According to Rasmussen Reports more people believe we are winning the war on terror. Good news keeps coming from Iraq. Yet, GWB has an approval rating of 27% for his handling the war in Iraq. Obama and McCain are essentially tied when it comes to Americans trusting a candidate on Iraq. Does any of this make sense? I would think in this area GWB should be running high and McCain should be trouncing Obama.
duggersd
I would say that the reasons are:
1) Most Americans are burned out on the Iraq war and feel duped into supporting it ever since the main justification for going in (WMDs and transcontinental carrier systems) was proven to be untrue
2) Blowback and fatigue from the negative feedback regarding Abu Gharab, Gitmo, torture policies, etc.
3) Many Americans do not consider Iraq the main front in the WOT, particularly with the news that has been coming out of Afhganistan and Pakistan for many months
4) Many Americans are not happy about the spending and waste on Iraq (above reasons) in the current economic difficulties
*
I actually don’t see this being the top issue come November compared to the economy. McCain and Obama’s positions are constantly inching towards each other, and by November I would imagine they will be a bit closer still. Both are talking about reducing troops in Iraq to send more in Afghanistan, and if Iraq won’t sign on without some kind of timetable or commitment to leave, that will push McCain a bit more towards Obama, leaving even less difference between the two of them.

okonkolo on July 16, 2008 at 6:55 PM

More likely the reason it wouldn’t be the “top issue” would be because the MSM refuses to acknowledge that the War in Iraq is all but won, and that the vaunted Taliban in Afghanistan are still trying to win media battles by killing women in burkas, shooting at Americans from afar, because anytime they shoot from up close, they get their asses kicked at a ratio of 8:1 or more.

LevStrauss and MB4, as usual, do a fine job of foisting the liberal propaganda of unjust war, and we are obviously losing because the government just has an underhanded agenda and lies to us constantly. All positions worthy of the foulest Truther out there. All while claiming to be conservatives and yet espousing Obamanian tenets of government.

Methinks you liberals and RINOs are all just a little too wimpy to be trusted with the defense of anything, much less my country.

Subsunk

ya think hed be a liberal? )

I must say he looks very stately,

Not like the usual dingy and disgusting pimps we are used to.

We aspire to reach to the 18th province before the end of this year. God willing, all provinces will be under the control of the Iraqi security authorities before the end of this year

OK: We should let this idiot commit suicide. Have at it, brother.

According to Rasmussen Reports more people believe we are winning the war on terror. Good news keeps coming from Iraq. Yet, GWB has an approval rating of 27% for his handling the war in Iraq. Obama and McCain are essentially tied when it comes to Americans trusting a candidate on Iraq. Does any of this make sense? I would think in this area GWB should be running high and McCain should be trouncing Obama.
duggersd

I would say that the reasons are:
1) Most Americans are burned out on the Iraq war and feel duped into supporting it ever since the main justification for going in (WMDs and transcontinental carrier systems) was proven to be untrue
2) Blowback and fatigue from the negative feedback regarding Abu Gharab, Gitmo, torture policies, etc.
3) Many Americans do not consider Iraq the main front in the WOT, particularly with the news that has been coming out of Afhganistan and Pakistan for many months
4) Many Americans are not happy about the spending and waste on Iraq (above reasons) in the current economic difficulties
*
I actually don’t see this being the top issue come November compared to the economy. McCain and Obama’s positions are constantly inching towards each other, and by November I would imagine they will be a bit closer still. Both are talking about reducing troops in Iraq to send more in Afghanistan, and if Iraq won’t sign on without some kind of timetable or commitment to leave, that will push McCain a bit more towards Obama, leaving even less difference between the two of them.

PC Mad Hatter Update.

MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Odd, my name used to be “The Mad Hatter”.

“…Growing confidence, yes; timetables, no. Nouri al-Maliki’s office corrected the record on Monday, but apparently Reuters still hasn’t read the news.

What kind of correction is this?

“…Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in Baghdad on Wednesday that a U.S. pullout could be completed in several years. “It can be 2011 or 2012,” he said. “We don’t have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline.”

One person’s confidence is another man’s timetable.

research how a think group works.

BohicaTwentyTwo on July 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Usually lots of group think.

LevStrauss on July 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM

Let me put it this way, I hope he was being sarcastic.

I think that he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong.

MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM

I guess you’re right, but you’ve been here long enough…stuff like that is a very gray area. Just think if you got all your news from Rush, HotAir, and FOXNEWS at night with the “Conservative Book of the month” next to your nightstand, saying something like that would not be too far off.

NoDonkey on July 16, 2008 at 4:52 PM

Do we have to go into April Glaspie again? We wouldn’t be there if we told them our intentions. How does “not getting involved in arab border disputes” become 500,000 troops mowing his third world army?

We could have won the Cold War if we just accepted victory. Like Ledeen says, if you don’t have a foriegn threat sometimes you have to create your own. Thank “god” I have these guys for my material because if I made it up myself I would sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Please cut the BS.

LevStrauss on July 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM

I think that he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong.

Everything the PNAC said about the middle east in general and Iraq specifically has turned out to be 100% correct.

BohicaTwentyTwo on July 16, 2008 at 4:43 PM

lol.

The US government will drag its feet the whole time since the goal is not really to give the Iraqis their country back, but to give the Iraqis their country back less the permanent bases we will be launching our future agressive wars from.

LevStrauss on July 16, 2008 at 2:00 PM

NO OIL FOR BLOOD!

What the cakewalk? Oil would pay for the war? The great Sunni Shiite alliance? Saddam mobilizing against us? We went in with enough troops?
Please cut the BS.

Really? Iraq was shooting at our pilots, they attempted to murder a former President and they were in cahoots with terrorist organizations.

I also seem to remember being in the Gulf War and Iraqis shooting at me. And oh gee, what ended that war? A cease fire. That Saddam violated with impunity, oil for bribes, etc.

It’s not conservative to continually back down and to ignore obviously imminent threats, it’s just stupid and cowardly.

If the Dems and the MSM had united behind our president, and stayed united, we probably could have reached this goal several years ago and many thousands of deaths ago.

Calling Bush an idiot and his strategy hopeless, was equivalent to cheerleading for the terrorists, aiding their recruitment efforts and bolstering their will to win.

The Dems have blood on their hands.

fogw on July 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM

We did reach this point several years ago. The then interm president told reporters we could begin pulling out our troops by the end of that year.

Reid flew out to meet with Soros and Murtha then gave his “come back and fight, and we will leave” speech. Guess what, they came back and fought.

This is easy to see if you referance the ‘Iraq monthly viloence chart’ that was released last month.