 
Reuters and Associated Press photos
"President" Bush plays military dress-up again today in South Korea and surrounds himself with actual brave people in order to give the illusion that he himself has balls when the fact is that he went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard while others died in his place in Vietnam.
Today Bush declared, "We will fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will stay in the fight until we have achieved the victory that our brave troops have fought for." Um, "we"? "WE"? Bush and his fellow chickenhawks aren't fighting in Iraq, and unlike Iraqis and U.S. troops in Iraq, the chickenhawks who are perfectly OK with thousands of others dying in their bogus war are quite fucking safe themselves. But I think that we should make this a truly "we" effort and ship Bush and his fellow chickenhawks off to Iraq to fight their noble fight. (The New Hampshire Gazette defines a "chickenhawk" as: "A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth." Lists of chickenhawks are here and here and here.)
And what does "staying the course" in Iraq look like, exactly? Here are some pictures of Baghdad and other places in Iraq taken within the past few days:
AFP photo (Caption: "Iraqi civil defence workers are seen inspecting the site where two suicide bombers detonated explosives-laden cars near a Baghdad hotel and an interior ministry complex [today]. Thirteen people were killed when a car bomb exploded in a busy Baghdad market as the search resumed amid the rubble of two Shiite mosques where at least 75 died in twin suicide bombings [yesterday].")
Reuters photo (Caption: "A man receives medical treatment in a hospital after a suicide car bomber attacked a funeral in Baquba, north of Baghdad, [today]. Police said at least 35 people were killed and 50 wounded when a suicide car bomber attacked the funeral of a Shi'ite Muslim sheikh [today], a day after scores died in twin mosque bombings.")
AFP photo (Caption: "Iraqis stand outside their destroyed houses [today] after they spent their night homeless following yesterday's twin suicide car bombs in Baghdad that flattened several houses and partially destroyed an apartment building.")
AFP photo (Caption: "An Iraqi boy is seen [today] in front of his destroyed house at the site where two suicide bombers detonated explosive-laden cars near Al Hamra hotel, [which] houses foreign journalists, and an interior ministry complex in central Baghdad. At least six people were killed and 40 were hurt in the attack.")
Associated Press photo (Caption: "A man cries as the coffin of his mother, killed by a car bomb explosion at a market, is carried outside the Zafaranya hospital in Baghdad [today]. The car bomb explosion occurred near the Diyala Bridge area just southeast of the Iraqi capital as dozens of people were shopping at the popular market, police Col. Nouri Ashour said. At least 13 people died and 21 were wounded.")
Reuters photo (Caption: "An Iraqi man inspects a pool of blood at the scene of a car bomb at a produce market in southeast Baghdad [today]. The car bomb killed at least 11 people at a market and injured 15 others [today], a day after more than 80 people were killed in a series of suicide attacks in the capital and a northeastern town.")
Associated press photo (Caption: "Faithful recover religious books from inside one of the two mosques attacked by suicide bombers, in Khanaqin, Iraq, [yesterday]. Suicide attackers targeted the Sheik Murad mosque and the Khanaqin Grand Mosque -- both sacred to Shiite Muslims -- in Khanaqin, 90 miles northeast of Baghdad, as dozens of people were attending Friday prayers, police said. The police command said 74 people were killed and 75 injured in the largely Kurdish town.")
Reuters photo (Caption: "An injured Iraqi girl is carried through a hospital in Baghdad after she was injured by a suicide bomb blast [yesterday].")
Reuters photo (Caption: "Children in Baghdad's poor Sadr City district search through a garbage pile [yesterday]. After suffering through long years crippling United Nations sanctions imposed after former president Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, Iraqis have yet to see the prosperity promised after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of their country.")
Reuters photo (Caption: "A Turkish man, right, is guided through a hospital in Baghdad after he was injured by a double suicide bomb blast [yesterday]. Two suicide car bombs exploded near a hotel used by foreigners in central Baghdad [yesterday] and initial reports said at least six people were killed, including two children, and 40 wounded.")
Associated Press photo (Caption: "A child embraces her father as they stand near a destroyed building at the site where two suicide car bombers detonated vehicles in Baghdad [yesterday] in a residential district and near a hotel housing foreign journalists. The blast was also close to an Interior Ministry building at the center of a torture dispute. At least six people were killed and 43 injured in the blast near the Hamra hotel in the Jadriyah district, officials said.")
Yeah, the Iraqis need us Americans to stay in Iraq to protect them and to rebuild their nation. Because look what a great fucking job we are doing two and a half years into it! Gee, the only people I see who are benefitting from Iraq are the folks at Dick Cheney's Halliburton and at other war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp.
Repugs war paint themselves into corner
It's hard to tell sometimes what insane people are thinking when they act insanely, but my best guess is that by "staying the course" on the Vietraq War -- even though a solid majority of Americans oppose the war* -- Repugnicans think that eventually a majority of Americans will see them as tough, decisive, determined, blah blah blah.
Which isn't going to happen.
It isn't going to happen because things in Iraq aren't going to get better.
That civil war in Iraq that the Bush regime was warned about before launching its illegal, immoral, unprovoked and imperialist invasion of the oil-rich nation in March 2003?
Um, it's going on right now.
Oh, I know: Most Americans don't really care about a civil war going on in a nation that most of them couldn't find on a map without the nations' names printed on it. Hell, most Americans barely care that almost 2,100 U.S. troops have been slaughtered in Iraq for nothing but the war profiteering of the subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp. They slap "Pray for Our Troops" and "Support Our Troops" magnets on their gas-guzzling SUVs and tell themselves that they're actually doing the troops a favor somehow, these fucking hypocrites who care so much about our troops -- but just not quite enough to cut down on their flagrant overconsumption of gasoline. The magnets will have to do.
But the scores of Iraqis being killed by other Iraqis continues unabated, like the 82 alone who were killed yesterday -- even though the U.S. has been in Iraq for more than two and a half years now. (Oh, yeah, things are going swimmingly swell there!) If a proportionate number of Americans were killing each other like Iraqis are killing each other, we'd say that we have a civil war going on. Which is what we have in Iraq.
And which isn't going to get better any day soon because the Bush regime's invasion of Iraq was A Very, Very Bad Idea from Day One. The historical animosity between the Sunnis and the Shiites doesn't look like it's going to end any sooner than the historical animosity between the Israelis and the Palestinians is going to end.
Because the apparently perpetual civil war in Iraq will give the Bush regime "reason" to claim that U.S. troops are still needed there -- only so that Dick Cheney's Halliburton and other subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp can continue to war profiteer, of course -- and because the civil war in Iraq that the Bush regime caused (intentionally, I highly suspect, in order to war profiteer better and for a long period of time) is without an end in sight, there is nothing on the horizon that is going to significantly improve things in Iraq and thus reverse the trend that a growing majority of Americans oppose the Vietraq War.
When I read the headline the other day that a "prominent" Democrat was calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, I had a flash of hope: Did someone like "Democratic" Sen. Joseph Lieberman or "Democratic" Sen. Dianne Feinstein (whom I fondly think of as Mrs. Lieberman) actually have a pang of conscience?
No, it was a Democratic representative from Pennsylvania named John Murtha.
Who in the hell is John Murtha? I wondered.
According to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean (in an e-mail), Murtha is "a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel" who "spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last 30 years he's been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike."
So of course the Repugnicans were swift to make their swift-boat attack on Murtha.
White House spokesweasel Scott McClellan -- who has filled former White House spokesweasel Ari Fleischer's shoes pretty well (really, I didn't think that they'd find someone who's as much of a lying, sold-his-soul-to-Satan asswipe as is Fleischer, but in McClellan they got a pretty close match) -- said Thursday that it is "baffling that [Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
Hmmmmm.
The poll results from reputable polling organizations at the bottom of this blog piece clearly show that more than 50 percent (which we call a majority) of Americans do not support the Vietraq War.
Now, when George W. Bush was "re"-elected in Novembr 2004 with just 50.7 percent of the popular vote, he and his henchpeople called that a "mandate."
How can Bush's measly 50.7 percent be a "mandate," but when Murtha reflects the sentiments of well more than 50.7 percent of the American people, the members of the Bush regime try to marginalize him, such as by saying that he is representative of "the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party"?
Michael Moore, whose name the Bush regime wouldn't invoke unless he were a real threat to them, released this statement about spokesweasel McClellan's mention of him (the links are Moore's):
11/19/05
Dear Mr. Bush:
I would like to extend my hand and invite you to join us, the mainstream American majority. We, the people -- that's the majority of the people -- share these majority opinions:
1. Going to war was a mistake -- a big mistake. (link)
2. You and your administration misled us into this war. (link)
3. We want the war ended and our troops brought home. (link)
4. We don't trust you. (link)
Now, I know this is a bitter pill to swallow. Iraq was going to be your great legacy. Now, it's just your legacy. It didn't have to end up this way.
This week, when Republicans and conservative Democrats started jumping ship, you lashed out at them. You thought the most damning thing you could say to them was that they were "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party." I mean, is that the best you can do to persuade them to stick with you -- compare them to me? You gotta come up with a better villain. For heaven's sakes, you had a 100-plus million other Americans who think the same way I do -- and you could have picked on any one of them!
But hey, why not cut out the name-calling and the smearing and just do the obvious thing: Come join the majority! Be one of us, your fellow Americans! Is it really that hard? Is there really any other choice? George, take a walk on the wild side!
Your loyal representative from the majority,
Michael Moore
Yup. And it's funny that the members of the Bush regime should bring up Michael Moore, because incoming facts only continue to bolster Moore's central assertions in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," the top-grossing documentary of all fucking time. (The central assertion of "F9/11," in my estimation, is that the members of the Bush regime lied through their fangs about their real reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, and that the main reason that they invaded Iraq is so that Dick Cheney's Halliburton and other war-profiteering U.S. corporations could war profiteer. History will, I believe, document this as the case. After all, Richard Nixon proclaimed, "I am not a crook," but look how he went down in history.)
And the Repugnicans in the House of Representatives -- what a bunch of fucking losers. A more stupid bunch of stupid white men you will find nowhere else on the planet.
In a typical Repugnican stunt that has come to characterize the House Repugnicans' total lack of character, the House Repugs employed one of the Bush Repugnicans' most common tactics: Totally and completely mischaracterize what your opponent has said, and then attack not what your opponent actually has said, but attack your own mischaracterization of what your opponent has said. Reports The Associated Press:
Murtha offered a [House] resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
But House Republicans planned to put to a vote -- and reject -- their own symbolic alternative resolution that simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
It's funny, because the House Repugnicans apparently aren't aware that there is this thing called the mainstream mass media, which occasionally does its job and reports the news. The AP reports that Murtha's resolution was pretty reasonable, calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date" and for keeping some U.S. forces in the region. But, the AP reports, the House Repugs put forth their own resolution that was an obvious and intentional distortion of what Murtha actually was calling for -- in other words, it was Yet Another Big Fucking Repugnican Lie.
Fine. Whatever makes the stupid white men in the U.S. House of Representatives happy, whatever makes them feel good about themselves -- for now.
Fine because in less than a year, every single member of the House of Representatives will come up for re-election. When the stupid white men in the House of Representatives shit and piss upon the will of the majority -- which Murtha represents -- they will reap the consequences. (Just as California Gov. Ahhhnuld Schwarzenegger has been reaping the consequences after he shat and pissed upon the will of the majority of Californians. He attacked their elected officials, apparently not realizing -- or not giving a shit (or both) -- that to attack the people's elected officials is, because we have a representative democracy, to attack the people. Duh.)
So I hope that the Repugnicans stay the fucking course. I hope that they continue to bash those who call for an end to the Vietraq War, because when they do that they are bashing the majority of Americans who want an end to the Vietraq War.
The majority of Americans whom the Repugnicans are bashing right now will bash back in November 2006. And in November 2008.
And the Vietraq War will end, sooner than Dick Cheney's Halliburton and the other war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp would like it to.
It's not a question of if, but of when.
Here is an e-mail that DNC Chair Howard Dean sent out yesterday. It's kind of long, but I think that it's worth sharing:
I want to tell you about John Murtha. He's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. He's also a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel.
Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last 30 years he's been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike.
Until now.
Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American, should be angry.
What did Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, do to draw fire from a White House led by a president and vice president who evaded service in Vietnam? [Emphasis mine.] He questioned their management of the war in Iraq. Here's part of what he had to say:
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region....
"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited....
"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the war. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; [and] being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support."
Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected five deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman [Scott McClellan], who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists." A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.
Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:
http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem
I will deliver your message to him personally, along with my own thanks for his service to our country and his continuing courage in the face of threats.
Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership. [Emphasis mine.]
First it was Senator Max Cleland, who left limbs in Vietnam, being savagely attacked in 2002. Then John Kerry, who received three Purple Hearts, being smeared in 2004. The history of this war has shown that Republicans value political posturing more than the service of America's veterans.
Republicans don't want a serious debate about Iraq because they know the American people are simply not with them. They cannot respond to the substance of Murtha's criticism -- or any criticism -- because they are wrong. [Emphasis mine.]
Jack Murtha is already fighting back. When told of Cheney's comments he reminded people where Cheney was while he was in Vietnam: "I like guys who got five deferments and have never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done." [Emphasis mine.]
But Jack can't beat this back alone. Show him that Americans know that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves:
http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem
Enough is enough -- we cannot allow another veteran to be smeared by George Bush's cronies.
Thank you for taking a stand.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
P.S. -- Here is the full text of Murtha's statement yesterday:
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, 'The perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.' General Abizaid said on the same date, 'Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy.'
"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait -- the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with weapons of mass destruction -- but the U.S. forces said they were prepared. They had well-trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.
"We spend more money on intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on intelligence than most countries' GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.
"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the war. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; [and] being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.
"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care.
"Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.
"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, 'To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.' We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being 'terrified' about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.
"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in conference, and which required the secretary of defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports.
"I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.
"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the administration agrees, [that] Iraq can not be won 'militarily.' I said two years ago [that] the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, internationalize and energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control.
"A poll recently conducted shows that over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, [and that] about 45 percent of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.
"All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a 'free' Iraq.
"My plan calls:
- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces [emphasis mine].
- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
- To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
"This war needs to be personalized. [Emphasis mine.] As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.
"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."
*In a nationwide CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken Nov. 11 through 13, 63 percent said they disapprove of how Bush is handling the situation in Iraq; 54 percent said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a mistake; 60 percent said that it wasn't worth it for the Bush regime to invade Iraq; and 52 percent said they think the U.S. should withdraw its troops now or within 12 months.
When asked if the U.S. military will win in Iraq or not, 50 percent said that they don't think that the U.S. will win, 46 percent said that the U.S. military "probably" or "definitely" will win in Iraq, and 4 percent were unsure. (I find that question interesting, though, because I thought that we were supposed to "liberate" the Iraqi people and bring them McFreedom with a super-sized side of McDemocracy. When we put what we're doing in Iraq in terms of winning or losing, it sure the fuck sounds like we're actually against the Iraqi people, doesn't it? That's because we actually are and always were. Otherwise, we Americans would find the unnecessary deaths of thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians since March 2003 unacceptable to the point that we would force the Bush regime to stop the Vietraq War. But we certainly don't care about the dead Iraqis that much.)
Anyway, if you don't trust the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, then there's the nationwide Newsweek poll taken Nov. 10 and 11. In that poll, 65 percent disapproved of how Bush is handling Iraq, and 52 percent said that "Dick Cheney deliberately misused or manipulated pre-war intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in order to build support for war with Iraq." (Oh, yeah, Uncle Dick is just the person the Bush regime should wheel out to make the American people wuv the Vietraq War.)
Even a nationwide FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken Nov. 8 and 9 found that 50 percent believed that either the "insurgents" or neither the "insurgents" nor U.S. forces are "winning the war in Iraq," with 38 percent holding that the U.S. is "winning" and 12 percent unsure. When asked, "Five years from now, do you think the war in Iraq will have been worth it or not?", 48 percent said no, 39 percent said yes and 13 percent said they weren't sure or that it was too early to tell. (I hesitate to include the FOX poll because I am suspect of FOX's polls. Not just because the people at FOX are asswipes -- although they are -- but because FOX poll results are often significantly different from other organizations' poll results, and I don't think that it would be beyond FOX at all to lie about its poll results.)
More poll results:
A nationwide NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken Nov. 4 through 7 found that 64 percent disapproved of how Bush is handling things in Iraq; 30 percent said the Repugnican Party can do the best job in Iraq and 33 percent said the Democratic Party can do the best job in Iraq. When asked if removing Saddam Hussein was worth the cost to the United States in U.S. lives and U.S. taxpayers' dollars (more than $200 billion thus far), 52 percent said no and 40 said yes. When asked whether the U.S. should maintain or reduce its current troop level in Iraq, 57 percent said that it should reduce its troop level.
And -- saving the best for last -- when asked, "Do you think President Bush gave the country the most accurate information he had before going to war with Iraq, or do you think President Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq?", 57 percent said that Bush deliberately misled people and only 35 percent said that he gave the most accurate information he had. Impeachment is looking good.
Even more poll results here.
2:01:28 AM 
|
