Opposition to the war in Iraq has reached an all-time high, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Thursday morning. - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Iraq
Support for the war in Iraq - 31 percent

Oppose the war - 68% (a new record)

Last time a majority supported the war - 2003, 54%

62% believe neither the Americans nor the insurgents are winning

Iran
62% oppose air strikes on Iran

73% oppose using ground troops as well as air strikes in that country.

790% oppose any military strike on Iran (slightly higher than a 2005 number of 66 percent but significantly higher than 2002's 23 percent)

56% dissatisfied with progress in the war on terrorism, representing a steady decline since 2002, when only 24 percent said they were dissatisfied.
--------
What's a Neo-Con to do? You know things are bad when you can't even invade a country with a broken military and safely occupy it. He should have done like Reagan and invaded a country with a military smaller than most police forces in big US cities. Whose half-baked idea was this, anyway?

I wonder what the actual question was. "Do you support the war" would be pretty vague. It's possible, I guess, to have agreed with the invasion but deplored the lack of planning, or disagreed with the invasion but to now see no realistic alternative to prolonged occupation... and so on.

From the link:

"If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you'd be saying, 'God, I love freedom,' because that's what's happened," he said. "And there are killers and radicals and murderers who kill the innocent to stop the advance of freedom. But freedom's happening in Iraq. And we're making progress."

Does Bush think he's talking to five-year-olds?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
I wonder what the actual question was. "Do you support the war" would be pretty vague. It's possible, I guess, to have agreed with the invasion but deplored the lack of planning, or disagreed with the invasion but to now see no realistic alternative to prolonged occupation... and so on.

From the link:

"If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you'd be saying, 'God, I love freedom,' because that's what's happened," he said. "And there are killers and radicals and murderers who kill the innocent to stop the advance of freedom. But freedom's happening in Iraq. And we're making progress."

Does Bush think he's talking to five-year-olds?

But you are making progress. Apart from getting help from local tribal leaders, who are fed up with jihadists who have been annoying their people, you have this sign: yesterday the BBC reported that the Iraqi Prime Minister felt safe enough to walk in a street in Baghdad for the first time.How's that? The elected leader of a country is allowed out to walk in a street in his own capital. He had armed guards with him, just in case, but he did walk.That's progress in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
The elected leader of a country is allowed out to walk in a street in his own capital. He had armed guards with him, just in case, but he did walk.That's progress in Iraq.

I'm laughing here, Fred, with the vision that this is exactly what America's Presidents must do!

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
The elected leader of a country is allowed out to walk in a street in his own capital. He had armed guards with him, just in case, but he did walk.That's progress in Iraq.

I'm laughing here, Fred, with the vision that this is exactly what America's Presidents must do!

Hadn't thought of that ! So your President has brought 'the American way' to that benighted country, after all

When the President visited Britain there was a lot of mocking comment about the amazing security the White House demanded.There was a much talk about whether his own security would be allowed firearms (the Metropolitan Police are believed to own a pistol, which they dust off for special occasions ). When he finally arrived he had a mass of security men and a motorcade, itself reduced from what had been demanded, which looked like an invading army. We couldn't believe it! It did nothing for the 'special relationship'.

Our Queen's 'security' is so minimal that I nearly collided with the little lady walking on her way to the paddock at Newmarket Racecourse last year.She was strolling on her own, save for her racing representative. On state occasions she had one covertly armed detective (he got a loan of the pistol for that) who rode incognito, in full state regalia as a horseman, as 'shotgun' on her horse -drawn carriage. Now she goes by limousine he's probably on a bicycle riding behind .All the senior royals are assigned one detective each, who is permitted a gun.

The PM also has light, inconspicuous, security.We've only had one Prime Minister assassinated (Spencer Perceval in 1812). The leaders of the Land of the Free have not been so fortunate.