PDA

View Full Version : Bush's Approval Ratings Hit New Lows


Pureracket
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:02 AM
http://imgfarm.com/images/reuters/thumbnail/2006-04-24T204749Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_1_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC.jpg (http://reuters.myway.com/image/20060424/2006-04-24T204749Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_1_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC.html?date=20060424&docid=2006-04-24T210834Z_01_WAT005409_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC)President Bush makes remarks about his plan for comprehensive immigration reform at the Hyatt...
Full Image (http://reuters.myway.com/image/20060424/2006-04-24T204749Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_1_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC.html?date=20060424&docid=2006-04-24T210834Z_01_WAT005409_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's public approval rating has fallen to 32 percent, a new low for his presidency, a CNN poll showed on Monday.

The survey also showed that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job.

Bush's poll numbers have languished below 40 percent in the last couple of months, hit by growing public opposition to the Iraq war, his support for a now-abandoned plan for a Dubai firm to take over major U.S. port operations and American anger over gas prices now topping $3 a gallon at the pump.

Continuing fallout from the Bush administration's mishandling of the initial response to Hurricane Katrina has also hurt his popularity.

Bush's approval rating as measured by CNN's poll dropped from 36 percent in March. His lowest job performance measure has been 32 percent, in a Fox News poll this month.

Bush has launched a shake-up of his White House staff in an effort to revive his popularity and stave off concerns of fellow Republicans that they could lose control of both houses of Congress in a November midterm election.

Bush's response to the gas crisis has been to warn Americans to expect a tough summer, vow that price gouging will not be tolerated and try to promote energy alternatives that will take years to get to consumers.

Hulet
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:09 AM
Poll numbers go up and down but Pres. Bush will always have my support. Hehe. I enjoyed writing that.

Pureracket
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:16 AM
Poll numbers go up and down but Pres. Bush will always have my support. Hehe. I enjoyed writing that.About as much as I enjoyed reading it. . . .LOL!!!!!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

RVD
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:26 AM
http://imgfarm.com/images/reuters/thumbnail/2006-04-24T204749Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_1_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC.jpg (http://reuters.myway.com/image/20060424/2006-04-24T204749Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_1_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC.html?date=20060424&docid=2006-04-24T210834Z_01_WAT005409_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC)President Bush makes remarks about his plan for comprehensive immigration reform at the Hyatt...
Full Image (http://reuters.myway.com/image/20060424/2006-04-24T204749Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_1_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC.html?date=20060424&docid=2006-04-24T210834Z_01_WAT005409_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-POLL-DC) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's public approval rating has fallen to 32 percent, a new low for his presidency, a CNN poll showed on Monday.

The survey also showed that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job.

Bush's poll numbers have languished below 40 percent in the last couple of months, hit by growing public opposition to the Iraq war, his support for a now-abandoned plan for a Dubai firm to take over major U.S. port operations and American anger over gas prices now topping $3 a gallon at the pump.

Continuing fallout from the Bush administration's mishandling of the initial response to Hurricane Katrina has also hurt his popularity.

Bush's approval rating as measured by CNN's poll dropped from 36 percent in March. His lowest job performance measure has been 32 percent, in a Fox News poll this month.

Bush has launched a shake-up of his White House staff in an effort to revive his popularity and stave off concerns of fellow Republicans that they could lose control of both houses of Congress in a November midterm election.

Bush's response to the gas crisis has been to warn Americans to expect a tough summer, vow that price gouging will not be tolerated and try to promote energy alternatives that will take years to get to consumers.This is what happens when your cabinet is chock-full-of Neo-Cons with nothing on their minds but world domination. :lol:
However, the domestic policy [or lack thereof] is what's really killing him. $3.20+/gallon for gas under the current tax structure is MADNESS! He was just out here in Cali this past weekend, and was buffeted by protesters. We hate this fool out here because he's soooo embarrassingly inept.

Mark my words, before he leaves office, be prepared to see that poll % dip to below 20%. :tape: :lol:

RVD
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:31 AM
Poll numbers go up and down but Pres. Bush will always have my support. Hehe. I enjoyed writing that.That's some commitment you have there, considering just about all Senatorial support and administration personnel are bailing on him faster than rats on a sinking ship. :lol: ;)

CJ07
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:34 AM
He's a lame duck so it doesn't really matter.

2006 could turn out to be another 1994 though. Or at least it should be.

Whether it'll happen or not is another question.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:45 AM
I guess I should be happy but I'm really not.
Bush isn't going to be kicked out of office so I have nothing to be happy about.
My existence with Bush in the next 2 years seems pretty set.
Trying to kill him would just be a waste of a bullet and he seems to be able to do a better job of killing himself than anyone.
With our luck Bush will finally choke off a preztel 2 weeks after he leaves office.

RVD
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:47 AM
He's a lame duck so it doesn't really matter.

2006 could turn out to be another 1994 though. Or at least it should be.

Whether it'll happen or not is another question.Sure it matters. Bush is the focal point of the Republican Party's strength. I suppose we'll see how much his waning numbers affect his party's future after November. :)

RVD
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:51 AM
I guess I should be happy but I'm really not.
Bush isn't going to be kicked out of office so I have nothing to be happy about.
My existence with Bush in the next 2 years seems pretty set.
Trying to kill him would just be a waste of a bullet and he seems to be able to do a better job of killing himself than anyone.
With our luck Bush will finally choke off a pretzel 2 weeks after he leaves office.:haha: At the moment, we're all choking on his 'pretzel' of an administration. :tape:

Hulet
Apr 25th, 2006, 01:16 AM
That's some commitment you have there, considering just about all Senatorial support and administration personnel are bailing on him faster than rats on a sinking ship. :lol: ;)
Hehe, I was only kidding but it's true that part of me has started to like Bush and even feel sort of sorry for him :o now that everyone has abandoned him. It's like this bully we used to have in the soccerfield when I was a kid. His buddies used to egg him on while we were playing soccer and he used to do everything possible to amuse them at our expense. But, when he invariably succeeded in making some kid cry, all his posse eventually turned on him.

Pureracket
Apr 25th, 2006, 01:29 AM
Hehe, I was only kidding but it's true that part of me has started to like Bush and even feel sort of sorry for him :o now that everyone has abandoned him. It's like this bully we used to have in the soccerfield when I was a kid. His buddies used to egg him on while we were playing soccer and he used to do everything possible to amuse them at our expense. But, when he invariably succeeded in making some kid cry, all his posse eventually turned on him.Well, your little cutesie approach to Bush is sweet:kiss: until I start thinking about US boys and girls in Iraq, poor health care coverage, and high gas prices.:sad:

SelesFan70
Apr 25th, 2006, 01:39 AM
Out of control spending, nary a veto for pork budgets, amnesty for illegal immigrants, selling our country down the river to Dubai and China for a buck...it's no wonder. :shrug:

I'm going to make a prediction: Gas prices will fall dramatically late summer early fall. ;)

RJWCapriati
Apr 25th, 2006, 04:37 AM
Who in the hell would approve of the job he has done? Must be some sick people!

Scotso
Apr 25th, 2006, 04:47 AM
Kick him out.

Infiniti2001
Apr 25th, 2006, 05:25 AM
Kick him out.

He's now within the margin of error to hit the 20s. Gallup is probably the most rightwing poll after the Fox News poll. The Illinois Legislature has found a loophole under which they believe state legislatures can initiate impeachment proceedings which is sure to at least generate a firestorm of attention. :eek:

Infiniti2001
Apr 25th, 2006, 05:32 AM
Meanwhile read this article from the LaTimes

EDITORIAL
Bush's third term
April 23, 2006

IF PRESIDENT BUSH HOPES the "shake-up" of his administration initiated last week will re-energize his listless presidency, he's bound to be disappointed. A far more audacious makeover is needed one that sends Vice President Dick Cheney into early retirement.

Second terms are notoriously difficult for presidents. For President Bush, it has been disastrous. His swaggering November 2004 news conference at which he bragged "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it" seems from another era. Whatever political capital existed he has squandered with the Iraq war, the Valerie Plame leak inquiry and his ill-advised plan to partly privatize Social Security. His one victory getting two reliable conservative jurists on the U.S. Supreme Court is no doubt an enduring one. But there's nothing else.


Hence the yearning for a fresh start, the illusion of a third term. Ronald Reagan, another president hobbled by a second-term scandal, did manage to jump-start his presidency in its last years by bringing new players into his inner circle and engaging in ambitious arms-reduction talks with the Soviets.

Alas, Bush doesn't seem inclined to be that bold. The president has named a new chief of staff and budget director, but this is a merely a case of old loyalists getting new titles. The White House also sent much-pummeled press secretary Scott McClellan packing and, in what seems more like truth in packaging than a real change, relieved arch-political operator Karl Rove of his responsibilities for domestic policy.

It's expected that other heads will soon roll from the Cabinet Room but not that of seemingly fireproof Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The ax is rumored to fall on Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, considered a lackluster evangelist for the president's economic policies.

Regardless of one's political bias, premature presidential lame-duckitis is not healthy for the nation. And Bush has been on the right side of some important policy debates namely, in fighting senseless protectionism in cases like the Dubai ports deal, in strengthening the nation's trading relationship with China and, more broadly, in supporting immigration reform.

To his credit, Bush has broken with conservatives in his party, especially in the House of Representatives, who take a purely punitive approach to illegal immigration. But if he was once reluctant to use his political capital to win enactment of a balanced immigration bill, Bush now may be too weak to carry the day at a time when some Republicans in Congress will be tempted to move even further in an anti-immigrant direction. A stronger president also would be in a better position to lead the international community on such issues as Iran's nuclear program.

It's foolhardy to expect Bush to resurrect his popularity by changing his political stripes entirely. But a return (or a first-time visit) to the principles of "compassionate conservatism" would go a long way. His stance on immigration is appropriately compassionate and conservative, and a reawakening to the evils of huge deficit spending would strengthen the administration's credibility on economic matters. Bush also should strive to complete ongoing global trade talks, and for that he would have to take on politically popular farm subsidy programs.

But the remaking of the president in the public eye likely will require more than last week's game of musical chairs. Bush has acknowledged that he has spent much of his political capital on Iraq, and the way to replenish the reserves is to replace the officials most associated with the overreaching that led to the tragedy in Iraq and with the administration's broader disdain for diplomacy.

Yes, that means dismissing Rumsfeld. The secretary should go not because he has been criticized by a group of retired generals but because he embodies the smugness and inability to acknowledge error that has characterized both the Iraq war and the wider war on terrorism. Rumsfeld has been the pinched public face of an administration that has cut legal and humanitarian corners in dealing with people including U.S. citizens suspected of involvement with terrorists.

Suppose Bush didn't stop there. Suppose he also asked Cheney, his mentor and friend but an even more polarizing figure than Rumsfeld, to step down.

We know the objections. The vice president is not a mere presidential appointee but an elected constitutional officer. In choosing a replacement, Bush might be pressured to predetermine the outcome of the 2008 Republican presidential race by anointing one would-be successor over another. Throwing Cheney overboard would be an implicit repudiation of the excessively hawkish foreign policy with which the vice president, even more than Rumsfeld, has been associated.

Unlike most vice presidents, Cheney does not aspire to be president, and he is the consummate Bush loyalist. He would not be giving up a political birthright by agreeing to retire (citing health reasons or a concern about the publicity surrounding the trial of his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby). And the problem of taking sides in the 2008 election is easily solved. Bush could nominate as Cheney's successor an elder party statesman Bob Dole, anyone? with no interest in the 2008 nomination.

We even have an answer to the complaint that in jettisoning Cheney, Bush would be repudiating his own record. The truth is that the president, however grudgingly, has recognized that he and the administration made mistakes in the run-up to the war in Iraq and in its aftermath. He has not confessed that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, but he has acknowledged with increasing explicitness that he was wrong to believe that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction.

No longer proclaiming "mission accomplished," Bush has been pursuing a sadder-but-wiser policy in Iraq that many Democrats also endorse. It involves ramping up the training of Iraqi troops to take over from U.S. forces while leaning on Iraq's feuding sects to join, however unenthusiastically, in a government of national unity.

Having changed his tune, the president should also think about changing the company he keeps big time, as Dick Cheney would say.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bush23apr23,0,6899990.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

CJ07
Apr 25th, 2006, 05:43 AM
I dont really see the point in any impeachment talk. Its not that dire of a situation. Clinton's impeachment hearing was simply political and this would be even more so (actually I take that back, his was purely political the whole basis was a technicality)

But anyway if you impeach and convict george AND expel him (which is pretty much a 0% chance) then you get Dickey. Dickey is worse than Georgey and even if you booted both of them you'd get Condi. And even in that extreeme situation, is that really what y'all want? :tape:

Kunal
Apr 25th, 2006, 06:00 AM
he has no substance

RVD
Apr 25th, 2006, 06:12 AM
I dont really see the point in any impeachment talk. Its not that dire of a situation. Clinton's impeachment hearing was simply political and this would be even more so (actually I take that back, his was purely political the whole basis was a technicality)

But anyway if you impeach and convict george AND expel him (which is pretty much a 0% chance) then you get Dickey. Dickey is worse than Georgey and even if you booted both of them you'd get Condi. And even in that extreeme situation, is that really what y'all want? :tape:QUITE a quagmire, to say the least. One is just as bad as the other. :tape:

An aside:
At this very moment, I'm listening to Berny Ward talk about Bushes approval rating, and how it's presently sitting at 32%. :lol:
If so many had not died under this administration's complete and utter 'emotionless' ineptitude, I'd honestly feel sorry for 'em. However... :angel:

Pureracket
Apr 25th, 2006, 12:55 PM
That LA Times article is powerful.

Lord Nelson
Apr 25th, 2006, 01:47 PM
Does not mea anything. Toledo of Peru has approval ratings of lss than 10%. Chirac too has around 30% and Zapatero o Spain's ratings will plummet when his friends ETA of the basques will turn against him.

gsm
Apr 25th, 2006, 02:54 PM
French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's approval rating has slumped to just 28 percent :)
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04-04T170513Z_01_L04695542_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13

tennislover
Apr 25th, 2006, 05:34 PM
:sad: i love you, George W :hearts:

Hulet
Apr 25th, 2006, 07:36 PM
Well, your little cutesie approach to Bush is sweet:kiss: until I start thinking about US boys and girls in Iraq, poor health care coverage, and high gas prices.:sad:
I don't know about health care and high gas prices, but the War against Iraq isn't Bush's war only. It's American invasion. Most of Americans wanted it (according to some other poll I read at the start of the war) and your congress authorised it. :) So, just blaming one individual isn't going to absolve your country of the chaos it created.

Pureracket
Apr 25th, 2006, 08:42 PM
I don't know about health care and high gas prices, but the War against Iraq isn't Bush's war only. It's American invasion. Most of Americans wanted it (according to some other poll I read at the start of the war) and your congress authorised it. :) So, just blaming one individual isn't going to absolve your country of the chaos it created.Must we go through your tired argument again? Congress gave Bush the authority to use what he deemed necessary. Congress never said to go to war.

Your whole "blame the country" attitude is immature.

Volcana
Apr 25th, 2006, 10:04 PM
Poll numbers go up and down but Pres. Bush will always have my support.Ah, but do you APPROVE of the job he's done so far? Not the same thing as 'supporting' him. You can support him, and still think he's done a horrible job with the economy (the jobs the country has lost under push paid an average of $10,000 more than the jobs that replaced them), sat reading children's stories when the country was under attack, lied to start a war with a country that was no threat to the USA, and did nothing for days after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast.

Of course, you could balme all that on sub-ordinates, but as Bush himself pointed out, HE'S the 'decider'. He's responsible for all those decision.

Support him all you want. I have a cousin who's a staunch Bush supporter too. But he doesn't defend his actions in office.

The question isn't do you SUPPORT Bush. The question is, do you APPROVE of the JOB he's done as president?

Hulet
Apr 26th, 2006, 12:18 AM
Must we go through your tired argument again? Congress gave Bush the authority to use what he deemed necessary. Congress never said to go to war.

Your whole "blame the country" attitude is immature.
Hey, as far as I can see it, we are not arguing at all, we are actually agreeing. For instance, I totally agree with this statment of yours "congress gave Bush the authority to use what he deemed necessary." I would only just point out that "what he deemed necessary" also included "going to war". If Congress didn't want to go to war, it would have said, hey, don't go to war. And, when the war started, it could have said, hey, we don't want this war. Or, when the war was at full steam, it could have said, hey, you could have your war but we are not going to fund it anymore. Then, when the war was costing more than expected, it could have said, hey, no more of those supplementary funding bills, enough. Congress was provided numerous times to state it's objection to the war but it chose to ride along with it until it became obvious that objection to the war is politically advantageous. That is after hundreds of Iraqis have lost their lives. Which ever way you cut it, this is Congress' war too. The American people voted and re-voted for those people and so it's American's war. Guess what? When history records this war, it won't read, the Bush-Iraq war but the American-Iraq war. Or, when Iraqi childrens are taught about it a century later, they won't term it as the Bush Invasion but the American invasion.

Hulet
Apr 26th, 2006, 12:21 AM
Ah, but do you APPROVE of the job he's done so far? Not the same thing as 'supporting' him. You can support him, and still think he's done a horrible job with the economy (the jobs the country has lost under push paid an average of $10,000 more than the jobs that replaced them), sat reading children's stories when the country was under attack, lied to start a war with a country that was no threat to the USA, and did nothing for days after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast.

Of course, you could balme all that on sub-ordinates, but as Bush himself pointed out, HE'S the 'decider'. He's responsible for all those decision.

Support him all you want. I have a cousin who's a staunch Bush supporter too. But he doesn't defend his actions in office.

The question isn't do you SUPPORT Bush. The question is, do you APPROVE of the JOB he's done as president?
As I have indicated, I was kidding around on my original message. I don't really support Bush, however, I am uncomfortable with this blame only the "decider" stance Americans are taking with regards to the Iraq war. It's their war, they should own up to it and take responsibility for all the good and bad it did or is doing.

Volcana
Apr 26th, 2006, 12:26 AM
As I have indicated, I was kidding around on my original message. I don't really support Bush, however, I am uncomfortable with this blame only the "decider" stance Americans are taking with regards to the Iraq war. It's their war, they should own up to it and take responsibility for all the good and bad it did or is doing.Sorry. I went out on the streets and protested against the invasion of Iraq. I wrote members of Congress, argued on messageboards, and posted reams of data that showed Bush was lying about his reasons for going to war.

Is 'America' repsonsible for the war? Yes. Did I do all I could do you stop the war? Pretty much. I could have sold my house and used the money to run anti-war ads, but I need someplace to sleep.

Hulet
Apr 26th, 2006, 12:29 AM
Sorry. I went out on the streets and protested against the invasion of Iraq. I wrote members of Congress, argued on messageboards, and posted reams of data that showed Bush was lying about his reasons for going to war.

Is 'America' repsonsible for the war? Yes. Did I do all I could do you stop the war? Pretty much. I could have sold my house and used the money to run anti-war ads, but I need someplace to sleep.
Fair point, I always tried to mention that this war is the war of the Americans who initially supported. I only slipped up in this thread.

Hulet
Apr 26th, 2006, 12:39 AM
Volcana, as a person who vehemently opposed the war, don't you think it's dangerous for the future if the responsiblity for this war was just assigned to the President and the few people who are close to him? Wouldn't this make it easier for Americans to create more wars? At the end of the day, when these new wars go wrong, they could just blame a few people and move on to the next adventure.

GracefulVenus
Apr 26th, 2006, 12:49 AM
I guess I should be happy but I'm really not.
Bush isn't going to be kicked out of office so I have nothing to be happy about.
My existence with Bush in the next 2 years seems pretty set.
Trying to kill him would just be a waste of a bullet and he seems to be able to do a better job of killing himself than anyone.
=
:lol: :lol: :lol; :lol: that is sooooo funny

But seriously the Man is totally ignoring Domestic Issues. It is really time for us to put aside Republican and Democratic Views and acknowledge that this president has done little or nothing to solve OUR issues here in America. Cost of prescription drugs, price of gas, groceries, credit card companies increasing fees, cost of energy and corporate america doing whatever in the hell they want. I believe everyone's life (except the rich) Republican and Democrats a like has gotten harder since this man took office. He does not care :wavey: So for the people who keep supporting him and his agenda Go F Yourselfs.

RVD
Apr 26th, 2006, 02:05 AM
I don't know about health care and high gas prices, but the War against Iraq isn't Bush's war only. It's American invasion. Most of Americans wanted it (according to some other poll I read at the start of the war) and your congress authorised it. :) So, just blaming one individual isn't going to absolve your country of the chaos it created.Hulet, I believe that you will be very interested in these links:

This first [a 2003 article] chroniclizes the Bush lies for going to war ...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

This second link published in October 11, 2005, details what should happen if Bush is found to have lied about the reasons for going to war: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

And this last link published March 30, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902057.html details how Bush wanted war so desperately that "...he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."That should settle the matter. But somehow, I doubt it.

Look, the fact is all of America knows he lied. Even his own base is pissed.
However, the difference between Bush's present supporters and opponents is whether it he lied for the good of the country or for reasons only a selfish maniacal vindictive killer would know of; or whether for megaglomaniacal reasons. :shrug:

wta_zuperfann
Apr 26th, 2006, 02:23 AM
Bush ratings numbers go downward and:

1) another unconfirmed OBL tape immediately appears

2) another alleged al-Qaeda bombing goes off in Egypt where the group is actively recruiting and where it hopes to make friends (AQ does not acknowledge any involvement, however)

3) headlines: al-Zaqawri mysteriously re-appears with new anti-West avowals



that's what always happens when those numbers go downward

wta_zuperfann
Apr 26th, 2006, 02:30 AM
soldiers get that sinking feeling:


http://www.micom.net/oops/NoRoad1.jpg

Hulet
Apr 26th, 2006, 03:32 PM
Hulet, I believe that you will be very interested in these links:

This first [a 2003 article] chroniclizes the Bush lies for going to war ...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

This second link published in October 11, 2005, details what should happen if Bush is found to have lied about the reasons for going to war: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

And this last link published March 30, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902057.html details how Bush wanted war so desperately that That should settle the matter. But somehow, I doubt it.

Look, the fact is all of America knows he lied. Even his own base is pissed.
However, the difference between Bush's present supporters and opponents is whether it he lied for the good of the country or for reasons only a selfish maniacal vindictive killer would know of; or whether for megaglomaniacal reasons. :shrug:
Thanks for the info, ReeVeeDynasty. As I indicated above, my opinion of Bush's policy is pretty similar to what most posters think of him in this forum/thread. Where I differ is how much I blame him for the chaos he created, i.e., he shouldn't be the sole sacrifical lamb. Did he lie and manipulate information to justify his war? Yes. But, such a lie would have been ineffective if most Americans at the time weren't willing to believe whatever they were told by the administration. Especially Congress.

Pureracket
Apr 26th, 2006, 03:50 PM
Thanks for the info, ReeVeeDynasty. As I indicated above, my opinion of Bush's policy is pretty similar to what most posters think of him in this forum/thread. Where I differ is how much I blame him for the chaos he created, i.e., he shouldn't be the sole sacrifical lamb. Did he lie and manipulate information to justify his war? Yes. But, such a lie would have been ineffective if most Americans at the time weren't willing to believe whatever they were told by the administration. Especially Congress. Umm. .. exactly why would the American people not believe what they were told about WMD when their president had provided "substantiated" proof? Who else had that kind of classified information but the president and his staff? Now, you're blaming the Congress for believing something that they had no reason not to believe? :lol:

You Bush sympathizers are an interesting lot.

Hulet
Apr 26th, 2006, 03:59 PM
Umm. .. exactly why would the American people not believe what they were told about WMD when their president had provided "substantiated" proof? Who else had that kind of classified information but the president and his staff? Now, you're blaming the Congress for believing something that they had no reason not to believe? :lol:

You Bush sympathizers are an interesting lot.
:lol: @ "Bush Sympatizer" - to reiterate, I am anything but that. :)

The American people were provided the same set of information as the rest of the world. Congress was provided a similar set of information as the UN security council. The majority of American people and Congress at the time decided base on those informations war was justifiable. The majority of the worlds population and the UN security council came up with a different conclusion. What does that tell you? The willingness to believe on the part of the majority of the U.S. population any information that would justify war. A willingness which has nothing to do with the lie or manipulation by the president. But, a willingness anchored on being able to "kick some ass" (preferably some Arab's/muslim's) somewhere in the globe.

Pureracket
Apr 26th, 2006, 04:04 PM
:lol: @ "Bush Sympatizer" - to reiterate, I am anything but that. :)

The American people were provided the same set of information as the rest of the world. Congress was provided a similar set of information as the UN security council. The majority of American people and Congress at the time decided base on those informations war was justifiable. The majority of the worlds population and the UN security council came up with a different conclusion. What does that tell you? The willingness to believe on the part of the majority of the U.S. population any information that would justify war. A willingness which has nothing to do with the lie or manipulation by the president. But, a willingness anchored on being able to "kick some ass" (preferably some Arab's/muslim's) somewhere in the globe.Ok, now I see your problem: You don't know the facts.

Congress and the rest of the world were not supplied with the same "facts" as the current administration. Those "facts" were manipulated in order to support a reason for war.

Your desire to indict the entire country for this heinous act is scary.

Hulet
Apr 26th, 2006, 04:25 PM
Ok, now I see your problem: You don't know the facts.

Congress and the rest of the world were not supplied with the same "facts" as the current administration. Those "facts" were manipulated in order to support a reason for war.

Your desire to indict the entire country for this heinous act is scary.
Umm, it seems like we won't agree on this. For me, war is such a catastrophic event and as such the responsibility for it shouldn't lie on few peoples shoulder. What's scary for me is blaming a few people for it and moving on. Anyways, that's enough argument from me but we will pick up this debate when Bush's poll number hit the low 20s. :)

Pureracket
Apr 26th, 2006, 04:30 PM
Umm, it seems like we won't agree on this. For me, war is such a catastrophic event and as such the responsibility for it shouldn't lie on few peoples shoulder. What's scary for me is blaming a few people for it and moving on. Anyways, that's enough argument from me but we will pick up this debate when Bush's poll number hit the low 20s. :)Oh, please. . .I thought this was an argument until I understood you to not have all the facts.

You may be right that the responsibility should not be on a few shoulders, but that's how the American Gov't is set up.

The scary thing is you calling a war catastrophic, but saying you actually like the man who pushed for it.

Hulet
Apr 26th, 2006, 05:44 PM
Exactly what fact don't I have at my disposal? I am always willing to learn. :)

Volcana
Apr 29th, 2006, 05:06 AM
Volcana, as a person who vehemently opposed the war, don't you think it's dangerous for the future if the responsiblity for this war was just assigned to the President and the few people who are close to him? Wouldn't this make it easier for Americans to create more wars? At the end of the day, when these new wars go wrong, they could just blame a few people and move on to the next adventure.That's an extremely good point. And honestly, protesting in the streets is almost 'fighting the last war'. Conservatives control the mass-media in the USA now. Big protests by opponents of the current regime simply aren't covered, blunting their national impact. A couple years ago, one of the three biggest protest rallies EVER was held on the mall in Washington. But it was for abortion rights. And it simply didn't make the evening news, nor much coverage in the biggest newspapers.
Umm. .. exactly why would the American people not believe what they were told about WMD when their president had provided "substantiated" proof? Who else had that kind of classified information but the president and his staff? Now, you're blaming the Congress for believing something that they had no reason not to believe?Excuse me but, any member of Congress who had internet access, and who remembered the 2000 election, had EVERY reason to not believe Bush. Every single thing Bush calls a fact, I check against independent sources, preferably outside the USA. An awful lot of news organizations said outright he was lying, and provided reasons why they thought so.

If they'd actually read what Muhammad al-Baradei wrote, instead of what Bush claimed, they'd have known Bush was lying.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2006, 01:41 PM
That's an extremely good point. And honestly, protesting in the streets is almost 'fighting the last war'. Conservatives control the mass-media in the USA now. Big protests by opponents of the current regime simply aren't covered, blunting their national impact. A couple years ago, one of the three biggest protest rallies EVER was held on the mall in Washington. But it was for abortion rights. And it simply didn't make the evening news, nor much coverage in the biggest newspapers.
Excuse me but, any member of Congress who had internet access, and who remembered the 2000 election, had EVERY reason to not believe Bush. Every single thing Bush calls a fact, I check against independent sources, preferably outside the USA. An awful lot of news organizations said outright he was lying, and provided reasons why they thought so.

If they'd actually read what Muhammad al-Baradei wrote, instead of what Bush claimed, they'd have known Bush was lying.I think that that's much easier said than done right now. Bush and his boys had "classified" information that they'd actually manipulated to be the cause for starting a war. I think we're asking too much for any maverick congressman/congresswoman to not show solidarity.

Lord Nelson
Apr 29th, 2006, 02:12 PM
Conservatives controling mass media??? Then what about NY Times, Newsweek washington Post etc... Are those conservative too? I don't think so. Don't be so paranoid, the U.S. is an effective democracy and there is stability in the country. Hence the government that is elected has to serve out its term. Even when Nixon resigned, Ford kept most of the people from Nixon's team.

Sammm
Apr 29th, 2006, 02:30 PM
The Democrats had better not lose the 2008 (?) election.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2006, 03:55 PM
Conservatives controling mass media??? Then what about NY Times, Newsweek washington Post etc... Are those conservative too? I don't think so. Don't be so paranoid, the U.S. is an effective democracy and there is stability in the country. Hence the government that is elected has to serve out its term. Even when Nixon resigned, Ford kept most of the people from Nixon's team.If what they say is true, and you don't even live in the US, it's showing right now. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reily, Matt Drudge, etc. . .are conservative juggernauts. They make no attempt to be "fair and balanced" like the rigth wing Faux News Network.

Veenut
Apr 29th, 2006, 05:17 PM
I think that 30% is still too high considering how the country have deteriorated within 6 years under his leadership. What an ignoramus he is. He can never put a cohesive sentence together on his own. I cringe if he has to say anything that is not rehearsed and pre-vetted.

It's insane when you think of how the Republicans waste of money, time and energy investigating the "job" that Monica gave to Bill. The lie Bill told caused no one their life or limbs check out the number of lives and limbs that Bush's lie cost us so far and counting.

Most of those who are still supporting him are obviously benefiting big time from the war and other policies. As for the rest of us, be satisfied with the $300 you received that was deducted from your tax refund check. They are now planning to send us $100 to appease us again. Good luck to those who have SUVs.

vogus
Apr 29th, 2006, 08:22 PM
It doesn't make a damn bit of difference any more whether Bush's approval rating is 90%, 32%, or 2%. He's in office and he's not leaving until his term ends. Why the media continuously wastes their, and the public's, time reporting on approval ratings of second term presidents is beyond me.

darrinbaker00
Apr 30th, 2006, 02:48 AM
It doesn't make a damn bit of difference any more whether Bush's approval rating is 90%, 32%, or 2%. He's in office and he's not leaving until his term ends. Why the media continuously wastes their, and the public's, time reporting on approval ratings of second term presidents is beyond me.
Because he is the de facto leader of the Republican Party, and with midterm congressional and gubernatorial elections coming up, there are some Republican candidates who would love to distance themselves from Bush as much as possible (Arnold Schwarzenegger, for instance).