Nice one Lumpy! Ironic thing about Carter is that he was probably the ONLY completely honorable man we have had as a president in this country in modern times.
Al Sharpton? Uh-uh… Not in a million years! I would sooner vote for the rat that I have yet to catch living in my basement. He is an opportunist windbag with absolutely NO credibility on either side.
Clark is not a jingoistic “go marines” military guy… He is VERY well spoken, very intelligent, and not someone who could easily be knocked down by the Bush War machine… He would expose our current chicken-hawk president in the first debate. You don’t make FIRST IN CLASS in WESTPOINT unless you sharp as a fucken tack! I hate to say it, but it would take someone like Clark, with an honorable military background and a moderate approach to politics, to beat Bush.
Although things may not be so hard… Bush is taking the licking he deserves in the news today. Here is the headline on ABCNews.com just this hour:
Rising Doubts
President Facing New Challenges of Credibility and Casualties
July 11 ? Americans are expressing rising dismay with U.S. casualties in Iraq, declining confidence in the Bush administration ? and growing doubt whether the war was worth fighting.
The administration faces trouble on credibility and casualties alike. Half the public thinks it “intentionally exaggerated” evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And 52 percent, a majority for the first time, call the level of U.S. casualties “unacceptable.”
While 57 percent still say the war was worth fighting, that’s fallen from 70 percent as the main fighting wound down at the end of April. Eighty percent now express concern about getting “bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission”; 43 percent are “very concerned” about that outcome, up 11 points since last month.
Bush’s Approval at Lowest Since 9/11
Bush’s own ratings have suffered in tandem with these concerns. His approval rating for handling the situation in Iraq has fallen by 17 points since the end of April, from 75 percent then to 58 percent now.
His overall job approval rating is down to 59 percent, matching its lowest since Sept. 11, 2001, in ABCNEWS/Washington Post polls. The number who “strongly” approve of his performance, 35 percent, is down 15 points since late April to a post-9/11 low.
Rather than a sudden shift, most of these changes have occurred gradually over the last month, in the face of continued disorder in Iraq and disclosures about the administration’s WMD evidence. The trends don’t help Bush with an election year approaching: Most Americans have seen the Iraq war as an extension of the war on terrorism, and that effort has been the wellspring of his popularity. His ratings on other issues have been far lower; in this poll, for instance, just 47 percent approve of his work on the economy.
As ever, some of these views are highly partisan. Seventy-two percent of Democrats think the administration intentionally exaggerated WMD evidence; half of independents agree, but this drops to fewer than a quarter of Republicans. Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 59 percent of independents say the war was worth fighting; only 34 percent of Democrats agree. Sixty-four percent of Republicans say the level of casualties is acceptable; just under half of independents, and only about a quarter of Democrats, agree. And Bush’s overall job approval rating is 86 percent among Republicans and 60 percent among independents, but just 36 percent of Democrats.
Most of the recent changes, but by no means all of them, occurred among Democrats. Since April 30 Democrats have grown 16 points less likely to say the war was worth fighting, 17 points less likely to approve of Bush’s job performance overall and 22 points less likely to approve of his work specifically on Iraq. But his approval rating on Iraq also is down by 18 points among independents, and by 10 points among Republicans.
Troops Versus Saddam
Despite the changes, the public overwhelmingly remains committed to supporting the troops and sticking it out in Iraq. Seventy-two percent say U.S. forces should stay until civil order is restored, even at the cost of continued U.S. casualties. About as many “support the current U.S. military presence” in Iraq. (And about as many also expect “a significant number” of additional casualties to occur.)
But more Americans are setting a performance demand: Sixty-one percent now say the United States must kill or capture Saddam Hussein for the war in Iraq to be a success. That’s up from 50 percent in an ABC/Post poll in early April.
The contrast to Osama bin Laden is telling. Demand for bin Laden’s capture declined after the war in Afghanistan, apparently reflecting a sense that the mission largely had been accomplished despite his apparent escape. Today, demand for Saddam’s capture is up, not down, signaling less satisfaction with the outcome of this war.
Assessing the Outcome
The public nonetheless has positive assessments of the war’s outcome. Sixty-two percent believe it did contribute to the long-term security of the United States ? the fundamental justification for the conflict. And more, 72 percent, think it helped improve the lives of the Iraqi people. Fewer, though, think it accomplished a “great deal” in either regard.
There’s less consensus on whether the war accomplished another aim, contributing to long-term peace and stability in the Middle East ? 50 percent think so. And some see negative outcomes: Fifty-one percent think the war caused long-term damage to U.S. relations with countries that opposed the war, and substantially more, 63 percent, think the war damaged the United States’ image in the rest of the world.
How Long Will It Take?
Most Americans don’t expect a quick resolution in Iraq; asked how long they think U.S. forces will need to stay, 57 percent give answers ranging from “about a year” to a few years; an additional 13 percent say longer than that, or “as long as needed.”
Whatever their answer, most, 56 percent, express comfort with the amount of time they expect it to take. But almost none say the occupation will be “too short” ? and 39 percent of Americans say it’ll be “too long.”
Finally, many people express skepticism with another, far smaller, possible military mission: Fifty-one percent say they’d oppose sending up to 2,000 U.S. troops to Liberia as part of an international force to help enforce a cease-fire in the civil war there; just 41 percent say they’d support it. Conflict clearly is the concern: Other polls have found higher support for sending U.S. troops when it’s posed as a “peacekeeping” force, a considerably more benign description.
Methodology
This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone July 9-10, among a random national sample of 1,006 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.