But Zogby said Republicans could benefit from the climb in Bush's approval, sparked by increased support among his base voters. The poll found 42 percent of voters thought Bush's job performance was excellent or good, up from 39 percent two weeks ago and 34 percent in mid-August.
"The president and the Republicans are still on the ropes, but they certainly seem to have hit bottom and bounced back," Zogby said. "This is still very competitive."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An intelligence report showing an upsurge in Islamic militancy put the White House on the defensive on Wednesday in an election-year debate over whether President George W. Bush has made America safer.
In a second blow to the president, a new U.N. report said the Iraq war was providing al Qaeda with a training center and fresh recruits, and was inspiring a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan hundreds of miles away.
The majority of respondents to the University of Maryland poll said that "they would like the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less," according to the survey's summary.
"Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like U.S.-led forces withdrawn 'within six months,' while another 34 percent opt for 'gradually withdraw(ing) U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline.'
Putting aside how the outdated portions still refers to Zarqawi in the present tense, the big thing that strikes me about the key judgements is that they reflect a dhimmi, historically ignorant view of jihad more suited for the moonbat Left than our premier intelligence agencies. Check out this paragraph:
In one sense, it matters little: some GOP supporters on talk radio and in some other infoareas will immediately ignore, downplay or try to discredit these sections and point to the other ones and accuse those who quote, site or repeat the sections that don't support the President of being political hacks or tools.
Somenow the question keeps getting lost: are we conducting the best, most effective policy — and if not, how can we fix it?
Simply going after those who raise questions as indulging in electioneering may not work on the Iraq war in 2006. There seems to be feeling now in the land that the Iraq war is NOT just a political football any longer 00 not a luxury that can be afforded to drag on without some kind of quality control.
The House passed a bill yesterday that would bar judges from awarding legal fees to the American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups that sue municipalities for violating the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion.
Though the bill would prevent plaintiffs from recovering legal costs in any lawsuit based on the Establishment Clause, House Republicans said during a floor debate that it was particularly aimed at organizations that force the removal of Nativity scenes and Ten Commandments monuments from public property.
"Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes," Bush said.
Perhaps. But Democrats, while celebrating Batiste's criticism of the administration, exercised some selective listening at the hearing when Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.
"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.
"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.
"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.
That last remark caused Schumer to shake his head, indicating he was not so sure. And, indeed, the retired officers' recommendations were off-message for the Democrats. Six of the seven Democrats at the hearing supported legislation calling for the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq this year. One, Richard Durbin (Ill.), voted for the pullout to be mostly complete by next summer.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — Two acquaintances of Senator George Allen of Virginia said today that he had used racially inflammatory language in the 1970’s and 1980’s, compounding allegations of racial insensitivity that have dogged his re-election campaign since he referred to a young Indian-American as “macaca” a few weeks ago. Mr. Allen said he had never used the language attributed to him by the acquaintances.
Christopher Taylor, an anthropology professor at Alabama University in Birmingham, Ala., said that in the early 1980’s he heard Mr. Allen use an inflammatory epithet for African Americans. Mr. Taylor, who is white and was then a graduate student at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said the term came up in a conversation about the turtles in a pond near Mr. Allen’s property. According to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Allen said that “around here” only the African Americans — whom he referred to by the epithet — “eat ‘em.”
eading the charge was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is planning an effort to delete that provision from the bill, expected to be considered in both the Senate and the House this week.
Specter refused to commit to voting for the bill should his amendment fail.
"I want to see how it shapes up," he said during an appearance at the National Press Club. "I don't make commitments to the president on how I'm going to vote."