said they think the country is headed in the right direction, while 43 percent said they approve of the job being done by Bush. Just 41 percent say they support his handling of the war, also a low-water mark.

"There's a bad mood in the country, people are out of sorts," said presidential scholar and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Charles Jones, who lives near Charlottesville, Va. "Iraq news is daily bad news. The election in Iraq helped some, and the formation of the government helped some, but dead bodies trump the more positive news."

California retiree Carol Harvie was quick to mention Iraq when asked about how Bush was doing his job.

"I don't think he's read his history enough about different countries and foreign affairs," said Harvie, a political independent who lives near San Diego, a region with several military bases. "Anything they try to do in Iraq has spelled trouble. I think he bit off more than he can chew."

Car bombings and attacks by insurgents killed 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis last month and     Pentagon officials acknowledge the level of violence is about the same as a year ago, when they were forced to scrap a plan to substantially reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

Bush administration officials say the key to getting U.S. forces out of Iraq is training Iraqis to provide their own security.

While Bush has gotten generally low scores for his handling of domestic issues for many months, most Americans have been supportive of his foreign policy. Not any more.

The poll conducted for AP by Ipsos found 45 percent support Bush's foreign policy, down from 52 percent in March.

Bush's popularity reached its zenith shortly after the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when various polls found nearly 90 percent approved of the job he was doing. It was close to 80 percent when Ipsos started tracking attitudes about Bush at the start of 2002, and was just over 50 percent when the AP-Ipsos poll was started in December 2003.

But since winning re-election last November, Bush has seen his poll numbers sag.

(clip)

Support for Bush's handling of domestic issues remained in the high 30s and low 40s in the latest AP-Ipsos poll.

Thirty-seven percent support Bush's handling of     Social Security, while 59 percent disapprove. Those numbers haven't budged after more than four months of the president traveling the country to sell his plan to create private accounts in Social Security.

Support for his handling of the economy was at 43 percent.

Congress gets even lower grades than Bush, a potentially troubling development for those seeking re-election next year.

Only about three in 10 polled said they approve of the job being done by Congress, while 64 percent disapprove.

"Presidents who are low in the polls have a hard time getting Congress to go along with them," said Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "He has to persuade the people in Congress to follow his legislative agenda and they're all worried about 2006."

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults was taken June 6-8 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Yahoo.com

[Mal Brossard]

I almost posted this a couple days ago when it first came out.

Good to see the American people are finally coming to their senses.

Just a damn year too late.

[N.I.B]

I dont like Bush, but he did have better policies then Kerry. His second term is almost over so just wait it out.

[SLCPUNK]

I dont like Bush, but he did have better policies then Kerry.

Such as?

[journey]

Bush also didn't stand beside his ally, Tony Blair, about the environment issue.

[journey]

His second term is almost over so just wait it out.

Yeah but his little brother might run for president.   

I think it's safe to say that we've all had enough Bush for one lifetime.

[D]

John Kerry dropped the ball, I am a democrat but he was a horrible presidential candidate.

the election was his to take but he couldnt make his mind up on what he believed and screwed himself out of being president.

people wanted to vote for him but Like i said a long time ago, Ill take a devil I know that even though I dont necessarily agree with him he stands by what he believes than a guy who has no set opinion and flops to whatever the popular opinion was.

Kerry lost the election on the war.

calling the war unnecessary and saying it was pointless lost it for him.

People dont like their soldiers risking their lives called pointless and the fact he was gonna continue on with the war after calling it pointless was even worse.

Now Howard Dean is really ruining it for Democrats by being a total moron and running his mouth and making the democratic party look horrible. someone needs to remove him from that position. he is making democrats look bad.

[nesquick]

The best poliic USA ever had besides Abraham Lincoln and Georges Washington, is Bill Clinton.

[noonespecial]

and you are surprised by his by his approval dropping, why?

[N.I.B]

I dont like Bush, but he did have better policies then Kerry.

Such as?

anti-gay marrige, no abortion, tax breaks

[SLCPUNK]

I dont like Bush, but he did have better policies then Kerry.

Such as?

anti-gay marrige, no abortion, tax breaks

Oh....I thought you mean real issues. Gay marriage doesn't really affect the economy, or health care, or anything else. And abortion is legal, and also doens't affect the economy or health care. Probably why Kerry wasn't talking about those things.

Tax break was a scam...... The tax check I got (along with millions of others) was an advance on the return for the year ahead. So he called it "tax relief" was a lie, great way to start out in office. Guess it was just foreshadowing of more (lies) to come.

The tax break he did give was to the wealthiest part of the society anyway.

In my book, as a patriotic American I would rather pay more taxes, if it meant helping public education, healthcare, and seniors. Something I know most republicans don't think of: other people.

[SLCPUNK]

John Kerry dropped the ball, I am a democrat but he was a horrible presidential candidate.

Kerry had a plan the entire time. The right wing did what it always did best: They muddied up the argument. That is how they win anything. They take something somebody is saying, and muddy it up.

Karl Rove works this way: Say it over and over, over, over, over, over, over and over until people believe it to be true. It does NOT MATTER if it is true, just say it and people will eventually believe it to be true.

Go watch "Bush's brain"..... it is not about the president...it's about Karl Rove and how his tactic of smearing people, and their ideals has paved the road for him over the years.

You never knew Kerry's plan because you were told he had no plan. Everybody said that, "He has no plan". He surely did. He laid it out in the debates and on his website in detail. The number one thing people said was "He had no plan." Read any article from that time period and that is word for word what Bush's entire platform was.

The thing that makes Rove win is that he knows: MOST people DON'T read. They go with what they hear, and only read to a certain extent. That is what makes Fox (and people like them-the remainder of the republican party) so effective. They can say something as an opinion (does not matter if it's true) again and again, and eventually the opinion will become a FACT. It is scary and we have all fallen victim to it. That was Bush's strategy in this election.

the election was his to take but he couldnt make his mind up on what he believed and screwed himself out of being president.

He had made once choice, stuck to it, the rest is spin. He makes his case VERY CLEAR if you read what he has to say. There was no flip flop, even though they used his quotes against him, they were taken out of context. They sounded horrible, but if you read on, you would see it was all SPIN.

people wanted to vote for him but Like i said a long time ago, Ill take a devil I know that even though I dont necessarily agree with him he stands by what he believes than a guy who has no set opinion and flops to whatever the popular opinion was.

Disapointing to read bro.

Now Howard Dean is really ruining it for Democrats by being a total moron and running his mouth and making the democratic party look horrible. someone needs to remove him from that position. he is making democrats look bad.

Dean recently said that the right wing was mostly white Christian men, and that offended them. Do you not think that is not true? They ARE a bunch of white Christians!

Did you also remember that "Dean scream" bullshit? Did you know that they took the crowd noise and dubbed it out? Then it was just his scream that they played over and over. Nobody ever reported that, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, changed it. They took it, because it would stir up sensation and ran it on every single channel. But the biggest reason (to me) was what he said near the end of that speach: "We're going to break up the giant media enterprises.? That is dangerous water to tread in isn't it? They heard this and were able to crush him WITH EASE. They played that thing non-stop for a week. And that....was that. Dean was done.


It was media deception to the max, all for ratings and to make him look like a nutcase. Very few people know this, even though it is public information. Just from that one thing, Dean has been made out to be this "nutty guy". The entire thing is bullshit and terribly irresponsible of our media (business as usual). The isolated, recorded Dean Scream taken alone and without crowd noise, sounded detached, exaggerated and was totally out of context. People at the event that night noted they could barely hear him over the audience noise.

Dean is actually super bright and aggresive, what we need in this country. A real guy with balls. It is my opinion that he would have whipped Bush. The "dean scream" thing took him right out of the primary, leaving Kerry who they could disect and lead people to believe was a flip flopper. I believe a right wing media group got a hold of that tape, redubbed it knowing that it would push Dean out and put Kerry on top. I really do believe that. That and the corporate media who don't like to hear they are going t be "broken up" did him in. Once I found out what they did to that tape, I honestly believed that. Dean would be much harder to disect then Kerry. Kerry was a field day for the Republicans. Because they knew that the public would not be willing to read enough to find out the truth behind what they were claiming. The republicans don't care to read anyway, they'll take anything that is spoon-fed them, no matter how false it is (see: WMD).

[D]

kind of funny since like 40 percent of hispanics voted republican, so that kind of takes from the  white christians argument. Dean himself is a white christian, admit it, Dean is an idiot and is fuckin up the democrats. I think he is.


I watched every debate and Kerry kept saying he had a plan but I never heard it, mocking the war and calling it pointless and basically stupid after he himself voted for it was dumb.

He looked ridiculous with his issue on the war. I'm a democrat but I will call fellow democratic candidates on shit, Kerry was no better than Bush in my opinion, neither deserved to be president. I felt like writing a big "none of the above" in with my vote.


U cannot say a war is pointless but then turn around and say u will continue the war, is it a coincidence that he looked great in the polls and then all of a sudden Bush wipes him out in the election?

But hey I voted for Kerry but I have to admit he did a poor job and truly fucked up what shouldve been a landslide election especially against maybe the worst president this country has ever had.

U can blame who u want but the bottom line to me is, kerry dropped the ball and just didnt get the job done.

[SLCPUNK]

kind of funny since like 40 percent of hispanics voted republican, so that kind of takes from the  white christians argument. Dean himself is a white christian, admit it, Dean is an idiot and is fuckin up the democrats. I think he is.

Well yea Dean is a white Christian, but that is not the point. The point is that neo-cons are aggresively incorporating Christianity into their political ideals. It is not a slam against Christianity, it is calling it out for what it is: not diverse and hyper focused on pleasing the far-Christian-right.

Bush has many plans to grab the mexican vote, such as granting amnesty to millions of Mexican workers living and working illegally in the United States. That would probably explain the high Mexican turn out in his favor.

I still tend to agree that his viewpoint is correct. The neo-cons are extremely conservative, white, and promoting Christianity. He is a Christian, but does not bring it to the table in political discourse.


I watched every debate and Kerry kept saying he had a plan but I never heard it, mocking the war and calling it pointless and basically stupid after he himself voted for it was dumb.

You watched a different debate then I did then.

U cannot say a war is pointless but then turn around and say u will continue the war, is it a coincidence that he looked great in the polls and then all of a sudden Bush wipes him out in the election?

Again....he did not say this in the context you believe it. You have to read past the headlines.

But hey I voted for Kerry but I have to admit he did a poor job and truly fucked up what shouldve been a landslide election especially against maybe the worst president this country has ever had.

What is done is done.

U can blame who u want but the bottom line to me is, kerry dropped the ball and just didnt get the job done.

Bush didn't get the job done. Kerry lost the election, but the people (around the world ) were the real losers.

[sandman]

John Kerry dropped the ball, I am a democrat but he was a horrible presidential candidate.

Kerry had a plan the entire time. The right wing did what it always did best: They muddied up the argument. That is how they win anything. They take something somebody is saying, and muddy it up.

Karl Rove works this way: Say it over and over, over, over, over, over, over and over until people believe it to be true. It does NOT MATTER if it is true, just say it and people will eventually believe it to be true.

Go watch "Bush's brain"..... it is not about the president...it's about Karl Rove and how his tactic of smearing people, and their ideals has paved the road for him over the years.

You never knew Kerry's plan because you were told he had no plan. Everybody said that, "He has no plan". He surely did. He laid it out in the debates and on his website in detail. The number one thing people said was "He had no plan." Read any article from that time period and that is word for word what Bush's entire platform was.

The thing that makes Rove win is that he knows: MOST people DON'T read. They go with what they hear, and only read to a certain extent. That is what makes Fox (and people like them-the remainder of the republican party) so effective. They can say something as an opinion (does not matter if it's true) again and again, and eventually the opinion will become a FACT. It is scary and we have all fallen victim to it. That was Bush's strategy in this election.

the election was his to take but he couldnt make his mind up on what he believed and screwed himself out of being president.

He had made once choice, stuck to it, the rest is spin. He makes his case VERY CLEAR if you read what he has to say. There was no flip flop, even though they used his quotes against him, they were taken out of context. They sounded horrible, but if you read on, you would see it was all SPIN.

people wanted to vote for him but Like i said a long time ago, Ill take a devil I know that even though I dont necessarily agree with him he stands by what he believes than a guy who has no set opinion and flops to whatever the popular opinion was.

Disapointing to read bro.

Now Howard Dean is really ruining it for Democrats by being a total moron and running his mouth and making the democratic party look horrible. someone needs to remove him from that position. he is making democrats look bad.

Dean recently said that the right wing was mostly white Christian men, and that offended them. Do you not think that is not true? They ARE a bunch of white Christians!

Did you also remember that "Dean scream" bullshit? Did you know that they took the crowd noise and dubbed it out? Then it was just his scream that they played over and over. Nobody ever reported that, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, changed it. They took it, because it would stir up sensation and ran it on every single channel. But the biggest reason (to me) was what he said near the end of that speach: "We're going to break up the giant media enterprises.? That is dangerous water to tread in isn't it? They heard this and were able to crush him WITH EASE. They played that thing non-stop for a week. And that....was that. Dean was done.


It was media deception to the max, all for ratings and to make him look like a nutcase. Very few people know this, even though it is public information. Just from that one thing, Dean has been made out to be this "nutty guy". The entire thing is bullshit and terribly irresponsible of our media (business as usual). The isolated, recorded Dean Scream taken alone and without crowd noise, sounded detached, exaggerated and was totally out of context. People at the event that night noted they could barely hear him over the audience noise.

Dean is actually super bright and aggresive, what we need in this country. A real guy with balls. It is my opinion that he would have whipped Bush. The "dean scream" thing took him right out of the primary, leaving Kerry who they could disect and lead people to believe was a flip flopper. I believe a right wing media group got a hold of that tape, redubbed it knowing that it would push Dean out and put Kerry on top. I really do believe that. That and the corporate media who don't like to hear they are going t be "broken up" did him in. Once I found out what they did to that tape, I honestly believed that. Dean would be much harder to disect then Kerry. Kerry was a field day for the Republicans. Because they knew that the public would not be willing to read enough to find out the truth behind what they were claiming. The republicans don't care to read anyway, they'll take anything that is spoon-fed them, no matter how false it is (see: WMD).

i love these comments. just makes me laugh. and another great reminder of how great it is tha bush won.

and it's also a somewhat sad reminder why the democratic party is in such disarray. until the die-hards start to take responsibility for the failures of the party, they will never turn it around. the democratic party needs to take a look in the mirror instead of always blaming everyone else.

and your arguments are so fucking hilarious. it's scary to me that you actually believe all this stuff and honestly think you are so much more informed than everyone else.

you actually blame the republicans for dean losing the primaries to kerry. 

maybe you forget who votes in the primaries!! 

and maybe you forget why dean was giving that ("concession") speech in the first place. it was because he lost. and he didn't even finish second to kerry - he finished third. so don't try to blame republicans or the media.

the bottom line is kerry beat dean because kerry better represents the typical liberal in this country. completely smug. he has the "i'm better than you" attitude.

[SLCPUNK]

and maybe you forget why dean was giving that ("concession") speech in the first place. it was because he lost. and he didn't even finish second to kerry - he finished third. so don't try to blame republicans or the media.

the bottom line is kerry beat dean because kerry better represents the typical liberal in this country. completely smug. he has the "i'm better than you" attitude.

 *Yawn*

Save it for somebody who gives a rats ass.

Bush's approval rating is lower than ever.

Iraq is mess.

8.8 BILLION dollars is unaccounted for. Gee, wonder who got that money?

States are bailing out of the "No child left behind bill". Even going as far as to create new bills to deny it.

Downing street Memos are out, proving once and for all that Bush had planned to invade Iraq for some time, and had to create a reason (uh hum....LIE )  for the general public.

Prisoner abuse reported, denied, then backed up by the Pentagon.

Social Security going bye bye has been exposed as a lie ("11 trillion dollar shortfall" was what bush liked to say. But it was specualting 11 trillion dollars over infinity! That's right....infinity. Always read the fine print).

One lie after the other, no WMD, no Osama, deficit big enough to let our grandchildren pay off.

Bush will be remembered as a failure and a liar.

His approval will only get worse. Like the article said....it's his worst so far.

[SLCPUNK]

Army Aims to Catch Up on Recruits in Summer
Numbers Are Down tor Fourth Month

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 11, 2005; A01



The Army announced yesterday that it missed its recruiting goal for the fourth consecutive month, a deepening manpower crisis that officials said would require a dramatic summer push for recruits if the service is to avoid missing its annual enlistment target for the first time since 1999.

The Army will make a "monumental effort" to bring in the average 10,000 recruits a month required this summer, said Maj. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, head of the Army's recruiting command. An additional 500 active-duty recruiters will be added in the next two months -- on top of an increase of 1,000 earlier this year.

The Pentagon is also considering asking Congress to double the enlistment bonus it can offer to the most-prized recruits -- from $20,000 to $40,000 -- and to raise the age limit for Army active-duty service from 35 to 40, he said.

"The challenge is one of historic proportions," Rochelle said, acknowledging that he is not sure whether the traditional summer surge in Army recruits will take place, or how large it might be.

Violent, long deployments to Iraq and a sound job market at home have combined to reduce what the Army calls the "propensity to enlist" -- the percentage of young Americans willing to consider Army service -- which dropped from 11 percent last year to about 7 percent this year.

"What I don't know, in all candor, is how the reduced propensity will dampen" the recruiting prospects of summer, Rochelle said in an interview. "I wish the summer period were about twice as long."

The Army's recruiting difficulties are only expected to grow. "Next year promises quite frankly, given the size of our entry pool, to be an even tougher fight," he said. "God forbid a downward trend" in the willingness to serve, he added.

The Army missed its May active-duty recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits, pushing the shortfall for fiscal 2005 to 8,321 -- or more than a month's worth of recruits. The shortfall would have been 37 percent if the Army had not lowered its May goal. Overall, the Army has sent 40,964 enlistees to boot camp, and has four months to nearly double that figure to reach the 80,000 goal for this fiscal year.

Army, Navy and Marine Corps reserve forces also missed their goals for May. Army National Guard enlistments for the month fell short by 29 percent, Army Reserves by 18 percent, Marine Corps Reserves by 12 percent and Navy Reserves by 4 percent, according to figures released yesterday by the Pentagon.

The Army is struggling the most, as it provides the bulk of the forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is working to increase in size to 512,000 by adding 30,000 troops to fill 10 new brigades.

The sluggish flow of enlistments means that Army boot camps are less than half full -- training at 46 percent of their capacity this month, compared with 91 percent in May 2004, said Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. For example, the Army's infantry training center at Fort Benning, Ga., had by May trained only 8,700 of its fiscal year goal of 24,500 infantrymen.

The Army can meet its goals only with a "massive influx of recruits" to boot camp this summer, Perritt said.

To produce that summer windfall, the Army is paying an increasingly high price -- in dollars and in drawing resources from other missions -- while the nation's all-volunteer Army is facing its longest sustained combat ever.

The 500 additional recruiters the Army plans to bring on this summer will be seasoned noncommissioned officers taken from active-duty units, Rochelle said, representing "a very substantial sacrifice" for an Army stretched thin in Iraq.

More recruiters on the payroll, in addition to a major advertising campaign, and increased recruiting bonuses of as much as $20,000 have substantially increased the average cost of recruiting one person -- from $1,250 two years ago to $1,500 today, he said.

Projecting even bigger problems next year, the Army is preparing to ask Congress to approve higher incentives and legal changes to broaden the pool of candidates. The Army has leveraged incentives "right to the legislative limits in every category," Rochelle said. Proposals under consideration in the Pentagon include doubling the maximum enlistment bonus to $40,000 for troops in high-demand jobs such as intelligence, infantry, special operations and civil affairs, as well as linguists, Rochelle said.

Another proposal would raise the age limit for active-duty Army recruits from 35 to 40. The Army raised that limit for its reserve elements in March, but increasing it for the active-duty force requires congressional approval. Rochelle said the change would bring in soldiers with greater experience and maturity, while making little difference in terms of physical abilities -- saying that today's 40-year-olds are in better physical shape than they were when the law was written.

Army officials stress that they are not lowering standards in the push for recruits. But they acknowledge they are slightly less selective in some areas -- for example, by taking more enlistees who lack high school diplomas.

The Army also moved this month to take a harder look at keeping first-term soldiers in the force who might otherwise have been kicked out for problems such as drug abuse, poor conduct, or for failure to meet fitness or body-fat standards.

The change grew from concern in the Army over a rise in the number of soldiers departing before serving a full three-year term -- from 14.2 percent last year to nearly 15 percent in the first half of fiscal 2005. To reduce that attrition, the Army put higher-level officers in charge of such decisions, to ensure that soldiers are not let go unnecessarily.

[sandman]

and maybe you forget why dean was giving that ("concession") speech in the first place. it was because he lost. and he didn't even finish second to kerry - he finished third. so don't try to blame republicans or the media.

the bottom line is kerry beat dean because kerry better represents the typical liberal in this country. completely smug. he has the "i'm better than you" attitude.

 *Yawn*

Save it for somebody who gives a rats ass.

your response basically proves my point.

and in the same post you describe how stupid people are, but then you make a big deal about bush's approval ratings being low. do you not see how you contradict yourself???

reagan had low approval ratings throughout his term. but he is now viewed as one of the greats.

but i will say, bush has had a rough first 6 months. he needs to get some momentum on a variety of issues. 

[Rain]

and maybe you forget why dean was giving that ("concession") speech in the first place. it was because he lost. and he didn't even finish second to kerry - he finished third. so don't try to blame republicans or the media.

the bottom line is kerry beat dean because kerry better represents the typical liberal in this country. completely smug. he has the "i'm better than you" attitude.

 *Yawn*

Save it for somebody who gives a rats ass.

Reagan had low approval ratings throughout his term. but he is now viewed as one of the greats.
 

By who

[sandman]

educated historians.

most would place him somewhere in the top 5 - 15 presidents ever.

[SLCPUNK]

educated historians.

most would place him somewhere in the top 5 - 15 presidents ever.

"educated"

Reagan looked good and felt good, but was the President when we were convicted in the world court for "Acts of terrorism" against south America.

But, you condon senseless violence, so I'm sure you don't care about that either.

Too bad you don't have a kid you could ship off to Iraq to defend our freedoms......

[D]

read between the headlines?

dude I watched him say that out of his own mouth during the debates on TV, seriously how can u defend that?

he talked about the war and how it was a pointless basically stupid war then turned around and said that he wouldnt pull out of Iraq and would finish the job.

Sorry u cant fuckin do that.

[SLCPUNK]

read between the headlines?

dude I watched him say that out of his own mouth during the debates on TV, seriously how can u defend that?

he talked about the war and how it was a pointless basically stupid war then turned around and said that he wouldnt pull out of Iraq and would finish the job.

Sorry u cant fuckin do that.

He didn't put America in, Bush did. And even I agree (looking back) at that point, you could not pull out. You would have caused more harm than good (which ironically is what will happen anyway, there is no solution at this point).

He would have explored a different route rather than go to war and found it to be a tragic waste of human life. But Bush went in, and he proposed to clean it up. Pulling out would mean civil war, and/or insurgents taking over. It was a no-win situation to take head on. I would not have wanted it, it was/is the impossible conundrum.

[SLCPUNK]

The beginning of the end:


GOP lawmakers urge new Iraq tack
N.C. congressman wants timetable for withdrawal


Updated: 1:13 a.m. ET June 13, 2005WASHINGTON - A Republican congressman called for a deadline to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, while some other members of President George W. Bush?s party urged on Sunday that his administration come to grips with a persistent insurgency and revamp Iraq policy.

Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina conservative, said on ABC?s ?This Week? that he would offer legislation this week setting a timetable for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

?I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel that we?ve done about as much as we can do,? said Jones, who coined the phrase ?freedom fries? to lash out at the French for opposing the Iraq invasion.

?Insurgency is alive and well?
Other Republicans on television talk shows joined Democrats in criticizing the administration for playing down the insurgency, while overestimating the ability of Iraq?s fledgling forces to fight without U.S. soldiers in the lead and failing to plan for the post-invasion occupation.

?The insurgency is alive and well. We underestimated the viability of the insurgency,? Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said on CBS? Face the Nation. He said the administration has ?been slow to adjust when it comes to troop strength and supporting our troops.?

Graham said the Army is contending with a serious shortfall in recruiting ?because this war is going sour in terms of word of mouth from parents and grandparents.? He said ?if we don?t adjust, public opinion is going to keep slipping away.?

Jones, a member of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said ?primarily the neoconservatives? in the administration were to blame for flawed war planning.

?The reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that?s all been proven that it was never there,? he said.

Jones joins some of Congress? most liberal Democrats in demanding a deadline to withdraw troops from a conflict they said has been too costly in U.S. lives and money.

Growing support for withdrawal
According to a new Gallup Poll, nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, up from 49 percent who held that view in February, USA Today reported in its Monday edition.

The Bush administration contends that setting a withdrawal date would fuel an insurgency that Vice President Dick Cheney recently said was in ?the last throes.?

Graham opposed setting a date. ?If the insurgents drive us out ... we?ve lost a big battle in the war on terror,? he said.

Jones said he was pushing the legislation because his ?heart aches? at the nearly 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and 12,000 seriously wounded in Iraq. He said Iraqis should defend themselves once their forces are trained.

?A common theme?
Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican who just returned from Iraq, joined several Democrats saying the administration must be more candid and acknowledge that it could take about two years to train Iraqi forces to replace U.S. soldiers and allow a significant pullout.

?We can?t come back to America and have our people being convinced that the Iraqi troops are prepared to take over, when they?re not,? he said on NBC?s Meet the Press.

Weldon also said the administration must ?come to grips? with a rising insurgency, boosted by fighters from Syria and Iran, ?which for some reason our intelligence community does not want to acknowledge or deal with.?

Weldon said he heard ?a common theme? in Iraq that the largest number of foreign insurgents may be coming from Syria, but that ?Iran overwhelmingly has the quality behind the insurgency.?

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said on CNN?s Late Edition, that ?many of us warned this administration before we ever put a boot on the ground? that it would face a long-term conflict. ?We didn?t have plans for it. And we are now where we are,? he said.

[D]

Im speaking for casual voters who dont follow and read and really analyze things, to those people when Kerry said that, he lost a whole lot of votes.

the liberal media and Dan Rather pushing that story against Bush also really hurt the democratic party and Bush.

Bill Clinton said it best on TV the other night, he stated how the republican's are just better at the mud slinging and the character assassinations than the democracts.

He talked about how the democratic party has to stop playing the republicans games and get back to doing what being a democrat is all about and he thinks the party will be successful again.

idiots like Howard Dean are destroying even more of the party's credibility and he needs to be removed very very soon.

I will vote Hillary Clinton for president if she runs in 2008, I think she definitely has what it takes.

Hell i wouldve elected Bill Clinton for 8 more years if he couldve ran.

[SLCPUNK]

Hell i wouldve elected Bill Clinton for 8 more years if he couldve ran.

You will be if Hillary gets voted in. 

[D]

how fitting would it be for Bill to be the first man?

People love Bill Clinton, I love Bill Clinton and people will elect Hillary on the fact that they think they are getting bill for 4 more years alone.

of course she would be great anyway.

[SLCPUNK]

how fitting would it be for Bill to be the first man?

People love Bill Clinton, I love Bill Clinton and people will elect Hillary on the fact that they think they are getting bill for 4 more years alone.

of course she would be great anyway.

I hope she gets voted in. People hate her and have always hated her, because she is a woman.........who acts like a man. And that is a no-no in this society.

I see hardcore dems say they would not vote for her, so I wonder how it would turn out.

Bill is brilliant really. Brilliant because he knows how to talk to people, and he has a high level of international respect, which we desperately need.

We'll see. I think by '08, unless something amazing happens in the middle east, that there will be a huge shift to the left. My guess.

[SLCPUNK]

Here is a picture they got of her a few years back during a Senate break............

[Mal Brossard]

I was about to say Hillary can't run, as she already served two consecutive terms.  But my thunder has been stolen.

On that note, I'm not sure Hillary would be the best candidate.  What has wrecked the Democrats in 2000 and 2004 is the near-total lack of southern votes.  The South used to be an easy win for the Dems.  Now they lean more Republican, ever since the 1960's civil rights battles.  Most of all, the Southerners will favor a good ol' boy, no matter whether he's Republican or Democrat-- e.g. Clinton vs. Connecticut native Bush or midwesterner Dole.

I know, I know, Gore was a Southern boy who couldn't carry his own state.  They usually seem to lean more toward the candidate who "acts" more Southern.  You can see Bush dressed in Southern garb easily.  Not so much with Gore or Kerry.  Therefore, I think the Democrats would be better off running Edwards in 2008.  You may have noticed he seemed to disappear from Kerry's campaign as time went on, partially to save him from being associated with the sinking ship known as 2004.  If the Dems have any sense whatsoever, they'll run Edwards with Hillary or Obama as VP.

Edwards in '08 and '12.  Obama in '16 and '20.  Libertarian in 2024!!!!

[SLCPUNK]

I was about to say Hillary can't run, as she already served two consecutive terms.? But my thunder has been stolen.

On that note, I'm not sure Hillary would be the best candidate.? What has wrecked the Democrats in 2000 and 2004 is the near-total lack of southern votes.? The South used to be an easy win for the Dems.? Now they lean more Republican, ever since the 1960's civil rights battles.? Most of all, the Southerners will favor a good ol' boy, no matter whether he's Republican or Democrat-- e.g. Clinton vs. Connecticut native Bush or midwesterner Dole.

I know, I know, Gore was a Southern boy who couldn't carry his own state.? They usually seem to lean more toward the candidate who "acts" more Southern.? You can see Bush dressed in Southern garb easily.? Not so much with Gore or Kerry.? Therefore, I think the Democrats would be better off running Edwards in 2008.? You may have noticed he seemed to disappear from Kerry's campaign as time went on, partially to save him from being associated with the sinking ship known as 2004.? If the Dems have any sense whatsoever, they'll run Edwards with Hillary or Obama as VP.

Edwards in '08 and '12.? Obama in '16 and '20.? Libertarian in 2024!!!!

Yea, Gore looks like what he is: a total drip.

[D]

The great state of Tennessee is why we have had Bush for this long.

had Gore won his home state he wouldve been president.

I was hoping Gore wouldve ran again this time, he technically beat Bush the first go round so they shouldve gave him the rematch.

after the way Bush did his first 4 years, Gore wouldve been able to really kick his ass

He wouldve had some kick ass slogans he couldve brought up as well.


I have nothing against Democrats, like I said I am one but John Kerry was a horrible candidate in my opinion. I came -- this close to voting for Bush, Im not gonna lie, seriously I think we wouldve been in a bad way with either guys.

Another thing about Kerry I didnt like was his unilateral talks with N Korea, he wouldve totally alienated China by doing this and that wouldnt have been good since N Korea is like China's little brother.

What also fucked Gore and Kerry was having to follow Clinton.

Clinton was one of the most charismatic, amazing speakers to ever be president. Till this day when he gives an interview I sit my ass down and I dont turn the station even during commercials.

He has a mesmerizing light about him that just draws u in. Kerry and Gore were nowhere close to that and that hurt them in my opinion.

Kerry also talked about keeping jobs in the US which was great only that his wife's Heinz company does a lot of their shit overseas.

tiny little contradictions like that just sorta made u go hmmmmm.

The war thing still rings big to me though, had he just said he supported the war blah blah blah, I think he wouldve won

but voting for the war and then coming back and blaming Bush for the war made him look bad

now I know he wasnt blaming the war but how Bush was fighting the war, but casual voters dont take that in, they dont take the time to see it that way

by the media and everything else they see it as, Kerry voted for the war but now is bashing Bush over the war and it loses Kerry points.

Clinton said it on Greta whatever her name is on Fox News, he said the republicans are the masters of dirty politics, they are way better at it than the democracts, so democrats need to shy away from doing that themselves cause u cant beat them at what they do best.

Kerry went from having a nice lead in the polls to losing

what happened?

somewhere between there and the election, major mistakes were made.

Bush did an excellent job playing off the fear of americans to get re elected

[sandman]

hillary will be our next president. no doubt about it in my mind. (and this discussion is worthy of another thread).

bill clinton was a good president, not a great one. he did more for republicans than democrats. he was actually conservative on alot of issues. the problem is, he hurt his party.

hillary has never had an original thought in her life. she is a total politician. she's willing to do anything for her political career (like staying in her fake "marriage", and altering her "beliefs"). and the one thing she set her mind to and promised the american people while she was first lady (healthcare reform), she failed miserably.   

there will not be a shift to the left in this country. the exact opposite is happening. republicans have DOMINATED the national politial landscape for several years now, and polls show that most americans are NOT secularists. so the dems are scrambling to react.

just wait, soon enough you'll hear hillary making negative comments about abortion, and quoting the bible. oh wait, she already has! 

[SLCPUNK]

OK, I'll reword it.....

A shift away from the right...

Sound better?

Even republicans are shying away from the right after seeing the mess in Iraq right now.

[sandman]

OK, I'll reword it.....

A shift away from the right...

Sound better?

Even republicans are shying away from the right after seeing the mess in Iraq right now.

i see what you're saying. the dems will probably pick up a few spots in congress by next year. and i believe hillary will be the next president. so that sense there is a shift to the left.

BUT, i think the dems are shifting their beliefs to the right on "moral" issues (so they can court some moderate conservatives that are frustrated with some of the extreme ideas the republicans have been throwing out there lately).

it's all a game and it's all about gaining power and money. both sides are guilty of it. when bill clinton was in office, george stephanopolous worked for him. he had a daily conference call to provide updates on how he was using the media to make bill look better, and who in the republican party could they make look bad. and i'm sure the republicans have people doing the same thing.