Despite a concerted campaign by Republicans to criticize Democrats for calls to withdraw troops from Iraq, a majority, 56 percent, support a timetable for a reduction in U.S. forces there nonetheless. More than half of those people said they supported a withdrawal even if it meant that Iraq fell under the control of insurgents, something the White House has said is an unacceptable doomsday scenario. Bush's approval rating in the current crisis stands at 47 percent, but with 39 percent saying the United States should publicly support Israel - as it has been - and 40 percent saying it should avoid saying anything about the conflict at all. (Only 7 percent say he should criticize Israel, though respondents cast blame for the conflict on both sides.) Only 35 percent approve of Bush's handling of foreign policy in general, although that is up from 27 percent in May.

With Congressional Republicans facing one of the worst environments for a majority party since 1994 - when they swept control of both chambers away from the Democrats - the poll includes hints that they have at least stopped what had threatened to become a precipitous plunge. Forty three percent said they had a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, up from 37 in May. And when asked their view of how Congress was handling its job as a whole - which tends to reflect prospects for incumbents in power - 28 percent said they approved, up from 23 percent in May. But 58 percent said they disapproved. And Democrats fared much better, with 45 percent saying they would vote for the Democrat running in their district this autumn as opposed to the 35 percent saying they would vote for the Republican. And voters seemed to be with Democrats on many major issues, such as the minimum wage and the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. Respondents also said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to make the right decisions about Iraq, though Republicans continue to hold an edge over Democrats when it comes to making the right decisions on terrorism.

Just a few excerpts from that article.

I think that we should let Israel kill as many of those Islamists as possible. That's just my opinion...

Despite a concerted campaign by Republicans to criticize Democrats for calls to withdraw troops from Iraq, a majority, 56 percent, support a timetable for a reduction in U.S. forces there nonetheless. More than half of those people said they supported a withdrawal even if it meant that Iraq fell under the control of insurgents, something the White House has said is an unacceptable doomsday scenario. Bush's approval rating in the current crisis stands at 47 percent, but with 39 percent saying the United States should publicly support Israel - as it has been - and 40 percent saying it should avoid saying anything about the conflict at all. (Only 7 percent say he should criticize Israel, though respondents cast blame for the conflict on both sides.) Only 35 percent approve of Bush's handling of foreign policy in general, although that is up from 27 percent in May.

With Congressional Republicans facing one of the worst environments for a majority party since 1994 - when they swept control of both chambers away from the Democrats - the poll includes hints that they have at least stopped what had threatened to become a precipitous plunge. Forty three percent said they had a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, up from 37 in May. And when asked their view of how Congress was handling its job as a whole - which tends to reflect prospects for incumbents in power - 28 percent said they approved, up from 23 percent in May. But 58 percent said they disapproved. And Democrats fared much better, with 45 percent saying they would vote for the Democrat running in their district this autumn as opposed to the 35 percent saying they would vote for the Republican. And voters seemed to be with Democrats on many major issues, such as the minimum wage and the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. Respondents also said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to make the right decisions about Iraq, though Republicans continue to hold an edge over Democrats when it comes to making the right decisions on terrorism.

Just a few excerpts from that article.

I think that we should let Israel kill as many of those Islamists as possible. That's just my opinion...

Anyone that thinks the United States should leave this issue to others to be resolved must be living in a bubble. Sorry folks you can't hide your heads and hope it will go away.

hold the phone, isn't W "taking his eye off the ball" & doesn't this distract from the hunt 4 osama?

not that it matters since we're all either "flippin burgers" or unemployed.

bush and his supporters have created a situation in which the American public doesn't know what to do. bush is not trusted,but they think Israel has a right to exist,yet they feel that everything that bush touches turns to crap so they want us to stay out of it. Republican leadership, have you had enough yet? Georgia, are you a Zionist? Peace

This ain't good for the Demorats. As noted in several polls they have lost the generic ballot lead from high double digits to low to high single digits. The election has changed to foreign policy and terrorism. These are issues that the Demorats score poorly on. They have gotten no traction in the last two months.

Mr. Bush is doing nothing. Of course Americans will approve of this. Whatever Bush and the Republicans touch they screw up.

Watch as some new "roadmap" to peace is announced or Bush suggests invading Syria or Iran.

Then we will see the "approval" of his handling the Mid East situation at or below 35% which is the same number of people that simply worship this idiot president no matter what he does or does not do.

Wade

OO - you could always get work for the Ohio Democrats vandalizing Republican offices and property.

Howard Dean channeling the Wicked Witch:

"I'm melting, I'm melting..."

Kahn.

You seem to think only Democrats are capable of vandalizing. During the last elsectionm my house in Ohio in front of which were Kerry posters had the posters stolen, my mailbox painted with the word BUSH and my house "egged" if you care I can send you the police repost I filed if you doubt me. Now do you really believe that democrats did it!!!! Or wil you admit violence exists on both sides!!

"Seeing as we cannot maintain the peace in Iraq, we have but one overriding interest there today — to keep Al Qaeda from creating a base from which it can plot attacks on the United States. Thus we need to have troops nearby prepared to re-engage in case the Sunni Arabs prove unable to provide for their own security against the foreign jihadists.

This would be best accomplished by placing a small “over the horizon” force in Kurdistan."

By David Frum - speechwriter for the whitehouse.

"To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

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 "

By John Murtha

They both sound and look really familiar. Murtha's strategy turned out to be accurate. The administration is planning almost exactly what he suggested.

I think Bushy is doing a good job in the Middle East(excluding Iraq)debacle so far, .Pound those terrorists into submission. When they start asking for cease fires bomb them at least a dozen more times to make sure. I do not approve of any civilian casualties but they are going to happen thats reality.

Yah, morphie, but Murtha thought six thousand miles was "over the horizon".

Murtha may have been a good Marine. That does not mean he was, or is, a good tactician. And constantly quoting him as a military expert just because he served is simply silly.

I also point out, for the twentieth time or so, that when combatants do not wear uniforms, there is absolutely no way to determine "civilian casualties". And when women support a cause and allow combatants to shelter in their homes and use their families as shields, they are not civilians either, and they are the ones responsible for what happens to the children they are supposed to be protecting.

True civilian casualties are always a tragedy, though always a fact of war. But we can't keep buying into the Hezbollah propaganda that every non-uniformed person who is killed is a "civilian". If we are going to count civilians, then we should go back and count the people killed in nightclubs and restaurants and on buses and in sidewalk cafes by ruthless cowardly terrorists. Israel has been living with this for years, and I haven't seen much weeping on the Left over the senseless deaths of THOSE civilians---who were, by the way, true civilians.

"Yah, morphie, but Murtha thought six thousand miles was "over the horizon"."

I concur.I believe Murtha suggested Japan and ,you are right, that is way to far away but if thats the only reason, he wasn't far off. He didn't deserve the way he was treated because of where the 'over the horizon' presence would be. In his resolution he actually stated 'in the region' which left it quite open.