PDA

View Full Version : Bush Approval Falls to 33%!!!! And people define him as IDIOT, IMCOMPETENT, and LIAR


RVD
Mar 18th, 2006, 06:43 AM
According to the very REPUTABLE PEW RESEARCH CENTER. :worship:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=271The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago.:haha: :haha: :haha:
I have a few other choice words, but I'd probably get banned. :lol:
Maybe, just maybe, America is waking up. But why is America ALWAYS the last to get the pull it's head from its azz when it comes to political mistakes? :tape:

Blonde_Ambition7
Mar 18th, 2006, 06:45 AM
does an approval rating do anything?

Wigglytuff
Mar 18th, 2006, 07:09 AM
true that regardless of his crimes there will be supporters (as can be said for anyone who is evil) but with low ratings it is likely that other politicians with backbones will not support him in his plot to destroy the future of americas children.

Lord Nelson
Mar 18th, 2006, 12:42 PM
true that regardless of his crimes there will be supporters (as can be said for anyone who is evil) but with low ratings it is likely that other politicians with backbones will not support him in his plot to destroy the future of americas children.
I thought that in your eyes no one could be defined as evil. Anyway Bush has been fine in dealing with terrorism. Even the dems are scared of the ports going to Dubai whch fortunately won't happen. The UAE has given a lot of money to terrorist groups.

^bibi^
Mar 18th, 2006, 12:43 PM
And yet he will still be president for 2 years... :o

SloKid
Mar 18th, 2006, 12:48 PM
does an approval rating do anything?
Are you serious about asking this? :o :lol: :ignore:

No, it has no effect, it's just how people percieve him doing his job.


And it took them how long to figure out he was all an idiot, incompetent and a liar? :rolleyes:

Oh and Lord Nelson feel free to bad rep me for criticizing your idol and what not :wavey:

wta_zuperfann
Mar 18th, 2006, 01:51 PM
Once again, the polls show low approval numbers for Bush and what does he do next? He starts a major military offensive campaign in order to show that his war is a "success". But what does he find in that campaign? NOTHING!


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1594962.htm


Saturday, March 18, 2006. 11:12am (AEDT)
The US military says while 48 people had been detained in Iraq, no insurgents had so far been found.


Iraq operation fails to find insurgents

US and Iraqi forces have spent a second day hunting for insurgents in villages and fields north of the capital Baghdad.

While troops have seized weapons, they have not encountered any insurgents.

Completing the second day of Operation Swarmer, US and Iraqi soldiers seized mortar rounds, rockets, explosives, and high-powered cordless telephones used to remotely detonate roadside bombs.

The US military says while 48 people had been detained, no insurgents had so far been found.

But the deputy-governor of the Salaheddin province north of Baghdad says at least one key insurgent leader, named as Jaish Mohammed, had been captured.

About 900 Iraqi and US troops are scouring villages and fields around the city of Samarra, which is regarded as an insurgent stronghold.

A spokesman for the US military, Lieutenant Colonel Craig Collier, says it has been difficult to differentiate between insurgents and the local community.

"Sometimes it's very easy, we'll find the guys laying IEDs that's pretty much a giveaway or who fire on us, often we're given tips by our local Iraqis who point out that some of their neighbours or some of the people who just moved into the area are bad guys and we go detain them," he said.

"Much of our information comes from intelligence from the local Iraqis."

The US military says the major operation could continue for several days.
Sectarian killings

Meanwhile graphic video footage showing the mutilated bodies of dozens of Iraqi Shiites has confirmed fears that wide scale sectarian killings continue across Iraq.

It shows a mass grave of 48 Shiite men who were murdered as they travelled near the Sunni dominated town of Nahrwan, half an hour east of Baghdad, in December.

The recording was made by Iraqi authorities who were led to the scene of the killings by a five-year-old boy who survived the attack.

He was forced to watch as his father and two cousins were shot, and his brother was stabbed to death by Sunni militia.

The tape, shown on ABC's Lateline program, was obtained by Fairfax journalist Paul McGeough who says it reflects strong divisions within the Iraqi population.

"What utterly stunned me was that classic image of the 48 bodies in the ditch. It is an appalling shot and coming on the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, it poses all sorts of questions about where Iraq has come to and where Iraq is going," he said.




Further proof that his war is a dismal failure.

Scotso
Mar 18th, 2006, 02:52 PM
And yet he will still be president for 2 years... :o

Yes.

The United States really needs some kind of system for removing extremely unpopular politicians from office.

dementieva's fan
Mar 18th, 2006, 03:04 PM
I thought that in your eyes no one could be defined as evil. Anyway Bush has been fine in dealing with terrorism. Even the dems are scared of the ports going to Dubai whch fortunately won't happen. The UAE has given a lot of money to terrorist groups.

UAE and 9/11 ... Dubai has an airport, and the terrorists used it to fly through it to the US..OMG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:
UAE has banks, and the money the terrorsits got passed through those banks ..OMG^2!!!! :eek:

These exact same terrorists landed in some US airport OMG!!!!! :eek:

And then used some US bank to get the money. OMG!!!!!!! :eek:

They also rented cars/appartments/, visited strip clubs in the US!!!!!!!! :eek:

Got flying lessons, ALL IN THE US!!!!! :eek:

Strangelove
Mar 18th, 2006, 03:30 PM
And it took them how long to figure out he was all an idiot, incompetent and a liar? :rolleyes:
At least 2 years too long :sad:

Rollo
Mar 18th, 2006, 03:48 PM
Well-if you lot of Democrats are smart and nominate a decent candidate (NOT Hillary Clinton) then you might actually win an election here in 2008 :)

Paldias
Mar 18th, 2006, 04:30 PM
:shrug: As a Canadian I'm a bit skeptical. I've talked to many of my American friends and they just say 'people just say that'. :tape: They were saying this before the last Presidential Election and the dumbass was still voted in. :o

^bibi^
Mar 18th, 2006, 04:32 PM
Yes.

The United States really needs some kind of system for removing extremely unpopular politicians from office.

Isn't it what we call "democracy" ? :lol:

timafi
Mar 18th, 2006, 04:35 PM
anyone who voted for the son of a man who armed Hussein years ago( CONTA war) during his time as CIA director while Reagan was head of states is :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo:
ask Oliver North :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

azdaja
Mar 18th, 2006, 04:37 PM
politicians with backbones
do they still exist?

Wigglytuff
Mar 18th, 2006, 04:38 PM
I thought that in your eyes no one could be defined as evil.
i would NEVER say that, you liar... particularly not to someone who, like you, finds joy in praising h*tler.... :rolleyes:

Wigglytuff
Mar 18th, 2006, 04:39 PM
do they still exist?
no they dont :o i stand corrected :) :(

Drimal
Mar 18th, 2006, 04:48 PM
I've found a really funny website with cartoons :lol: : http://www.dorkinglabs.com/bush.php?id=39

darrinbaker00
Mar 18th, 2006, 06:54 PM
I said it before, and I'll say it again: January 20, 2009 cannot come quickly enough. :fiery:

timafi
Mar 18th, 2006, 07:37 PM
I said it before, and I'll say it again: January 20, 2009 cannot come quickly enough. :fiery:
AMEN :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

drake3781
Mar 18th, 2006, 07:51 PM
AMEN :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Why could people not see this during the elections!!!

I don't mind being right and watching people figure it out later and have to suffer for it, but this time it's not good enough because the damage this man has done will take generations to fix.

Reap what you sow, the slight majority of Americans who are too dumb or ethically challenged to make good decisions. But unfortunately all of us have to suffer for it.

Infiniti2001
Mar 18th, 2006, 07:53 PM
Once again, the polls show low approval numbers for Bush and what does he do next? He starts a major military offensive campaign in order to show that his war is a "success". But what does he find in that campaign? NOTHING!
.[/B]

Remember when they were criticizing Clinton for supposedly starting a military event in the Balkans to take attention away from the impending impeachment? Doesn't it all seem so trivial now? How many people must die for Bush's ego and Cheney's Halliburton stock? :fiery:

timafi
Mar 18th, 2006, 09:19 PM
Why could people not see this during the elections!!!

I don't mind being right and watching people figure it out later and have to suffer for it, but this time it's not good enough because the damage this man has done will take generations to fix.

Reap what you sow, the slight majority of Americans who are too dumb or ethically challenged to make good decisions. But unfortunately all of us have to suffer for it.
no shit :mad: :mad: :mad:

wta_zuperfann
Mar 19th, 2006, 02:46 AM
~~ Doesn't it all seem so trivial now? ~~


Amen. And there's more to this scandal:


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0318-21.htm

Published on Saturday, March 18, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

What Might Have Been
By Gary Alan Scott

There is no doubt that the four fatal hijackings on September 11, 2001 shocked and frightened not only Americans but the entire world. The French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed the next day in its banner headline: “We are all Americans”. But four and a half years later so much has changed. The good will and the outpouring of sympathy and empathy generated by those attacks has turned to contempt for America’s destabilizing policies, this administration’s unilateralism, its hypocrisy, its bullying tactics, and its disregard for human rights and international law.

It is worth recalling that, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, most of the world’s people, including, most importantly perhaps, our former allies and well-wishers, believed overwhelmingly that America was a greater threat to world security than either al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. This was true not only of Middle Eastern countries, but of practically all of Western Europe and the two countries with whom we share a common border, Mexico and Canada.

In what follows, I shall not rehash the lies and incompetence that have characterized U.S. policies in Iraq, nor shall I enumerate again the many ways in which our Constitution has been violated, along with the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. Instead, I think it is a worthwhile exercise for every American to ask ourselves: What might have been, had this administration chosen to pursue a vastly different approach than the one it followed?

What might have been if we had a President with vision, someone, for example, with the vision of a John F. Kennedy when he proclaimed in the early 1960’s that “We will put a man on the moon by the end of this decade.” As Bill Maher showed so well in his book, If You Ride Alone, You Ride With bin Laden, how different the outcome might have been if the president had pledged “to free ourselves from our addiction to foreign oil, or at least from Persian Gulf oil by the end of the present decade” instead of merely noting this addiction in the 2006 State of the Union address while he was simultaneously working to undermine its treatment?

What might have been if the President really had been “a uniter and not a divider”, instead of telling the rest of the world that “you are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” Take a moment and reflect on the differences in the coalition assembled for the first “Gulf War” and the share of the financial and troop burden that Americans have borne for this more recent little adventure in Mesopotamia. Current estimates of the cost thus far are approaching $800 billion and the total bill has recently been projected to be between $1 and $2 trillion. The U.S. share of the cost for the first Gulf War was $7 billion! Oh, what a trillion or two could do for this country! What might have been if we had been able to invest it in infrastructure, education, and debt-reduction? And how much safer might we now be had we invested just a fraction of this money to secure ports, subways, nuclear facilities, chemical plants, levees, borders, and so on? Likewise, American families have suffered almost 20,000 casualties, including more than 2,300 deaths. Great Britain ranks second with just over 100 deaths.

How different our foreign policy might have been had we empanelled a group of experts to study the root causes of terrorism and had we initiated a nationwide conversation about the roots of terrorism and about what drives people to give up their lives to suicide? The pathetic rationale that “they hate our way of life” and that “they hate our freedom” would be comical if it were not so tragically naïve.

What might have been if the President had called on Americans to sacrifice something other than our civil liberties? How much safer might we be now if the President had called upon the wealthiest Americans to sacrifice some of the profits they have made, at least in part because of our country’s infrastructure, an educated workforce, low tax rates and a robust economy? Would not genuine patriotism have dictated that the richest Americans, those who have benefited most from America’s prosperity, would make some financial sacrifices to make our country more secure?

How much safer would we be now if we had continued, or even accelerated the Nunn-Luger program to reign in loose nukes, instead of planning to make nuclear weapons that are smaller and easier to use? And how much safer would we be if we were really serious about non-proliferation rather than offering nuclear technology to India and dreaming of weaponizing outer space in pursuit of what is called “full spectrum dominance”? (See the National Security Strategy of 2002.)

What might have been if we had translated the world’s support after 9/11 into a serious attempt to solve, once and for all, the problem between Israel and the Palestinians? And how much safer might we now be if we had not abandoned Afghanistan to the opium lords? What might have been possible, if the President had immediately and strongly supported the creation of the 9/11 Commission and allowed this commission to do its job and had then gone on to follow its recommendations, instead of fighting the process all the way and then performing poorly in implementing the Commission’s recommendations?

How much safer might Americans be now, if the U.S. were not the world’s largest seller of weapons and weapons systems? What might have been if Americans had rallied to say “NO” to armed conflict in the wake of the violent attacks of 9/11, and instead had explored seriously peaceful (non-violent) alternatives to “shock and awe”? And how much safer would America be now, if we had not abused and tortured some 15,000, mostly innocent, people under our “guardianship”?

It’s food for thought, my fellow Americans, and it should make all of us feel outraged!

Dr. Gary Alan Scott is an associate professor of philosophy at Loyola College in Maryland. You can reach him at GaryAlanScott@yahoo.com.

Lord Nelson
Mar 19th, 2006, 11:47 AM
Remember when they were criticizing Clinton for supposedly starting a military event in the Balkans to take attention away from the impending impeachment? Doesn't it all seem so trivial now? How many people must die for Bush's ego and Cheney's Halliburton stock? :fiery:
ok I get it now, the President should be a Democrat in order to be involved in a war like with clinton whop by the way did a miserable job in Somalia and also in yugoslavia were when Serbs are chucked out of Croatia no one does anything but when Albanians are chucked by Serbs from Kosovo, Clinton and co. start bombing the Serbs. At least Bush is not so biased with Iraqis. He doenot favor shiites or Kurds over Sunnis. Down the line everyone will remember the Bush Presidency. :yeah:

iPatty
Mar 19th, 2006, 11:57 AM
I'm glad to know that I'm not alone on the 'IMPEACH BUSH' campaign. :lol:

I live in a 'backwater' kind of town, full of rednecks. When I'm ridin' down the road, you wouldn't believe how many Bush/Cheney signs I see. One time, I rolled down the window and shouted, "It's 2006, moron! Time to take it down!" :p :yeah:

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2006, 01:00 PM
ok I get it now, the President should be a Democrat in order to be involved in a war like with clinton whop by the way did a miserable job in Somalia and also in yugoslavia were when Serbs are chucked out of Croatia no one does anything but when Albanians are chucked by Serbs from Kosovo, Clinton and co. start bombing the Serbs. At least Bush is not so biased with Iraqis. He doenot favor shiites or Kurds over Sunnis. Down the line everyone will remember the Bush Presidency. :yeah:

Really the difference is Clinton was involved in wars he actually believed would help America.
Bush was in a tough spot with the economy and decided the best way to get us out of that is to go back to 160 year old policies and start an unneccessary war with Iraq.
I think we've stopped that dependence on Middle East oil likely because we now occupy a country where we can just let Haliburton steal it and then charge the American people even more than OPEC would for a barrel.
So an oligarchy of the rich continue as America's economy continues its unsteadiness.
Considering there are twice as many billionaires as there were 4 years ago, it looks like I am probably right.

In 2000, after all is said and done Clinton made 20 million jobs during his presidency.
We have been losing 3 million American jobs to outsourcing every year since Bush has been president.
There's really no such thing as made in the USA anymore except for our lovely farming industry who will feed us anything just to make a buck.

We will remember the Bush presidency for likely a couple of reasons:
1) Setting back our domestic policies by almost 40 years.
2) Setting back our economy 14 years.
3) Excessive and possibly illegal use of his executive powers.
4) Unsettling the lines between Church & State
5) A civil war in the Middle East that could possibly start WW III and the extermination of the human race.

I think that covers it.

Pureracket
Mar 19th, 2006, 01:04 PM
Well-if you lot of Democrats are smart and nominate a decent candidate (NOT Hillary Clinton) then you might actually win an election here in 2008 :)Is it just a catchphrase when some people say, "Not Hillary Clinton"? I mean, she seems just as capable as anybody else.

Republicans seem to have started campaigning against her before the campaign even starts, yet Frist and McCain are getting away with voting for every measure that the PUSA has brought forth.

azdaja
Mar 19th, 2006, 01:29 PM
i'm afraid that when it gets to wars and militarism the difference between the republicans and the democrats is much smaller than some people think. kerry was not really a peace candidate, was he?

wta_zuperfann
Mar 19th, 2006, 01:29 PM
Conditions in Iraq have worsened in the 94 days that have passed since Iraq's elections in December. And there still is no Iraqi government that can govern. By many measures conditions are worse than they were a year ago, when they were worse than they had been the year before.


Conservative George Will in today's Washington Post.