Instead, this is what I get on Iraq.
SELF-SERVING POLLS that -- ta-dah -- SUPPORT BUSH Administration policy!
By the Times and Globe no less.
Let's run you through them.
(General Rule: Take an MSM poll and divide Bush's numbers in half. That is a true reflection of America)
C'mon, folks, the Times' polls said America was in favor of Amnesty by 66% -- when WE ALL KNOW the real polls showed 90% against, if for no ther reason than Congress not doing what America wants.
But I'm not going to argue MSM-driven polls and THEIR AGENDA.
Just take a look:
"2 polls suggest grim view of surge; Petraeus set to testify as pressures mount" by Farah Stockman/Boston Globe September 10, 2007
WASHINGTON - As General David H. Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, prepared to report to Congress today on gains made by the surge of 30,000 additional US troops in Iraq, two national polls released yesterday indicated that a majority of Americans believe the increased US troop presence has failed to deliver significant improvements in the war-torn country.
The polls are troubling signs for the Bush administration's intensifying efforts to keep up American support for a large-scale troop presence in Iraq. Later this week, President Bush will announce his plans for the US military in Iraq.
Even before the week of high-stakes testimony begins, the report by Petraeus has been the subject of a full-throttle public relations battle, as the administration and its supporters seek to turn the tide of US public opinion about the war.
A conservative group called Freedom's Watch has launched a $15 million advertising campaign in 20 states. The group, which counts among its board members former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, was formed "to give a voice to those who believe that victory is America's only choice," according to its website.
The administration has intensified efforts to get out the word about what it sees as significant positive developments in Iraq. In addition to the president's two major speeches in recent weeks on the consequences of failure in Iraq, and his surprise visit to Anbar Province last week, the administration has made a coordinated, behind-the-scenes effort to generate support for the war.
Since the surge was announced in January, the White House has hosted bimonthly sessions for skeptical congressional aides, analysts, and opinion-makers to link them, via videoconference, with US officials in Iraq who could speak about progress being made on the ground.
Mark Pfeifle, the administration's deputy national security adviser for communications, said in an interview:
"Our main goal is to get more information out about what's going on to more different audiences. The more people we can reach out to and talk to, the more the public will know and understand the challenges and what's at stake."
In recent weeks, two additional public affairs officers have temporarily joined a joint outreach effort by the White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department. The joint team has intensified the administration's public relations campaign, organizing three such videoconferences for reporters with members of the provincial reconstruction team in Iraq.
Veterans groups that support the war say the White House has been in closer touch with them recently, regularly sending updates and information. Country singer and comedian Johnny Counterfit, who wrote a song called "We're In It, Let's Win It" about Iraq, said in an interview that he recently received a call from Claude Chafin, a White House aide, asking for permission to send the song to various constituents.
Some say the administration's outreach and the Petraeus report are having an impact. A flurry of high-profile op-eds by analysts who have toured Iraq with US military officials described new evidence of progress on the ground.
Samir Sumaida'ie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, said during a C-SPAN "Newsmakers" interview yesterday:
"I sense a change in mood. I sense a greater degree of preparedness to listen and to consider the situation afresh. I can almost hear people thinking, 'Well, this might just work.' That is a change in atmosphere, a change in the mood, and I hope this will result in change approach towards Iraq."
But the two polls released yesterday suggest that the administration still faces an uphill battle convincing Americans that Iraq can still become a success. According to the ABC/Washington Post poll, 58 percent of respondents said they felt the US surge had no impact on the situation there, while 12 percent said they felt it had made things worse. Fifty-three percent of those polled said they believed that Petraeus would present an assessment that is more positive than the reality on the ground. Only 39 percent thought he would portray the situation honestly.
However, a CBS/New York Times poll, released late yesterday, showed that 68 percent of respondents said they would trust the military most with successfully resolving the war in Iraq compared with just 21 percent who trusted Congress most and 5 percent who trusted the Bush administration most. The poll also showed that 45 percent of respondents believe the surge had no impact while 12 percent believe it had made the situation worse.
[You ever know a general who wanted LESS TROOPS?
Does this "poll" not SERVE that purpose? Stink!]
Bush, in his weekly radio address Saturday, urged people to listen to Petraeus before "jumping to any conclusions" about the way forward for the United States in Iraq."
"Americans Feel Military Is Best at Ending the War" by STEVEN LEE MYERS and MEGAN THEE
Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
The results underscored the benefits to the White House of entrusting the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, to make the case that an increase in American forces this year had been successful enough to continue into next year.
Only 5 percent of Americans — a strikingly low number for a sitting president’s handling of such a dominant issue — said they most trusted the Bush administration to resolve the war, the poll found. Asked to choose among the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed most trust in military commanders.
That is almost certainly why the White House has presented General Petraeus as an unbiased professional, not a Bush partisan. President Bush has said for years that decisions about force levels should be left to military commanders, although the decision to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq this year and keep them there was not uniformly supported by military leaders. It was primarily made in the White House, and specifically by the president in his role as commander in chief.
[Why low-ball the 30,000 #? WTF?]
The poll showed how difficult the White House’s task of sustaining support for an unpopular war had become. There is a deepening disillusion over the war’s course and its purpose, with the highest numbers of Americans, 62 percent, saying that the war was a mistake, and 59 percent saying that it was not worth the loss of American lives and other costs.
[Well, it is a CRIME, not a mistake]
A majority, 53 percent, said they did not think that Iraq would ever become a stable democracy. Still more, 70 percent, said they did not think the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was doing all it could to bring stability.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans said the United States should reduce its troops in Iraq now or withdraw them. Asked if a timetable should be established for a 2008 withdrawal, 64 percent favored doing so.
The Democrat-led Congress also enters the debate in a weakened position. The popularity of the current Congress reached a new low, the poll found, less than a year after the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate. Only 23 percent of Americans approved of the job lawmakers were doing.
The poll’s results encapsulated sentiments that at times seemed contradictory, highlighting the complexity of a debate over how to win a war that has had few easy answers. As a result, Americans reflected a nuanced concern about the consequences of a withdrawal, even as they fervently expressed hope for one. The consequences of leaving Iraq hastily or prematurely has been one of the administration’s recurrent themes of late.
[Yup, this easy as shit war that was sold to us is now complex as all hell.
Funny how that actually works out for Bush and the war contractors, huh?!]
Presented with three possible plans, the poll found that Americans favored a measured approach, with 56 percent supporting reducing troops in Iraq, but leaving some in place to train Iraqi forces, fight terrorists and protect American diplomats.
[So America wants to STAY, according to the Times' "poll!"]
Twenty-two percent favored a complete withdrawal in the next year, and 20 percent favored keeping the same number of troops “until there is a stable democracy in Iraq.”
Just under half favored a decrease or withdrawal of all troops even if the result was “more mass killings” among Iraq’s ethnic groups. The proportion favoring reductions or a withdrawal dropped to 30 percent if Iraq would become a base of operations for terrorists as a result.
[And that is what Bush will tell us tomorrow night!]
The findings suggested that both parties were paying a price for the way they have handled the war. Six in 10 Americans said in the poll that administration officials deliberately misled the public in making a case for the war; 33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
[WTF? Are AMURKNS FUCKING STOO-PID?
Or does REPETITIVE LIES of PROPAGANDA WORK against an apathetic, ignorant, uncaring population?
Or is the "poll" just shit?]
With barely 16 months to go in his presidency, Mr. Bush has a popularity rating that hovers nears its historic lows, with only 30 percent approving of his handling of the job and 64 percent disapproving. That level — essentially the reverse of his ratings when the war began in 2003 — has remained roughly the same since Mr. Bush announced in January the increase in American troops that became known as "the surge."
[So the surge has failed, Bush is a fucking liar, everyone knows it, and yet this guy never moves below 30%, according to MSM polls?
Something STINKS, 'cause he must be at about 15!
No one I know likes or defends him anymore!]
Only 26 percent approved of Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq and of foreign policy generally, while only one in four Americans think the country is generally on the right track.
[75% wrong-track? No wonder this fucker is hated!]
Politically speaking, the poll indicated that Americans favored a flexible approach to Iraq as opposed to unbending positions.
71 percent said flexibility in deciding on a withdrawal was more important than demanding either an unqualified victory (Mr. Bush’s position) or an immediate withdrawal (that of much of the antiwar Democratic base).
[The "anti-war" DemocraPs! HA!!!
And why would the Times, rearrange the piece on the web, then cut this ending?
Why would the Times do that, reader?]
The White House's strategy of portraying "the surge" of troops as a success could have an unintended effect.
The poll found that if General Petraeus were to report that the situation in Iraq was improving, 56 percent thought the United States should then decrease or remove all troops, while 38 percent would favor increasing or keeping the same number the same.
If he reports the situation getting worse, the number supporting a reduction or withdrawal drops to 47 percent, with 43 percent favoring to stay in."
[Looks like we are STAYING FOREVER, folks!
Otherwise, why would the Times censor this?
And I am proved correct, by the way, yet again!
"If the VIOLENCE CALMED DOWN, then the U.S. would HAVE to LEAVE because things would REALLY be improving -- not just some bullshit propaganda put out, as usual, when the "war debate" comes up!"
Believing in me yet, readers?]
Any way, here is where we are going (so screw you, public):
"News Analysis; Redefining Goals: Less Talk of Victory Now" by DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 — Nearly two years ago, President Bush tried to avert an incipient rebellion in Congress over Iraq by presenting a new strategy that he said would be a prelude to a decrease in American forces. He began the effort with a speech at the United States Naval Academy where midshipmen interrupted him with hearty cheers.
Behind him, the White House had erected a huge backdrop emblazoned with the words: “Plan for Victory.”
On Monday afternoon, when Gen. David H. Petraeus begins testifying about the latest plan for extracting troops.
[Except that is not what it is, asshole Times' liar!]
No one will be talking about achieving victory, just stability. Nor will there be orchestrated cheers. Part of the strategy this time is to keep Mr. Bush well in the background until later in the week, when he is expected to address the country with a revised plan, picking a course that the White House hopes will end the unusually public disagreements among the president’s military advisers about how much more effort and blood to invest in the war.
[I'll bet it is tomorrow night, the sixth anniversary of 9/11!
That way, the shithole liar can once again connect Iraq to 9/11!]
There is no doubt that Mr. Bush still staunchly believes that the Iraq project can be salvaged; visiting Anbar Province last Monday, he used the word “success” a half-dozen times. But the kind of “victory” he described in November 2005 is no longer discussed as the goal.
Back then, Mr. Bush’s 38-page “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” defined victory with a set of short-, medium- and long-term goals whose accomplishment, he said, would guide the withdrawal of troops. Among the short-term goals were “meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.”
[All FAILURES from TWO YEARS AGO!!!!
And yet HERE they are, singing the SAME OLD, SHOP-WORN, SOFT-SERVE SHIT LIES!!!]
Those goals still appear distant.
General Petraeus’s task, administration insiders and some outsiders said, is to use his credibility among Democrats and Republicans to make a case that President Bush can no longer make without support. Then comes the hard part: easing Mr. Bush, a man who revels in his own steadfastness, out of the straitjacket of his past optimistic pronouncements about what must be accomplished.
[So he is a LIAR who must be cajoled along gently, huh. Times?
Sort of like an INSANE PERSON who is prone to fits of temper, rage, and violence (like invading nations), huh?]
Mr. Bush, as Robert Draper reported in his recent biography, “Dead Certain,” has said he must sound optimistic themes because that is who he is — and because no one would follow a president who was publicly racked with doubt. It is a lesson that Mr. Bush is said to have extracted not only from his upbringing, but from his memories of another Texas president, Lyndon B. Johnson.
[No wonder he made the Vietnam comparison!]
Now, however, Mr. Bush’s talk of “victory” or “success” has run headlong into the sober assessments of the National Intelligence Estimate, which Democrats plan to raise in the hearings this week. Mr. Bush has also heard in recent days from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are worried about the sustainability of current operations, and he has heard the concerns of the admiral in charge of Central Command, William J. Fallon, who has argued that with so many resources tied up in Iraq, the United States is dangerously unprepared for other confrontations, including the possibility of one with Iran.
[It's GOING DOWN SOON, folks!]
“There’s a lot of scar tissue that everyone has to cut through around here,” said one senior administration official, who has been surprised by the degree to which Mr. Bush and his longtime aides are trapped by their own vision, and past statements, of how success in Iraq would transform the Middle East. One former senior official, brought in for consultations recently to the White House, said he now feared that Tehran, not the United States, had the greater influence over events in Iraq. “There was silence in the room,” he said.
[And a REASON to BOMB!!!]
But by the end of the week, Mr. Bush may find he is holding a number of cards.
[Pfffffttttt!
Guy's standings in the "polls" are SHIT, and yet, HE is HOLDING a number of cards!
ANTI-CHRIST!]
In recent interviews, Mr. Bush’s aides have signaled the argument he will be making: that the progress General Petraeus has made at the provincial level will slowly start affecting politics and the potential for reconciliation in Baghdad, at the national level. He will argue that the change in attitude among Sunnis has created an opening that the United States must exploit, an argument that already appears to have persuaded some wavering Republicans in the Senate.
[Yup, surge to give "breathing space for reconciliation," has failed, but the SAME ARGUMENT trotted out again months later!!!
Aren't you SICK of EATING SHIT, Amurka!!!]
While it is unclear what Mr. Bush will say when he addresses the country, it does seem clear that he will no longer insist on “victory,” in the way he used the term in 2005, before troops can come home. Something more akin to Nixon’s “Peace With Honor” appears to be in the cards, officials say, rewritten and updated for a very different kind of war.
[So they are going to peddle DISCREDITED 40-year arguments to JUSTIFY the policy!
And is it a DIFFERENT WAR or not?
First Bush says it isn't a Vietnam, then four years later he says it is?
If you FALL FOR THIS, Amurka, you deserve to have dozens and dozens of caskets returning from Iraq!]
Mr. Bush can take heart from Nixon’s experience: 37 years ago, the Senate defeated the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment, which would have forced an end to military operations in Vietnam within months and forced a withdrawal the next year. If history does not repeat itself, it rhymes: the Democrats are backing away from plans they made in early summer, to push again for a hard deadline for troop withdrawal after General Petraeus’s testimony.
[And the fucking stink DemocraPs will BACK DOWN AGAIN, despite what the people of the United States want!
HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF AGAIN!]
Nonetheless, this week is likely to be regarded as a momentous one.
[Only by shit-peddling MSM propaganda tools!]
Until a week ago, every presidential speech, every bit of military testimony, was about the need to persevere, and to add troops. Starting Monday, the new argument seems almost certainly to be about how fast or how cautiously to draw down, and what would constitute a “sustainable” presence in a country that even most of the Democratic presidential candidates acknowledge will require a major American presence for years to come."
[Did you GET THAT LAST BIT, reader?
All this "debate" on the war is BULLSHIT!!!
TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!
As is MOST of what you find written in the shitty Zionist-controlled War Dailies that Amurka is served!]
