… especially regarding his handling of Iraq polisy.
That’s the main finding of this nationwide poll conducted yesterday for the WaPo/ABC News polling organization.
Qun 2 (a) asked “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?
Answers:
- Strongly disapprove– 57%
Somewhat disapprove– 13%
(Total disapprove)– 70%
Strongly approve– 12%
Somewhat approve– 16%
(Total approve)– 28%
Regarding approval/disapproval of his general job performance, he got 49% “Strongly disapprove” and 13% “Somewhat disapprove”, for a total of 62%.
On the ABC News broadcast tonight, George Stephanopoulos commented that the high numbers for strong disapproval are quite remarkable.
I think what has probably been happening is that over the past 12-18 months a lot of US citizens have become increasingly uneasy over the stalemate and quagmire in Iraq– but as we know, there really hasn’t been a clear and compelling opposition party here crystallizing and legitimizing that disquiet. But the ISG report now seems to have had a significant effect in doing that. Total “disapproval” for Bush’s Iraq policy has never run higher than 66% before now….
I mean, Baker is perhaps easy enough to deride as just another corrupt old oilman (though personally, I think he has a lot more to him than that.) But Lee Hamilton? How could anyone ever doubt the considered judgment of this courtly, very experienced old straight-arrow guy from Indiana? He certainly has gravitas, in spades.
Further down in the same poll:
- Qu. 26: “Given what you’ve heard and read, overall do you support or oppose the Iraq Study Group report?” Support– 46%; Oppose– 22%; No opinion– 32%.
Qu. 32 (based on half the sample so far): “Some people say (the United States should include direct talks with Syria as part of a regional dialogue about the situation in Iraq because Syria has influence in the region). Others say (the United States should not directly engage with Syria because the U.S. has identified Syria as a sponsor of terrorism.) What do you think? Do you think the United States should or should not hold direct talks with Syria about the situation in Iraq?” Should include Syria– 58%; Should not directly engage with Syria– 37%; No opinion– 5%
Qu. 33 (half sample): “Some people say (the United States should include direct talks with Iran as part of a regional dialogue about the situation in Iraq because Iran has influence in the region). Others say (the United States should not directly engage with Iran because the US has identified Iran as a sponsor of terrorism and because of Iran’s nuclear program.) What do you think? Do you think the United States should or should not hold direct talks with Iran about the situation in Iraq?” Should include Iran– 57%; Should not directly engage with Iran– 41%; No opinion– 2%.
Good, so the US citizenry is far smarter than the pro-Olmert propagandists give them credit for.
One other point– which I know I should have mentioned earlier but I can’t find a link for it….
As JWN readers doubtless already know, the Prez has spent the past few days earnestly trailing around Washington DC trying to look as though he knows what he’s doing as he “searches” for the best policy on Iraq– and he has seemed very determined to find one that is as different as possible from the ones the ISG has been recommending…. His people had been promising that the will make what’s billed as a “major policy speech” on Iraq sometime before Christmas.
But now, that project may have been delayed by a couple of further weeks. On the ABC News broadcast this evening George S. reported that the Prez had been quite eager to follow the advice he’s been receiving from retired Army General Jack Keane– that he should plan to have a “surge” of some 40,000 additional forces deployed in Iraq for a while, in order to win what Keane called a “decisive victory”.
(Where does Gen. Keane get these crazy ideas, anyway? Decisive? Victory?? What is he smoking?)
But apparently– still according to ABC– the generals on the ground in Iraq and in Centcom don’t like Keane’s surge idea at all. I guess that means they really don’t see what good it could do, and meantime it would just mean that many more vulnerable US soldiers to worry about…
So Bush is now reportedly going to delay making a decision on that pending further consultations… So there might not be any significant shift in policy until January. If then.
Meanwhile, 63 people were killed in a single suicide bomb attack in Baghdad today… and yesterday, UN Special Representative in Iraq Ashraf Jehangir Qazi told the Security Council that “The violence seems out of control.” I can’t imagine how those poor people in Iraq are coping with all this.
Helena
The President dithers
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9D90AE57-FD0E-4DCE-B071-8631BB9F6C57.htm
Doesn’t it make you yearn for the French system. Abolish the 4th Republic, get Charles out of Retirement, publish a new constitution, get him to go see the battle on the ground, then do the thing he has been trained to do and make a command decision.
Commence negotiations and commence the tricky process of disengagement.
The army didnt like it and said so. So the President told them who was boss and that was it.
Out in 100 days, tough turd on the colons, tough turd on the harqis.
and they dragged Legion Para off to jail singing “Je ne regrette rien”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Crisis#Committee_of_Public_Safety
Clearly, the jockeying within the adminstration is all about PR and about the various flavors of stay the course. There is no serious consideration of the ISG recommendations or any other real change in strategy.
There is consideration of various even more disastrous flavors of stay the course.
Overall, Bush seems to be moving towards some insane mix of “picking a side” in the civil war (Shi’a) and wholly incompetent attempts to manipulate the participants (outflank Muqtada).
The Bushies, once again, will ferret out the very worst of all possible worlds. They will support the warlords most beholden to Iran, while encouraging our authoritarian allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt to support various Sunni irredentists in Iraq.
These guys give the race to the bottom a whole new meaning.
“There is consideration of various even more disastrous flavors of stay the course.”
While I agree with your assessment, I must point out that the ISG recommendations are nothing more than yet another flavour of stay the course. They are not an exit strategy – anything but.
And by the way, didn’t anyone but me notice that among that group of “the wisest” blahblahblah there is not a single person who has expertise in the Middle East?
Shirin
I would value your commnents on Barry McCaffrey’s piece here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121201392.html
You and he agree on withdrawal and the difference comes down to timescale. He also proposes providing more money.
He has combat experience at the sharp end in Vietnam and the Middle East and as Commander Centcom will have substantial Middle East Knowledge and subtantial insight into the logistics of withdrawal.
His Dunkirk scenario of a withdrawal in contact to be taken off by the Navy lines up with my understanding. I agree with him about the possible number of refugees.
Of course, I suspect any government of Iraq in the next few years may be more interested in making the electricity work, than in developing WMD.
ex-General McCaffery can take his lifer “Vietnam Syndrome” and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. When I returned home in 1972 from my eighteen months of trying — mostly in vain — to find South Vietnamese who wanted or needed my advice about anything, I had the awe-inspiring experience of running into all sorts of wealthy South Vietnamese Bushes and Cheneys safely sequestered on U.S. college campuses which working-class kids like me had to drop out of so we could go “defend” these “loyal allies” who for some reason or other didn’t have the slightest inclination to do the dirty work themselves. I understand that any Iraqi with money or connections enough has flown the coup as well. Not that I blame them, but to ask young Americans to die for these privileged paragons just chaps my ass, so to speak.
I wish I had ten minutes with General McCaffery and a nearby toilet. He could sure use a crash course in what “go soak your head in your syndrome” means in ground-level English. And as for that “War on Drugs” that he used to head up? It doesn’t look like he did too well in that “war,” either. The American military needs to come home from Iraq now — before it hurts itself and any more innocent people any more than it already has.
unfortunately polls mean nothing to either bush, or blair…as ‘christians’ they both understand that if you had taken a poll from the disciples of Jesus after he informed them of his impending crucifixtion, about 62% of them would have objected to his plans.
we are the disciples, blair, bush, their respective governments and nations, and iraq, will be sacrificed similarly before this comes to an end.
Not just Bush loos his support. Abdel Aziz al-Hakim was arriving in London Monday for talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair. On Monday 11th of Dec 2006 During this visit to the “Iran” Centre of England in London (Islamic Centre of England, 140 Maida Vale, London, W9 1QB), met members of the Iraqi community at on Monday night. When he left some angry Iraq thrown him with tomatoes and rocks and shouting against him and Iran there was a heavy Britt’s police on the seen.
http://www.elaph.com/ElaphWeb/Politics/2006/12/197056.htm
http://www.aswathura.com/aswat1/details.asp?id=8213
IRAN Centre of England DIRECTED BY Iranian embassy in London (الملحق الثقافي في سفارة إيران في لندن)
Frank, I have not had a chance to read all of the McCaffrey article yet, and so far I don’t agree with much of it, though I do agree whole-heartedly that the ISG recommendations are not the answer. For starters I disagree with his underlying assumption that the U.S. should remain quite heavily involved in Iraq, which pretty much makes the whole thing a non-starter for me. It is absolutely clear to me that the U.S. government should have no presence in and no relationship with Iraq until and unless a legitimate Iraqi government decides to establish a relationship. That is based on two things. First, the fact that the U.S. government has committed a criminal act of aggression against Iraq, and in the process has killed, maimed, and destroyed the lives of millions of Iraqis, destroyed the physical, cultural, and societal infrastructure, ripped the society apart, and destroyed what there was of a state, perhaps forever. It is as absurd to expect Iraq to accept a relationship with the United States under the present circumstances as it is to expect a rape victim to welcome her rapist into her life. Second, everything the United States government touches in Iraq turns to s***, therefore it should not be allowed to touch anything there.
I will try to read the whole article tomorrow, and give you more specific thoughts.