Bush Approval Falls to 33%, Viewed as "Incompetent," Not Conservative: Pew Research

Prophet x

Yes, model of democracy. You may scoff at the sound of this, but being from Asia there was a time when America was seen as a model civilization to follow. In fact it still is in many countries including the one I am writing from now. It is true that the country is founded on slavery, war and empire, but so was every other country on the planet. The unique thing about the United States is that it has always been the most successful experiment in making life better for its inhabitants. Because of values such as freedom of speech and the ability of the populace to criticize injustices, the United States has gotten rid of slavery, given rights to women, brought it's starving masses out of poverty and probably has the best and fair political system in the world. All in a matter of a few hundred years.

If you want me to believe peace is tenable in the middle-east, use the power of the people to bring it to Compton.

Peace has come to Compton. I have been to many slums in South America and Asia and I would like to say there is no doubt in my mind that the conditions for the poor people in the US are a thousand times better than poor people in most of the world. Compton is paradise compared to the people living in the Favelas of Rio. My point with this comment is to show that Americans have it good because it is part of the American spirit to fight the corrupt and help the poor. To ignore the big problems we are facing and to give up for fear of being too idealistic is exactly the opposite of the American dream. It is true that corruption will never be wiped out, but the fight is what is important.

You ask how to bring peace to the world and the way America has done it for its citizens is exactly the way to do it. We have done it by fighting to make sure people are fed and the weak are not taken advantage of. It is not perfect, but it is about as good as it gets. As citizens of this planet we must fight the lying tyrants that have taken advantage of the vulnerable populations. We must fight those who would spend the blood of our sons and daughters for their own personal gains and accumulation of power. We must be advocates for the weak because in another time and place in history that weak person was us. We must demand justice, lest we someday face the cruel hand of injustice. We must toil to make sure that the hungry are fed so the desperation of malnutrition does not drive them to madness.

Please notice that I did not say that we have to achieve anything. That is because I don't believe in a perfect world. What I believe is if we continue to struggle and toil and solve our problems and learn from our mistakes, our reality is improved with every passing day. Today is the height of all human history and more people have freedoms and live in relative peace than any other time in history.

Peace does not just mean peace for us. We are all interconnected. Ironically, one of the reasons our citizens are so well off is because America is also one of the largest facilitators of oppression and suffering in the world. Providing physical comfort for Americans comes from massive amounts of cheap labor and exploitation of natural resources from around the world. Because of our abuses it is not surprising that so many in the world also have a deep hatred for the way we do things. Iraq is the perfect example of us stealing resources and then receiving the blowback in the form of violence. We cannot expect people to sit by while we destroy their country and steal their oil. Here is a very interesting study on the profits western oil companies stand to make from the occupation in Iraq.

At any rate I have gone on long enough. This is just philosophically how I look at bringing peace to the world. I believe that it is all a process and at any given moment things are in perfect balance according to the conditions. We are on an ever evolving journey and it is up to each and every one of us to take a good look at the problems and then offer solutions. We may not agree with each other, but I firmly believe that is part of the learning process as well. I have other thoughts on how to solve specific problems, such as our upcoming energy crisis as well as the war in Iraq, but I will save those for another time. Until then I urge you to keep fighting for whatever it is you believe. It always balances out.

It's you who defined the "overwhelming majority of Americans" (OMA) as Bush haters, not me. That's not the clique I referred to. As far as I'm concerned, the OMA does NOT hate Bush. They may dislike the way the war is going, they may blame the president for any number of things, but they are more intelligent than to think that hatred is a solution to any problem.

I marginalized no one who engages in intelligent discussions.

In that case, I see your point and agree. The online medium is a difficult beast-- It's hard to get people's meanings sometimes.

Tim Wilson writes:
There is a little back and forth about what a president should do. Should he/she listen to the voter/polls and change with tide or should he stand by his/her principles and move forward. ... It is not one or the other. It is both. A leader needs to be able listen to the polls and be responsive to the people, but a leader also should use their judgement to do the unpopular thing that is in the long term interest of the country.

Can you be more specific about what Bush should have changed that he didn't change? In his speech this morning, he plainly said that the original plan for Iraqi troops put too much emphasis on external threats and none on internal threats. That strategy changed. The initial number of coalition troops in Iraq for the invasion was insufficient to maintain order after the overthrow of Saddam and those troops have been increased.

What mistakes has he, or the military, made that have not been corrected? In your opinion or the opinion of the people polled? Frankly, I see no intelligent suggestions in the Pew poll, just venom. And on rereading the report cited, I find it to be an insult to the intelligence of the readers. You could summarize the entire poll as saying "things are bad for the president." Is that information or just raw data?

Anahata, I was with you until I read the Global Policy Forum paper you referenced. I can't verify or dispute that the Iraq oil-sale agreements they mentioned were made, but their claim that the "long term contracts" entered into cannot be abrogated by the soon-to-be-formed Iraqi government is total bull@!$%#. There is nothing that the Iraqi government cannot do with the oil in their possession. It is already nationalized and they can make what other decision they please.

So, in my opinion, the GPF is extremely suspect. Their principal thrust appears to be for "globalization" and strengthening international bodies like the UN and World Bank, while squashing free markets.

>robk

Spend 1/100 of the money your spending in Iraq in Compton and I'm sure you'll see it returned in spades.

Personally, I don't believe that, because lazy Americans, like myself, don't want to face issues, so that $2 billion would have gone for mo' police, mo' jails and would have ended in mo' problems.

But, if you believe that a "liberal" agenda, supported with that $$, could show such useful returns, get started with the millions$$ the Democrats are going to spend to "win back" congress and the white house.
Because, guess what? You'll never convince me "your way is better than their way" with "hate-filled" rhetoric interrupting my fall TV viewing.
I believe fully that, someday, humanity will "run out of reasons to hate one another", and we will, eventually, get to our task of figuring out "how to work together" to achieve the common goals of all free men, including, of course, Peace , which is a paramount

What mistakes has he, or the military, made that have not been corrected?

It is my opinion that the only thing that is going to solve the problem in Iraq is for us to send in 500,000 troops, lock down the country and create enough stability and security in order to recruit and train enough Iraqi troops. It would mean us being there for years, but I believe that is the case. It is my opinion that nothing else will work.

Don't get me wrong. I have always been fully against the war for many reasons, but seeing how things are now I think this may be the only way.

but their claim that the "long term contracts" entered into cannot be abrogated by the soon-to-be-formed Iraqi government is total bull@!$%#. There is nothing that the Iraqi government cannot do with the oil in their possession.

I know you won't take it personally if I'll take Global Policy Forum's opinions over yours. I know you mentioned your dislike for the UN, but for me their status with the UN gives them credibilty in my eyes.

$194 billion is a lot of profit taken from the Iraqi people. Any way you look at it.

>ANAHATA

Bravo!

Many people people find it hard show their conviction, without being defensive about it.
It is individuals like yourself, who in the face of conflict, remain respectful and objective, that are the true soldiers for peace. More powerful than Political agendas, more powerful than violence, your conviction will serve you best in spreading peace throughout the world. Good Luck.
May your appreciation of what you've been and given, and, more importantly, what is possible to achieve, be a constant reminder to all of us what sacrifices have been made to offer, not only this forum, but the community ideal of having the freedom to express our thoughts.

America is just the fullest human experience ever, full of the most good things, full of the most bad things, full of the most meaningless things.....just, simply, full of it.

I'm of the opinion we might as well cram it all in here now and get it over with.

Rockman,

I haven't seen the administration admit that there isn't enough coalition troops on the ground to maintain order. Could you please provide a source? Thanks.

I think the administration made a mistake by not repudiating it's use of torture. Bush has stated that we don't, but Cheney's actions have proven otherwise. Don't forget Bush's signing statement on McCain's torture bill.

I would try to internationalize the effort in Iraq. I realize from your use of the term "coalition" implies your belief that it is already internationalized. The budget and force sharing levels say otherwise. How is it sharing when the US has shouldered 90+% of the burden? (I think it is closer to 95% but I don't have the source. If you could provide one that would be great.) I think the state of our relations with the rest of the world would make this nearly impossible with the current administration. It would mean that the Bush administration would have to make a lot of changes in his cabinet and swallow some pride in front of "Old Europe." I don't think Bush is capable of that. So this ship has mainly sailed.

I don't agree with people saying that we need to leave now. I think abandoning Iraq would be morally reprehensible. We made a mess, we need to clean it up as much as possible. I would say that we need to double our forces or more. Despite a lot of misgiving about how the Iraqi people feel about us, I still think there is some good will there. If we came in NOW and put a lot of boots on the ground and showed a great deal of presence so that ordinary people could feel safe. So that merchants could feel confident opening their stores. Provide great security so that real infrastructure (lights, water, gas) improvements could be made. If we could do this in the face of impeding civil war - what do you think that would say to the Iraqis, the US voter, and the World?

Of course that makes for a lot of targets on the ground as well - but we certainly wouldn't be doing things half-assed. You probably wouldn't have to keep the increased forces on the ground that long - It would provide a lot breathing room for Iraqi forces to stand up.

I could go on about other mistakes - but this comment has gone on long enough.

What do you think?

$194 billion is a lot of profit taken from the Iraqi people. Any way you look at it.

As much as we can personally dislike that concept, the Profit really comes from us, the "gas-gusslers"; and, really, why does my choice seem to be if I don't give that $$ to the "GreedyOilMongors" I seems I'm giving it to the BarAssociation and ending up keeping medicine in the "dark-ages".

It a choice of two evils which I can't tell the lessor of.

Just a strange observation on "torture".

Why is it 10 of Millions of Americans tune in weekly to cheer on Jack Bauer, as he does any number of inhumane things to save the sorry butts of LosAngelans, but the idea that it might happen in real life doesn't make sense, especially when neither side is honoring it, they torture "non-combatents".

Tim Wilson writes:
Rockman, I haven't seen the administration admit that there isn't enough coalition troops on the ground to maintain order. Could you please provide a source? Thanks.

I thought I pointed out that they increased the number of troops in Iraq after Saddam fell and the insurgency/terrorism/whatever developed. That's basically an admission they needed more troops.

Operation Iraqi Freedom began with approximately 100,000 US soldiers and marines on the ground plus extensive naval and air forces. There are currently about 133,000 US troop there and they are periodically increased to handle potential problems during elections and religious celebrations.

Tim Wilson writes: Rockman, ...I would try to internationalize the effort in Iraq. I realize from your use of the term "coalition" implies your belief that it is already internationalized. The budget and force sharing levels say otherwise. How is it sharing when the US has shouldered 90+% of the burden?

Sounds about like the UN budget, doesn't it? Or the Korean War, a UN-sanctioned effort.

Rockman -

133,000 in my opinion is not enough. It hasn't provided order nor security. You said that the President is going to commit more troops - 15,000 or 50,000 or 150,000 more - What is it?

By the way, I didn't get your reaction to my post. Good idea - Bad idea - What is your opinion?

You asked for what I thought his mistakes were - Here you have it - what do you think?

Tim Wilson writes: Rockman - 133,000 in my opinion is not enough. It hasn't provided order nor security. You said that the President is going to commit more troops - 15,000 or 50,000 or 150,000 more - What is it?

33,000 was the major improvement. I don't recall (can't find) the maximum in country at once. Adding a much larger number of US troops would be a bad idea for two reasons. 1) It increases the exposure of US troops to casualty, and 2) It reduces the incentive of the Iraqi forces to come up to speed and take the lead. The number we have now is about right for the simple reason that US casualties are declining, even as Iraqi casualties increase (civilian and military). If we really believe the increase in Iraqi casualties is the result of a festering civil war, increasing US troops wouldn't help that a bit - we have stated we won't get between combatants in a civil war.

By the way, I didn't get your reaction to my post. Good idea - Bad idea - What is your opinion? You asked for what I thought his mistakes were - Here you have it - what do you think?

You have a good point on internationalization. My own posts have suggested we need more help to reconstruct Iraq, both money and manpower. I have no delusion that the UN will so a damned thing. Additional troops are not the answer no matter where they come from unless the British pull out.

I don't agree that Bush needs to change out cabinet officers, with the possible exception of Homeland Security. The jobs are to important to risk bringing a new person up to speed in the time remaining in the Bush administration.

Why is it 10 of Millions of Americans tune in weekly to cheer on Jack Bauer, as he does any number of inhumane things to save the sorry butts of LosAngelans, but the idea that it might happen in real life doesn't make sense, especially when neither side is honoring it, they torture "non-combatents".

Because one of those things is fiction? Would you also consider it hypocracy that we might watch a movie about a serial killer, yet in real life we condemn murder?

rockman oh - sorry - I'll just go back to being firmly (phrase omitted due to inevitable profanity) by the government. I will just start sitting around, placidly taking everything the government says at face value and never questioning their policies or motives.

Gosh - I am just SO excited to be a lemming! Ooo! A cliff!

Seriously - if we do not constantly question our government then, no matter how great it started off being, it will inevitably become something dangerous. The United States is a REPUBLIC - that means that we have representatives that are supposed to speak for us. When they stop - or when we don't agree - it is our duty to call them on it! I think that calling Bush an idiot or a liar is not productive - however, such weak insults are born from frustration at feeling helpless. When I visited the US capital in 1999 with a political action group, President Clinton did not hesitate to see us. When we returned in 2001 we couldn't even get an audience with one of Bush's aides. Not okay. When a government forgets that it serves its people - it has become dangerous - and we must speak up and demand accountability.

Thank god I brought a parachute...

evano writes:
@rockman: Check your Constitution. Congress' Article I powers give it the responsibility:

This has been thoroughly covered in another thread. Hijack not required here.

Miss Dev writes: rockman oh - sorry - I'll just go back to being firmly (phrase omitted due to inevitable profanity) by the government. I will just start sitting around, placidly taking everything the government says at face value and never questioning their policies or motives.

I don't recall suggesting that. Please avoid straw man argumentation. It sucks.

Don't blame me, I've been ad hominem against the "idiot" and his family since 1980.

Rockman,

You are correct saying that that would mean more targets on the ground. I can not refute that.

Our casualties decreasing is not an indication of results. It is easy to cut back on patrols to produce that effect. I would count a more secure Iraq as decent results. Since Iraqi casualties are increasing - I would say that the results so far are poor. In my opinion, a death is a death - whether American or Iraqi. I realize that some value American lives over all others, and that is their prerogative.

The fact of the matter is the country appears close to civil war. Prime Minister Allawi seems to think so. I will take his word for it. The Bush Administration can not admit that for fear of further hurting their poll numbers. Thus making them a biased source.

I just think that we have created the situation in Iraq and is our duty to provide the Iraqi people with what we have a promised a stable freedom loving democracy. In my mind we are not achieving that goal. Pulling out is not an option. Staying the course is not working. Adding more troops appears to be the only path. Unfortunately, I am pretty alone in this assessment. Most people on the left want to get out now. Most people on the right believe there isn't a problem.

It is lovely being in the minority.

Adding more troops appears to be the only path.

The generals are in charge of the war, not the White House. The generals haven't asked for more troops. Until they do, I can't assume they would know what to do with them.

I personally think the reduced troop casualties are real and due to a change in tactics by the "insurgents." Their current strategy is to create an atmosphere of schism between the various sects and provoke a civil war, or at least an escalation of sectarian violence. So long as there are sectarian militia, this looks like a good strategy to me, but, as Bush pointed out this morning, so far they have not been able to break the army into religious factions.

rockman - I based my sarcasm off your statement that Bush's most vocal opponents have no evidence to back up their crisis. I'm wondering who you deem to be these opponents and what criticism is not backed up (I'm not trying to be combative - I truly want to know).

I feel that the president is not being criticised enough. Especially since the extremely disturbing transcripts and tapes emerged about the governments "efforts" to prepare for Katrina. People always point out that Clinton was impeached because he lied - well - Bush lied - and his lie was far more damaging. The fact of the matter is, in his own words, he said before Katrina ever hit "we are prepared" after being briefed about the catastrophic outlook of Katrina. After Katrina he denied knowing the magnitude this natural disaster would have. When Clinton lied, he let down his family. When Bush lied, he let down a country.

> Get a grip, people. Pretend that you have some responsibility, no matter how small, for constructive efforts to improve the nation as well as the image of the nation at home and abroad.

Not sure how to respond to this. I am an American. My responsibility for the image of the Nation abroad requires me to vocally oppose what I feel is a morally bankrupt and corrupt leader. Bush's actions, and those of his Administration, have done more to erode international support for us than anything that individual citizens can reverse. His continuation in office only means that the next President will have an even bigger pit to dig out of to restore our international standing.

While Bush and his fans may feel that opposing him is tantamount to being disloyal, it is not. "HIS" best interests and judgment are not identical to the interests of the United States. Free citizens are allowed -- no encouraged -- to express their differences with him as frequently as is possible. The more his position is seen as a self-serving and narrow position, intellectually bankrupt and inimical to the long-term interests of the American people, the sooner our political system can begin to recover from his maladministration.