From the 2006 Military Times Poll:

"Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president’s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military."
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

42 percent of 1.5 million would be about 630,000 troops who disapprove of the way the president has handled this war. Would that be considered a significant number?

Disapproving of how one is handling the war is a far cry from wanting to cut and run. There has been a lot of disagreement--mostly in terms of Rules of Engagement.

Sorry--apples and oranges.

Casper, you left out a couple of important pieces. First, nearly half the military including most of those who disapproved of the handling of the war said that we needed to send more troops to Iraq. If you note the date on the poll, this was at the end of December, before Bush went on TV in January announcing a troop surge.

Second, that reduces the number who disagree with Bush to as little as about one in seven soldiers. But no matter how you cut it, they love Bush twice as much as they love the newly elected Democratic Congress:

"Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush. But they take a dim view of civilian military lead ership — only 32 percent said they think it has their best inter ests at heart. And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them."

From the same poll:
"Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective."

13 percent of 1.5 million would be 195,000 troops that think we shouldn't have any troops there at all. Would that be a significant number?

Morris, As you point out the poll was taken in December before the current congress was in session. So it was the last congess they thought wasn't looking out for them. There is also have nothing to suggest that Bush's speech would have changed the poll.

You know, I was gonna' ask if you had seen that 60 minutes episode, and see how pissed you were, but I can see that you did and you are.

I can't tell you how satisfying that is to me.

Who am I kidding. Of course I can. A LOT.

"Morris, As you point out the poll was taken in December before the current congress was in session. So it was the last congess they thought wasn't looking out for them. There is also have nothing to suggest that Bush's speech would have changed the poll."

Casper, I think you underestimate the degree to which our military stays informed. The Dems weren't exactly shy about broadcasting how they'd taken over. Further, if they disagree with the President's handling of the war and at the same time believe the way the war should be handled is to send in more troops, then it follows that if the President sends in more troops, they will approve of the President's handling of the war. Is it possible that some just hate that he's making them wear desert camo or that he's not sending them enough lime jello. Yes. But these are soldiers who are tired of fighting a war with a hand tied behind their backs. And the only suggested change in strategy by either party has been to affect troop levels, one way or the other. Maybe they disapprove because they want to get rid of some of the ROEs, but it's not like they're going to start loving Dems more if that's the case.

Morris,
I have no doubt that our military stays informed with what is going on. My daughter just returned to Germany from her second tour in Iraq and I talk to her weekly. I also correspond with a former student that is in Iraq now. I know that a great many of the troops support the mission and the president. I also know that there are a lot that don't. Both sides have earned the right to their opinions. We could argue all night about how many do or don't support the mission, but my point is, that if 13 percent or 195,000 of our troops think we should have no troops in Iraq. then that is still a significant number.
As to you comment about them not starting to love the dems, I agree. The poll showed that although the number describing themselves as republicans has gone down the number describing themselves as dems has stayed the same. I think that like me many are sick of both parties.

I have it on good authority that Achmed Ahmadinejad has signed their precious little internet petition as well. He was number 1537.

Caspar,

You also failed to mention that the Army Times poll is bogus...it is a mail-in poll, and there is no control to ensure that only active duty military members are responding.

The proof is in the pudding - hardly any troops have refused to deploy, and the military is having no trouble getting recruits who know full well from day one that they might be sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere in the War on Terrorism.

Hey Leo, why are you so hung up on your party's "cut n run" slogan? I get a laugh out of you Bush lovers. You would say or do anything to save Bush. Would you do the same to support our troops?
I think not.

Mark,
How come you weren't pointing out the poll was bogus after the 2004 and 2005 versions showed the troops supported Bush? It amazes me how the only polls that seem to count are the ones that support Bush.

The poll was obviously not conducted in a strict scientific way but it should still count an indicator. As for the petition, that’s obviously a joke. If I can go and sign up (being Danish) the result is completely unreliable.
Watching Oliver North on Fox made me laugh. What an idiot. Did he really claim that out of the thousands of soldiers he has spoken to in Iraq not a single one of them opposed the war? That is obviously statistically impossible and therefore a big fat lie.
I think all you hardcore republicans are so desperate in your pursuit of a scapegoat. The war should have never happened in the first place and terrible decisions have put your country in a deep black hole, and the last person in the world you are going to blame for this disaster is the guy (and his administration) who tricked you into the war in the first place. No, you choose to blame the media for undercutting morale, the left for displaying weakness, the Shiites for opposing you, Pakistan for not doing enough, Iran for interfering. You have no courage what so ever to take a long hard looks at yourselves but are always lashing out at others. You have become like an old broken record.
In my opinion your political system is flawed. It really is a choice between two evils and although I regard the Dems as the lesser evil they are not much better. The problem in your country (which I have been to 3 times and enjoyed) is that in order to become the president of the United States you really need a few things;
1) razor blades on your elbows and an ability to cheat, lie, make deals, built alliances, brake alliances,
2) a small degree of psychopathic tendencies will help
3) In order to raise the hundred something million dollars to run for office you have to sell your soul.

You political system has become a big joke. I’m sorry to be so harsh in my words and I know I wont get thru to you anyway, so writing this is almost a waste of my time. I have many American friends that I care for deeply so don’t think I dislike Americans i just happen to really dislike your president (ups…if Mr. Cheney thinks there’s more than a one percent chance I’m danger to your country I’m in trouble….sorry Dick)
About Iraq:
This article is very interesting. It’s bipartisan and it just tries to explain why the Shiites and Sunnis hate each other so much. Some of you seriously need to read this to put some things in perspective.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592849,00.html it’s an interesting history lesson. Read it or don’t.

Rasmus,
I find it interesting that you and all the other lefties who criticize Cheney wouldn't if Cheney really was as bad as you say he is. That is, if Cheney really had a private army torturing his enemies, I doubt you'd prance onto a website and trash his name. Maybe you have more substance than is apparent and actually would do something to change the situation, but either you're lying in what you think about Cheney, or you have a death wish, neither of which suggest you're a person whose advice is of value.

"The war should have never happened in the first place and terrible decisions have put your country in a deep black hole, and the last person in the world you are going to blame for this disaster is the guy (and his administration) who tricked you into the war in the first place."

Do you mean Bill Clinton? Because for the last several years of his administration, he and his administration were the ones who collected the intelligence that was the basis for the war, they just didn't act on it.

Or maybe you don't mean an American administration at all, maybe you're talking about Germany:
"BERLIN (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) may be able to menace Iraq's neighbors with nuclear weapons in three years and fire a missile as far as Europe by 2005, according to a German intelligence assessment made public on Saturday."

It's true that we don't hear a lot of this from the French, Russians, or Chinese who were selling them dual use technology and/or outright banned weapons systems. I wonder why that is.

Hi Morris,
You wrote:
“Rasmus,
I find it interesting that you and all the other lefties who criticize Cheney wouldn't if Cheney really was as bad as you say he is. That is, if Cheney really had a private army torturing his enemies, I doubt you'd prance onto a website and trash his name. Maybe you have more substance than is apparent and actually would do something to change the situation, but either you're lying in what you think about Cheney, or you have a death wish, neither of which suggest you're a person whose advice is of value.”
Wow, what a way of thinking. So you are saying that if I really thought Cheney was as bad as you assume I think he is, then writing bad things about him must mean that I have a death wish, and since you don’t want to take advise from a man with a death wish you have just dismissed my opinion on the matter. If I don’t think Cheney is as bad as you think I do then that makes me a liar which also undermines my opinion on the matter. Interesting point of view although it’s kind of simplistic. Morris, I don’t think Cheney has a private army that tortures everyone who writes negatively about him. What I do think he’s a manipulative man who’s so interconnected with the oil industry that it makes him incapable of making decisions based on what’s really best for your country. I think he’s a man with an agenda but I don’t think hes going too find me and torture me. One thing is for sure. The whole world now considers the US to be a country that officially (sometimes) tortures people to get information out of them. This must make you feel so proud Morris. Your finely a member of the torture club.
You wrote:
“Do you mean Bill Clinton? Because for the last several years of his administration, he and his administration were the ones who collected the intelligence that was the basis for the war, they just didn't act on it.”
Maybe they didn’t act on it because they knew it wasn’t solid enough. I don’t know which pieces of intelligence was collected by the Clinton administration, but I know Clinton didn’t create a climate in which his intelligence agency’s felt pressured to come up with all kinds of stupid intelligence. Under Bush the role of your intelligence agencies have always been to confirm the administrations policies. Do you honestly not think that invading Iraq was on the top of Bush/Cheney’s priority list from the beginning? After all “he tried to kill my daddy”. After that it was just a matter of justifying it so they came up with all kinds of stuff like Yellow cake from Africa, ties to Al Qaeda, very close to developing nuclear bombs, definitely had WMD’s. Collin Powel, who was the only trustworthy person in the administration, was the man chosen to present it at the UN. I realize that MI6 came to some funny conclusions as well but I’m not much of a Tony Blair fan either. Now of cause you administration has put so much spin on it. Trying to convince everyone that we all had access to the same information. What a load of crap. Most of the people who voted for the war trusted that even this administration wouldn’t lie and manipulate something so important. And here we are 4 years later, more than 3000 of your soldiers dead, a few of mine, God knows how many Iraqis. And for what Morris? It was a lie so wake up.
You wrote:
“Or maybe you don't mean an American administration at all, maybe you're talking about Germany:
"BERLIN (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) may be able to menace Iraq's neighbors with nuclear weapons in three years and fire a missile as far as Europe by 2005, according to a German intelligence assessment made public on Saturday."”
You really should include the link next time. When was this said? May I remind you that Germany opposed the war from the beginning? They wouldn’t have done that if they had seriously thought Saddam was a great threat.
“It's true that we don't hear a lot of this from the French, Russians, or Chinese who were selling them dual use technology and/or outright banned weapons systems. I wonder why that is.”
Oh please, you guys have been supplying varies groups/country’s with weapons many times so get off you high horse Morris. Always pointing you finger at someone else. I’m not a big fan of both the Russian and Chinese government. The French are not too bad and the German government is actually all right.

Here's the link regarding German intelligence:
http://www.nci.org/iraq/iraq-nukes-frg-reuters22401.htm

And since it's not from someone you recognize, here's another:
"BERLIN, Germany -- Saddam Hussein may be able to fire nuclear weapons at Iraq's neighbours within three years, Germany intelligence service has said."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/germany/02/24/iraq.weapons/

And another:
"Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994, and other experts on Iraq testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the start of two days of hearings on the Iraqi threat to the United States and possible U.S. responses -- including a military attack.
Citing German intelligence estimates, Hamza said Iraq had more than 10 tons of uranium and one ton of slightly enriched uranium. Hamza said that could give Iraq enough weapons-grade uranium to build three nuclear weapons within three years."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/senate.iraq.hearing/

The problem with your assumption about Germany is that you think it had the best interest of the world at heart. Of course, why not, the evil cowboy Mr. Danger and his Veep Darth Vader are at it again, and even the good intentioned Germans can't hold them back.

"As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manfacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

German intelligence believed not only that Saddam was developing a nuclear weapon, they believed that he was develop a solid fuel missile capable of reaching Germany. It's no secret that Saddam was developing missiles with ranges which violated UN restrictions which followed his invasion of Kuwait. Why Germany wasn't down for the struggle, I can't tell you. If you think someone's developing a nuke capable of reaching you, it would appear rational to stop that with more than rhetoric.

And I can't believe you lefty loonies still believe he pressured, manipulated intelligence, when the very intelligence he used to justify going to war was consistent with not only German intelligence but also the intelligence estimates of the previous administration. But unlike Clinton, Bush responded to the threat. Politically, it was risky to attack Iraq until 9/11, and then everyone realized how stupid it was to allow another country to harbor terrorists, to keep the pieces of the dismantled gun that was the WMD program, which Saddam had every intention of putting together once his bribed cronies at the UN (Russia, China, and France) succeeded in ending sanctions. What did they care, they were violating them anyway?

If the evidence was manufactured, why did it look just like the evidence from other coutries, from the administrations of people who didn't kill his Dad? They didn't have to manufacture the evidence. But the media's been on Bush's case to leave Iraq since a month after we liberated them. I understand their motive for manufacturing lies. What I don't understand is what you get out of believing them.

Oh, and here's your "not so bad" France:
http://www.prague.tv/forum/french-connection-armed-saddam:2554

Of course, they can violate the UN resolutions, because they don't give a damn if anybody else gets hurt.

Ras,
Just Google the text in quotes and it will give you relevant websites.

Like this:
"Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994, and other experts on Iraq testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the start of two days of hearings on the Iraqi threat to the United States and possible U.S. responses -- including a military attack.
Citing German intelligence estimates, Hamza said Iraq had more than 10 tons of uranium and one ton of slightly enriched uranium. Hamza said that could give Iraq enough weapons-grade uranium to build three nuclear weapons within three years."

The problem with your assumption about Germany is that you think it had the best interest of the world at heart. Of course, why not, the evil cowboy Mr. Danger and his Veep Darth Vader are at it again, and even the good intentioned Germans can't hold them back.

"As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manfacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[10]"

German intelligence believed not only that Saddam was developing a nuclear weapon, they believed that he was develop a solid fuel missile capable of reaching Germany. It's no secret that Saddam was developing missiles with ranges which violated UN restrictions which followed his invasion of Kuwait. Why Germany wasn't down for the struggle, I can't tell you. If you think someone's developing a nuke capable of reaching you, it would appear rational to stop that with more than rhetoric.

And I can't believe you lefty loonies still believe Bush pressured, manipulated intelligence, when the very intelligence he used to justify going to war was consistent with not only German intelligence but also the intelligence estimates of the previous administration. But unlike Clinton, Bush responded to the threat. Politically, it was risky to attack Iraq until 9/11, and then everyone realized how stupid it was to allow another country to harbor terrorists, to keep the pieces of the dismantled gun that was the WMD program, which Saddam had every intention of putting together once his bribed cronies at the UN (Russia, China, and France) succeeded in ending sanctions. What did they care, they were violating them anyway?

If the evidence was manufactured, why did it look just like the evidence from other coutries, from the administrations of people who didn't kill his Dad? They didn't have to manufacture the evidence. But the media's been on Bush's case to leave Iraq since a month after we liberated them. I understand their motive for manufacturing lies. What I don't understand is what you get out of believing them.

Oh, and are you aware your not-so-bad France was the nexus, the central bank overseeing the corrupt oil for food scandal. I'm surprised they had the time, because they stayed busy selling banned weapons and chemicals, like the one in that solid fuel rocket German intelligence found out about. Of course, they can violate the UN resolutions, because they're France. They don't give a damn if anybody else gets hurt.