Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (263496)	5/6/2008 3:59:41 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I have the data on ratings: Clinton's were highest when he was playing "Mayor of America" and talking about school uniforms. Bush's ratings were actually highest in the wake of 9/11, before he had tackled a tough challege (indeed, his administration in its first 8 months had failed to reverse Clinton's fecklessness on Al Qaeda), but the country rallied round him anyway. Then they supported his immediate efforts. Approval would have stayed higher if Iraq had gone better (if Petraeus had been in command from day one), but it still would have gone down in any case, because we still would have been fightin Al Qaeda and Iran. In war, the enemy gets a vote. What you don't recognize is that tough challenges are really tough. War against Al Qaeda will be by definition a Long War, and democracies don't like long wars. They like'em short, victorious and cheap.