Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 2 of 5   <       >

The Public Ain't Buying

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

And Pew once again asked an open-ended question, asking respondents for the word that best describes the situation in Iraq these days.

The most frequently volunteered expressions were mess, bad, terrible, sad, horrible, disaster, hopeless, chaos, confused, disappointing, bring troops home, disgusting, tragic and unfortunate.

John Whitesides writes for Reuters that a new Reuters/Zogby poll finds "[o]nly 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March."

Bubble Watch

That small but hardy minority of Americans who still believe in Bush's war was well represented yesterday at a special White House event. I'm not sure who was there to lift whose spirits.

Jennifer Loven writes for the Associated Press that Bush was treated to "loud cheers and chants of 'USA! USA!'

"The president briefly addressed about 850 members of military support organizations who were invited to the White House for coffee, juice and pastries. With almost everyone wearing red shirts, people from several organizations gathered at picnic tables set up on the South Lawn in the morning sun. . . .

"The president's remarks were greeted with full-throated support from the crowd, including occasional shouts of 'We love you.'"

Meanwhile, at the Pentagon

Greg Jaffe writes for the Wall Street Journal: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates sketched out a long-term vision for securing Iraq that includes a continuing American military force that is a fraction the size of the one there today, no permanent U.S. bases and a significant Navy and Air Force presence in the Persian Gulf region. . . .

"What was missing from his vision for Iraq and the broader region was talk about transforming the region and spreading democracy. Instead, the Pentagon chief seemed much more focused on transforming the debate in Washington so the next president inherits a long-term strategy for Iraq and the region that both Republicans and Democrats can support. . . .

"Mr. Gates said he had made limited progress building any sort of consensus around a bipartisan approach for Iraq that would carry over into the next administration. 'I am working hard to reach out to people across the spectrum up on the Hill -- to keep the channels of communications open and build trust,' Mr. Gates said. 'I can't say we have made a lot of headway on that score yet.'"

Speaking of the Hill

Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray write in The Washington Post: "With a difficult war debate looming and presidential vetoes for a host of popular legislation threatened, moderate Republicans in Congress are facing a tough choice: Stand by President Bush or run for their political lives.

"Votes are due soon on Iraq, an expansion of a children's health insurance program and an array of spending bills. GOP leaders hope to use them to regain credibility with their base voters as a party for strong defense and fiscal discipline. But moderates, many of them facing the possibility of difficult reelection bids next year, are dreading the expected showdowns."


<       2              >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive