Bush at 36%, how low can he go?

[Sylvester McBean]

we invade a country and push our form of government on them and then complain about the timetable and the body count. the same people cry when church missionaries invade a country trying to spread 'the word of jesus' and then complain when the same missionaries are slaughtered. just because we're the USA doesn't mean we're pushing a product everyone wants.

 

[Charade]

a drone? please.

I knew this response would come.

So it only matters if a pilot was on board? Please... indeed.

 

[Sirius]

I have yet to read all 33 pages but here's an interesting link: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

 

[dcentity2000]

A little off topic, but where was this reason from the left when I was being spit on in the 70's just because I was in uniform?

Sadly, there are mindless thugs on both sides. There are also people who will tag along with a crowd simply to cause trouble; football rioters spring to mind, meaning that certain "fans" don't give tuppence about the game and only want to start fights.

It's despicable and wrong.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally Posted by TCPluto
They're not looking for serious discussion, only to spew their garbage. These folks don't live in the real world, the interent is the only place they can come together and find such wacked out companionship.

You just summed yourself up - well done!



Rich::

 

[Captain Capslock]

Why do you say that? In you opinion, are the people in the midle east incapable?

The Capn' has about as good a chance as the last two democrat candidates.

Now come on. Just when it appeared that you were going to act like an adult, you had to go and do this. You turn it into a personal attack.

Did you get beat up on the way to school and have your lunch money stolen everyday??

CEASE YOUR INFERIOR SPEWING IMMEDIATELY. YOUR VERBAL SQUELS COULD FERTILIZE SEVERAL ACRES OF CROPS BUT IS OF NO USE HERE ON THE INTERWEB, WHERE I RULE SUPREME OVER PRATTLERS SUCH AS YOURSELF. RETURN TO YOUR HUT IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID FURTHER EMBARRASSING YOURSELF.

 

[dcentity2000]

YOUR VERBAL SQUELS COULD FERTILIZE SEVERAL ACRES OF CROPS

The man has a point, TCP.

So far on these boards your debating, ahem, "skills" have all amounted to nerg.

I'll understand if you don't get the reference.

[EDIT] I got bored.

[EDIT 2] Pluto, what is your home address? You seem obsessed with the notion that I "stalk" you but you don't give me any information that I could use in order to, that's right, stalk you. Rectify your shortfallings, please.



Rich::

 

[LuvDuke]

That's a lie. He even shot one down on 9/11. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/11/iraq.htm

I see it repeated here every so often. What purpose does it serve?

Good grief! Cherrypicking at it's finest.

Did you bother reading your link? Other than the fact that Iraq claimed they shot down a drone, there is no confirmation by the Pentagon. Even the Pentagon couldn't determine why the drone went down the same way the Pentagon couldn't determine why the 8/27/01 drone went down. Ever hear of mechanical failure? It happens, yanno.

Other than friendly fire, no US planes have been shot down. If you've got a story that gets beyond the usual maybes/hopes/dreams when it comes to Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities, feel free to share

So what purpose does it serve to remind people that no planes were shot down over the no-fly zone (other than friendly fire).............the truth. That is the purpose.

 

[LuvDuke]

I knew this response would come.

You saw that reponse coming, but you never saw this response coming: "Huh?"

The Pentagon doesn't confirm Iraq's story only that a drone went down for reasons the Pentagon claims maybe mechanical.

Try reading the article instead of just the headlines.

So it only matters if a pilot was on board? Please... indeed.

No, it only matters if you can come up with some confirmation other than Baghdad Bob and the Saddam Hussein propoganda machine.

Take your time looking for the confirmation link.

 

[Teejay32]

Good grief! Cherrypicking at it's finest.

Did you bother reading your link? Other than the fact that Iraq claimed they shot down a drone, there is no confirmation by the Pentagon. Even the Pentagon couldn't determine why the drone went down the same way the Pentagon couldn't determine why the 8/27/01 drone went down. Ever hear of mechanical failure? It happens, yanno.

Other than friendly fire, no US planes have been shot down. If you've got a story that gets beyond the usual maybes/hopes/dreams when it comes to Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities, feel free to share

So what purpose does it serve to remind people that no planes were shot down over the no-fly zone (other than friendly fire).............the truth. That is the purpose.

That's not truth, it's plausible deniability.

 

[What the Heck]

Personally, I don't know enough about the domestic affairs of the USA to comment here, but in international terms I would like to see at least an independent inquiry into the statements made prior to and during much of the war.

Unless he has something to hide, the President should be more than happy to oblige for the majority of his citizens and for the majority of the international community.

It's a little thing but it could do so much.



Rich::

Rich, you say this as if the US was the only country saying Hussein had the weapons. No one had the belief that he didn't. Should those countries intelligence agencies also be reviewed?

 

[ford family]

The following comes from today’s leader column in the London Daily Telegraph. I thought it was a well balanced synopsis of where we are today and worthy of a wider audience.

ford family

“Prejudice is part of the human condition. It would be nice if we always looked dispassionately at the facts and then moved to a conclusion. But it is more common to do the opposite: to begin with an opinion and then cast around for facts with which to sustain it.

So it has proved with the debate about the coalition's continuing presence in Iraq. By and large, those who supported the war want to leave behind an orderly country, and so are reluctant to disengage until the current discontents have been quelled. Those who opposed it, on the other hand, are determined to say, "I told you so". They believe that the continuing presence of Western soldiers is exacerbating the violence, and want to pull the troops out at once.

Three years on, both sides might usefully re-examine their prejudices. Those who opposed the invasion should acknowledge the good things that followed as a consequence. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi exiles queueing to vote has weakened the dictatorships in Syria and Iran. Lebanon is no longer occupied by a foreign army. Libya has dismantled its weapons programme. The Gulf monarchies, traditional friends to this country, are now safe. Within Iraq itself, Kurds and Shia are no longer systematically repressed.
Those who supported the campaign, including this newspaper, must also be honest enough to admit that this is not how things were meant to turn out. Our key assumption, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for much of what was wrong with Iraq, has proved false.

Lacking ethnic homogeneity - and unable, accordingly, to call on a sense of shared civic patriotism - Iraq is not a naturally stable country. Saddam, like the strongmen who had preceded him, was as much a symptom as a cause of what was wrong in his homeland. Until the constituent peoples of Iraq feel secure in their autonomy, the agitation will continue. And, as always in such circumstances, foreign troops will be blamed by all sides.

Britain has been there often enough before, from Palestine to Belfast. The greatest service we can render to Iraq is to give each community a police force in which it has confidence. That done, our work will be over.”

 

[DawnCt1]

Excellent article Ford Family.

 

[dcentity2000]

Rich, you say this as if the US was the only country saying Hussein had the weapons. No one had the belief that he didn't. Should those countries intelligence agencies also be reviewed?

The accepted intelligence at the time was that Saddam's WMD capability was less than that of Iran et al; that the regime was "living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them."; that the " first line of defense... should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration." (as per Condoleeza Rice); that the containment policy was a "success"; that we had "kept him contained, kept him in his box"; that Iraq was "unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States" (as per Colin Powell). Further to this, it was widely perceived that the containment policies had "worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction"; that Saddam was "unable to project conventional power against his neighbors", meaning that "in effect, our [containment] policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

Dick Cheney also asserted the following:

"MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation [9/11]?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No."

Further to this, a published document from the British Government read that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." The MOD has since taken action against those who leaked the document and have passed no comment as to whether the document is false or not.

It must also be noted that UN inspectors found no evidence of WMDs anywhere in the country and further found evidence of WMD destruction in various installations that implied that WMDs had been destroyed long ago.

One last thing: here in Britain a claim was made that Saddam not only had "stockpiles" of WMDs but that they were ready for launch within a 45 minute window. The "sexed up" or "dodgy" dossier has since been rejected as a hopeless exaggeration of unreliable evidence contrary to the majority evidence.

Tony Blair has since apologised for the shortfallings of the war and in particular the handling of evidence prior to the invasion.

The main source of friction was that all evidence used by the Governments of the UK and the USA was known to be "thin" and was touted as undeniable.



Rich::

 

[Captain Capslock]

The accepted intelligence at the time was that Saddam's WMD capability was less than that of Iran et al; that the regime was "living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them."; that the " first line of defense... should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration." (as per Condoleeza Rice); that the containment policy was a "success"; that we had "kept him contained, kept him in his box"; that Iraq was "unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States" (as per Colin Powell). Further to this, it was widely perceived that the containment policies had "worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction"; that Saddam was "unable to project conventional power against his neighbors", meaning that "in effect, our [containment] policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

Dick Cheney also asserted the following:

"MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation [9/11]?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No."

Further to this, a published document from the British Government read that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." The MOD has since taken action against those who leaked the document and have passed no comment as to whether the document is false or not.

It must also be noted that UN inspectors found no evidence of WMDs anywhere in the country and further found evidence of WMD destruction in various installations that implied that WMDs had been destroyed long ago.

One last thing: here in Britain a claim was made that Saddam not only had "stockpiles" of WMDs but that they were ready for launch within a 45 minute window. The "sexed up" or "dodgy" dossier has since been rejected as a hopeless exaggeration of unreliable evidence contrary to the majority evidence.

Tony Blair has since apologised for the shortfallings of the war and in particular the handling of evidence prior to the invasion.

The main source of friction was that all evidence used by the Governments of the UK and the USA was known to be "thin" and was touted as undeniable.



Rich::

THIS SHAMBLES OF A THREAD DEMEANS YOU ALL FURTHER THAN YOU COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE. ESPECIALLY THE FOLLOWERS OF THE MULTI-COLORED ELEPHANT.

DESPITE MY OBVIOUS SUPERPOWERS I ADMIT MY IGNORANCE AS TO WHY ANYONE WOULD PICK AN ELEPHANT AS A MASCOT. ALL THEY DO IS BUMBLE AROUND AND GENERATE FERTILIZER.

 

[DawnCt1]

THIS SHAMBLES OF A THREAD DEMEANS YOU ALL FURTHER THAN YOU COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE. ESPECIALLY THE FOLLOWERS OF THE MULTI-COLORED ELEPHANT.

DESPITE MY OBVIOUS SUPERPOWERS I ADMIT MY IGNORANCE AS TO WHY ANYONE WOULD PICK AN ELEPHANT AS A MASCOT. ALL THEY DO IS BUMBLE AROUND AND GENERATE FERTILIZER.

Elephants have excellent memories and don't make A**es out of themselves.

 

[Apothecary]

Must not get involved in this thread

Must not get involved in this thread

Must not get involved in this thread


Oh, who am I kidding...

First of all - full disclosure. I am a left-leaning Canadian. (Extremely right-wing Americans may wish to stop reading at this point )

I am amazed that there are still 34 to 36 per cent of the American public that actually still believe that Bush is doing a good job as President. The whole Iraq issue just mystifies me. The changing rationale , from Al-Qaeda ties (wrong) to WMD (wrong) to "The world is better off without Saddam "(okay - that much is true, but there are lots of bad people in the world - is Bush going after all of them too?) would make me laugh if people weren't dying becasue of it.

Also, I don't get the right's continual cries of "Well, what would John Kerry/Al Gore have done?" That is not the issue. Worrying about what someone else would have done is useless. Worrying about what the current, actual president IS doing is what's important...lying to the American public (and the world), wiretapping civilians without a warrant, keeping prisoners captive without access to any form of counsel. How can these actions be condoned?

I understand how Bush got elected in 2000. He is a no-nonsense guy. Believes what he believes and sticks to it. He certainly isn't prone to govern by polls. I get the appeal of that. But after all that has happened since, I do not understand how he got re-elected.

Bush's presidency can be summed up in one quote from the man himself...

"You're doin' a heck of a job Brownie!"

 

[dcentity2000]

Elephants have excellent memories and don't make A**es out of themselves.

I've always wondered about elephant's memories - how do we know? I can't imagine them being any sharper on the ol' recall than dogs or cats

As for the, ahem, a**e thingy, don't elephants have huge a**es?



Rich::

 

[Teejay32]

Those who supported the campaign, including this newspaper, must also be honest enough to admit that this is not how things were meant to turn out. Our key assumption, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for much of what was wrong with Iraq, has proved false.[/i]

The article does not explain how this has been proven false, seeing as how Saddam was Combatant in Chief, and neither does it mention why this "civil war" involves so much outside help. I don't think I've taken issue with anything you've ever posted, but I would here...we don't have much ethnic homogeneity and shared civic patriotism either, so I don't think that sufficiently explains the situation in Iraq. mho.

 

[dcentity2000]

The article does not explain how this has been proven false, seeing as how Saddam was Combatant in Chief, and neither does it mention why this "civil war" involves so much outside help. I don't think I've taken issue with anything you've ever posted, but I would here...we don't have much ethnic homogeneity and shared civic patriotism either, so I don't think that sufficiently explains the situation in Iraq. mho.

I don't think that a single article written from any viewpoint could ever sum up the upsides and downsides of the Iraq war; there are so many intricacies both way.



Rich::