Bush Approval Rating 37% - Congress 22%

[5.0_CJ]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103225/Update-Ratings-Bush-Congress.aspx

A little higher than I expected, hmm.

[Vertnut]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103225/Update-Ratings-Bush-Congress.aspx

A little higher than I expected, hmm.
I'm sure it's a reflection of what's happening in Iraq.

[Denny]

Congress licks!

[Pro Trash]

I kinda like George aside from his failings in Iraq and the economic impact it has had on our country. I think he is like U.S. Grant was as the 18th President, a good person in general; however, he makes very poor choices for supporting staff.

[D]

I kinda like George aside from his failings in Iraq and the economic impact it has had on our country. I think he is like U.S. Grant was as the 18th President, a good person in general; however, he makes very poor choices for supporting staff.

Failures in Iraq? Wierd....I haven't heard of that...last I heard, General Patreus was ordering a troop drawback and was sending home at least 5,000 troops from Diyala province back home before Christmas without sending replacements because those troops were being replaced by Iraqi police and Iraqi Army. Last time I heard, violence of every kind was down to it's lowest point in years. If that's a failure, then color me stupid.

[White trash wagon]

Failures in Iraq? Wierd....I haven't heard of that...last I heard, General Patreus was ordering a troop drawback and was sending home at least 5,000 troops from Diyala province back home before Christmas without sending replacements because those troops were being replaced by Iraqi police and Iraqi Army. Last time I heard, violence of every kind was down to it's lowest point in years. If that's a failure, then color me stupid.

Maybe by failure, ProTrash meant that this has taken 4.5 years and cost nearly a trillion dollars so far....and it ain't over yet. Remember 2003? This was going to take 9 months and cost $150 billion?

Scott

[Slowhand]

Failures in Iraq? Wierd....I haven't heard of that...last I heard, General Patreus was ordering a troop drawback and was sending home at least 5,000 troops from Diyala province back home before Christmas without sending replacements because those troops were being replaced by Iraqi police and Iraqi Army. Last time I heard, violence of every kind was down to it's lowest point in years. If that's a failure, then color me stupid.

The problem with your statement (with which I completely agree) is that the media has changed the way the public views wars. It doesn't matter if you win the war in the end these days, because they media will always paint it a failure because you lost a few battles. We started strong, and then had some issues there for a good while in the middle, but even if we finish strong and ultimately make things better over there, it won't be enough for the media and the sects of society that have been brainwashed by ted kennedy.

[Slowhand]

Maybe by failure, ProTrash meant that this has taken 4.5 years and cost nearly a trillion dollars so far....and it ain't over yet. Remember 2003? This was going to take 9 months and cost $150 billion?

Scott

Would you like to inform me of how long WWII took? How about WWI? How about Vietnam? Want to do the inflation conversion to today's prices on what those wars cost?

and who ever said it would take exaclty 9 months and cost exactly $150 billion?

[Denny]

Maybe by failure, ProTrash meant that this has taken 4.5 years and cost nearly a trillion dollars so far....and it ain't over yet. Remember 2003? This was going to take 9 months and cost $150 billion?

Scott
Nope... don't remember that figure.

[Slowhand]

Nope... don't remember that figure.

alright, so I'm not crazy?

I still want to know who allegedly said that. I don't think anyone would ever realistically believe a war would be over with an army of new (iraqi) recruits trained in 9 months.

[Denny]

One can barely have a baby in 9 months, let alone cleaning up the biggest shithole (next to Iran) on this planet.

[Slowhand]

One can barely have a baby in 9 months, let alone cleaning up the biggest shithole (next to Iran) on this planet.

faulty intelligence! it's what they told us! lies! :rolleyes:

[White trash wagon]

Would you like to inform me of how long WWII took? How about WWI? How about Vietnam? Want to do the inflation conversion to today's prices on what those wars cost?

and who ever said it would take exaclty 9 months and cost exactly $150 billion?


Dick Cheney made the time & cost statement. I did a 5 minute search and found the 2003 quotes of cost, with more digging, I'm sure the rest could be found.

White House Cuts Estimate of Cost of War With Iraq
(January 2, 2003)

By Elisabeth Bumiller
www.nytimes.com


WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 — The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.

In a telephone interview today, the official, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, also said there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal 2004 budget, though he declined to specify how large it would be. The administration is scheduled to present its budget to Congress on Feb. 3.

Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high.
Our involvment in WWI was 1.5 years
Our involvment in WWII was 4.5 years
Our involvment in Korea was 3 years
our involvment in Vietnam was 10 years.

In inflation adjusted dollars, Iraq has surpassed WWI, Korea, and is about to surpass Vietnam.

[jones4stangs]

Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high. [/COLOR]
Our involvment in WWI was 1.5 years
Our involvment in WWII was 4.5 years
Our involvment in Korea was 3 years
our involvment in Vietnam was 10 years.

In inflation adjusted dollars, Iraq has surpassed WWI, Korea, and is about to surpass Vietnam.
nice rebuttal

[Denny]

That year...

[GhostTX]

Our involvment in WWI was 1.5 years
Our involvment in WWII was 4.5 years
Our involvment in Korea was 3 years
our involvment in Vietnam was 10 years.

In inflation adjusted dollars, Iraq has surpassed WWI, Korea, and is about to surpass Vietnam.
I'd venture for one to look up how long we were in Japan, Europe and Korea after those wars and the length of time to nation re-build.

I believe we were in Japan "nation building" for 8 years after the signing of the treaty.

[SlowLX]

alright, so I'm not crazy?

I still want to know who allegedly said that. I don't think anyone would ever realistically believe a war would be over with an army of new (iraqi) recruits trained in 9 months.
it could have been quicker if it werent for rumsfield

disbanding of the entire army was a waste, they ended hiring back half of em

[D]

Maybe by failure, ProTrash meant that this has taken 4.5 years and cost nearly a trillion dollars so far....and it ain't over yet. Remember 2003? This was going to take 9 months and cost $150 billion?

Scott

America, 230 years later, is still a work in progress. Democracy cannot and should not be hurried. People need to realize that. We're going to be babysitting Iraq and Afghanistan for a long, long time.

FWIW, the annual operating budget of the USAF is $80 billion. Every other service has an operating budget of less than that. Annual operating budgets have been figured in to the total cost of the war.

[D]

I'd venture for one to look up how long we were in Japan, Europe and Korea after those wars and the length of time to nation re-build.

I believe we were in Japan "nation building" for 8 years after the signing of the treaty.

We have somewhere around 20 military installations combined between South Korea, Japan, and Germany alone. That isn't counting bases all across the rest of Europe.

[black01gt]

I'd venture for one to look up how long we were in Japan, Europe and Korea after those wars and the length of time to nation re-build.

I believe we were in Japan "nation building" for 8 years after the signing of the treaty.
And of course these countries would do the same for us if the tables were "somehow" turned. :rolleyes:

I thought the Iraqi "war" was to be paid for with Iraq oil money (more of Cheney's demo version of course) and still thought it was a bad idea. Let's catch Bin Laden and make him pay for it. :p

[D]

Bin Hidin' is dead...

[Mustangman_2000]

Nope... don't remember that figure.

Let me refresh your memory.

The original estimate for the total cost of the war was 50 - 60 billion. The Pentagon was informing congress to anticipate a cost of around 50 billion. Just prior to invasion the DOD amended that figure to 60 - 95 billion in total operational cost. And then Paul Wolfowitz was doing everything he could to assuage the concerns of Congress by telling them that Iraq's oil resources would offset the costs.

That's what was being sold to the public and the U.S. Congress prior to invasion. May 1, 2003 President Bush declares "Mission Accomplished". :rolleyes: Flash forward nearly 5 years. We are currently spending right around 10 billion per month with no end in sight.

All part of that careful planning, keen management skills, and shrewd business acumen we've come to know and love from this Administration.

[Paladin]

Damn, Bush has almost twice the approval rating of Congress? I guess now the libs will say that approval ratings aren't important, huh? They sure were when Bush had poor approval and the Dems had good approval ratings. LOL

I predict a great victory for the republican nominee next year. Hillary is imploding, Obama is answering drug questions thrown out by Hillary, and Edwards has all but disappeared. :D

[Paladin]

Let me refresh your memory.

The original estimate for the total cost of the war was 50 - 60 billion. The Pentagon was informing congress to anticipate a cost of around 50 billion. Just prior to invasion the DOD amended that figure to 60 - 95 billion in total operational cost. And then Paul Wolfowitz was doing everything he could to assuage the concerns of Congress by telling them that Iraq's oil resources would offset the costs.

That's what was being sold to the public and the U.S. Congress prior to invasion. May 1, 2003 President Bush declares "Mission Accomplished". :rolleyes: Flash forward nearly 5 years. We are currently spending right around 10 billion per month with no end in sight.

All part of that careful planning, keen management skills, and shrewd business acumen we've come to know and love from this Administration.

You still say no end in sight? I do, especially with the recent positive trends in Iraq. I wish it had been a 2-3 week war, but most of us knew this would be a long term war. Besides, the War on Terror will continue into the next generation IMO.

[Denny]

Let me refresh your memory.

The original estimate for the total cost of the war was 50 - 60 billion. The Pentagon was informing congress to anticipate a cost of around 50 billion. Just prior to invasion the DOD amended that figure to 60 - 95 billion in total operational cost. And then Paul Wolfowitz was doing everything he could to assuage the concerns of Congress by telling them that Iraq's oil resources would offset the costs.

That's what was being sold to the public and the U.S. Congress prior to invasion. May 1, 2003 President Bush declares "Mission Accomplished". :rolleyes: Flash forward nearly 5 years. We are currently spending right around 10 billion per month with no end in sight.

All part of that careful planning, keen management skills, and shrewd business acumen we've come to know and love from this Administration.
Uhhh... the initial goal WAS accomplished :rolleyes: Where have you been? :confused:

[Zarathustra]

Does anyone remember EVER having an approval rating for congress before this administration?

[AL P]

Does anyone remember EVER having an approval rating for congress before this administration?

Yes. Always popular anytime one party holds congress and the other the white house.

[mikeb]

People are disapproving of the political infighting that is happening in lieu of meaningful government actions. There are major issues pending right now that people want action on (ie: AMT) and the government stands there with their dicks in their hands and no answers. I believe that this is a major contributor to the low ratings for everyone in DC.

[5.0_CJ]

Does anyone remember EVER having an approval rating for congress before this administration?

all congresses since 1976 have been rated from my knowledge. I believe I read this congress is factually the poorest rated, and most impotent congress in history (as far as bills passed). That says a lot too, libs will bitch and whine Bush is mean and taking away all their power, but the real truth is the libs in congress are too narrow minded and crybaby to compromise or work with the right to pass some of their agenda, they would rather stonewall and get every proposal vetoed over and over. This kind of mindless inflexibility is just unacceptable, I don't care what party you are. I think this approval rating is irrefutable evidence of that (even though I'm damn sure someone will refute it somehow, conspiracy, innacurate, bush polled it himself, etc..).

[black01gt]

People are disapproving of the political infighting that is happening in lieu of meaningful government actions. There are major issues pending right now that people want action on (ie: AMT) and the government stands there with their dicks in their hands and no answers. I believe that this is a major contributor to the low ratings for everyone in DC.
Yep. EVERYONE in DC!

[Zarathustra]

all congresses since 1976 have been rated from my knowledge. I believe I read this congress is factually the poorest rated, and most impotent congress in history (as far as bills passed). That says a lot too, libs will bitch and whine Bush is mean and taking away all their power, but the real truth is the libs in congress are too narrow minded and crybaby to compromise or work with the right to pass some of their agenda, they would rather stonewall and get every proposal vetoed over and over. Ts approval rating is irrefutable evidence of that (even though I'm damn sure someone will refute it somehow, conspiracy, innacurate, bush polled it himself, etc..).


take it easy man, it was a question. I agree with you.