Bush at 36%, how low can he go?

[What the Heck]

Why the hell would Iran invade Iraq when they have friends running the country?

Here's where you just don't get it. They don't hate each other.
The 8-year war was not fought between Iran and Iraq, but between Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Courtesy of George Bush, Saddam Hussein is gone and when the people of Iraq used their new democratic powers, they elected a Shiite-led pro-Iranian government. The only thing Bush did was hand a gift to Iran by getting rid of Iran's biggest enemy. The big winner in all of this is Iran.

The obvious is staring you in the face and no amount of talking points is going to change that.

Bringing it back to the thread topic of Bush's support, this entire discussion proves one thing: Bush's support is down to the delusional, the rich, the "woman, sit down, shut up, I'm controlling your ovaries crowd, and the ones too afraid to accept that the emperor Bush has no clothes.

Really? And you live in Florida? How many times have you heard people from the South (with the huge capital S) talking about damn yankees and meaning it? We have the same form of government as them, they are somewhat friendly to us, but how many from the South to this day look for a reunification of the Confederacy? Now it is half jokingly, but in the 50's and 60's, many weren't joking. Thats 100 years after the war, not 20. I think the delusional part is more on the left than the right.

There is another part of this discussion - Bush's opposition from the far left is also full of the delusional, the ultra rich, the "people shut up, i'm controlling your life" crowd, and the ones too afraid that Bush actually might do something right once in a while.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Today marks the third anniversery of our attack on Iraq. Ask God to forgive, not just bless, America.

I think you have that wrong. God bless our brave soldier's and their families. They have made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm sure they would appreciate our support. God bless the human race. Trust me, God is real busy.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

I think you have that wrong. God bless our brave soldier's and their families. They have made the ultimate sacrifice.

in the case of Iraq, they've made the ultimate sacrifice for absolutely no reason, except profiteering.

MSNBC:

March 18, 2006 - A bitterly divided electorate gives President George W. Bush an approval rating of only 36 percent in the latest NEWSWEEK poll, matching the low point in his presidency recorded last November. His image as an effective leader in the war on terror is tarnished, with less than half the public (44 percent) approving of the way he’s handling terrorism and homeland security. Despite a series of presidential speeches meant to bolster support for the war in Iraq, as well as the announcement of a major military offensive when the poll was getting under way, only 29 percent of the people questioned approved Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq. Fully 65 percent disapprove.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

in the case of Iraq, they've made the ultimate sacrifice for absolutely no reason, except profiteering.

MSNBC:

March 18, 2006 - A bitterly divided electorate gives President George W. Bush an approval rating of only 36 percent in the latest NEWSWEEK poll, matching the low point in his presidency recorded last November. His image as an effective leader in the war on terror is tarnished, with less than half the public (44 percent) approving of the way he’s handling terrorism and homeland security. Despite a series of presidential speeches meant to bolster support for the war in Iraq, as well as the announcement of a major military offensive when the poll was getting under way, only 29 percent of the people questioned approved Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq. Fully 65 percent disapprove.

Profiteering??

And this is based on what?

You post all the polls you want. We did what was right and history will confirm it. The vast majority of our military support their mission and again I thank them.

 

[wvrevy]

Thank you Nostrodomas, but I think it's FAR more likely, given the actual state of the country, that history will only record that the fall of Saddam Hussein led to decades of civil war and thousands of deaths. It will also record that, for the first time in our nation's history, we invaded a country without provocation or justification.

But hey...you keep swallowing that kool aid like it's going out of style...lol

 

[cardaway]

It will also record that, for the first time in our nation's history, we invaded a country without provocation or justification.

In so many ways, under Bush, this country became what it previously despised.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Thank you Nostrodomas, but I think it's FAR more likely, given the actual state of the country, that history will only record that the fall of Saddam Hussein led to decades of civil war and thousands of deaths. It will also record that, for the first time in our nation's history, we invaded a country without provocation or justification.

But hey...you keep swallowing that kool aid like it's going out of style...lol

Far better than whatever the Dems are drinking.

 

[Charade]

It will also record that, for the first time in our nation's history, we invaded a country without provocation or justification.

Provocation no, justification yes. However, hindsight is always 20/20. Or better with some.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

More justification:

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.

The fax comes from the vast collection of documents recovered in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. Up to this point, those materials have been kept from the American public. Now the proverbial dam has broken. On March 16, the U.S. government posted on the web 9 documents captured in Iraq, as well as 28 al Qaeda documents that had been released in February. Earlier last week, Foreign Affairs magazine published a lengthy article based on a review of 700 Iraqi documents by analysts with the Institute for Defense Analysis and the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia. Plans for the release of many more documents have been announced.

Our President and allies were right to go after terrorist supporter, Saddam. Thank God they took action.

 

[wvrevy]

Far better than whatever the Dems are drinking.

Typical response, Joe. Can't defend a position, so you simply attack the otherside.

You know what? Winning an election doesn't mean you're never wrong. It doesn't even mean that you had the best candidate for the job. It just means that - THIS time - you got more votes. Not sure why that's so hard to understand, but there it is in simple words. You want to know why so many on my side of the aisle have grown to really hate everything people like you stand for? Look no further than the insufferable attitude that is displayed everytime one of you can't be bothered to actually defend your position. You're like a bunch of mouthy athletes that rub in into the faces of the team that you just beat on a last second hail mary.

Why do I even bother? You won't take what I'm saying seriously, and will probably just come back with another inane attack. It's just not worth the effort.

 

[eclectics]

Far better than whatever the Dems are drinking.

Quite a few will be drinking Champagne come election night, I suspect.

 

[wvrevy]

Provocation no, justification yes. However, hindsight is always 20/20. Or better with some.

Sorry, but I don't buy that, John. There was AMPLE justification for invading Afghanistan, and I supported that whole heartedly. But rather than finishing the job there, we rushed in to deal with an old enemy. One that had been hobbled by sanctions and made toothless by weapons inspections. There WAS no justification, at the time of the invasion or now, three years and thousands of body bags later.

As for the nonsense about Saddam supporting Al Queda, only someone that knows NOTHING about that region or the "cause" that Al Queda fights for would believe that. Saddam was exactly the type of leader Al Queda hated. They would have toppled him from power before they crawled in bed with him by accepting financial support.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Typical response, Joe. Can't defend a position, so you simply attack the otherside.

See my post on "more justification."

Can't defend a position, so you simply attack the otherside.

"Pot calling kettle black" alert.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Quite a few will be drinking Champagne come election night, I suspect.

We shall see!

 

[dcentity2000]

[EDIT]: Post looked stupid no matter what I did to it. Carry on



Rich::

 

[TCPluto]

Thank you Nostrodomas, but I think it's FAR more likely, given the actual state of the country, that history will only record that the fall of Saddam Hussein led to decades of civil war and thousands of deaths. It will also record that, for the first time in our nation's history, we invaded a country without provocation or justification.

But hey...you keep swallowing that kool aid like it's going out of style...lol

Sounds like you are playing the part of Nostradamus, but with the polar opposite view. Feeling challenged?

By the way, you're wrong too.

 

[TCPluto]

Typical response, Joe. Can't defend a position, so you simply attack the otherside.

This would be the lesson taught by you, you're the master at personal attack simply because someone has a different opinion than you. Why would you be shocked to see it come back at you?

 

[wvrevy]

Sounds like you are playing the part of Nostradamus, but with the polar opposite view. Feeling challenged?

By the way, you're wrong too.

The difference, since you apparently missed it, is that I said I THINK that is what history will show. I don't know that is what will happen, as you and Joe claim to.

And no, I don't think I AM wrong. Every indication is that my prediction is dead on. If you turn it off of Fox News once in a while, you might know that.

 

[wvrevy]

This would be the lesson taught by you, you're the master at personal attack simply because someone has a different opinion than you. Why would you be shocked to see it come back at you?

Really? Point to one. Point to a SINGLE "personal attack" I have made in response to a reasoned post (and not just in response to more of the same. I GUARANTEE you you can't do it.

So come on. Put up or shut up.

ETA: If you can manage to do that, I will absolutely apologize to the person I was responding to, on the spot.

 

[TCPluto]

The difference, since you apparently missed it, is that I said I THINK that is what history will show. I don't know that is what will happen, as you and Joe claim to.

And no, I'm NOT wrong. Every indication is that my prediction is dead on. If you turn it off of Fox News once in a while, you might know that.

Dear Nostradamus,

You're not wrong, or you don't THINK you're wrong?