It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Most yanks say Bush 'too eager' on Iraq
page: 10
share:
Most yanks say Bush 'too eager' on Iraq
www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)
NEARLY two-thirds of Americans feel President George W. Bush was too eager to wage war in Iraq and is handling the conflict there badly, a poll released today suggested.
The result marked a turn-around from a survey that asked the same question four years ago, immediately after the US-led war began.
Sorry about the title to any 'yanks' out there, but this is just how the Australian media worded the article.
This poll shows such a big turn around from four years ago. What could be the reasons?
Military casualties?
9/11 fading in memory?
No progress?
No WMD found?
Realisation that Iraqi genocide was sponsored by the US?
(B) All of the above?
What are your thoughts on why there is a turn around in opinions by US citizens?
www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)
[edit on 4-9-2007 by SmokeyJo]
This poll shows such a big turn around from four years ago. What could be the reasons?
Military casualties?
9/11 fading in memory?
No progress?
No WMD found?
Realisation that Iraqi genocide was sponsored by the US?
(B) All of the above?
What are your thoughts on why there is a turn around in opinions by US citizens?
www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)
[edit on 4-9-2007 by SmokeyJo]
I personally think the biggest reason for the public's turnaround was when Bush associated the war with Al-Queda and terrorism. I think a lot more
people would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he would have stuck with the WMD argument...which is the main reason we went to Iraq
in the first place. Even the democratic party (for the most part) agreed we needed to do it.
Had we have gone there, found no WMD's, and stuck around to help rebuild, I think more people would be more forgiving. Then Bush threw in the terrorist link which wasn't really there, and that's when people turned on him. It went from "Helping to rebuild" to "Hunting terrorists that weren't there in the first place, but now they are."
I personally am supportive of what we're doing over therefor the original reason we went there. Unlike many, I didn't turn my back on Bush...I think the whole "terror link" was a republican political move because at the time the hunt for Osama was hot and heavy, and it's what the people wanted to hear. Granted, it was a dumb, poorly thought out move, but what politician in the same situation wouldn't have done the same thing to keep his numbers up with the public? Unfortunately for him, in this case, it backfired bad.
Had we have gone there, found no WMD's, and stuck around to help rebuild, I think more people would be more forgiving. Then Bush threw in the terrorist link which wasn't really there, and that's when people turned on him. It went from "Helping to rebuild" to "Hunting terrorists that weren't there in the first place, but now they are."
I personally am supportive of what we're doing over therefor the original reason we went there. Unlike many, I didn't turn my back on Bush...I think the whole "terror link" was a republican political move because at the time the hunt for Osama was hot and heavy, and it's what the people wanted to hear. Granted, it was a dumb, poorly thought out move, but what politician in the same situation wouldn't have done the same thing to keep his numbers up with the public? Unfortunately for him, in this case, it backfired bad.
new topics
0