Text polls are not as reliable as regular polls, and regular polls are generally to be taken with a grain of salt. Not everyone has a cell phone to text from. Yes many peopl do, but not all. Besides that, those text polls could easily be flooded by campaign helpers of any given candidate.

It wouldn't make sense for Ron Paul to win these debates among Republicans, when 80% of Republican voters still support President Bush. That seems counter-productive. Why would you support two completely opposite viewpoints at the same time? You can't, unless you are lying.

Most Republicans may regret some of the mistakes of the past, but they also continue to largely support the decision to go to Iraq in the first place and give President Bush the benefit of the doubt about about strategic failures. This is because his overall vision of what Iraq means to the War on Terror is shared by many in the party. One slightly unhinged libertarian Republican candidate isn't going to change this.

Bryan, Patchogue, NY

The National Intelligence Estimate, the Government Accountability Office report, and the Jones Commission report all independent of each other and independent of the White House, have reached conclusions that stand in marked contrast to the White House. The bottom line here is Bush lied us into this war, has lied to us throughout it's duration ("the insurgency is in it's last legs"), and continues to lie to anyone still foolish enough to still believe them, or desperate enough to want it to be true because the Republican Party is poised to go down in historic flames.

Jack Meyer, Dallas, Texas

The conclusions drawn by the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, Government Accountability Office report, and Jones Commission report, all stand in marked contrast to what the White House is saying. Bush remains steadfastly bogus, and the Republican Party will pay a hefty price in the elections next year for being his enablers.

Jack Meyer, Dallas, Texas

I don't know what Mr. Baker is smoking over there in London. The news from the surge is NOT good. Americans do NOT trust the Republicans more on national defense anymore. Polls show that we would rather have the Democrats (55%) deciding what to do in Iraq than Bush (32%). The Democrats do NOT need a veto proof majority to end the surge. Actually the President can't spend a penny on the war without congressional approval.

JD, Tallahassee,

Matt, the people who have lost their minds are the people on the left. They want government to take care of everyone's every need and desire, and they see bogey-men on the evil right as obstacles to the achievement of their dreamworld; they live in a fantasy land where every exercise of American power is nasty "imperialism" when in fact it is nothing of the kind.

American conservatives, as opposed to those pale characters inhabiting your paranoid fantasies, are the true radicals. They stand for freedom.

But I keep forgetting, the left doesn't really care about freedom. It only cares about obedience to leftist dogma.

Jack, Florida,

Oh -all the liberals seem to all be military specialist. Ok. Only they seem to have the devine discernment necesarry to know all and the ablity to tell others which wars are pretty and which ones aren't. Yes.. they only know which wars are necessary and which ones aren't. They know also, which wars mistakes were made and which ones there weren't mistakes made. Oh my. They are all about love, peace and understanding you know. I feel so, so lucky and secure that those liberals (with all their stripes) are fighting to make others understand how very much is Bush bad guy! Please.
WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE!???--- since you are not about to over come your hatefull hearts .....this world is never going to be a peaceful place for any of us. Rant about the war and MY MAN all you want. WIN THE NEXT ELECTION EVEN. It doesn't matter until you change your heart. The vengence you want will never free you. And I have never wavered on my support for the man you think you have to despise

gesurvivor, Central Michigan, u.s.

No matter how many times Dems have tried to imply that the President orders his people to tell him what he wants to hear, the evidence points to exactly the opposite. Even Democrats such as Tenet have reported that the President does invite the truth because it always comes out anyway. Only a coward would tell the President what he wants to hear rather than the truth and General Petraeus is a man of admirable character. Of course, Mr. Bruce has probably never met someone of Gen. Petraeus standing so he does not know they exist.

Midelpar, Santa Monica, CA

Where does Mr Baker get the idea that Bush has had a change of fortune. His poll numbers remain around 30% most of his most stalwart managers are leaving the ship which is widely perceived to be sinking. All that can be said in support of Mr Baker's case is that there is a stand off with the democrats over Iraq because they simply don't have a large enough majority in the senate to get past a procedural filibuster. Consequently, the Republican party will go into the 08 election with this albatross around its neck. If you want the flavor of just how detached from reality the typical Republican war supporter remains just read a few of these postings from true believers. I've been asking myself why the GOP has signed on for electoral suicide next year and the only answer I can come up with is that their base is so married to this war that it makes turning against it and Bush impossible. Baker has been shilling for Bush for years so he isn't going to change now, so he invents some fables.

John, Hartford, CT

The sooner the Western World joins the fight against Islamic Extremism the sooner it will be cast upon the ash-heap of history where it belongs. We are winning in Iraq, much to the chagrin of the New York Times, the BBC, Kofi Annan, Gerhardt Schroeder, and Jacques Chirac. Now would be a good time for France to join us in a final march to victory in Iraq.

Scott Wiggins, Charleston, SC

The number one job of the President is to protect this Country, PERIOD. Not the power of the party; not for the power of the office or the money you can scam. The preservation of the USA is paramount over everything, or you don't have any liberal or social agenda. The alternative is communism or muslim rule. Bin Laden sounded like a democrat today. Is that who you are?, Is that who side with.? If it is, you are SICK!! if your priority is BJ's from interns then 911 will be your legacy. If going after the murdering muslims with a 4th century mentality is your legacy than I will stand and cheer. Without the USA the world would have no one to stop the power drunk maniacs.

Gary, Marysville, Ca

History is far to deep a subject for those who still persue the Bush administration's logic for war profiteering as the "right" course of action for America. Regardless of the truth, they blindly follow a course of action that has been proven incorrect since Eisenhour decided or was inticed to replace the French in Viet Nam.

You can not force the populace to follow your example if you do not first convince them that they will fair better under your leadership. Leadership is not what talk radio expouses, but what our citizenry experiences and thus popularizes with the masses. The best example of which was our behavior during and after WWII in rebuilding our enemys infrastructure and quality of life.

One only has to ask himself how his quality of life has suffered under republican leadership to see the error of the talk radio version of "history" and the truth of that opinion is visable in your bank balance as the intrest rates rise to pay for another war of ignorance.

Katman, Washington, D. C.,

Dream on Gerard.
I am a US citizen.
We are suffering greatly under the rule of King George.
He has no victories.
Only deception and rhetoric.
Iraq is a quagmire.
Many innocents have died.
The law has been bypassed and subverted whenever possible.
The World is in a much worse state because of his disinterested and unconscious leadership.

Robert Williams, Atlanta, GA, USA

Arthur Bruce's comment show that he is completely ignorant of our current military in general and of General Petraeus in particular. No matter how unpopular the report, his pension is not going to be "flushed". While I don't know General Patraeus, he graduated from USMA the same year I graduated from USNA and I have a friend who is his classmate and friend. My friend (who was not necessarily 100% in favor of the surge) expects a frank report from HIS friend, David Petraeus. Mr. Bruce is part of the attempt to preemptively slander a good and honorable officer because they are afraid his report will discredit their investment in US defeat in Iraq.

LtCol Doug Ballard, USMCR(Ret), MCMINNVILLE, Or

Perhaps Bob Woodyard, Sachse, United States of America/Texas, has NO children, Biological ones, that is.

If he does, has he sent them to Iraq and Afghanistan?

j. ishmael, toronto, canada

Yes: 28% is not too much but if you take into consideration de William J. Clinton had less than that (he did not get 28% of the vote of the voters) and spite of that he was elected President and unfortunately run again for a second term and a chance of qetting better acquainted with Monica

Carlos Alonso, Lake Worth, FL. U.S.A.

Has the time come for The citizens of the US to refuse second term to the President.Let the example lead them.

aslam, Lucknow, India

George W. Bush is the best president we've had in the past fifty years. He is a visionary. History will judge him well. Unlike the Democratic party, he stood up to the evil of terrorism and realizes that Islamic terror threatens not just the US but the entire western world.

Kevin Patrick Cronin, Straffor, Pennsylvania, United States

Petraeus sounds like a politican. On one hand he said troop can be draw down. On the other hand, he said troop level should remain. He is playing on both sides. I do not trust him. He is not a speaking for the truth but the truth according to Bush.

Koon, Lynnwood, WA

the members behind the surge are all israel firsters, so its a big push to get the US to fight its enemies, business as usual then!

Lloyd Jackson, Manchester, UK

The failure of Republican Senators to seperate from an unpopular President's policies are attributable not to some reviving faith in said policy but to the abject fear of being destroyed by the political hit squads schooled in the ways of Carl Rove. People who didn't hesitate to slander John McCain in the S. Carolina primary, take your choice black love child or insane POW traitor, and pillory a wheelchair bound decorated veteran as a traitor to his country (Max Cleland) wouldn't hesitate to hang the traitor label both inside and outside the party.

Gary, Niantic, USA

Petraeus' credibility is compromised. His testimony is not going to change any minds -- Americans are sick of the war.

Caroline, New York,

I'm not sure how much of a victory for President Bush it will be. General Petraeus has already told a reporter (CNN I believe) that he will recommend troop reductions. General Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has also commented that he will recommend troop reductions. A just released study by retired senior military officers and police also indicate that troop reductions are in order and after his trip to Iraq, President Bush also hinted at the possibility of troop reductions though he did so before hearing the Petraeus report. We know Iraq is not yet stable in any area so reducing the troops could and I emphasize could not will have a disastrous aftermath.

Michael, Binghamton, USA/New York

We elected President Bush to do a job, and —Zeus be praised— he's doing it.

However we might wish for someone more deft and articulate, the fact remains that Dubya is head and shoulders above both his major competitors for the presidency. Neither Gore nor Kerry could organize so much as an undergraduate seminar in response to 9/11. Come to think of it, that probably would have been their response!

Viva Dubya!

jam, alexandria, virginia

I feel that it's Condoleeza Rice was the real culprit in not acting on all the intelligence alerts that were given prior to 9/11 incident. She needs be held accountable.

Chris, houston,

Bush should be impeached for & charged with crimes against humanity.The United Nations did not give the green light for an attack on Iraq,but instead warned against such action.In the eyes of the world the US has illegally waged a war of aggression against a sovereign state,causing untold death and destruction to innocent civilians.

William Gibb, Toronto, Canada

There are two visions for Iraq. Number one, which belongs to George Bush and the Republican Party, is a democratic country where every man and woman enjoy equal rights, where the tremendous national weath is shared among the populice, where leaders are elected, and is not a threat to neighboring countries. The second vision, which will probably occur if we withdraw, is a Theocratic fachist state similar to the Taliban led Afghanastan. Where women are not allowed to be educated, where honor killings are common, where homosexuals are executed, and where extremism would be their number one export. The easiest short term solution proposed by the Democratic party, is to throw up our hands and abandon the Iraqi people. Most thinking people rightly reject that.

David Mattea, Grayslake, USA/IL

Michael is typical of many anti-war folks these days, echoing their own conventional wisdom as they pay little attention to anyone except people who have the same blinkered view. Try reading something other than the Daily Kos and you will realize that there is in fact progress being made in securing provinces and towns in the areas around Baghdad. What is most distressing about Michael and so many others is that they seem to revel in the suffering of the Iraqi people, and deny the possibility of any hopeful progress because they are more interested in opposing Bush than in trying to achieve a better situation for Iraqi's.

Lycurgus, Chicago,

If this what you call victory you are as deluded as Bush and Co are. He is the worst president in history.

M McGregor, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

And the result of this "victory" will be an Iraq run by Moqtada al-Sadr. Indeed, it is a revolutionary foreign policy, pursuing goals that are contrary to the national interest.

Jeff Myhre, Ground Zero, New York City, USA

If you consider that the conservative view in capitalism is every man for himself, wherein cooperation is done only as a way to maximize profit, it appears that George Bush's actions in the war in Iraq lend more toward a liberal point of view, that those with greater power should seek to help those with less power. I support national defense. I maintain myself a citizen of the United States because it is the most powerful nation in the world and here I feel protected. I am conservative, and though I see the need to remove from the picture individuals such as Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein for our own safety, I see the war in Iraq as a waste of valuable resources that serves a liberal and charitable function, rather than one necessary to our nation's survival. I find it interesting that Democrats and other liberal groups are opposed to a war that only exists because of values they profess to believe in.

Kevin, Vista, California

Keep in mind that the members of This Congress, with record low approval ratings, still have more than a year to continue to make fools out of themselves before the next election. The Democrats, unfortunately, have staked their political fortunes on everything that is bad for America. They think that a loss in Iraq and a tumbling economy will bring them electoral success. Both will be looking good next year at this time.

Martin Backus, Eagan, USA / Minnesota

If 80% of registered republicans are still supporting Bush...and less than 50 percent of registered voters vote in the national elections.....Bush would still have a good chance of winning again. Funny thing about statistics is you can make the statistics look good for either side. Just because the media claims the overwhelming majority of Americans are against the war doesn't really make it so

Tom, El Portal , California

Matt, Don't try to pigeonhole conservatives into your warped views. American conservatives love revolutionary thinking if it is for the betterment of our country. We need revolutions in the enititlement programs in this country, in immigration, federal spending/the size of the federal government, etc. It is the democrats that want everything to stay the same, except with more governmental control, less national security and higher taxes. In short, democrats offer the American people nothing but less freedom. Well, I'll pass.

Mark my words.... 20 years from now, Bush will be celebrated for the actions he took in Iraq and Afghanistan and his resolve in the face of the defeatists within his own country.

Ryan, Kansas City, USA

The US involvement in Iraq is not a war, it is a police action and an intrusion into a sovereign state based on lies. The word "surrender" is absolute insane used in connection with Iraq.

Soeren, Sequim, Washington, USA

My Surge In Baghdad
To the tune of "Streets of Laredo"

The direction of the fightin's beginning to shift
The good news is givin' me quite a lift
There's still horrific attacks in Iraq
But shoot, we're winnin', we're hittin' 'em back

Incremental gains day by day in Anbar
The news on my surge, it ain't bad by far
High casualty rates will likely continue
Our expectations are coming out true

We're holdin' the airport here in Al Asad
Sure the rest of Iraq is lookin' quite sad
Terrorists and insurgents mount terrible attacks
You can trust me to keep giving you all the fac's

We're takin' Iraq back one street at a time
And after all I've got plenty of time
You can't get me out, I'll keep decidin' fine
You can't replace me till two thousand and nine

Cashel Boylo, Los Angeles, California

The GAO is a ACCOUNTING arm of the government, but if you were to believe the Democratic party they are experts also in foreign policy. This was the absolute worng group to evaluate a foreign governments progress in the political arena.

If you were to read the GAO mission statement it states nowhere that they are to be involved with evaluating foreign governments... the Democrats picked this group knowing that... could it be that they knew the report would be worthless but it would score political points?

Don, North olmsted, Ohio

mOST OF "the media" SEEM UNWILLING TO REPORT THAT THE REAL REASON FOR BUSH'S UNPOPULARITY IS HIS REFUSAL TO PROTECT OUR BORDER. MOST OF US ARE NOT ANTI IMMIGRANT BUT WE ARE ANTI "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. THE BUSINESS OF "RULE OF LAW" IS SOMETHING YOU TAUGHT US. EUROPEANS MAY BE READY TO BE "ONE WORLDERS" WE ARE NOT.

DONALD RODGERS, BETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE, USA

Success in Iraq? Maybe for the moment, but in the long term will arming those who hate us less than al Qaida, but hate us none the less pay off? I have a funny feeling that over the long haul our new "Anbar Strategy" could turn out to be the antithesis of success. It seems most likely to me that it will only produce warlords who will turn on us as soon as they have dealt with al Qaida. Or in an even more depresssing scenario they could assume power in Anbar and anywhere else we employ this strategy and further fragment an already fragmented country. That would be some victory for Bush and his fair haired boy Patraeus.
As to the Republican hopefuls, they share one thing in common with Bush that will likely be a problem for them in Nov. '08. They are still Republicans and that is not a popular moniker in America these days. Bush has so soiled the brand that it will take some time to rebuild it.

Jim Walton, Washington DC,

"only about 35 per cent of voters describe themselves as Republicans – down from more than 45 per cent ten years ago." That's why the Republicans cannot win the presidency without a change of it's aggressive foreign policy, Only Ron Paul offers that to the GOP and that's why he has won 7 of the last 13 official Republican Straw Polls since Iowa, and placed in the top 3 in 10 of these out of 13 polls. And that's why he won the text poll vote on the recent debate in NH on Fox TV by a huge margin - 33% compared to the runner up at 18%.

Brian, Fairfield, Iowa/USA

Keith: I am puzzled by your statement " you don't support surrender." Surrender to who? If you are feel the duty of our military is to provide target practice to insurgents while the governing body of Iraq is on vacation then you really need to re-examine what you think a military is for. I hope you don't believe that ridiculous slogun: "fight them there so we don't have to fight them in the Homeland." This war was a mistake from before the beginning as many, many wars are.

Mark Alfieri, Dallas,

The GAO report is a farce. It was designed not to measure "success" or the lack thereof in Iraq but to determine whether a set of (increasingly irrelevant) benchmarks had been met. The "surge" strategy IS having an effect outside of Baghdad, just ask the residents of Baquba. The Democrat Party (of which I am a registered member) leadership, and I use the term loosely, bet the ranch on defeat in Iraq. They bet unwisely. There is a long overdue housecleaning awaiting them.

James Lumetta, Naples, FL

What quantifiable evidence is there that the surge is working? The GAO report and Reuters reports on sectarian violence suggest that it is not. Should we just take Bush, the U.S. military, and their mouthpieces at their word? The `Bush doctrine' is idealistic and revolutionary. Unfortunately, it also appears to be ill-considered, overly-simplistic, and impractical. Democracy is not a panacea -- for example, common sense suggests that democracy can lead very easily to tyranny (or theocracy) of the majority problems.

PR, Cambridge, UK

Whether you hate him, or love him, President Bush has been remarkable in his steadfast approach to Iraq. Clearly mistakes were made in the first two or three years after Saddam's fall, but the end result is what history will make it's judgement upon. Bush understands the wider implications of success or failure in Iraq much better than any of the liberal blowhards that only think in terms of politics. This effort is much more important than a few seats in congress or the white house in 2008. The liberals have wasted millions of words and dollars trying to convince the American people to run out on Iraq. They've failed miserably. Kudos to Bush for having the guts to stand up to them despite his poll numbers. Some things ARE more important.

Jay Johnson, St. Petersburg, Florida

Mr. Baker, despite the Bush administration's extensive use of 'creative accounting' to develop statistics supporting claims to the contrary, the raw numbers reveal that this has been the deadliest year since the war began. Most here in the U.S. are aware that Bush's surge is intended to extend the war for purposes of placing blame for it's failure on the next administration, if that's how you define a "change in fortune".

foxfire, Clearwater, Florida

I dare say the Republican National Committee has much to do with Republican candidates not "doing a Sarkozy".

With the all-powerful national committee behind a candidate; he/she has a chance of winning, what with the resources brought to bear by the national committee; run afoul of the national committee and that support stops, along with any chance of election.

The DNC operates the same way.

America no longer has free thinking independent candidates for office, we have prepackaged figure heads vetted by the national committees, managed by a host of speech writers, political operatives and the like, packaged by Madison Ave. and paraded before the voters as saviors. Same in the UK?

DanO, Mount Vernon, USA

PRE from Texas. The war was originally started because of WMD's and their immeadiate threat. Only there weren't any or any even capable of being fired. I'd willingly argue against your comment that every intelligence agency believed Iraq had them. Was Iraq a clear and present threat pre 2003? AQ are there because our armies are there. The leaders who took our countries to war undeniably made a complete and utter mess following on from the invasion. Iraq is riven with sectarian violence largely due to miss management and bad planning by the leaders who took us in. Totally and utterly unacceptable. We need to repay the people of Iraq, we have to rebuild their country, give them some chance to move forward in a direction of their choice. What i'm saying is you/we owe them. There is and will be no such thing as victory or winning and losing this war in the historical sense. Those days are gone. The British soldiers who fought there are corageous and brave.

ben, london, london

I think Bush is on the right track, for all the mistakes and missteps along the way. What he has done has been by far the hardest job ever by a post WWII leader. Just imagine the pressure! He had no choice but to go after these buggers to protect the world. Just imagine what would have happened if a wimp like Al Gore was in power? You would have had far more attacks over the past six years. I think in fact we need to go farther. I think it has been a huge mistake to keep letting people from these countries to come into the west. And, as is the case in the UK, to allow radical fundamentalists to plot and plan on our soil, that is unforgivable. Historians will show the Labour government to be the most cowardly of the post WWII generation.

Bob Macdonald, London,

I most sincerely hope that the surge is working and, while I'd certainly identify with the Democratic Party for the greater part, I remain supportive of the war in Iraq and, indeed, find the neo-conservative vision rooted in the ideal that liberal democracy is the only legitimate polity highly admirable. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the failings of the Bush administration and, hindsight, tells me that I was a fool to have much confidence in it . Iraq has, certainly made the military option less palatable. If the West is to successfully promote a global flourishing of liberal democracy, a stick and carrot approach to free, or fair, trade might be in order to bring the recalcitrant to heel and, thereby, encourage change from within. I'm not too keen on sanctions since the leaders and ruling elites don't suffer, only the people.

D J G, Durham, UK

Between Iraq and a hard place!

George Bush is General Petraeus' direct boss. Does anyone think for a moment that Petraeus will sing any other tune than that which his boss orders? Why does one think that Bush made that recent trip to Iraq? He can justifiably expect that the world knows/must realize that he CANNOT speak freely and independently.

He who pays the piper...calls the tune!

If Petraeus speaks frankly and independently, he will almost certainly flush his military career, and possibly his pension, down the toilet.

Arthur Bruce, Scottsdale, U.S.A./Arizona

Bush's policy in Iraq can in no way be described as reactionary. A reactionary is essentially a counterrevolutionary who seeks to restore some previous system or conditions. I do not know how one could describe trying to establish a liberal democracy in the heart of the Arab Middle East as reactionary.

I also would suggest not to get too hung up on terms like conservative or liberal. These have a very specific, American meaning that do not necessarily translate well into the broader world context. For example, in America, someone who is described as extremely liberal is likely to have significant doubts about the benefits of the market and free trade; however, the positive benefits of the market and free trade is one of the major tenets of traditional liberalism.

John, South Bend, USA IN

Matt,
I'm a Republican because I don't support surrender. The Democrats wanted to surrender to the Communists and since the 90s to Islamic terrorists. The war on terror actually started decades ago, but the only way to win is to fight.
The 20th century was perhaps the most brutal in man's existence and the middle east has been a mess for decades. Even if you guys don't understand that the responsibility of wealthy nations to spread liberty, we in the US do. Taking out Saddam is a necessary precondition of fixing the middle east.
The other major reason to be a Republican is because the Democratic party is full of socialists. I don't want gov't run health care, education, retirement, etc.
Please understand that we Americans don't really care what you mediocre countries think. Reagan and Bush might never have come to power in Europe, but that just makes me an even more proud to be an American.

Keith, Houston, TX

The Democrats have placed themselves in the unenviable position of being percieived as benefiting from failures by the US military. When the Army Marines meet success the Democrats' position that we are losing suffers. As much as they profess to love the military, a somewhat recent affection, they appear to be placing their bets on those who US soldiers are fighting. I know that few Democrats actually are glad when GIs are killed, though I've met a few who are, the uncomfortable fact is that the death or crippling of every GI helps their cause. I think presidential elections, are won more by targeting the gut or the heart than the brain and being seen as anti-lilitary offends the hearts and digestive system of most Americans more than anything else.

MB, Washington DC, USA

To be equally blunt, we, brainless Republicans, still have faith in our President. He has made mistakes. He is human. He is a good man with a good heart!

He is not worried about the polls. He is worried about protecting us and our children. I trust him with my children!

So, we are not worried about the polls or what Matt in Wurezburg, Germany may think.

Bob Woodyard, Sachse, United States of America/Texas

Mr. Baker, I echo Lynn from Cincinnati, Ohio's sentiments regarding you living in George W.'s bubble. Most here in the U.S. are not fooled by the Bush administration's cooked books and manipulated statistics regarding the 'Surge'. We know what Bush is up to - punting the war and blame for it's failure into the next administration, and in doing so laying the groundwork for much worse ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence when we finally do leave. Iraq will be at least 3 countries before this has played itself out - as anyone living outside the bubble has known for awhile now.

Phoenix, Tampa, Florida,

Statistics say that if we stay in Iraq long enough and try enough different approaches, We will hit on a successful scenario. Is this our foreign policy approach?

Dennis, AMBRIDGE, PA, USA

General Petraeus, if he does report progress, will only be re-reporting the very same "progress" he reported to Congress in 2004. Whenever time Petraeus spent in Iraq prior to the surge that wasn't devoted to losing vast stores of small arms to the insurgents was devoted to misleading Congress to "help morale".

How many bites at the apple does this guy get before we start ignoring his tripe as propaganda?

When the surge began, both the US military and the Iraqi government changed access rules for the media with specific emphasis on the press' ability to cover the results of insurgent and sectarian violence. Are we really supposed to take at face value a propaganda report issued after the press has been muzzled? A propaganda report that just happens to serve the political interest of Bush and his allies at the start of the US Presidential campaign season? I'm sorry, but that requires just a little too much credulity for me.

Brian, Bennington, VT, USA

President Bush is not done yet, not by a long shot.
The most important issue over the next decade is not global warming, not socialized medicine, and not Africa. It is Iran. And Iran will be engaged before Bush leaves office. You can bet on it. Foreign commentators who do not understand the division of powers granted by the US Constitution mistakenly think that a Congress controlled by the Democrats can direct the operations of the military. It cannot. Americans don't like losers. Our opinion of the Brits has dropped a lot last week. Not only are you cutting and running from Basra, you're blaming everybody but yourselves for your defeats, And if we don't like our President it is because he has not been winning enough in Iraq - not because we either want to lose Iraq to Al-Qaeda, or have a few of our cities destroyed by Iran. That would make us mad. Misunderestimate us at your peril.

Dave M., london, USA / UK

Machiavelli had said "La fin justifie les moyens"
If all the blood shed and all the wasted lives of human beings, whatever their colour, race or belief they are ready to die for (even if we dont agree with their reasoning) have any value at this time and era, then, Mr. Bush cannot claim victory at any cost and he certainly cannot claim to adhere to Christian precepts. I feel sorry for those who still cannot see that. American people deserve better.

seheir kansouh, Cairo, Egypt

Bush is the worst thing to have happended to our country. For those who believe we are winning in Iraq is delusional, much like those who believed Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. Its a shame that the people in our country instead of finding out the truth about Iraq and the corporate takeover of our country would rather quote stupid party lines than the truth.

Rodney, Dallas, USA/Texas

Mr Baker has understood the present political situation better than anyone else in Europe.

The next US president will ne Republican. If you want to understand why, please check Bush's victory against the Congress next week.

drzz, Paris, France

I've always considered Mr. Gonzalez more a Zeppo than a Harpo. That is, more the "straight man" in the farcical ineptitude of the current administration, than a comic genius ( Harpo) like President Bush

chris, charlottesville, va., U.S.A

TRP-oh please stop. Bush a visionary? There is only one thing that must be clarified for the american people. Although the answer is obvious, people just want to know if Bush is an idiot or the greatest burglar in american history. He and his rich friends have stolen more money and resources from the american people than anyone in history. He came into office when the american governement had a surplus and tons of cash. He and his oil and defense contractor friends then systematically fleeced the american people into our worst deficits in history. Follow the money and you will find the crooks.

Real American, Liberty, USA

There is something else worth considering when trying to devine why President Bush is still able to prevail despite Americans' increasing Iraq war fatigue. A majority of people in this country understand we face a very real and determined enemy. One that will never stop trying to kill us. Despite all the mistakes made during the war's prosecution, most Americans understand that Bush gets it. Most Democrats do not. One of their leading candidates recently called the the war on terror a "bumper sticker". This is why a Republican, not a Democrat, will be elected as our next President.

Warren Poitras, Carmel Valley, USA California

I live in the same US as Mr Baker and as a recovering Republican voter take issue with some of his sentiments.The abnormally high approval he explained is based on the few people left who would admit to it in public.People are fed up with doctored reports about Eyeraq and equally mad that the Democrats will not try to end the war by defunding which they can easily do.The rats are running from the White House and some are saying very unflattering things about the occupant,their former employer.His upcoming attack on Iran will only cement his place in history as a determined leader,Russia and Germany already have a nominee,so why not us.
The maneuvering which Mr. Baker accurately describes takes place on a slippery surface on which no one has traction,Bush cannot leave Iraq and have a post-mortem on the war,which can be censored as long as it goes on,and the opposition has no spine or is playing games.The war is extremely unpopular and Republicans will be extirpated in 2008

DECLAN PATRICK IRVING, , Chesapeake Va. USA

Our country has been involved, for years, in places that it ought not be. We are going bankrupt. Our men and women are dying, and the population is angry! Those in this country who do not claim any sort of party alliance are beginning to wake up. Whether the media wants to acknowledge it or not, revolution is in the air. Watch this election closely my friends. Hopefully, you will see the change.

A lot of us are pushing for a man that goes by the name of Ron Paul. He is a ten-term Congressman. He is an Air Force veteran, and many believe his campaign and its policies are the last hope for our America.

We invite you to keep track of the progress, and enjoy the show.

Andrew, Louisville, United States

I'm moderate and independent. I don't always agree with President Bush but have largely supported him as we fight the war. As mentioned by the article, when it comes down to national security, I tend to lean Republican. The Democrats are all too willing to surrender and I'm not going for that.

Contrary to the stereotypes of Bush supporters, I'm pursuing my post-graduate studies, non-white, well-travelled and living in one of America's most liberal cities. Calling a segment of Americans dumb is not helpful and it demosntrates one's ignorance of our country and psyche. I do not appreciate arrogant foreigners who don't know us but feel the need to judge us.

Mark, San Francisco, USA

Pre - do tell In what way did Saddam back AQ towards 9/11? Or was Saddam as opposed to AQ as Bush is? You admit WMD didnt exist the issue was that Bush, Chaney and Rumsfled knew that as well but still used it as the basis for invasion You cant have it always - we freed the world of a dictator siorry we didnt realise that he hated AQ as much as us and oops Iraq has abit of a tribal internicine issue -we are Americans how were we suppoes to know that?

Dom, Edinburgh,

If only wishing would make it so, Mr. Baker. You are living in the same bubble as George W.

Lynn, Cincinnati, Ohio

"A marginalised bunch made up largely of grumpy old men" - welcome to the club Gerard.

William McIntosh, London, Englsn

Bush is not a 'reactionary", Matt. He is a 'visionary". Did he introduce a 'revolutionary foreign policy"? I would agree with you. However, he was not the first President with a 'grand strategy". He was preceded by both Franklyn Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe . He did not enter office with a bold foreign policy vision. However, historical events called upon him; and, I'm afraid you will just have to let history judge him, also.

TRP, USA,

The idea that Bush is a foreign policy reactionary -- whatever that means -- is about as inane an observation as it is possible to make. (Yet Matt in Germany makes it!) Bush is a foreign policy neophyte who had the revolutionary idea that America and its allies could introduce democracy into the heart of the Arab world, through the invasion of Iraq. In this regard Bush's administration is far closer to the left: not reactionary but revolutionary, not prudent but ahistorical, and not brainless but idealistic.

thor, Vancouver, Canada

Matt, about that 80%, it's called democracy. I know it is somewhat a new concept to Germans, but you'll get the hang of it eventually.

ligneus, toronto, canada

An American conservative is by definition a radical...that's what the rest of the world doesn't get about us. The Marxists may have stolen the root from the word "liberty" but they know nothing of it. Individual liberty, unencumbered by government, is the key to prosperity and happiness. By the way, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting....it's to keep the government honest or at least, give them pause, for we are not powerless.

gregory mcclure, columbia, Missouri, USA

The people of Iraq are glad George Bush has not lost his balls. But the Democrats and Western media don't care about that. They think it is fashionable to surrender, so that is what they want to do.

Paul Francis, Brisbane, Australia

As an American Republican who supports Bush, I can't tell you how wrong you are. The surge is working and we are winning a war against AQ in Iraq. 9/11 changed everything. Believing, as every intelligence agency in the world did, that Iraq had WMDs the US took the only safe course of action and took out Saddam. Lots of mistakes were made along the way, but now we have the right general, the right strategy and the right time in Iraq to finish the job.

It's a shame our friends from the UK won't be there to share in the victory, but we remember and appreciate your contribution and support.

PRE, Dallas, TX

Real progress has been made?! You have to be kidding. Look at the GAO report about Iraq, they paint the real picture of failure and disruption. The surge is in Baghdad only and even if it is working (which it is not) it is not having effect in the rest of the country.
General Petraeus is a conservative Republican and the leader of the forces there....of course he will say it is working.
Greg you are engaging in wishful thinking if you this Bush and his Republicans are doing anything other that appallingly bad.

Michael, Hong Kong,

It may be a political for the lame duck Bush but it will be a loss for the American people as this endless war will continue for no reason that makes any sense.

Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA

I am so glad the republicans are still behind Bush. Give him more rope so that he can truly hang himself

john phillips, Kelowna, Canada, BC

The Democans and the Republicrats are two cheeks of the same backside. A waste of space all of them, corporate-backed, big spending, big government candidates. The American people do not want to go to war for IsraOIL.

The only way America is gonna change for the better is if RON PAUL is elected.

Joe Six-Pack, Houston, TX, USA

The President may have low poll numbers, but Congress' numbers are even worse-14%. This under the dynamic duo of San Fran Nan Pelosi and Harry Reid. Amazing how that figure never seems to get onto the Main Stream Media. The numbers from Congress were not much better under the Republicans, but these two have a real skill in driving them lower. So the lame duck's numbers are twice Congress'. Does that mean they are half a duck.?

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas

Seems like those 80% of Republican voters have lost all their brain. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the only possible explanation.

Also, someone who introduces "revolutionary foreign policy" is not a conservative -- conservatives abhor "revolutions". Bush is not conservative, or "neo-conservative" but simply a reactionary.

Matt, Wuerzburg, Germany