Dr. Forbush Thinks

Rasmussen Reports is a polling place that keeps track of the President’s approval rating on a very consistent and regular basis. The keep a running poll based on the response from the previous three nights. They also ask the same question in the same way every night. From their web site they explain what they ask, and how it may give different results than other polling places.

At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they “Approve” are willing to say they “Somewhat Approve.” It’s worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a “Not Sure” response when asked about the President.

Today’s numbers (35% Approval and 61% Disapproval) are not entirely from the polling taken after the president made his famous “escalation” speech. But even with only 2/3 of the data being taken after the president’s speech we see that his slight upward trend from recent days has been arrested in its tracks. The president’s approval at Rasmussen had been hovering at about 40% for many months now with only slight fluctuations. But, in recent days his approval had begun to climb to about 45%. I suspect that this climb had been due to a favorable anticipation of his speech on “What to do next in Iraq.” People had held out hope that George W Bush would finally make a sensible decision and do the right thing. Obviously all hope has been lost and the disillusioned people who had held some hope in what he might say have finally realized that there is no hope.

But an interesting highlight to these numbers is that the number of people who strongly approve of what the president is doing has finally fallen from the impenetrable 20% mark. These were the people who had stuck with the president no matter what he did. Katrina did not effect this number. Nothing had ever moved this number until the speech that he made on Wednesday night. With 2/3 of the polling taken after this speech his “strongly approve” number has fallen to 16%. Tonight’s data will be added to the mix and the true effect of his speech will be seen tomorrow at Rasmussen Reports.

But, the sad thing is that even though so few people respect this guy. Even fewer agree with him. And, there isn’t much that we can do about it. The Democrats have control of Congress and they can finally ask him the questions that most of us would like to have answered. And, most people would be embarrassed when all of their faults and failures are put out there for us all to see. In such an event most people would realize that they need to fix the problems and they would be willing to listen to the experts and correct their failures. Some people do not need the public pressure, but unfortunately some people do. This works for most sane people. The problem here is that we do not have a sane President in the White House. We do not have an administration that listens to the experts and makes rational decisions. Instead we have an administration that is disillusioned with hubris. This administration believes that they know the right answers despite what the experts have told them. So, this means that no one can change the course that we are on despite the efforts that we continue to be made.

So, with two days out of three in polling since the fated speech we can say that the public has not been convinced by the president. But, of course, this will never matter to the man who doesn’t read and doesn’t care what the polls or experts say.


-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Occasionally it is important to review where we have been in order to determine better where we should go. I thought that I might try to take a step back and look at what has come to be called the “War on Terror.”

Terror, as most of us know is a tactic used to sway public opinion. The idea is to make people fear for their lives and in that fear they will do what the terrorists desire. So, in order to understand this fight we need to know what the terrorists want us to do, so that we are sure not to give into the terrorist’s wishes.

After 9/11/2001 when we suffered that major attack people began to ask this question. Who are these terrorists? What do they want? Why would they do this?

At the time George W Bush and the Republicans told us that it was a weak thing to try and understand the terrorists. Don’t try to understand them, because you are either with us or with the terrorists. We were told that we should go out and go shopping. We were told that we should shop for duct tape and plastic to seal up our windows - just in case.

But, this reaction seems to show that the terrorists actually won the first round. They made us fearful. They especially made our leaders fearful by reacting with such strange recommendations. But, our leaders also knew that such a devastating attack needed a response, in order for that national catharsis to kick in. Beating the shit out of someone always makes you feel better after someone kicks the shit out of you. So, since the Taliban in Afghanistan seemed to be complicit in giving shelter to these guys they seemed to be the likely target. But, since Afghanistan doesn’t actually have anything that we want, we decided to kick them out of power and leave. Well, actually we left a few guys behind to play hide-and-seek with Osama bin Laden.

After getting rid of the regime that allowed al Qaeda to train their members in the art of terrorism, could we declare a victory against “Terror?” Fearlessness 1 - Terror 1 should be written on a scoreboard somewhere, right?

Since we were told not to worry about the details, we didn’t. Americans are like that. It is much easier to not care, not worry and go shopping, like we were told.

We should have known this, but most Americans don’t spend that much time paying attention to world affairs. It turns out that we actually funded to Taliban in the past. We gave them money when the Soviet Union was occupying Afghanistan. We actually did this in an indirect way. We gave the money to Pakistan, and the Pakistanis gave the money to the rebel groups that we liked. We liked the Taliban because they were religious. After all, the Soviets were atheists, that meant that fighting them with religious zealots was a good fit, right?

The problem as we all know is that when the Soviets left Afghanistan there was a huge vacuum of leadership. Chaos ensued for months, and the people were happy when finally a disciplined group like the Taliban took over and quelled the melee. Many Afghanis believed that the Americans desired the Taliban, after all they were funded by the Americans for so many years. Many Afghanis are confused by the whole situation, because now after the Americans have kicked the Taliban out of government they have come back again as a rebel force once again sponsored by Pakistan. Some even believe that the Americans are once again giving money to Pakistan to pay these guys.

The reality of the situation in Afghanistan is not exactly what we thought that it might be. We thought that we were creating a democracy in Afghanistan, and all of their problems would be solved. But, what happened in Afghanistan was not the creation of a democracy. Instead Afghanistan is now a country of War Lords. Laws that are disliked are ignored. Not only rules are created by these warlords. The strength and power of the War Lord is the most important consideration. Bribes are paid to the warlords and they have created their own personal armies. It would be hard to declare that this situation was much better than the situation with the Taliban in control.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Afghanistan under the Taliban had almost nothing in common with each other. The Taliban was a religious group, and Saddam Hussein was a non-religious secular ruler. The Taliban invited terrorists to hang out on the back forty. Saddam Hussein felt that the terrorists were a threat to his power and he avoided them. But, for whatever reasons George W Bush decide that attacking Iraq was the next logical step in his War on Terror. Once Saddam Hussein was deposed and chaos ensued, terrorists from all over the Middle East were attracted to Iraq for the opportunity to hone their terrorist skills. As has been reported the conflict in Iraq has done more to fuel the hatred of the United States than to reduce the numbers of terrorists.

How could this be? We put American troops as bait in the Middle of an uncontrolled country. Terrorists are generally drawn to failed states and those on the verge of failure. So, the terrorists have come from all over the Middle East in order to hurry the process along. Since terror is the technique desired to sway the popular opinion with fear, we still need to ask the question - What do these terrorists want? When we discover that they are spreading fear of chaos through this country so that they will accept any kind of order when things calm down. It looks like the terrorists have scored another point.

George Bush's denial is so pre-November 2006! I think the country already realizes this. (At least the majority.) So, why does George Bush think that the major point of conflict in this war is in Iraq? If he doesn't then why is he spending over 90% of our blood and treasure in Iraq? The BBC announced yesterday that al Qaeda has successfully won control of the strongest militia in Somalia. If al Qaeda is the enemy, then why are we allowing them to establish their own militia? Do we even have any troops fighting them in Somalia? Then, there is Afghanistan. Why do we have so few troops fighting the rising Taliban, the group that allowed al Qaeda to build in strength enough to attack us? To think that Iraq's civil war is the most important part of the War on Terror is being in denial.

I think that the point here isn’t that the Bush administration is doing it all wrong. Most of us agree that he is doing it all wrong. But, the point instead is what issues need to be addressed that are currently too far down on the Bush administration agenda. Failed states like Somalia gives safe havens for those who would do us harm. This isn't a new idea. The US had fought the pirates of the Caribbean and the African coast for many years. And, there are still pirates that occupy these places.

Obviously the agenda needs to be rearranged. If you think about this for one minute one certainly needs to realize that pouring a ton of blood and treasure into one spot on Earth that currently harbors terrorists is never going to solve the problem. The situation is playing out in microcosm in Iraq itself. US troops secure an Iraqi city and free it from anyone that wishes to disrupt the process. The city is calm and the US troops move on to the next hot spot. What happens? Of course, the terrorists go back to the city. Just like the US troops can’t be in every Iraqi city all the time; the US troops can not be occupiers of every Middle East country at the same time either.

So, instead of spending over a trillion dollars on the Iraq War, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend the money on port security, airplane security, and border security? A trillion dollars here could lead much further toward our goal, a victory in the War on Terror. That is, preventing the terrorists from making us fearful of their actions. If we need to help governments take a stand against terrorists, shouldn’t we help the weakest governments to most, and concentrate on the potential failed states the most? Shouldn’t these actions be reflected in the amount of money spent on these problem places? And, even though Somalia does not seem to be high on the administration’s agenda, shouldn’t we make sure that we encourage stability in this country? We know that instability breeds the conditions for terrorism, witnessed in Iraq.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

What does it mean to win in Iraq?

This question is so important, but no one responsible for our presence in Iraq will answer this question honestly. We hear George W Bush tells us how we will step down when the Iraqis step up. But, this object is becoming further and further from a real possibility.

A simple look at the situation in Iraq continues to show that even if a trained Iraqi army were able to step up, they would not end the violence in Iraq. The Iraqi government continues to be controlled by the Shiite Arabs who are supported by Iran. The Kurds to the North have never been supportive of Iraq as a nation. Instead the Kurds only wish to have as much autonomy as they are allowed to have. In this vein it is clear that the Kurds prefer not to contribute to the “Iraqi” army. Instead they would rather contribute to the Kurdish army which has been allowed to protect its Kurdish territory. We are basically allowing the Kurds to become their own nation, if not in name then in practice. This leaves the Sunni minority in Iraq to be pushed around by the Shiite majority. And, of course this bullying is not conducive the growth of a new nation.

Of course, that is the reality of the situation in Iraq. You may have noticed that the above description does not even mention the terrorists in Iraq. This is because the al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are only allowed to exist in Iraq because of the lack of stability in Iraq. Terrorist groups like al Qaeda are only allowed to operate freely in failed states like Somalia or Afghanistan, or in territories far away from the control of authorities. This is mainly because governments tend to like to maintain their own military to either protect its people or the government’s authority. The instability that we have created in Iraq has created a haven for these people to operate.

Of course I also never mentioned the criminal gangs that also operate freely in an unstable Iraq. These criminal gangs were created by the destruction of all security in Iraq when the US invaded and disbanded the Iraq military and police. In addition to this all Bathist bureaucrats were dismissed, severing any government infrastructure at all. The result of course was the expected anarchy when any government is destroyed. When the American occupation created their own government, the everyday needs of the Iraqi people were ignored and fleeting moment of hope vanished from the minds of the Iraqi people. All the Iraqi people could see was the once stable society controlled by Saddam Hussein vanished with the destruction of the government. Criminals then took what ever they could, and they rose to power by virtue of their wealth. Some of these crafty criminals were able to use their newly acquired personal wealth to finance elections of people that favored them.

So, what are we trying to do in Iraq? Oh, that’s right, we are trying to get the terrorists that aren’t there and prevent them from getting the nuclear weapons that Condi and George used to scared us with in 2003. And, they weren’t there either. But if not nuclear weapons we have learned that if you lump nuclear weapons with chemical and biological weapons and call them Weapons of Mass Destruction we can still scare people with the nuclear threat and prove the threat correct by finding the chemical or biological weapons that weren’t in Iraq either. (There were some expired chemical weapons shells left over from the Iran Iraq war that we helped Saddam fight against Iran. These were not found in substantial quantities, and wouldn’t even be potent seeing that they were expired.)

But, how can we win in Iraq? Of course we can win in Iraq if we stay the course! Which is? It is by stepping down when the Iraqi army steps up. And, what happens when the Iraqi army steps up and we step down? Well, of course Iran finally wins the Iraq Iran War. The Shiite majority has control of the government, and is totally backed by the Shiite rulers of Iran. We had supported Saddam Hussein in order to prevent Iran from becoming a power in the Middle East, but it looks like George W Bush’s course that we are staying is putting the fate of Iraq in the hands of Iran.

Obviously this makes absolutely no sense. And when something doesn’t make any sense, then it usually means that we don’t have all of the information. And when we don’t have all of the information we are forced to speculate as to what that information might be. Is George W Bush planning to provoke Iran in such a way that we are “forced” to respond. It sure does seem that the only way we can actually win in Iraq is by toppling yet another foreign government. We could also speculate that Iran is promising the US a deal on oil if we allow them to continue to have a hand in Iraqi politics after we stand down and the Iranian army steps up.

The question that Americans should be asking is: Was George W Bush a really smart guy working for Iran, or is he just a bungling idiot that has inadvertently helped Iran at almost every step of the way? After all, we can’t win in Iraq until Iran is willing to take over…






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics