posted December 09, 2005 10:37 AM            

What's this traitor doing standing anywhere near an American Flag?

Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth,"..John Murtha, brain dead Dimocrat

there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children...John Kerry, American Traitor and brain dead Dimocrat

We'll win this one for the terrorists, just like we won the Vietnam War for the Communist North Vietnamese and Viet Cong with lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.

USC:
Article 3, Section 3
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

USC:
14th Amendment, Section 3
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

posted December 09, 2005 01:12 PM            

Have you seen the polls? A majority of Americans DO NOT want the US to cut and run from Iraqi battlefields, battlefields where the terrorists are being crushed militarily.

You need to stop getting your news from traitors.com

The proof of what Americans think are found in election results. You know acoustic...those elections the radical left haven't and can't win. Every other measure of what America thinks is sheer bullsh*t. You should take note acoustic that there is a Republican President, a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives.

posted December 09, 2005 01:34 PM              

it would make no sense
to leave
at this point

posted December 09, 2005 03:13 PM            

Last week, American servicemen and women serving in Iraq, and those here at home recovering from terrible wounds were also stabbed in the back.

In 1941 it was the Japanese wielding the knife; last week it was Howard Dean and John Kerry and fellow members of the dominant left wing of the Democrat Party who plunged the dagger in America's back.

Dean wielded the knife during a Texas radio interview when he had the gall to declare that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," thereby telling the parents of those brave men and women who were killed fighting for the country, or the American troops now facing death every day in Iraq, that it was all a waste of time.

In my book that's just plain treason and I told my radio listeners that Dean should be arrested and hung for treason, or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war.

But Dean wasn't finished. He went on to say: "This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Aside from the fact that Dean's arithmetic is off - some 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, not 25,000 - we didn't lose a war we were winning on the battlefield because we were stubborn. We lost it because members of Dean's party in Congress de-funded the war effort and demanded that we do what he and his defeatist party are once again demanding – that the United States cut and run.

I have a suggestion for Howard Dean. He should do what I did a week ago – visit the amputees at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He can try to tell them that the limbs they sacrificed on the field of battle were sacrificed in vain – thrown away in a war that we cannot win. I also suggest that when he does so he had better do what he wants the U.S. to do – cut and run for his life.

Then we have the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Sen. John F. Kerry, who is becoming a serial backstabber.

Kerry, you will remember, stabbed his Vietnam comrades in the back when he accused them of committing atrocities during that war. Well, he just did it again on CBS Sunday, telling Bob Schieffer of "Face the Nation" there was no reason for U.S. soldiers to continue "terrorizing" Iraqi children, and saying: "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs."

He then suggested that it should be the Iraqi soldiers doing the terrorism: "Whether you like it or not," he said, "Iraqis should be doing that."

Perhaps the Senator from Hanoi should take one of those senatorial junkets to Iraq and tell our courageous men and women over there, facing death and dismemberment every day, that they aren't really there to help guarantee the Iraqi people freedom, but to commit acts of terrorism.

Then we have the Nancy Pelosis and Barbara Boxers and the rest of the bug-out-of-Iraq brigade sending a clear message to the suicide bombers and other terrorist thugs to just bide their time and wait until their party manages to sabotage the war effort and the U.S. withdraws with the job half done. Then they can come in and show the world the real meaning of terrorism as they enslave and brutalize the Iraqi people.

posted December 09, 2005 03:42 PM            

It's true that most Americans are sensible enough to know we can't cut and run, but they're also sensible enough to have some serious doubts about the leadership in this country.

posted December 09, 2005 05:09 PM              

I imagine Saddam's government regard key members of Bush's administration as 'traitors' for turning against the very people they helped to gain power and subsequently made so much money out of.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

After all, the only reason Bush and Blair insisted so hard about WMD's was because the US and the UK sold the bloody things to them in the first place!

And resorting to name calling ('Dimocrat') is a rather desperate tactic and often a sign of political defeat.

I'm curious to know how much unedited/unbiased news coverage you actually see of Iraq? (And I don't mean the FOX network) Do you see reports of the ordinary Iraqi people being caught up in suicide bombings that occur on an almost daily basis,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4509376.stm

because our 2 governments have insisted in involving us in a politcal/social/religious situation we were woefully unprepared for in terms of thorough intelligence/research beforehand? Do you see that the clerics (Sunni and Shiite) have ended up controling their specific areas because the coalition forces cannot possibly hope to do so,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4484736.stm

and that the elections have simply been a voting farce of each sect being 'told' which way to vote by their local cleric? Do you see the footage of your soldiers and ours, tired out and confused as to what their true purpose is in Iraq - and do you see the psychological damage it has caused?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4122602.stm

And do you see the revolting double standard that has occured as the US troops are ordered to use chemical weapons against insurgents?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1642831,00.html

and the US government refuses to sign the treaty against the use of chemical weapons!
http://www.slate.com/id/1049/

I'm thoroughly disgusted at both our governments for their egocentric and blinkered political strategy, reprehensible conduct and the continuous lies they've told in order to cover one of the biggest most far reaching foreign policy catastrophes ever made by any country in world history.

posted December 09, 2005 05:25 PM              

and Flower Power

posted December 09, 2005 06:23 PM            

The Party of Defeat
By David Bellavia
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 9, 2005

As an infantryman whose boots are still caked with blood and dust from Iraq, I am at a loss to understand what Representative John Murtha (D-PA) was thinking when he recently delivered his defeatist comments about our military efforts.

Murtha’s outrage, like that of many Democrats, is completely directed at the war in Iraq and the large number of American youth far from home and serving in harm’s way. Curiously, no comparable anger is triggered by the 1,700 American troops patrolling Kosovo’s tranquil streets. No complaints issue from the anti-war crowd regarding the 3,000-troop strong presence in Bosnia. And what of the 1,754 troops stationed in Iceland? One seeks in vain for anti-war crowds chanting, “Mr. President, bring home our boys from Iceland!”

Iraq, of course, is a different story. John Murtha, offering his Bronze Star with Valor (BSV) as a badge of his authority, demands a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. On behalf of every veteran of Iraqi Freedom who has exchanged hot lead with the enemy, allow me to observe that Congressman Murtha does not understand the situation in Iraq. Murtha quotes an unscientific poll that asserts that “80 percent of Iraqi’s want us out.” I am no John Zogby but I conclude that 100 percent of Iraqis want us out—eventually. At the moment, however, they very much want us there while Islamofascists continue to blow them up. And they want us to continue training them to defend themselves in the cause of freedom.

Rather than acknowledging the vital mission being carried out by the troops, the Democratic leadership prefers to disparage our efforts. My fellow soldiers are not appreciative of Senators Kennedy and Kerry’s daily attempts to uncover mistakes made by this administration as we come under fire thousands of miles from our homes. In the era of the digital satellite, these senators never consider the bigger picture, and have put us on trial for executing a war as it unfolds.

Former administrations ignored the present danger in this region for years before 9/11, and today we in the trenches pay the price for our past inability to confront our enemies. Each day, the enemy hopes that one more ten-plus death toll inflicted against coalition forces will be the last straw of the American collective will. The actions of Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, et al.—voting against the immediate pullout of the troops and then supporting Murtha’s ignorant remarks on every television program that offers an invitation—constitute a political attack on the troops, an attack that is aiding our enemy.

Though soldiers bleed for the right to dissent, we must remember that at times dissent will embolden our desperate Islamofascist enemy, especially when they read accounts of the growing fecklessness of the American people and her policy makers. Each day, legislators like Murtha move us closer to losing a winnable war and abandoning a worthy ally. Instead of supporting our cause, they stoke the fires of the Islamist faithful, those who would see a pullout in Iraq as a greater victory than the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan.

Despite the steady drumbeat of negativity, the troops remain undaunted. This is a middle to lower class war fought by volunteers of the greatest generation of American warriors ever born. I have written over 47 Bronze Stars with Valor (BSV) awards for the members of my 34-man infantry platoon. The BSV is growing more and more common during this fight, yet my peers cannot use their awards as a platform to defend their noble struggle because they are still deep in the fight.

Our critics in Congress are burdened by no such constraints. Neither Rep. Murtha nor any other Congressional representative has held a position in a skirmish line under fire in Iraq. Nonetheless, they pontificate to the masses about “their” war experience. Not one has borne witness to the extreme close-quarter nature of this fight or commented on the tearful thanks from a deserving and proud Iraqi people who need us to stay the course.

Instead, Rep. Murtha has the audacity to call my fellow soldiers “broken.” But despite such pessimism, amplified by a cynical media, we are not “broken,” On the contrary, we are winning. Hundreds of thousands of Iranian-trained Hezbollah terrorists, as well as Chechnyan, Wahabbi, and local mujahadeen militants have been pacified by our young patriots. It is regrettable that a man like Murtha, who made his career detailing his undisputed heroism under fire, is the first to chip away at my generation’s valor. Nor have we, as Senator Kerry recently claimed, “terrorized Iraqis in their homes.” And while many anti-war Democrats would have you believe otherwise, we are most certainly not “living hand to mouth.”

These and similar attacks have succeeded only in tarnishing the reputation of the American soldier. Each day, the Iraq War veteran grows closer to the embarrassing disrespect once heaped on the Vietnam warrior. Not only does the Democratic leadership deny the transparent fact that Iraq is indeed the front line in the War on Terror, but it feels the need to apologize for our nation’s ability to deliver unrelenting, but prudent lethality onto our deserving enemies. Thus, their warped template for fighting a war: pull out when the blood starts to flow.

Against this strategy of defeat, the president has called for staying the course. Staying the course isn’t a campaign slogan; it is a life support message for those of us in the midst of battle. Congressman Murtha above all others should know the perils inherent in dictating military policy from across the Potomac. I imagine he can still taste the spittle of anti-war protestors from 30 years ago. As was the case in Vietnam, the American soldier cannot be defeated on the field of battle. It is only the failure of the political class to stomach the hardships of combat that stands in the way of our victory.

posted December 09, 2005 06:51 PM            

Of course, the BBC is known for lying through their leftist teeth. I recall a few years ago the top two executives of the BBC had to resign in disgrace for lying and continuing their lies about Blair. Perhaps the Butler Report will ring a bell with you...that's Lord Butler.

As for the Guardian, it's not fit to wrap fish heads in...prior to putting them in the trash.

The US DID NOT supply Saddam Hussein chemical or biological weapons. The US did not arm Saddam with conventional weapons. The proof of that is in the equipment found in Kuwait and in captured hardware and shot down aircraft...not to mention the MiGs found buried in Iraq after the current invasion. Tanks...Soviet Union. Artillery...Soviet Union and French. Aircraft...Soviet Union and French. Mortars...Soviet Union. Small arms...Soviet Union, AK-47. Antitank...Soviet Union RPG.

NO and I mean NO American manufactured weaponry was found in Iraq. Your lying sources stink and it's the stink of the lying left.

Neither are chemical weapons being used against Iraqi forces or terrorists in Iraq. The weapons which are being used are not listed as CW on any recognized lists. Using the brain dead moron's theory of chemical weapons, ANY modern weapon with a HE warhead is a chemical weapon. The explosive is a chemical as is the powder which propels the shell.

Finally, who gives a damn what Saddam might think about the US administration? Not me. Saddam stepped very far over the line when he invaded Kuwait and attempted to annex their oil fields. His ultimate goal was taking over Saudi Arabia as well.

posted December 09, 2005 07:00 PM              

the Truth is within
though
it's there if we want it

posted December 09, 2005 07:32 PM              

quote:

---

Hang all traitors high

---

The 'posse' mentality is alive and well I see

quote:

---

And what of the 1,754 troops stationed in Iceland

---

Was there a US lead invasion in Iceland? If so I must have missed it. No the Democrats haven't mentioned them and demanded their return, but that's possibly because they're not facing huge casualty losses on a daily basis, (as in Iraq,) and neither are they involved in an unjust invasion of those countries, instagated by an initial whopping lie about WMD's in order to mask what many informed people strongly suspect to be the real plan; level the country and give the rebuilding/oil contracts to your pals.

As for demoralising statements made that might undermine the confidence of the troops how about this for a humdinger?!

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

That was Donald Rumsfeld's reply when asked by a soldier in Iraq why they had to scrabble around for pieces of rusted scrap metal and ballistic glass to put on their vehicles to take into combat. Not exactly moral boosting was it, so under your sources rules, and according to Abraham Lincoln, he should be arrested, exiled or hanged!

If you want to talk about 'hanging people high,' why not hang the US arms dealers who sold the gas to the Iranians that killed the Kurds in the last Iraq conflict? That was attributed to Hussein but seing as the dealers sold the Iranians nerve agent gas, (the stuff that was used on the Kurds,) and sold blood agent gas to the Iraqis it doesn't take Sherlock Homes to see who used what on whom now does it?

quote:

---

John Murtha, offering his Bronze Star with Valor (BSV) as a badge of his authority, demands a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.

---

posted December 09, 2005 08:04 PM              

As for the Guardian being 'leftist' I think you'll find it's acutally independant - something which you clearly have no concept of in your blinkered black and white world. We have 3 major political parties in this country; left (socialist), right (conservative) and middle (liberal democrat). The Guardian newspaper and it's journalism is an independant view that does not follow or support any of the 3 parties, but provides independant (there's that word again) and unbiased (you may need to look that one up) reporting.

The BBC bosses and the Hutton enquiry (Hutton not Butler) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3147979.stm

quote:

---

Of course, the BBC is known for lying through their leftist teeth. I recall a few years ago the top two executives of the BBC had to resign in disgrace for lying and continuing their lies about Blair. Perhaps the Butler Report will ring a bell with you...that's Lord Butler.

---

They were by no means in disgrace in this matter as they didn't lie - there was a 'sexing up' of the dossier which made the case for WMD's look more serious than it ever was. By the way, you may like to be reminded that Blair is the leader of the 'leftist' party in this country (Labour) - the very people you seem to despise so much, so why on earth you feel the need to fight his 'lefty' corner in terms of the Hutton enquiry, is something of a mystery!

A wise person once said that "Truth is the first casualty of war." The misinformed will always swallow up all the propoganda as that's exactly who it's aimed at.

If you're naive enough to believe everything that your government tells you, let alone agree with it, then I suggest you don't enter into political arguement. It is not treason to criticise or disagree with political policy. Unless of course your government has now invoked the old royal practice of 'Divine right' ?!

It may interest you to know that I voted for the Labour party back in 1997 when they gained power in this country and again at the recent election. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything Blair does or says however.

For example, if you're so invested in the welfare of your armies, what's your opinion on the financial cuts Bush is making to their families, their pensions and their care?
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php

posted December 09, 2005 08:05 PM            

The United States is NOT taking huge casualties in Iraq. While every casualty is a loss of one of our best and brightest and distressing to both their loved ones along with the rest of us, those casualties are not high.

Another leftist lie...Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Refuted over and over not only by the fact every intelligence service on earth believed Saddam had WMD but also by the 9/11 Commission and a Congressional investigation of the facts leading up to the war. What is it with leftists who believe if they repeat a lie long enough, it will be believed. You don't even believe it.

Why don't you produce the name(s) of the US arms dealers who sold the Iranians chemical weapons along with the name(s) of the US companies which sold "blood agent gas" to the Iraqi...Saddam? While you're at it, how about backing it up with some facts...and information as to whether those alleged sales were sanctioned through the United States government or bootleg sales.

When Rumsfeld talked about going to war with the Army you have, he wasn't talking about military personnel, he was talking about equipment...as any reasonable person who saw the quote...in answer to a question from a soldier who asked about up-armored Humvees would know.

posted December 09, 2005 08:12 PM              

quote:

---

The United States is NOT taking huge casualties in Iraq

---

quote:

---

Nearly 2,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and tens of thousands wounded.

---

posted December 09, 2005 08:14 PM              

quote:

---

What is it with leftists who believe if they repeat a lie long enough, it will be believed.

---

posted December 09, 2005 08:24 PM              

quote:

---

Why don't you produce the name(s) of the US arms dealers who sold the Iranians chemical weapons along with the name(s) of the US companies which sold "blood agent gas" to the Iraqi...Saddam? While you're at it, how about backing it up with some facts...and information as to whether those alleged sales were sanctioned through the United States government or bootleg sales.

---

Certainly, but let's also have your proof about the number of US casualties.

Firstly, the specific paragraph I'd like you to look at...

"November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14] "

And now the link to the whole article...
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

posted December 09, 2005 08:48 PM            

But, the facts are that Lord Hutton found the allegations made by the BBC against the Blair government were unfounded. It's also true that as a result of the Hutton Report, the two top executives of the BBC were forced to resign. It's also true the BBC came within an eyelash of losing their charter over their reporting of lies about the Blair government. Those are the facts and those facts cannot be spun.

"(viii) The term "sexed-up" is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier. However in the context of the broadcasts in which the "sexing-up" allegation was reported and having regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts, I consider that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case."
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter12.htm#a90

From an antiwar site and I would point out to you that wounded can encompass a lot of different types of injuries...from relatively minor to life threatening.

3 year numbers
2135 Killed
15881 wounded
http://antiwar.com/casualties/

By way of comparison, the Allies took 9500 casualties in the 1st day of the Normandy Invasion in WWII.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that to assign "huge" casualties to US forces in 3 years of fighting in Iraq. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/foothold.aspx

I don't know whose quote this is but it doesn't look like one of mine...so, where did you get this?

quote:

---

Nearly 2,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and tens of thousands wounded.

---

posted December 09, 2005 08:55 PM            

With regard to the poll, Jwhop, YOU were the one defending polls. Since you like them so much why are you avoiding the AP one?

Thursday, December 8, 2005 · Last updated 4:46 p.m. PT

AP Poll: Lawmakers' standing drops

By DONNA CASSATA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Indictments, investigations and a congressman's guilty plea for taking millions in bribes have left most Americans convinced that political corruption is a deeply rooted problem, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.

Missteps and misconduct that have reached into all levels of government - from the White House and Congress to governors' offices in Connecticut and Ohio - have helped drive 88 percent of those surveyed to say the problem is a serious one.

Scandal has touched all politicians. President Bush's approval rating was 42 percent, slightly better than his standing in the previous AP-Ipsos poll, due in part to improvements in the economy. Still, 57 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush's handling of the presidency.

More ominous as the 2006 elections loom was the public's opinion of the Republican-controlled Congress.

Sixty-five percent of respondents disapproved of lawmakers' work in Washington and only 31 percent approved, the worst numbers since AP-Ipsos began asking the question in January.

Several of those interviewed said corruption was endemic to a political system awash in colossal amounts of lobbying money and beset by an insatiable demand for campaign cash.

"It's kind of the nature of politics, working with money and finance, things happen every day that are questionable," said David Innerebner, a conservative-leaning missionary from Hayward, Wis.

In 2004, federal lobbyists spent $2.1 billion - the equivalent of the gross domestic product of the Republic of Congo or the amount the U.S. government spends annually on energy assistance for low-income Americans. In that same year, candidates pursuing the presidency and seats in Congress spent more than $3 billion.

"It seems like everything seems to be corrupted," said Sylvia Kind, a dietitian from Akron, Ohio.

Some of the experts who make their careers focused on government ethics and reform were struck by the strong public perception of politicians.

"From the local mayor or sheriff all the way up to the president, it means people have a real distrust of their government," said Larry Noble, head of the Center for Responsive Politics campaign watchdog group.

Added Jan Baran, a Washington lawyer who specializes in ethics rules and campaign finance: "The message to politicians is to get their house in order."

People questioned in the survey had no trouble reciting the names associated with offenses and inquiries:

-Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, faces money laundering charges.

-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is under a federal investigation for a well-timed stock sale.

-I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has been indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI in the outing of a CIA officer.

DeLay, Frist and Libby have said they have done nothing wrong.

-Last month, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., resigned after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for steering government work to defense contractors. His list of excess included money for a Rolls-Royce, antique furniture and two Laser Shot shooting simulators.

-A Justice Department investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen Republicans and Democrats and Bush administration officials.

"They're so power hungry they'd do anything to stay in power," said Renee Becher, a 51-year-old homemaker from Dahlonega, Ga. "They've made our country become like Rome."

The AP-Ipsos survey found that 91 percent of women consider corruption a serious problem, compared with 84 percent of men. Overall, 67 percent said the number of people involved in corruption ranges from moderate to a lot.

Democrats were considered more ethical by 36 percent, while 33 percent cited Republicans. That difference is within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Some 40 percent of women said Democrats were more ethical than Republicans, while 32 percent of men offered a similar view.

"I think there are those in the Republican Party that have their problems and I think it's politically motivated that they bring these to the limelight," said Paul Deshaies, a retired prison chaplain from Lancaster, Ohio.

The scandals could cost incumbents in next year's election. The low regard for Congress nearly mirrors the numbers recorded in polls conducted in December 1993, several months before the Republican tidal wave that ended 40 years of Democratic control of the House.

Worldwide, the United States gets higher marks. The 2005 index on corruption perceptions ranked the U.S. at 17, not far behind Germany, Hong Kong and Canada, according to Transparency International, a nongovernment global watchdog on corruption.

---

Associated Press writer Nancy Benac contributed to this report.
------------------------------------