Poll: Bush's Iraq rating at low point.

[Johnboy60]

Opinion of president's honesty also sinks.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also suggests fewer than half now think he is honest.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/05/bush.ap.ipsospoll.ap/index.html

 

[revrobor]

So what's your point other than bad-mouthing our lame-duck president? Polls, especially polls created by the media, aren't worth the powder it would take to blow them apart. I wouldn't take the AP's word for anything.

 

[sidiousmax225]

*gasp* Bush isn't honest? Atleast more people are realizing this.

 

[HumbleMan]

Polls are unreliable. 20 Marines just died in Iraq, so yeah, I think America would have a dim view right now. Betcha we go two weeks without hearing of another death and the polls would go up.

 

[MsAnne]

I agree that the results of the polls would change depending on the events at the time. Recent killings - lower approval rating.
I too become discouraged at the continual murders of our servicemen and women. I feel my heart sinking deeper each time a new attack is reported. I'd be lying if I didn't confess I even secretly struggle with the occasional doubts that creep in.
BUT - I am amazed at how quick we are to wash our hands, and blame the president solely, for negative events taking place.
I choose to continue to support our efforts and our president. I know that if we don't 'fight them there, we'll be fighting them here'. I know we are further ahead than if we'd sat on our hands and merely watched the world go by. We are making a difference. We are doing something. And isn't that a whole lot more than any other recent administration has accomplished?

 

[HumbleMan]

BUT - I am amazed at how quick we are to wash our hands, and blame the president solely, for negative events taking place.

You're right. I also blame every politician that voted to support the president's invasion of Iraq out of fear of looking unpatriotic that close to 9/11.

 

[winglovesall]

Invasion of Iraq is certainly not what I wanted -- I mean, I hate to oppose George Bush -- he is a great leader in some aspects -- but, you know, fighting in Iraq is not democratic at all.

 

[SackLunch]

Although this is a cut and paste from a previous post...

Let's see...who was it who stood on that Naval carrier with a huge banner behind him and pronounced "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?" That it was the end of major combat operations (this was in May 2003!!)? GIMME A HUGE BREAK!

I parrot this now. Go to your library or video store and pick up a copy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" (hint, it's free for one week at the library).

ALOT more people are opening their eyes to what is REALLY going on here.

 

[SackLunch]

I know that if we don't 'fight them there, we'll be fighting them here'. I know we are further ahead than if we'd sat on our hands and merely watched the world go by. We are making a difference. We are doing something. And isn't that a whole lot more than any other recent administration has accomplished?

Yeah, we're doing something alright. We've made Iraq a perfect training ground for terrorists. We've hit the hornets nest and have given the terrorist the gift they've been looking for: An excuse to recruit in greater numbers now because of increased "aggression" from the West. Fact is, we had to do someting. But the 9/11 Commission proved that no credible link existed between international terrorism and Saddam Hussein/Iraq.

So why are we there? The WMD excuse is the reason we went in there. And now we find there are no WMDs? And Iraq wasn't really seeking Uranium from Niger as Bush claimed, even though he was told that intelligence was bogus? So why are we there? Because we're "fighting them abroad so we don't have to fight them at home?" Is that what the Londoners thought when the terrorists struck them last month? Or the people in Madrid? Or Israelis? Or is it just that President Bush's war on terrorism is a dismal failure, and that he lied to Congress and the American people regarding the reasons for going to war? Can you say, "Impeachment?"

Meanwhile Bush has left our Mexican border pourous, allowing thousands of people a day pouring into our country, many of them either MS-13 gang members or Islamic terrorists. MARK MY WORDS. If we do have another terrorist attack, which is likely, you can thank President Bush for doing NOTHING to secure our borders and inviting terrorists into our country!! Am I mad? YOU BET I AM!!

Flame away.

 

[MichaelFJF]

Polls are garbage. People's opinions sway according to what they see and hear. Let's see - does the press ever tell you about schools opening? Does the press tell you about the women who can actually walk around and talk now? When the press reports that 14 marines are killed - do they balance it with what the 14 marines were trying to accomplish? NO. If all I heard was bad news all the time, my opinion would be unfavorable too. Fortunately I actually dig out ALL the news I can - not just the talking heads on NBC and CNN. Also fortunately this president does not govern by polls, unlike his predecessor. He actually does what he thinks is the right thing.

 

[lucid42day]

When the press reports that 14 marines are killed - do they balance it with what the 14 marines were trying to accomplish? NO.

This in itself does not necessarily mean anything. Reporting exactly where they were and what they were doing and why might jeapordise further military goals. This kind of encompassing reporting you mention would be nice but it may not be possible.

 

[UberLutheran]

...when they don't support the candidate we like.

However, when polls don't support a candidate we dislike, they've very, very reliable.

Anyone else ever notice that?

 

[Loukuss]

Invasion of Iraq is certainly not what I wanted -- I mean, I hate to oppose George Bush -- he is a great leader in some aspects -- but, you know, fighting in Iraq is not democratic at all.

Can you please explain to the rest of us how Bush has been a great leader?

 

[MichaelFJF]

...when they don't support the candidate we like.

However, when polls don't support a candidate we dislike, they've very, very reliable.

Anyone else ever notice that?

Yeah - on both sides.