When the President speaks, the country listens...
President Bush's stiff-arm to Democrats' demands for a military withdrawal from Iraq and his insistence on fighting the war on terror his way are bringing little joy to his critics.
A poll of 1,003 adults shows an 18 percentage point surge in the number of Americans who think the Republican president is making progress in democratizing Iraq.
After his five speeches rejecting calls for pulling out U.S. forces from Iraq, and in some cases defending his domestic intelligence practices, Mr. Bush's job standing in the polls -- boosted by the successful elections held in Iraq last week -- also has either improved, held steady or at the very least stopped declining.
According to Republican campaign pollster Kellyanne Conway, "The turning point appears to have been threefold: the increasing visibility and humility demonstrated by the president, the continuing inability of the Democrats to map out a positive set of policy alternatives ... and the images of Iraqis lined up at the polls."
Posted by Matt at December 22, 2005 07:34 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/president.cgi/6225
Comments
Everyone on this site needs to read
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/21/EDGU6GAM691.DTL
A choice excerpt:
"Soon after Bush spoke of the Iraqi election as "a landmark day in the history of liberty," early returns representing 90 percent of the ballots cast in the Iraq election established that the clear winners were Shiite and Sunni religious parties not the least bit interested in Western-style democracy or individual freedom -- including such extremists as Muqtada al-Sadr, whose fanatical followers have fought pitched battles with U.S. troops."
This piece neatly puts the lie to Bush's claims of success in Iraq. The "successful" election there has only served one purpose--to strengthen Iran, a far more dangerous enemy than Iraq ever was.
Bush can speechify all he wants and maybe get a temporary boost in the polls, but the reality that he has created a new Islamic theocracy will quickly sink in.
On a related note, Matt and Mark love to claim that Democrats' criticism of Bush's handling of the war is tantamount to the Democrats *wanting* the U.S. to fail in Iraq. This little conflation may make for good polemics, but it's completely false.
Except maybe for a small, ultra-radical fringe, the vast majority of Democrats desperately want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq and therefore make us all safer. But even more than that, we Democrats need the nation to face the truth--that we have failed--and to come up with a new plan before Iraq is completely lost to Islamic fundamentalism or civil war.
Posted by: POd at December 22, 2005 04:40 PM
I hope President Bush continues to stay on the offensive and give one speech a week. I have looked forward to these weekly speeches the past few weeks. One of President Bush's great strengths is his likability and strength of character. He says what he means. Thats why people listen when he gives a speech. I couldn't be prouder of President Bush and I personally believe he is the greatest president in american history.
Posted by: james allegro at December 22, 2005 07:42 PM
POD,
Its called democracy. That's what happens when people are free to vote and choose their representatives. No one believed that Iraq was going to look like an Iowa caucus. For example, when the dems nominated john kerry, everyone on the right was shaking their heads in disbelief, but that is democracy. Also, is this the fall back talking point from the DNC. Just in case 11 million Iraqi's vote under threat of death, a large number being sunnis, lets say that they are voting in a lot of those "religious" people. Pathetic.
Posted by: james allegro at December 22, 2005 11:55 PM
Ah, yes, democracy, 11 million Iraqis voting for religious parties because that's what their religious leaders tell them to do. Wonderful. We've spent 2000 lives and 300 billion on that?
That's what's pathetic. Not to mention, our handling of the whole occupation has so been so blindingly incompetent and corrupt, we've destroyed any chance of a secular democracy taking hold. Our golden boy, Chalabi, got less than 1% of the vote, and Allawi didn't fare much better.
Oh, wait, I forget, we didn't go in to establish democracy, we went in for WMDs, and there sure were a lot of those. So many, in fact, that we had to change our rationale to "establishing Democracy", which is turning out to be just a short, short stop on the way to theocracy or civil war. That--and your blind support of it--is what's pathetic.
Posted by: sdf at December 23, 2005 01:34 PM
SDF, I think you've really got this one wrong.
What you have to look at is the big picture: despite the cost of the war in Iraq, the future over there is looking a lot brighter than it was under Saddam. Bush has turned over a rock and flushed out the ugly critters beneath, and good luck to him.
I guess some people are positive, and believe in strong leadership. And the rest, SDF, whine and squeal from the sidelines. Bush is doing just fine, so have a little faith.
I may come from Britain, but I have more faith in your President than many Americans.
Posted by: DPolwarth at December 23, 2005 07:33 PM
Of course strong leadership couldn't possibly be wrong, could it? Why do we mistake conviction for correctness? Hitler and Stalin were very certain, weren't they? Now, I'm not saying Bush is like either of them, but would you say that those who opposed Hitler and Stalin were "whining and squealing from the sidelines?"
No, of course not. Opposing Bush is the duty of all patriotic Americans who believe he is wrong. And instead of engaging in dialogue about whether this war is going well and how to fix it, the right buries their heads in the sand and attacks the opposition as defeatists and loonies and traitors.
I sure as heck hope all you right wingers are correct, and things are going fine, but there are very obvious problems that need to be addressed. Iraqis are better off in some ways than under Saddam, but the country is a far cry from stable.
The security situation is terrible, the recent election was great in that 11 million came out to vote, but terrible in who they voted for, and even worse in that there are now massive demonstrations against purported fraud by the Shiites, who, along with Iran, are the big winners in all this.
Now you may say that democracy is messy, but we didn't spend our blood and treasure to go in and create a messy, unstable democracy that will tip to theocracy. We spent it to create a functioning democracy in the middle east, and in doing so Bush has failed so far.
Posted by: sdf at December 23, 2005 10:11 PM
SDF- Do you think that the religious citizens of Iraq should not get to vote? Maybe the really really muslim ones should get a third of a vote each? How would you do it? democracy is democracy, warts and all. If they decide to vote for Ayatollah Durbin so be it. One man, one vote. If only you could have instructed the 11 million Iraqis on how to vote in their own election the world would be a better place I'm sure. Also, stop recycling the tired talking points of wmd's being the only reason we went to war. Do a little research on the end of the first gulf war. There's this thing that happens when somone breaks a peace treaty. I.e. Saddam thwarting sanctions, targetting U.S. planes, trying to kill Bush I. Pathetic? I call Ramsey Clark pathetic. Go ahead, be like Rhandi Rhodes and argue about how the U.S. attacked the sovereignity of Iraq. Defend his murderous regime and his right to pour molten plastic on his victims. Thats just the way they do it over there right?
Posted by: Rich at December 24, 2005 04:40 AM
Post a comment
Everyone on this site needs to read
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/21/EDGU6GAM691.DTL
A choice excerpt:
"Soon after Bush spoke of the Iraqi election as "a landmark day in the history of liberty," early returns representing 90 percent of the ballots cast in the Iraq election established that the clear winners were Shiite and Sunni religious parties not the least bit interested in Western-style democracy or individual freedom -- including such extremists as Muqtada al-Sadr, whose fanatical followers have fought pitched battles with U.S. troops."
This piece neatly puts the lie to Bush's claims of success in Iraq. The "successful" election there has only served one purpose--to strengthen Iran, a far more dangerous enemy than Iraq ever was.
Bush can speechify all he wants and maybe get a temporary boost in the polls, but the reality that he has created a new Islamic theocracy will quickly sink in.
On a related note, Matt and Mark love to claim that Democrats' criticism of Bush's handling of the war is tantamount to the Democrats *wanting* the U.S. to fail in Iraq. This little conflation may make for good polemics, but it's completely false.
Except maybe for a small, ultra-radical fringe, the vast majority of Democrats desperately want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq and therefore make us all safer. But even more than that, we Democrats need the nation to face the truth--that we have failed--and to come up with a new plan before Iraq is completely lost to Islamic fundamentalism or civil war.
I hope President Bush continues to stay on the offensive and give one speech a week. I have looked forward to these weekly speeches the past few weeks. One of President Bush's great strengths is his likability and strength of character. He says what he means. Thats why people listen when he gives a speech. I couldn't be prouder of President Bush and I personally believe he is the greatest president in american history.
POD,
Its called democracy. That's what happens when people are free to vote and choose their representatives. No one believed that Iraq was going to look like an Iowa caucus. For example, when the dems nominated john kerry, everyone on the right was shaking their heads in disbelief, but that is democracy. Also, is this the fall back talking point from the DNC. Just in case 11 million Iraqi's vote under threat of death, a large number being sunnis, lets say that they are voting in a lot of those "religious" people. Pathetic.
Ah, yes, democracy, 11 million Iraqis voting for religious parties because that's what their religious leaders tell them to do. Wonderful. We've spent 2000 lives and 300 billion on that?
That's what's pathetic. Not to mention, our handling of the whole occupation has so been so blindingly incompetent and corrupt, we've destroyed any chance of a secular democracy taking hold. Our golden boy, Chalabi, got less than 1% of the vote, and Allawi didn't fare much better.
Oh, wait, I forget, we didn't go in to establish democracy, we went in for WMDs, and there sure were a lot of those. So many, in fact, that we had to change our rationale to "establishing Democracy", which is turning out to be just a short, short stop on the way to theocracy or civil war. That--and your blind support of it--is what's pathetic.
SDF, I think you've really got this one wrong.
What you have to look at is the big picture: despite the cost of the war in Iraq, the future over there is looking a lot brighter than it was under Saddam. Bush has turned over a rock and flushed out the ugly critters beneath, and good luck to him.
I guess some people are positive, and believe in strong leadership. And the rest, SDF, whine and squeal from the sidelines. Bush is doing just fine, so have a little faith.
I may come from Britain, but I have more faith in your President than many Americans.
Of course strong leadership couldn't possibly be wrong, could it? Why do we mistake conviction for correctness? Hitler and Stalin were very certain, weren't they? Now, I'm not saying Bush is like either of them, but would you say that those who opposed Hitler and Stalin were "whining and squealing from the sidelines?"
No, of course not. Opposing Bush is the duty of all patriotic Americans who believe he is wrong. And instead of engaging in dialogue about whether this war is going well and how to fix it, the right buries their heads in the sand and attacks the opposition as defeatists and loonies and traitors.
I sure as heck hope all you right wingers are correct, and things are going fine, but there are very obvious problems that need to be addressed. Iraqis are better off in some ways than under Saddam, but the country is a far cry from stable.
The security situation is terrible, the recent election was great in that 11 million came out to vote, but terrible in who they voted for, and even worse in that there are now massive demonstrations against purported fraud by the Shiites, who, along with Iran, are the big winners in all this.
Now you may say that democracy is messy, but we didn't spend our blood and treasure to go in and create a messy, unstable democracy that will tip to theocracy. We spent it to create a functioning democracy in the middle east, and in doing so Bush has failed so far.
SDF- Do you think that the religious citizens of Iraq should not get to vote? Maybe the really really muslim ones should get a third of a vote each? How would you do it? democracy is democracy, warts and all. If they decide to vote for Ayatollah Durbin so be it. One man, one vote. If only you could have instructed the 11 million Iraqis on how to vote in their own election the world would be a better place I'm sure. Also, stop recycling the tired talking points of wmd's being the only reason we went to war. Do a little research on the end of the first gulf war. There's this thing that happens when somone breaks a peace treaty. I.e. Saddam thwarting sanctions, targetting U.S. planes, trying to kill Bush I. Pathetic? I call Ramsey Clark pathetic. Go ahead, be like Rhandi Rhodes and argue about how the U.S. attacked the sovereignity of Iraq. Defend his murderous regime and his right to pour molten plastic on his victims. Thats just the way they do it over there right?