A New Poll Pelosi Won't Like

It isn't the lede that's most interesting, though that is positive, too.

WASHINGTON - President Bush faces widespread opposition to the troop buildup in Iraq, but he has gained support during the past month, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

The president has nudged support for the troop increase to 35 percent from 26 percent in early January. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed still oppose the increase.

While the 63% opposed isn't good, it also isn't the whole story.

Two-thirds of those questioned oppose cutting funding for the troops, and 60 percent are against cutting money intended just for the additional troops.

The Democrats do not have the critical support they require for their current plan. That means Bush still has some time in which to maneuver to increase support during the significant amount of time required for the Congress to debate. It's imperative that the Republicans in the Senate continue to buy more time. Then there is still the possibility of a veto and plenty of back and forth along the way.

News like this: "Iraq's Prime Minister has told the U-S President that the first few days of the new security plan in Baghdad have been a great success" and much more at the Mudville Gazette, is the best political weapon supporters of the war have, a war that is still very far from being lost.

We also need to keep up the pressure through efforts like The Victory Caucus. I submitted a photo-shop in their latest effort, you can see all of them here.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

I heartily endorse your Final Solution, seekeronos. I only suggest that we gather the bodies and burn them in enormous piles so that the MSM doesn't release any photos of the aftermath.

After all, that would make people hate the troops and put them in danger.

[Bill Adkins]

I'm sorry for your loss, too, TK. As to Clinton's actions, I think you can recognize that Iraq was contained during those years and continued to be so at a much lesser cost than that incurred since invasion. I believe Iraq should have been overrun in '91 - that was the time and place for such action. '03 was the wrong time, the wrong war and the wrong place. Clinton dealt with it '92-2000 by patrolling the no-fly zone and martyring the occasional idiot who fired a SAM at our planes -- and no US casualties. It was as much a training exercise as anything.

That said, if we were going into Iraq we should have sent in at least twice the manpower and resources to get the job done c-o-n-v-i-n-c-i-n-g-l-y and without doubt. Now, as a result of Bush's Blunder, we are severely damaged in so many ways and at so many levels. We can't even trust our own government to tell us the truth about Iran because Bush was caught lying about Iraq. And I think you mistake the civil war for opposition - our guys caught there now are collateral damage in a civil war between sects and tribes. They're surrounded because
there's no front and no discernible enemy other than the occasional ambush or IED. Bush has handed Al Qaeda a wonderful opportunity. I believe partition is the ONLY viable alternative absent sending in a huge force, something we either can't or won't do. Better do something or this will be perceived as our greatest defeat in history, thus giving Bush one more point in his pursuit of the title 'worst president in history.'

[templar knight]

Bill, what you propose is the most sensible thing I have seen. And your synopsis of what happened is right along with mine, so there, we certainly agree more on this issue than we disagree.

[scarshapedstar]

"Bill, what you propose is the most sensible thing I have seen. And your synopsis of what happened is right along with mine, so there, we certainly agree more on this issue than we disagree."

I agree with Bill, too, except for one minor detail: this war will not be redeemed. Bush is far too gone, his reality warped by six and a half years of unyielding fealty. You and Dan treated him like Louis XVI and you got what you deserved. He won't even acknowledge that other branches of government even exist, much less acknowledge that a second term is not a "get out of the Hague free" pass.

Here's my synopsis: the "surge" will last until a Democratic president takes over in 2009, and as soon as he/she starts relieving our troops of this suicide mission you will call him/her a traitor.