both.

Check this out: A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of Americans who watched President Bush's Iraq speech Tuesday night showed that 46 percent had a "very positive" reaction to what they heard.

The poll was taken immediately after the speech, and the 323 adults interviewed were 50 percent Republican, 23 percent Democratic and 27 percent independent. The margin of error was plus or minus 6 percentage points.

He can't even get a majority in a 1/2 Republican poll, with a tiny amount of people asked.

oh, oh, it's SO hard to choose...

Interesting that 27% of those polled were Independent and only 23% were Democrats. How'd THAT happen?

Thanks for the info, amber.

I believe Bush when he says that in Iraq, America is fighting those who attacked us on 9/11 and also the Nazis from WWII and... the Triffids too!

Damn those Triffids and their attack on us, launched from Iraq, on 9/11. All hail Dear Leader.

clueless dry drunk
psst, you're forgetting the party line
this is totally going to kill the coke "overdose" timetable for 2006

False dichotomy. He's a vicious deceiver.

He's a lovely man. Who's trying to do what's best for God and Country. How dare you all besmirch his good name.

There's not enough booze in the world to make me watch another Bush performance. I can read about it in the funny papers. I do wish someone in the Liberal Media was enterprising enough to follow his gig with some of these reviews.

“You can support the troops but not the president”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“[The] President…is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

(I'll keep that in mind, Senator.)

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

totally, Tacky. i posted those Kosovo quotes in the blue the other day--ThinkProgress rocks.

MSNBC-First Read: Now raise your hand if you still think Karl Rove’s 9/11 remarks last week were unintentional.

Facing mounting U.S. casualties, an increasingly skeptical public, and a growing chorus of criticism (even within his own party), a confident and resolute President Bush last night directly tied the situation in Iraq to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. To illustrate this renewed focus, he made five direct references to 9/11 and two references to Osama bin Laden. But in both his inaugural and State of the Union addresses this year, he never mentioned Bin Laden. And although he did mention 9/11 in that State of the Union, he didn’t do so until more than half way through the speech. ...

Haven't you heard that Triffids are being held at Guantanamo Bay? Some are being kept in dark rooms without water for days on end, others have had their roots cut back. Some have been made to watch vegetarian cooking videos. Have you Americans no shame?!?!?

I still find it twilight-zone-bizarre that a majority of people think that an uncaught and mocking Osama bin Laden is good for Bush. And yet, incredibly, it is. Why the money phrase was "this could be very bad news for Kerry" and not "this could be very bad news for Bush" remains entirely beyond my ability to fathom. But when you get right down to it, the fact that 9/11 has always been good for Bush is equally baffling.

I guess we (well, not me, but "we" in the sense of 49% of voters, give or take significant chunks of Florida and Ohio) didn't want someone who'd do justice by what happened, we wanted someone who'd go out and fuck some shit up. We wanted a Wrestlemania president who would grunt and bellow and put on a good flashy show of theatrical belligerence.

I missed the speech last night. It looks like I didn't miss much.

Fuck the trffids, I heard Osama has been working with the Tripods.

While I think of it again, could someone please explain "Support Our Troops" to me? Does this mean "send Chapstick and TP and misc bits of metal that we can weld onto their crappy armoured vehicles"? What does it MEAN?

Back on topic, let me think. What was the question again? It doesn't matter, my answer is "stupid lying bastard".

Haven't you heard that Triffids are being held at Guantanamo Bay?

And on secret ships too, apparently

I guess we (well, not me, but "we" in the sense of 49% of voters, give or take significant chunks of Florida and Ohio) didn't want someone who'd do justice by what happened, we wanted someone who'd go out and fuck some shit up. We wanted a Wrestlemania president who would grunt and bellow and put on a good flashy show of theatrical belligerence.

But we also require that they WIN, not lose.

could someone please explain "Support Our Troops" to me?

You probably thought "Support the Troops" had something to do with supporting the troops. It doesn't. It means "blindly support the president." It means "Fuck the Troops."

I support the troops. I support not sending them off to die for lies. I support giving them the (hopefully non-faulty) body armor and armored vehicles they need in an urban combat setting. (Why the fuck are the Marines telling people to buy their own body armor two years into a war? Why the fuck is there still a shortage of armored vehicles?) I support not trying to cut their health care during a war. I support not trying to cut their combat pay during a war. I support funding the Department of Veteran's Affairs. I oppose the president. I oppose the war. I support the troops.