Bush bad, Congress worse

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Wrong. His approval rate on Iraq is even lower than his overall approval rate; so if the base disapproves generally, even more disapprove or Iraq in particular.

That's not surprising. Bush's "base" is actually a coalition, comprised of two groups: neo-conservative foreign-policy hawks and Red state "values" voters. Political analysts, including conservative ones, have been pointing out for years that this is a coalition with a built-in fault line, since the latter group tends to be isolationist on foreign policy. Bush kept the coalition together by promising the war would be quick; now that it's turned into a quagmire, he's losing his isolationist flank -- especially since he's done absolutely nothing else for them in 6 years as president.

Not to nitpick but when did Bush & Co. ever give any impression that the war would be over quickly. Please don't go the obvious Mission Accomplished route to imply that meant war over.

[Ramo]

Rumsfeld: In the event that force has to be used with Iraq, there will be no World War III. The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2002/t11152002_t1114rum.html

Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

yes and the hot conflict did. The occupation and rebuilding the admin didn't comment on. Hence the common complaint that there was no plan for after the regime was toppled . If anything can be attributed to this administration its their consistancy in not giving details or timelines to either conflict phase or occupational phases.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Not to nitpick but when did Bush & Co. ever give any impression that the war would be over quickly. Please don't go the obvious Mission Accomplished route to imply that meant war over.

I think declaring that we would be welcomed as liberators is tantamount to saying the war would be over quickly.

I thing declaring that combat operations were over in May 2003 is tantamount to saying the war would be over quickly.

I think declaring that the insurgency was in its "last throes" in 2005 counts as saying the war would soon be over.

That's off the top of my head. The Bush administration, until very, very recently, has not portaryed Iraq as a long, difficult road, but instead has done what it could to portray the situation as under control and almost back to normal. Recently, to their credit, they've begun to tell teh truth -- and, given what a hit they took in the polls for doing so, you can understand why they preferred to spin it for so long.

Edit after seeing yours and Ramo's exchange: I work with Marines who've recently rotated out of Iraq. I'll let them know you think the "hot conflict" has been over for some time; after what they've been through, they can always use a good laugh.

[Ramo]

yes and the hot conflict did.

I don't see where Rummy said "hot conflict" (which I guess only means set piece battles?). Nor do I see how "use of force" somehow precludes an occupation more violent than the actual invasion.

They didn't think an occupation would be necessary. Rummy et al. thought that Chalabi would take over and all would be well. That's why there was no real plan for the occupation. Or more specifically, that was the "plan."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
The sad thing is even with approval ratings in the 20s% for congress in general, they'll still have 90% reelection rate. Yay, "democracy!"

America has an extremely sick democracy. No spin, no jokes, no games. The Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to protect the incumbant to such an extent that even incumbants polling in the sewers will get reelected.

[-Jrabbit]

Iraq has clearly become the battleground for internal tribal-level grievances. The rule of religion no longer has the force of law, and we're hanging around as a convenient punching bag. A lot of these bombings aren't even directed at US troops directly, and guess what -- it doesn't matter. Every day, we provide further proof that enforced "democracy" is ineffective. It steels the Muslim world against us, gives credibility to the hate mongers, and has no benefits back here in the US. Meanwhile, we keep our troops undersupplied while pumping off-the-budget billions into an oil-rich economy that doesn't want us.

This war is a political and foreign policy disaster, plain and simple. Like Vietnam (that noted democratic republic), the biggest surprise is how long it's taken for it to be reflected in the polls.

I guess gas prices trump everything.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin


America has an extremely sick democracy. No spin, no jokes, no games. The Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to protect the incumbant to such an extent that even incumbants polling in the sewers will get reelected.

I don't disagree, but if you look at the polling data what you'll see is that while Congress has a 23% approval rating, 53% of respondents approved of the job their own rep was doing.

That pattern -- hating Congress, but liking your own rep -- is a very old one. Moreover, I suspect most people don't know diddly about what kind of job their reps are doing, but merely approve because s/he represents them. Kind of like reflexively rooting for teh home team.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, it's the other bastards in Congress that ruin it. And they spend too much on pork projects... but those federal construction projects in their districts are long overdue and needed and praise should go to their Congressman who delievered it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yep, it's the other bastards in Congress that ruin it. And they spend too much on pork projects... but those federal construction projects in their districts are long overdue and needed and praise should go to their Congressman who delievered it.

Exactly!

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is absolutely amazing to hear Congressmen who speak against pork projects and lobbying in Washington, while in the same speech promise to bring MORE money home to ___. What do people think this money that will be brought home actually IS?

And you can hear this from just about every Congressmen out there and just about every campaign speech they make.

People dislike pork unless it is their pork.

[Ramo]

Incidentally, one of the more interesting aspects of that poll:

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo, I wonder if that is so people who are against illegal immigration consciously don't want to be portrayed as anti-immigrant or racist.

Or whether all the debate has convinced some that legal immigration should be increased.

[Ramo]

I don't think that people are all that anti-illegal immigrants, in terms of substantive policy choices. See the results of questions 66 and 67.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Oerdin


America has an extremely sick democracy. No spin, no jokes, no games. The Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to protect the incumbant to such an extent that even incumbants polling in the sewers will get reelected.

Yes, if this were happening in a third world country we'd call them corrupt and undemocratic. If a third world country ran the kind of budget deficits the US is running, the IMF would tell them to cut spending. Since this all happening in the US, no one seems to notice/care.