PDA

View Full Version : The Usa president's approval rating hits new low


tennislover
Mar 14th, 2006, 05:48 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/13/bush.poll/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.

Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation.(Watch what the poll might mean at election time -- 1:49)

Pollsters quizzed 1,001 adults Friday through Sunday for the poll; most questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Fifty-seven percent said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, near September's record high of 59 percent. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 points.(Interactive: Poll results)

Bush's approval rating of 36 percent is the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored in November. The previous CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted February 28-March 1, put his job approval at 38 percent. (View Bush's second term approval ratings)

Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest poll said they disapproved of his performance in office, the same figure as in the last poll. (Read full results document -- PDF)

Certain about Iraq
The poll found Bush's fortunes are tied to Iraq, where more than 2,300 U.S. troops have been killed.

Two-thirds of those surveyed told pollsters that history will remember Bush most for the March 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the battle against a persistent insurgency that followed the Hussein regime's collapse.

Bush launched his latest effort to shore up support for the war Monday, accusing Iran of providing explosives used to attack American troops and telling an audience at George Washington University that U.S. forces were "making progress" against insurgents.

He also praised Iraqis for averting civil war despite the sectarian violence that came after February's bombing of the al-Askariya mosque in Samarra, a revered Shiite Muslim shrine.

"The situation in Iraq is still tense, and we're still seeing acts of sectarian violence and reprisal," Bush said. "Yet out of this crisis, we've also seen signs of a hopeful future." (Full story)

With congressional elections approaching, public discontent with the war appeared to be taking a toll on Bush's fellow Republicans.

Only 32 percent polled over the weekend said they thought Bush had a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq, while 67 percent said he did not.

Only 25 percent said Democrats had a clear plan -- but 48 percent said Democrats would do a better job managing the issue, while 40 percent favored Republicans.

Democrats enjoy lead
Those figures, along with weakened support for GOP handling of the battle against terrorism, have given Democrats a 16 percentage point lead over Republicans when registered voters are asked which party they will support in November.

Democrats drew the support of 55 percent of the registered voters questioned, while 39 percent said they would be voting Republican in the fall. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Republicans held a 4-point advantage over Democrats on dealing with terrorism, 45 to 41 percent. And despite increasing optimism about economic conditions, Democrats held a strong lead over the GOP, 53-38 percent, when asked which party would better manage the economy.

To make the case for war, Bush and other top officials said the invasion of Iraq was necessary to strip the country of illicit stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. inspectors later concluded that Iraq had dismantled its weapons programs under U.N. sanctions in the 1990s, though it had concealed some weapons-related research from the United Nations.

The latest poll found 51 percent of Americans believed the administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, while 46 percent disagreed. That question had a sampling error of 4.5 percentage points as well.



:sad:

Helen Lawson
Mar 14th, 2006, 05:49 PM
We needs another round of big tax cuts and refunds.

Pureracket
Mar 14th, 2006, 06:44 PM
Also, it's nice to see one prediction of mine coming true.Well, one that doesn't involve loss of life (the war in Iraq).

I always knew he'd sink sink sink in his second term. Farther than most presidents could ever imagine sinking.

I think no matter what, he'd always have 20% who are just insane freaks.

But it's good to know more people do have a LINE and he's crossed it. What took them so fucking long is the question.

Is it negative yet? Wake me up when it's negative.

timafi
Mar 14th, 2006, 07:05 PM
Hill and Barack :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

*JR*
Mar 14th, 2006, 07:37 PM
Also, it's nice to see one prediction of mine coming true.Well, one that doesn't involve loss of life (the war in Iraq).

I always knew he'd sink sink sink in his second term. Farther than most presidents could ever imagine sinking.

I think no matter what, he'd always have 20% who are just insane freaks.

But it's good to know more people do have a LINE and he's crossed it. What took them so fucking long is the question.

Is it negative yet? Wake me up when it's negative.
Wake up, his disapproval is around (probably ova) 50% already. But he still got 51% when it counted (November 3rd, 2004) because of Kerry, who let Karl Rove make HIM the issue (against an incumbent President). :rolleyes: And Clinton, who did no TV ads while recovering from his surgery, and asked that counterproductive question in their "big national story" joint appearance in late October (about whether ppl would vote their hopes or their fears. In this "first post 9/11 election", fears wins that one hands down, and Hillary's chief '08 strategist knew it).

Pureracket
Mar 14th, 2006, 07:39 PM
Wake up, his disapproval is around (probably ova) 50% already. But he still got 51% when it counted (November 3rd, 2004) because of Kerry, who let Karl Rove make HIM the issue (against an incumbent President). :rolleyes: And Clinton, who did no TV ads while recovering from his surgery, and asked that counterproductive question in their "big national story" joint appearance in late October (about whether ppl would vote their hopes or their fears. In this "first post 9/11 election", fears wins that one hands down, and Hillary's chief '08 strategist knew it).Umm.. . .you are blaming Clinton and Kerry(constantly) for all the ills of the country, and you're telling me to wake up?!?!?

Infiniti2001
Mar 14th, 2006, 07:43 PM
Did anyone expect different?? I mean this stubborn dumbfuck and his administration are spending billions forcing democracy on a country which is not interested while their own suffer :fiery:

timafi
Mar 14th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Did anyone expect different?? I mean this stubborn dumbfuck and his administration are spending billions forcing democracy on a country which is not interested while their own suffer :fiery:
:worship: :worship: :worship:

*JR*
Mar 14th, 2006, 08:38 PM
Umm.. . .you are blaming Clinton and Kerry(constantly) for all the ills of the country, and you're telling me to wake up?!?!?
You said to wake you up when dubya's #'s turned negative, as I'm sure they have. Re. Clinton & Kerry, each made one Bush term possible. (Clinton by becoming a "mixed blessing" for Gore due to Monica, and Kerry re. a horrendous campaign). Its not what either did in their roles as elected officials. And as I said B4, I think Clinton wasn't @ all sorry that Kerry lost, opening up the '08 nomination with Hillary a major contender. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

venus_rulez
Mar 14th, 2006, 08:39 PM
Well this is what happens when people vote (or don't vote) for a candidate based on one issue. Many people in the South voted for Bush because of the homosexuality/religion issue. That's one issue, but the Bush administrations was very smart in making that THE issue and lots of people fell for it. I'm sure if I focused on only one issue, I oculd find a reason to vote for Bush too.

wta_zuperfann
Mar 14th, 2006, 08:50 PM
Every time that Bush's low approval ratings are announced, something happens in order to heighten the "terror threat alert". Last week it was some nebulous threat against an unspecified college basketball game.

What will be the new threat today or tomorrow?

RVD
Mar 14th, 2006, 09:07 PM
Wake up, his disapproval is around (probably ova) 50% already. But he still got 51% when it counted (November 3rd, 2004) because of Kerry, who let Karl Rove make HIM the issue (against an incumbent President). :rolleyes: And Clinton, who did no TV ads while recovering from his surgery, and asked that counterproductive question in their "big national story" joint appearance in late October (about whether ppl would vote their hopes or their fears. In this "first post 9/11 election", fears wins that one hands down, and Hillary's chief '08 strategist knew it).:haha: :haha:
*JR* I have to ask you this, so please don't take this personally...but...

Do you know who is running the country? :confused:

*JR*
Mar 14th, 2006, 09:59 PM
:haha: :haha:
*JR* I have to ask you this, so please don't take this personally...but...

Do you know who is running the country? :confused:
I just asked Lakeway:

1) The Trilateral Commission
2) The Bilderbergers
3) The Bavarian Illuminati
4) The Council on Foreign Relations

:bolt:

(Seriously, there is a "permanent government" of sorts, though it has plenty of internal disagreements. But the fundamental interests of America's elites are taken care of, no matter who's in offce). :hehehe:

azdaja
Mar 14th, 2006, 10:04 PM
to those in the us who oppose bush: democrats are indeed responsible that he is able to get away with all he's doing. not all democrats, probably, but the leading ones. and clinton is indeed the leader of the most cowardly pack among them.

Infiniti2001
Mar 14th, 2006, 10:10 PM
to those in the us who oppose bush: democrats are indeed responsible that he is able to get away with all he's doing. not all democrats, probably, but the leading ones. and clinton is indeed the leader of the most cowardly pack among them.

Please Clinton's approval ratings even after he was impeached did not get down this low. In fact it never got under 51 %.

azdaja
Mar 14th, 2006, 10:14 PM
Please Clinton's approval ratings even after he was impeached did not get down this low. In fact it never got under 51 %.
which just proves my point. you have a man who hits a new low whenever he does something (bush) and he still wins over democrats. conclusion: democrats are hopeless.

RVD
Mar 14th, 2006, 10:15 PM
to those in the us who oppose bush: democrats are indeed responsible that he is able to get away with all he's doing. not all democrats, probably, but the leading ones. and clinton is indeed the leader of the most cowardly pack among them.
If you are posting this with straight face, then your are suggesting that all republican representatives everywhere are devoid of individual thought, decision, and morals. So are the Democrats also coercing Republicans into committing abuses of moral ethics? Did the Democrats coerce the President into spying on Americans? Did the democrats force the President and Congress to wage war with a sovereign nation? Shall I go on? I have dozens more... :confused:
Honestly, azdaja, the only ones responsible are those who have to power to MAKE THE DECISION.
Yes, there are some democrats who sided with the Republicans on many of the issues that I opposed. However, had they not, it still would not have made a lick of difference since the Republicans control BOTH the House and the Senate.
So what point are you attempting to make because I don't get it? :shrug:

However, if you can tell me EXACTLY how Democrats are responsible, I am willing to fully concede that your points are spot on. :wavey:

Infiniti2001
Mar 14th, 2006, 10:19 PM
which just proves my point. you have a man who hits a new low whenever he does something (bush) and he still wins over democrats. conclusion: democrats are hopeless.

:rolleyes:

Black Mamba.
Mar 14th, 2006, 10:22 PM
Dude's numbers could be 2% and I promise if he could run again he'd probably win, but then folks that put him in office will be some of the biggest complainers about his policies.

azdaja
Mar 14th, 2006, 10:24 PM
So what point are you attempting to make because I don't get it? :shrug:

there is no doubt that republicans are responsible for the mess they created. but would they be able to get away with murder if there were a meaningful opposition? my point is, if a political party can count on popular support (and democrats apparently can) and that party doesn't use it, then there is something seriously wrong with it. and i'm not talking about the ability of the democrats, i'm talking about their integrity.

jbone_0307
Mar 14th, 2006, 10:25 PM
Good politics is the art of compromise. Many politicians will compromise issues in order to futher another issue or to gain support. Even if the democrats allowed them the power to do whatever, it doesn't give him the right or reason to execute. I still don't understand your logic?

azdaja
Mar 14th, 2006, 10:32 PM
Good politics is the art of compromise. Many politicians will compromise issues in order to futher another issue or to gain support. Even if the democrats allowed them the power to do whatever, it doesn't give him the right or reason to execute. I still don't understand your logic?
so, what was the compromise about what happened in new orelans for example? shit happens, noone is responsible?

meyerpl
Mar 14th, 2006, 11:37 PM
When Dick Cheney heard that George W. Bush's approval rating was 36%, he went to Bush and said, "Hey, what's your secret?"

*JR*
Mar 15th, 2006, 01:05 AM
If you are posting this with straight face, then your are suggesting that all republican representatives everywhere are devoid of individual thought, decision, and morals. So are the Democrats also coercing Republicans into committing abuses of moral ethics? Did the Democrats coerce the President into spying on Americans? Did the democrats force the President and Congress to wage war with a sovereign nation? Shall I go on? I have dozens more... :confused:
Honestly, azdaja, the only ones responsible are those who have to power to MAKE THE DECISION.
Yes, there are some democrats who sided with the Republicans on many of the issues that I opposed. However, had they not, it still would not have made a lick of difference since the Republicans control BOTH the House and the Senate.
So what point are you attempting to make because I don't get it? :shrug:

However, if you can tell me EXACTLY how Democrats are responsible, I am willing to fully concede that your points are spot on. :wavey:
I know azdaja answered this, but IMO put too much emphasis on the Democrats' level of integrity. In fact, their political incompetence (and enslavement to PC donors like Barbra Streisand) is a much bigger factor, IMO.

Also (in response to both this post, and the one you made that I didn't have time to answer in depth above) I find your political observations increasingly illogical. Yes, the Republicans hold the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but the Democrats hand these to them. (I can still remember idiots here and IRL comparing Bush to Hitler in 2004, which gains almost no votes, but can alienate ppl and lose plenty of them).

Or posters here whining :bigcry: that the Bush campaign mocked Kerry being fluent in French. (Mommy, Mommy, George is calling John names, wahhhh). In fact Kerry invited this, by saying that European leaders told him that he'd better beat Bush. (Probably true, but their ppl can't vote here). So the Republicans pounded the idiot, asking what he had "promised them".

I fully agree that the Republicans have been shaking down lobbyists since winning control of Congress in '94 (like the Democrats used to when they were in power, BTW). And indeed "nobody forced them". What's more important is that nobody (meaning the Democrats) had the smarts and the OK, integrity, to stop them. And the nerve of you to make this war partisan, when leading Democrats like Kerry and Hillary voted to authorize it, AND it was basically JFK and LBJ who created an even deeper quagmire in Vietnam back when. :rolleyes: (Eisenhower just sent military advisors, not troops).

Maybe your problem is really that the Democrats will have to chuck the enslavement to PC that made Mondale pick a woman as his running mate in '84, when the 2 he basically had to choose from (Geraldine Ferraro and Diane Feinstein) each had half a decade as a House member or the Mayor of SF, respectively. Or the literal "party line" on abortion, down to the Supreme Court litmus test Kerry looked like a total weakling by promising. Etc. etc.

cheesestix
Mar 15th, 2006, 01:09 AM
Well this is what happens when people vote (or don't vote) for a candidate based on one issue. Many people in the South voted for Bush because of the homosexuality/religion issue. That's one issue, but the Bush administrations was very smart in making that THE issue and lots of people fell for it. I'm sure if I focused on only one issue, I oculd find a reason to vote for Bush too.

Or maybe people just didn't like or trust Kerry (or any far-left Democrat for that matter)? :rolleyes:

cheesestix
Mar 15th, 2006, 01:16 AM
I know azdaja answered this, but IMO put too much emphasis on the Democrats' level of integrity. In fact, their political incompetence (and enslavement to PC donors like Barbra Streisand) is a much bigger factor, IMO.

Also (in response to both this post, and the one you made that I didn't have time to answer in depth above) I find your political observations increasingly illogical. Yes, the Republicans hold the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but the Democrats hand these to them. (I can still remember idiots here and IRL comparing Bush to Hitler in 2004, which gains almost no votes, but can alienate ppl and lose plenty of them).

Or posters here whining :bigcry: that the Bush campaign mocked Kerry being fluent in French. (Mommy, Mommy, George is calling John names, wahhhh). In fact Kerry invited this, by saying that European leaders told him that he'd better beat Bush. (Probably true, but their ppl can't vote here). So the Republicans pounded the idiot, asking what he had "promised them".

I fully agree that the Republicans have been shaking down lobbyists since winning control of Congress in '94 (like the Democrats used to when they were in power, BTW). And indeed "nobody forced them". What's more important is that nobody (meaning the Democrats) had the smarts and the OK, integrity, to stop them. And the nerve of you to make this war partisan, when leading Democrats like Kerry and Hillary voted to authorize it, AND it was basically JFK and LBJ who created an even deeper quagmire in Vietnam back when. :rolleyes: (Eisenhower just sent military advisors, not troops).

Maybe your problem is really that the Democrats will have to chuck the enslavement to PC that made Mondale pick a woman as his running mate in '84, when the 2 he basically had to choose from (Geraldine Ferraro and Diane Feinstein) each had half a decade as a House member or the Mayor of SF, respectively. Or the literal "party line" on abortion, down to the Supreme Court litmus test Kerry looked like a total weakling by promising. Etc. etc.

DAMN!!!! :lol: KUDOS!!!! THAT WAS SOOOOO ON POINT!!!! :eek:

RVD
Mar 15th, 2006, 01:21 AM
I just asked Lakeway:

1) The Trilateral Commission
2) The Bilderbergers
3) The Bavarian Illuminati
4) The Council on Foreign Relations

:bolt:

(Seriously, there is a "permanent government" of sorts, though it has plenty of internal disagreements. But the fundamental interests of America's elites are taken care of, no matter who's in offce). :hehehe:I will only say that I've always held that Americans do not run America. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/eye_anim.gifhttp://deephousepage.com/smilies/eye_anim.gif
But I will just leave it at that. :hehehe:

njnetswill
Mar 15th, 2006, 01:26 AM
Georgina Bushina

RVD
Mar 15th, 2006, 01:36 AM
there is no doubt that republicans are responsible for the mess they created. but would they be able to get away with murder if there were a meaningful opposition?But you see, this is exactly the problem. This question is moot because the Dems aren't in power.
We HAVE to speak in terms of the 'current' ethics and moral issues. What you are doing is giving the known 'evil' a free ride to future leadership roles simply on the basis that the opposing party is an unknown. We can't say how the Democrats would've acted because no Democrat thinks like Bush and his ratpack. These guys are freak'n evil man. :scared:
...don't know because my point is, if a political party can count on popular support (and democrats apparently can) and that party doesn't use it, then there is something seriously wrong with it. and i'm not talking about the ability of the democrats, i'm talking about their integrity.And what of the integrity of this administration?
The American people witnessed firsthand how immoral the Republicans were and still are. They witnessed the lies; altering of documents; the outright creation of phony documents; the rejection of classified data from it's own security services; a President who SPOKE TO GOD; and a war based on lies. Yet and still people will maintain that Democrats are worse, or no better?!?!?! How so? And when was this demonstrated as a fact?

RJWCapriati
Mar 15th, 2006, 01:42 AM
Bush :smash: ~~~~ for those who voted for him in 2000 and 2004 :smash: ~~~~~~~ for those who did not vote for him :worship:

RVD
Mar 15th, 2006, 01:43 AM
so, what was the compromise about what happened in new orelans for example? shit happens, noone is responsible?Not true azdaja. You are mixing apples with oranges here.
The federal government is responsible for the safety of ALL Americans. That means they should be prepared to enact emergency strategies when needed. They DID NOT! Not only that, they were fore-warned, and still failed.

This administration failed to respond after the President himself said not to worry because they were prepared. If it had been the Democrats, I'd have said the exact same thing.
This administration has YET to get ANYTHING correct.

*JR*
Mar 15th, 2006, 02:31 AM
I will only say that I've always held that Americans do not run America. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/eye_anim.gifhttp://deephousepage.com/smilies/eye_anim.gif
But I will just leave it at that. :hehehe:
OK, you answered my "light humor with a touch of truth" (the permanent goverment post). Now lets see you deal with my high hard one (Post #24). As Bush said to (Saddam, I think) and Kerry said to Bush.... Bring It On! :armed:

RVD
Mar 15th, 2006, 02:40 AM
I know azdaja answered this, but IMO put too much emphasis on the Democrats' level of integrity. In fact, their political incompetence (and enslavement to PC donors like Barbra Streisand) is a much bigger factor, IMO.

Also (in response to both this post, and the one you made that I didn't have time to answer in depth above) I find your political observations increasingly illogical. Yes, the Republicans hold the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but the Democrats hand these to them. (I can still remember idiots here and IRL comparing Bush to Hitler in 2004, which gains almost no votes, but can alienate ppl and lose plenty of them).The fact that the Democrats handed the Presidency or the Congress to the Republicans is immaterial. Yes, I agree that the Democrats FAILED with a capital 'F'.
They had the campaign in the bag in 2000 and lost because of a weak candidate who attempted to 'run alone' and whose message was at best convoluted. In fact, was there even a message?
But the real test of strength occurred during the 'Hanging Chads' debacle. Rather than fight, Gore fell on his f**king sword, pulled down his pants and stuck his head up his ... :tape:

They should also have won the 2004 election.
Unfortunately, the fact is that Kerry [and the Democratic Party, in general] was a weak pussy to the 'Nth' degree who didn't possess the courage to raise the obvious questions. Another position that I've always maintained.

The Democrats even caved in and gave this Buffoon-In-Chief more power than he knew what to do with.
They failed to galvanize a very mislead and fearful public.
They didn't even have the balls to challenge the Republicans when it became painfully obvious that the reason for going to war was NOT the reason the American people where lead to believe from day one.

But to blame the Democratic Party when the Republican Party CONTROLS both houses is akin to absolving the Republicans of all responsibility .

Now, YOU tell ME, if that sounds logical? Because that's the impression I get from your post.
If so, then that ludicrous!

Again, where does the responsibility of the Republican Party begin and end? That was the point of my post.

Or posters here whining :bigcry: that the Bush campaign mocked Kerry being fluent in French. (Mommy, Mommy, George is calling John names, wahhhh). In fact Kerry invited this, by saying that European leaders told him that he'd better beat Bush. (Probably true, but their ppl can't vote here). So the Republicans pounded the idiot, asking what he had "promised them".:lol: Look, you get no argument from me here. Kerry was a weak SOB who deserved to lose the election based solely on his impotent campaign. :shrug:

I fully agree that the Republicans have been shaking down lobbyists since winning control of Congress in '94 (like the Democrats used to when they were in power, BTW). And indeed "nobody forced them". What's more important is that nobody (meaning the Democrats) had the smarts and the OK, integrity, to stop them. And the nerve of you to make this war partisan, when leading Democrats like Kerry and Hillary voted to authorize it, AND it was basically JFK and LBJ who created an even deeper quagmire in Vietnam back when. :rolleyes: (Eisenhower just sent military advisors, not troops).The war was a big mistake on both sides. My problem with the Democrats is that when they discovered THE TRUTH, they did nothing...said nothing.
My problem with the Republicans is that they knew of the PNAC Doctrine from years ago. The Ne-Cons had been trying to sell this Imperialistic piece of crap for decades. Both parties knew of it's presence even prior to the Clinton administration [Clinton rejected it]; they knew of it's presence during the Bush Sr. administration [Bush Sr. rejected it]. But the Neo-Cons finally found a complete idiot-puppet who would be their boy toy in DYBYA! :fiery:
Hell, if I knew about it and it's anti-American, anti-Constitutional elements, then they sure in the hell did too.
So yes, to a great extent, BOTH sides failed.
However, that STILL does not absolve the Republicans of their heinous and immoral acts against the American people. They are there to LEAD. And they haven't done that.

Maybe your problem is [B]really that the Democrats will have to chuck the enslavement to PC that made Mondale pick a woman as his running mate in '84, when the 2 he basically had to choose from (Geraldine Ferraro and Diane Feinstein) each had half a decade as a House member or the Mayor of SF, respectively. Or the literal "party line" on abortion, down to the Supreme Court litmus test Kerry looked like a total weakling by promising. Etc. etc.I don't care about any of that PC BS! And I wonder why you always bring that up. :shrug: What I WANT is some damn integrity from BOTH sides. And when one side or the other commits treason against America, they should burn for it. Is that clear enough for you ?
Honestly, I don't know what you are pissing and moaning about since we in essence agree. I hold no allegiance to one side or the other. I've stated this many times. :(

However, for the last time, NONE of this absolves the Republican Party of their treasonous acts against the U.S. :fiery:

Halardfan
Mar 15th, 2006, 09:40 AM
Jon Stewart did a piece on the whole Dem v Republican thing the other week...the Republicans had put together this campaign video, based on Star Wars, in which the Republicans were shown as the brave rebels and the Dems were shown as the evil empire...

As Stewart pointed out, the Dems are at best, Ewoks! :D Meanwhile the Republicans with their menacing hands on all the levers of power, are clearly the Empire! :)

The point is, most of the leading Dems have been woeful in standing up to Bush, in trying to set the agenda, at the moment I think they would win the election, but it would only be by default as Bush and co are so painfully vile that only the most die hard Republican half-wit can't see it...

The republicans have an attack dog at their call, in the shape of Fox News...at the merest hint of criticism of the president, they tear into the offender, saying they are far left, extremist, dangerous...theirs is a misshapen world where their own far-RIGHT views are the norm, outragously peddled as somehow fair and balanced.

Fox News should be the Dems first point of co-ordinated attack, ridicule it, take away its power...that is the first step back to the white house.

azdaja
Mar 15th, 2006, 10:12 AM
But you see, this is exactly the problem. This question is moot because the Dems aren't in power.
the republicans may be in charge, but if they want to stay in power they have to be elected again. if the democrats launched a serious attack against them people would pay attention to stuff that really matters. instead, the democrats are letting the republicans frame issues for them. they are not really worse than the republicans and especially not than this administration (which isn't saying much), but can they really be seen as a meaningful and viable alternative (at least in their present shape and form)?

azdaja
Mar 15th, 2006, 10:19 AM
Not true azdaja. You are mixing apples with oranges here.
The federal government is responsible for the safety of ALL Americans. That means they should be prepared to enact emergency strategies when needed. They DID NOT! Not only that, they were fore-warned, and still failed.

This administration failed to respond after the President himself said not to worry because they were prepared. If it had been the Democrats, I'd have said the exact same thing.
This administration has YET to get ANYTHING correct.
i agree actually. heads should roll for what happened there. but it won't happen because the republicans will attempt a cover-up and the democrats will almost surely let them get away with it.

RVD
Mar 15th, 2006, 12:00 PM
i agree actually. heads should roll for what happened there. but it won't happen because the republicans will attempt a cover-up and the democrats will almost surely let them get away with it.I truly believe that we are all on the same side in that the Neo-Conservatives are the vile villains in all of this. But what I don't understand is how so many conservatives can condone the foul actions of this administration. Bush even admitted to breaking the LAW. And said he'd do it again. :eek: :eek:
The Congress has just signed on to extending the definition of the Patriot Act. And this is an ACT that does the exact opposite of [I]safe-guarding our civil liberties.
But does America care?! HELL NAW!

Key among the PA, is it's ability to covertly seize personal records without ever having to disclose this information to Joe America. It also grants government authorities the legal right to arrest you without ever disclosing the reason(s).
I said it once before, and I'll say it again...AMERICANS DO NOT DESERVE AMERICA. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.patriot13mar13,0,2556072.story?coll=bal-opinion-headlines
Now if that isn't a kick in the nads, then I don't know what is.

The democrats had better do something. And they'd better get the message out soon..., whatever it may be.... because these Neo-Con[artists] are the most treacherous traitors this country has ever known, regardless of which side you are on.

azdaja
Mar 15th, 2006, 12:45 PM
reeveedynasty, we are on the same side regarding the neo-cons, most people of the world are. the present american government is perhaps the worst in history. i think even most republicans from the past would be appalled if they could see what's going on. but the democrats are partly responsible for the ability of neo-cons to get away with nearly everything. perhaps they are simply incompetent, but i also have to question their integrity.

*JR*
Mar 15th, 2006, 12:59 PM
The fact that the Democrats handed the Presidency or the Congress to the Republicans is immaterial. Yes, I agree that the Democrats FAILED with a capital 'F'.
They had the campaign in the bag in 2000 and lost because of a weak candidate who attempted to 'run alone' and whose message was at best convoluted. In fact, was there even a message?

.....

They should also have won the 2004 election.
Unfortunately, the fact is that Kerry [and the Democratic Party, in general] was a weak pussy to the 'Nth' degree who didn't possess the courage to raise the obvious questions. Another position that I've always maintained.

The Democrats even caved in and gave this Buffoon-In-Chief more power than he knew what to do with. They failed to galvanize a very mislead and fearful public. They didn't even have the balls to challenge the Republicans when it became painfully obvious that the reason for going to war was NOT the reason the American people where lead to believe from day one.

But to blame the Democratic Party when the Republican Party CONTROLS both houses is akin to absolving the Republicans of all responsibility [based on the fact that the Democrats lost the election].

Now, YOU tell ME, if that sounds logical? Because that's the impression I get from your post.
If so, then that ludicrous!

Again, where does the responsibility of the Republican Party begin and end? That was the point of my post.

:lol: Look, you get no argument from me here. Kerry was a weak SOB who deserved to lose the election based solely on his impotent campaign. :shrug:
.....

I don't care about any of that PC BS! And I wonder why you always bring that up. :shrug: What I WANT is some damn integrity from BOTH sides. And when one side or the other commits treason against America, they should burn for it. Is that clear enough for you ?
Honestly, I don't know what you are pissing and moaning about since we in essence agree. I hold no allegiance to one side or the other. I've stated this many times. :(

However, for the last time, NONE of this absolves the Republican Party of their treasonous acts against the U.S. :fiery:
Indeed we in essence agree about most of this, except for my thesis that the Dems repeated dissing of socially conservative working class voters gives the GOP an undeserved edge. IMO, the big contributors like Barbra Streisand would presumably rather see much of what you cite continue than see Roe v. Wade reversed. (Which decision even pro-choice Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her confirmation hearings derailed a process of the states steadily becoming much frendlier to abortion rights).

Add in facts like Dukakis having vetoed the reversal of unsupervised weekend furloughs for lifers without the possibility of parole, without which the Willie Horton issue would never have existed, and its easy 2C why the Democratic Party can be portrayed as lacking in mainstream values. (Which is why Clinton's 1992 Sister Souljah gambit was politically brilliant). If only he kept his **** out of the interns, so that Gore wouldn't have had to fear using him in battleground states in 2000.
:shrug:

CooCooCachoo
Mar 15th, 2006, 02:47 PM
They are finally coming to their senses.

*JR*
Mar 16th, 2006, 01:20 AM
Here's a theory I developed on why the Florida vote should have been thrown out in 2000 and rerun. And no, its not the failure to count all the ballots with "hanging chads" (the newspapers later did statewide, though it was symbolic, and Bush was still ahead) or even the Miami-Dade False Felons list. Its based on the Palm Beach county ballot, with Pat Buchanan's name and chad near Joe Lieberman's name. (As a candidate for VP, he didn't get a chad as one votes for Pres. and VP together).

And yes, Democratic Dunce Theresa LePore (the county Supervisor of Elections, who designed it) ran a big sample of it in the Palm Beach Post, etc. Why she failed to realize that the newer residents of the state, including many elderly Jews proudly "voting for" Lieberman, the first Jew ever on a major party ticket, being confused is beyond me. But nobody filed an objection by the deadline.

Here's the rub: yes, your choice of candidates belongs 2U. Yes, its your responsibility to understand the ballot, or get a poll worker to help you (who's fluent in your language if desired, if its the mother tongue of many ppl in the area). So if this were an election for a countywide office, tough luck. But it wasn't. Given our electoral college system, Gore voters "from Maine to Hawaii" (who never had a chance 2C that cockeyed ballot) had their votes rendered meaningless.

As did those in the rest of Florida, as technically its 51 separate statewide elections (including in DC). Al Gore did concede after 36 days in court. But as my onetime Governor when I was still a Nooo Yawker (Mario Cuomo) observed then: "Just because I voted for Al Gore, he doesn't have the right to determine what happens to my vote". The Supreme Court would never have bought this, but we could have "pre-emulated" Ukraine's (peaceful) 2005 Orange Revolution, and basically shut down the country until a new vote in Florida was arranged for.

vogus
Mar 16th, 2006, 01:27 AM
i don't understand why people are so fixated on these approval rating things when Bush doesn't have to face the voters again. It doesn't matter if his approval rating is 99% or 1%. Either way, he's in charge until the end of his term, and there's nothing the public can do about it. If the American people don't approve of Bush, they shouldnt have voted for him in the first place. Dumbos.

Pheobo
Mar 16th, 2006, 01:46 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/13/bush.poll/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.

Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation.(Watch what the poll might mean at election time -- 1:49)

Pollsters quizzed 1,001 adults Friday through Sunday for the poll; most questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Fifty-seven percent said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, near September's record high of 59 percent. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 points.(Interactive: Poll results)

Bush's approval rating of 36 percent is the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored in November. The previous CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted February 28-March 1, put his job approval at 38 percent. (View Bush's second term approval ratings)

Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest poll said they disapproved of his performance in office, the same figure as in the last poll. (Read full results document -- PDF)

Certain about Iraq
The poll found Bush's fortunes are tied to Iraq, where more than 2,300 U.S. troops have been killed.

Two-thirds of those surveyed told pollsters that history will remember Bush most for the March 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the battle against a persistent insurgency that followed the Hussein regime's collapse.

Bush launched his latest effort to shore up support for the war Monday, accusing Iran of providing explosives used to attack American troops and telling an audience at George Washington University that U.S. forces were "making progress" against insurgents.

He also praised Iraqis for averting civil war despite the sectarian violence that came after February's bombing of the al-Askariya mosque in Samarra, a revered Shiite Muslim shrine.

"The situation in Iraq is still tense, and we're still seeing acts of sectarian violence and reprisal," Bush said. "Yet out of this crisis, we've also seen signs of a hopeful future." (Full story)

With congressional elections approaching, public discontent with the war appeared to be taking a toll on Bush's fellow Republicans.

Only 32 percent polled over the weekend said they thought Bush had a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq, while 67 percent said he did not.

Only 25 percent said Democrats had a clear plan -- but 48 percent said Democrats would do a better job managing the issue, while 40 percent favored Republicans.

Democrats enjoy lead
Those figures, along with weakened support for GOP handling of the battle against terrorism, have given Democrats a 16 percentage point lead over Republicans when registered voters are asked which party they will support in November.

Democrats drew the support of 55 percent of the registered voters questioned, while 39 percent said they would be voting Republican in the fall. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Republicans held a 4-point advantage over Democrats on dealing with terrorism, 45 to 41 percent. And despite increasing optimism about economic conditions, Democrats held a strong lead over the GOP, 53-38 percent, when asked which party would better manage the economy.

To make the case for war, Bush and other top officials said the invasion of Iraq was necessary to strip the country of illicit stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. inspectors later concluded that Iraq had dismantled its weapons programs under U.N. sanctions in the 1990s, though it had concealed some weapons-related research from the United Nations.

The latest poll found 51 percent of Americans believed the administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, while 46 percent disagreed. That question had a sampling error of 4.5 percentage points as well.



:sad:

Aren't you the one who tries to defend him all the time?

Lord Nelson
Mar 16th, 2006, 12:03 PM
Aren't you the one who tries to defend him all the time?
Are you blind or what? All tennislover did was post an article. Those are not his words. Besides he is not like sheep like some people are. He seems pretty wise and has his own opinions instead of dividing up the world into black and white. Oh and Bush will still complete his term so who cares what his polls are. :p

meyerpl
Mar 16th, 2006, 01:35 PM
i don't understand why people are so fixated on these approval rating things when Bush doesn't have to face the voters again. It doesn't matter if his approval rating is 99% or 1%. Either way, he's in charge until the end of his term
It matters. It matters during the mid-term election, the results of which often reflect the President's popularity. It matters at the point of the next Presidential election because an unpopular President is a liability for his party. It matters in terms of the President's influence with Congress. A President with a low approval rating has a slim chance of pushing his agenda through Congress or sustaining vetoes. It matters.

Lord Nelson
Mar 16th, 2006, 01:56 PM
It matters. It matters during the mid-term election, the results of which often reflect the President's popularity. It matters at the point of the next Presidential election because an unpopular President is a liability for his party. It matters in terms of the President's influence with Congress. A President with a low approval rating has a slim chance of pushing his agenda through Congress or sustaining vetoes. It matters.
You should be a poet since you like to use the same word here and there.

It Matters
by
Meyer

It matters, the sky is blue and the moon is round,
it matters, the sun is round and so is the earth
oh it matters, tennis rules and so does soccer
So don't forget it matters, this poem and the author who wrote it.

Needless to say, poems are not my thing but Meyer is the King not me.

MisterQ
Mar 16th, 2006, 02:07 PM
i don't understand why people are so fixated on these approval rating things when Bush doesn't have to face the voters again. It doesn't matter if his approval rating is 99% or 1%. Either way, he's in charge until the end of his term, and there's nothing the public can do about it. If the American people don't approve of Bush, they shouldnt have voted for him in the first place. Dumbos.

This may be one reason to consider revoking the 22nd amendment. This is the amendment which limits a president to two terms in office. It was ratified in 1951, after FDR's four consecutive terms. Presidents in their second terms would surely be motivated to do better if their reelection was at stake. (On the flip side of this, removing the amendment would give the electorate yet another chance to elect Bush to office....)

meyerpl
Mar 16th, 2006, 02:21 PM
You should be a ort since you like to use the same word here and there.

It Matters
by
Meyer

It matters, the sky is blue and the moon is round,
it matters, the sun is round and so is the earth
oh it matters, tennis rules and so does soccer
So don't forget it matters, this poem and the author eho wrote it.

Needless to say, poems are not my thing but Meyer is the King not me.
A king I am not, I'm more of a jester,
no poet am I, but a word molester.
My failings with verbiage are evident,
But I'm not as inept as the President.
He sputters and stumbles spontaniously,
and butchers the language most gleefully.
The fact that his ratings have sunk so low,
is proof that you reap just what you sow.
I'm no Dr. Seuss, I am what I am,
but I still won't eat green eggs and ham.

Pheobo
Mar 16th, 2006, 05:47 PM
Are you blind or what? All tennislover did was post an article. Those are not his words. Besides he is not like sheep like some people are. He seems pretty wise and has his own opinions instead of dividing up the world into black and white. Oh and Bush will still complete his term so who cares what his polls are. :p


I was actually asking, as I was not sure. Usually people don't post things that contradicted their (diluted) beliefs.

meyerpl
Mar 16th, 2006, 10:37 PM
"If 36% of the American people approve of what I'm doing, does that mean that the other 64% of the American people approve of what I'm not doing?"

-George W. Bush

tennisbum79
Mar 16th, 2006, 11:45 PM
New poll numbers from Wall Street Journal/NBC now show that a sizeable number of the population has gone a step further in their assessment of the president.



48 % of them think he (The President) is incompetent, liar or an idiot.



This poll question and the percentage who answered is beyond a simple disagreement with the president policy, and now questioning his character.

This is a dangerous threshold to cross. Because it did not just happen all of a sudden, it built gradually to this point from glowing admiration of the president character, values, demeanor after 9/11 to a place where they now feel all that was just mirage.

The president took them for a long ride. He was not competent, he did not bring dignity and honor to the White House, and he does not really know what he is doing. He does everything on gut feeling, a hunch.

John A Roark
Mar 17th, 2006, 12:57 AM
And he's still the president, elected by a majority (who tennisbum cannot speak for)--he will remain so for another twenty-two months.
Boohoo.

tennisbum79
Mar 17th, 2006, 01:32 AM
And he's still the president, elected by a majority (who tennisbum cannot speak for)--he will remain so for another twenty-two months.
Boohoo.

No one doubts he was elected by the majority of the people. But the majority have now found he was not what he says he was.

I believe Nixon was also elected by the majority of the people as well.



It is a serious matter when voters question the president's integrity, competence and call him an idiot and liar.

You are just responding the way he would: stay the course hoping to get different result with the same actions. Well the American people now think they cannot get different result with the same actions, that is why that poll question got that type of numbers it got.



That would have been unthinkable just a year ago. Even Republican members of congress are now questioning the competence of the people around him. They may be adept at winning elections, but their ability to run the country is lacking.

They seem to be in perpetual campaign mode

Infiniti2001
Mar 17th, 2006, 01:43 AM
By Will Durst, AlterNet. Posted March 15, 2006.

http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/Columnists_durst.jpg
Impeachment just isn't proper punishment for the evil, cowardly, imperialistic slime buckets of the Bush administration.

I don't know about you guys, but I am so sick and tired of these lying, thieving, holier-than-thou, right-wing, cruel, crude, rude, gauche, coarse, crass, cocky, corrupt, dishonest, debauched, degenerate, dissolute, swaggering, lawyer shooting, bullhorn shouting, infrastructure destroying, hysterical, history defying, finger- pointing, puppy stomping, roommate appointing, pretzel choking, collateral damaging, aspersion casting, wedding party bombing, clear cutting, torturing, jobs outsourcing, torture outsourcing, "so-called" compassionate-conservative, women's rights eradicating, Medicare cutting, uncouth, spiteful, boorish, vengeful, noxious, homophobic, xenophobic, xylophonic, racist, sexist, ageist, fascist, cashist, audaciously stupid, brazenly selfish, lethally ignorant, journalist purchasing, genocide ignoring, corporation kissing, poverty inducing, crooked, coercive, autocratic, primitive, uppity, high-handed, domineering, arrogant, inhuman, inhumane, insolent, know-it-all, snotty, pompous, contemptuous, supercilious, gutless, spineless, shameless, avaricious, poisonous, imperious, merciless, graceless, tactless, brutish, brutal, Karl Roving, backward thinking, persistent vegetative state grandstanding, nuclear option threatening, evolution denying, irony deprived, depraved, insincere, conceited, perverted, pre-emptory invading of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, 35-day-vacation taking, bribe soliciting, incapable, inbred, hellish, proud for no apparent reason, smarty pants, loudmouth, bullying, swell-headed, ethnic cleansing, ethics-eluding, domestic spying, medical marijuana-busting, kick-backing, Halliburtoning, New Deal disintegrating, narcissistic, undiplomatic, blustering, malevolent, demonizing, baby seal-clubbing, Duke Cunninghamming, hectoring, verbally flatulent, pro-bad- anti-good, Moslem-baiting, photo-op arranging, hurricane disregarding, oil company hugging, judge packing, science disputing, faith based mathematics advocating, armament selling, nonsense spewing, education ravaging, whiny, unscrupulous, greedy exponential factor fifteen, fraudulent, CIA outing, redistricting, anybody who disagrees with them slandering, fact twisting, ally alienating, betraying, god and flag waving, scare mongering, Cindy Sheehan libeling, phony question asking, just won't get off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, two- faced, inept, callous, menacing, your hand under a rock- the maggoty remains of a marsupial, oppressive, vulgar, antagonistic, brush clearing suck- up, showboating, tyrannizing, peace hating, water and air and ground and media polluting which is pretty much all the polluting you can get, deadly, illegal, pernicious, lethal, haughty, venomous, virulent, ineffectual, mephitic, egotistic, bloodthirsty, incompetent, hypocritical, did I say evil, I'm not sure if I said evil, because I want to make sure I say evil…

EVIL, cretinous, fool, toad, buttwipe, lizardstick, cowardly, lackey imperialistic tool slime buckets in the Bush Administration that I could just spit.

Impeachment? Hell no. Impalement. Upon the sharp and righteous sword of the people's justice.

Listen to Will Durst's Will & Willie Show, Monday through Friday, 7-10am PST, on KQKE, 960 AM. Or listen long distance at quakeradio.com.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/33598

The world's most righteous sentence : Don't Impeach; Impale :tape:

Diesel
Mar 17th, 2006, 02:20 AM
Poll numbers mean nothing. The intelligence and validity of the low marks seem to be negated when you think that the US elected him once and then went ahead and did it again.

wta_zuperfann
Mar 17th, 2006, 03:11 AM
"Poll numbers mean nothing".

True. But Bush's lack of popularity, especially after tragedies like this:

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/family-killed.jpg

are what lead to further counter violence and more deaths.

tennisbum79
Mar 17th, 2006, 12:26 PM
Poll numbers mean nothing. The intelligence and validity of the low marks seem to be negated when you think that the US elected him once and then went ahead and did it again.

You are mistaken, poll numbers do mean a great deal to politicians.
Just look at the latest many rebuff of Bush initiatives or decision.

Harriet Miers supreme court nomination, Dubai port deal, Michal Brown firing, etc..
Both Congress, who oppose these decicions, and the president who initially made these decisions and backed down, based their action on poll numbers.

wta_zuperfann
Mar 17th, 2006, 08:56 PM
Congress, who oppose these decicions, and the president who initially made these decisions and backed down, based their action on poll numbers.



Interesting point.

For many months we have heard many complaints from Bush and from his principal spokesperson Condoleeza Rice that Iran has armed and financed Iraqi "terrorists" and that it is responsible for all manner of instability in the Middle East. To this day neither has given the Congress even a shred of evidence to support these inflammatory claims. Even worse is the fact that Congress has stupidly sat by and allowed this testimony in Congressional hearings (under oath) but has not demanded any evidence to support these claims.

A recent poll revealed that a majority of Americans favor the USA taking armed action against Iran in retaliation for these unproven acts of military aggression.


But when Marine General Peter Pace was asked by a newsman if he had any proof that these claims were supported by any manifest evidence he replied, "No, I do not".


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401083.html


Top U.S. Military Official: No Evidence of Iran Involvement in Iraq

By Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 14, 2006; 4:30 PM

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said today he has no evidence the Iranian government has been sending military equipment and personnel into neighboring Iraq.

On Monday, President Bush suggested Iran was involved in making roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, that are being used in Iraq. And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week accused Iran of sending members of its Revolutionary Guard to conduct operations in Iraq.


Today, Pace, the top U.S. military official, was asked at a Pentagon news conference if he has proof that Iran's government is sponsoring these activities.

"I do not, sir," Pace said.

The Bush administration's statements about alleged Iranian involvement in Iraq come amid increasing tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program.

Rumsfeld, standing beside Pace, said today it is difficult to ascertain whether the Iranian government is directly involved in sending military equipment and personnel to Iraq.

"As to equipment, unless you physically see it coming in in a government-sponsored vehicle, or with government-sponsored troops, you can't know it" comes from Iran's government, Rumsfeld said. "All you know is that you find equipment -- weapons, explosives, whatever -- in a country that came from the neighboring country.

"With respect to people, it's very difficult to tie a thread precisely to the government of Iran. As we all know, there are pilgrimages where Shi'a come from Iran and around the world to go to holy places in Iraq, and they come by the thousands, sometimes tens of thousands. And so, that is also a difficult" to prove.

Rumsfeld again declined to offer a timetable for withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq. On a day when police around Baghdad discovered more than 80 bodies -- apparent victims of the sectarian violence that has gripped the country since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra -- Rumsfeld called the day-to-day events in Iraq "clearly a very difficult situation."

Asked how long Americans might be fighting in Iraq, Rumsfeld said: "We know that insurgencies can last five, eight, 10, 12, 15 years and we've said that. We also know that insurgencies ultimately are defeated, not by foreign occupying forces but by the indigenous forces of that particular country. . . . "

Rumsfeld added: "Now, the implication to your question is, do we think we're going to be there four or five years more in terms of large numbers of U.S. ground forces? And the answer is no, I don't think so. Those are decisions for the president. They're decisions for the country."

Bush vowed yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained troops from that country by the end of this year. But he made no commitments about withdrawing U.S. troops.

Rumsfeld said there are too many uncertainties to make such commitments. "Now if anyone in the world was smart enough to know precisely what the behavior of Iran, what the behavior of Syria, what the level of the insurgency would be; how fast they'll get a government; how confident the people will be in the new government, then one could probably draw a line and say, 'Gee, the trajectory of our troop reduction ought to be about like this,' " Rumsfeld said.


************************************************** *******



Slower but surely Americans are again being deceived into favoring another war despite the fact that no evidence has been presented to support even one of these claims that have been made by Bush and by Rice.

The next question is, will the Bush regime plant false evidence or provoke a confrontation in order to justify his next war?

And why hasn't Rice been charged with contempt of Congress for perjury because she lied under oath?

tennislover
Mar 17th, 2006, 09:15 PM
...but the majority of freed Iraqi people supports him (I suppose)
that matters.

tennislover
Mar 17th, 2006, 09:18 PM
By Will Durst, AlterNet. Posted March 15, 2006.

http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/Columnists_durst.jpg
Impeachment just isn't proper punishment for the evil, cowardly, imperialistic slime buckets of the Bush administration.

I don't know about you guys, but I am so sick and tired of these lying, thieving, holier-than-thou, right-wing, cruel, crude, rude, gauche, coarse, crass, cocky, corrupt, dishonest, debauched, degenerate, dissolute, swaggering, lawyer shooting, bullhorn shouting, infrastructure destroying, hysterical, history defying, finger- pointing, puppy stomping, roommate appointing, pretzel choking, collateral damaging, aspersion casting, wedding party bombing, clear cutting, torturing, jobs outsourcing, torture outsourcing, "so-called" compassionate-conservative, women's rights eradicating, Medicare cutting, uncouth, spiteful, boorish, vengeful, noxious, homophobic, xenophobic, xylophonic, racist, sexist, ageist, fascist, cashist, audaciously stupid, brazenly selfish, lethally ignorant, journalist purchasing, genocide ignoring, corporation kissing, poverty inducing, crooked, coercive, autocratic, primitive, uppity, high-handed, domineering, arrogant, inhuman, inhumane, insolent, know-it-all, snotty, pompous, contemptuous, supercilious, gutless, spineless, shameless, avaricious, poisonous, imperious, merciless, graceless, tactless, brutish, brutal, Karl Roving, backward thinking, persistent vegetative state grandstanding, nuclear option threatening, evolution denying, irony deprived, depraved, insincere, conceited, perverted, pre-emptory invading of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, 35-day-vacation taking, bribe soliciting, incapable, inbred, hellish, proud for no apparent reason, smarty pants, loudmouth, bullying, swell-headed, ethnic cleansing, ethics-eluding, domestic spying, medical marijuana-busting, kick-backing, Halliburtoning, New Deal disintegrating, narcissistic, undiplomatic, blustering, malevolent, demonizing, baby seal-clubbing, Duke Cunninghamming, hectoring, verbally flatulent, pro-bad- anti-good, Moslem-baiting, photo-op arranging, hurricane disregarding, oil company hugging, judge packing, science disputing, faith based mathematics advocating, armament selling, nonsense spewing, education ravaging, whiny, unscrupulous, greedy exponential factor fifteen, fraudulent, CIA outing, redistricting, anybody who disagrees with them slandering, fact twisting, ally alienating, betraying, god and flag waving, scare mongering, Cindy Sheehan libeling, phony question asking, just won't get off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, two- faced, inept, callous, menacing, your hand under a rock- the maggoty remains of a marsupial, oppressive, vulgar, antagonistic, brush clearing suck- up, showboating, tyrannizing, peace hating, water and air and ground and media polluting which is pretty much all the polluting you can get, deadly, illegal, pernicious, lethal, haughty, venomous, virulent, ineffectual, mephitic, egotistic, bloodthirsty, incompetent, hypocritical, did I say evil, I'm not sure if I said evil, because I want to make sure I say evil…

EVIL, cretinous, fool, toad, buttwipe, lizardstick, cowardly, lackey imperialistic tool slime buckets in the Bush Administration that I could just spit.

Impeachment? Hell no. Impalement. Upon the sharp and righteous sword of the people's justice.

Listen to Will Durst's Will & Willie Show, Monday through Friday, 7-10am PST, on KQKE, 960 AM. Or listen long distance at quakeradio.com.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/33598

The world's most righteous sentence : Don't Impeach; Impale :tape:

that article reflects exactly Bill Laden's point of view.......

wta_zuperfann
Mar 18th, 2006, 04:40 AM
but the majority of freed Iraqi people supports him (I suppose)
that matters.



I am all for the right of self-determination for everyone.

But if the majority of Iraqis support Bush as you say, please explain why there have been rallies of 300000+ people protesting in Baghdad against Bush's continued occupation of Iraq (with many multiples of thousands protesting elsewhere)? Why is the American flag burned everywhere? Why are the troops subjected to shootings with assassins being allowed to escape into the crowds and with nobody bothering to point out their whereabouts or escape routes? Why did a poll taken a few months ago reveal that 72 % of Iraqis say that it was perfectly permissable to kill American occupational troops?

And most significantly, where are the pro-Bush rallies?

tennislover
Mar 18th, 2006, 12:14 PM
but the majority of freed Iraqi people supports him (I suppose)
that matters.



I am all for the right of self-determination for everyone.

But if the majority of Iraqis support Bush as you say, please explain why there have been rallies of 300000+ people protesting in Baghdad against Bush's continued occupation of Iraq (with many multiples of thousands protesting elsewhere)? Why is the American flag burned everywhere? Why are the troops subjected to shootings with assassins being allowed to escape into the crowds and with nobody bothering to point out their whereabouts or escape routes? Why did a poll taken a few months ago reveal that 72 % of Iraqis say that it was perfectly permissable to kill American occupational troops?

And most significantly, where are the pro-Bush rallies?


unfortunately fundamentalists are a lot there..... :sad:

wta_zuperfann
Mar 18th, 2006, 01:46 PM
unfortunately fundamentalists are a lot there.....


The factors that I wrote above, coupled with your acknowledgement suggests, if anything, that the majority of Iraqis oppose Bush. And if you agree that everyone has a right of self determination (as per the UN's foundational ideal) then it is time for Bush to leave Iraq.