Bush at 36%, how low can he go?

[Laz]

Since this was thread was oringinally about poll numbers. I thought everyone should take a look at the results of a Fox News Poll found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188116,00.html.

Here are some excerpts:

"majorities of Americans feel that the Iraqi people are better off today and the United States is safer. Even so, over half say they do not believe a free, stable government can be achieved in Iraq.

More than seven in 10 Americans (74 percent) agree that the United States and the world are safer today without Saddam Hussein in power, including 56 percent that "strongly" agree. These results have remained fairly stable over time and are in line with surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005.

One of the problems with measuring public opinion on Iraq is that attitudes bounce around based on the news — it's sort of the media version of the last person they talked to," comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman. "One day they see a parliament meeting in a nice shiny hall and things are looking up; they next day they see footage of bombs and bodies. Given how hard it is for people to get a fix on what is really happening, the last image they see is the one that matters the most."

A third of the public (34 percent) is optimistic that there will eventually be a free, stable government in Iraq, while a 55 percent majority disagrees. There are sizable partisan divisions, as a slim 51 percent majority of Republicans think it can be achieved, while a 70 percent majority of Democrats think it cannot.

Again, as on many Iraq-related questions, the views divide along party lines; Republicans (61 percent) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (28 percent) to think the United States is obligated to stay."


Polls can be manipulated to say anything you want them to. It all depends on who you ask, what you ask, and what the pollster wants to report.

 

[What the Heck]

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."Rich::

In 1998, our President Clinton said: "Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," . He then goes on to say:"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,"

And then: "Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors"

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

So, why was it enough in 1998, but no longer enough in 2003? Where was the outrage in 1998? Where was the call for investigation after investigation? How did Hussein get rid of his Weapons of Mass Destruction that, according to the Democrats, was apparent in 1998, but is now non existant?

Take a look at John Kerry's stance in 1998:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072902/posts shows excerpts from a "ABC This Week" episode.

Where are the crys for the investigation into the Clinton's administration proof of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Of the Senate's Intelligence Committee's proof of his Weapons of Mass Destruction? And the Democrats wonder why the American moderates don't trust them?

 

[dcentity2000]

In 1998, our President Clinton said: "Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," . He then goes on to say:"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,"

And then: "Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors"

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

So, why was it enough in 1998, but no longer enough in 2003? Where was the outrage in 1998? Where was the call for investigation after investigation? How did Hussein get rid of his Weapons of Mass Destruction that, according to the Democrats, was apparent in 1998, but is now non existant?

Take a look at John Kerry's stance in 1998:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072902/posts shows excerpts from a "ABC This Week" episode.

Where are the crys for the investigation into the Clinton's administration proof of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Of the Senate's Intelligence Committee's proof of his Weapons of Mass Destruction? And the Democrats wonder why the American moderates don't trust them?

All matters surrounding a war MUST be investigated fully, as war must always be used only as a last resort by any party. If the Democrats were to start a war under known poor intelligence, then they too should be fully investigated.

However, the issue of the day is this Iraq war and, as arduous as the task may seem, we have a duty to our countries to scrutinise and analyse the case for war in great detail, regardless of political affiliation.



Rich::

 

[lw49033]

Where are the crys for the investigation into the Clinton's administration proof of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Of the Senate's Intelligence Committee's proof of his Weapons of Mass Destruction? And the Democrats wonder why the American moderates don't trust them?

I never trusted Clinton and would love to see that investigated. But that doesn't let Bush off the hook--it simply means both of them are lying *******s.

 

[LuvDuke]

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

I'll take that as an "I can't find the story to confirm the Iraqi boast of shooting down a drone and just hoped you wouldn't notice". I did and so did the rest of the peanut gallery.

Btw, this little exchange is symptomatic as to why Bush and his party are in trouble. Truth is not on their side. Unless the truth is stretched to the nth degree, their assertions, propoganda, and policies just don't add up.

 

[LuvDuke]

In 1998, our President Clinton said: "Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," . He then goes on to say:"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,"

And then: "Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors"

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

So, why was it enough in 1998, but no longer enough in 2003? Where was the outrage in 1998? Where was the call for investigation after investigation? How did Hussein get rid of his Weapons of Mass Destruction that, according to the Democrats, was apparent in 1998, but is now non existant?

Take a look at John Kerry's stance in 1998:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072902/posts shows excerpts from a "ABC This Week" episode.

Where are the crys for the investigation into the Clinton's administration proof of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Of the Senate's Intelligence Committee's proof of his Weapons of Mass Destruction? And the Democrats wonder why the American moderates don't trust them?

A little fact you seem set aside: Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq and not Clinton, Kerry, Gore or anyone else. The invasion and the conduct of this war is due to Bush's actions and no one elses.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

A little fact you seem set aside: Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq and not Clinton, Kerry, Gore or anyone else. The invasion and the conduct of this war is due to Bush's actions and no one elses.

precisely.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details
Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?

By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers
& the NBC Investigative Unit
Updated: 7:36 p.m. ET March 20, 2006

In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein’s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence.

What makes the story significant is the high rank of the source. His name, officials tell NBC News, was Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister under Saddam. Although Sabri was in Saddam's inner circle, his cosmopolitan ways also helped him fit into diplomatic circles.

In September 2002, at a meeting of the U.N.’s General Assembly, Sabri came to New York to represent Saddam. In front of the assembled diplomats, he read a letter from the Iraqi leader. "The United States administration is acting on behalf of Zionism," he said. He announced that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. planned war in Iraq because it wanted the country’s oil.


But on that very trip, there was also a secret contact made. The contact was brokered by the French intelligence service, sources say. Intelligence sources say that in a New York hotel room, CIA officers met with an intermediary who represented Sabri. All discussions between Sabri and the CIA were conducted through a "cutout," or third party. Through the intermediary, intelligence sources say, the CIA paid Sabri more than $100,000 in what was, essentially, "good-faith money." And for his part, Sabri, again through the intermediary, relayed information about Saddam’s actual capabilities.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.

The sources say Sabri’s answers were much more accurate than his proclamations to the United Nations, where he demonized the U.S. and defended Saddam. At the same time, they also were closer to reality than the CIA's estimates, as spelled out in its October 2002 intelligence estimate.

For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.

Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.

 

[wvrevy]

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

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - 6/20/2005

I think you may want to reconsider that position, Dawn.

 

[LakeAriel]

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details
Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?

By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers
& the NBC Investigative Unit
Updated: 7:36 p.m. ET March 20, 2006

In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein’s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence.

What makes the story significant is the high rank of the source. His name, officials tell NBC News, was Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister under Saddam. Although Sabri was in Saddam's inner circle, his cosmopolitan ways also helped him fit into diplomatic circles.

In September 2002, at a meeting of the U.N.’s General Assembly, Sabri came to New York to represent Saddam. In front of the assembled diplomats, he read a letter from the Iraqi leader. "The United States administration is acting on behalf of Zionism," he said. He announced that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. planned war in Iraq because it wanted the country’s oil.


But on that very trip, there was also a secret contact made. The contact was brokered by the French intelligence service, sources say. Intelligence sources say that in a New York hotel room, CIA officers met with an intermediary who represented Sabri. All discussions between Sabri and the CIA were conducted through a "cutout," or third party. Through the intermediary, intelligence sources say, the CIA paid Sabri more than $100,000 in what was, essentially, "good-faith money." And for his part, Sabri, again through the intermediary, relayed information about Saddam’s actual capabilities.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.

The sources say Sabri’s answers were much more accurate than his proclamations to the United Nations, where he demonized the U.S. and defended Saddam. At the same time, they also were closer to reality than the CIA's estimates, as spelled out in its October 2002 intelligence estimate.

For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.

Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.

I heard this on the Nightly News. I wonder if it's being carried on Fox?

 

[Sylvester McBean]

an unjust invasion and untold US deaths...projected $1,000,000,000,000
inside intelligence that could have swayed the invasion...$100,000

the windfall Bush and Cheney collect in the profiteering...priceless. for everything else, there's Haliburton.

 

[bimshire]

an unjust invasion and untold US deaths...projected $1,000,000,000,000
inside intelligence that could have swayed the invasion...$100,000

the windfall Bush and Cheney collect in the profiteering...priceless. for everything else, there's Haliburton.

In addition, remember that we are not suppose to care about the Iraqis that are killed. Why do you think they are called "collateral damage?"

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

an unjust invasion and untold US deaths...projected $1,000,000,000,000
inside intelligence that could have swayed the invasion...$100,000

the windfall Bush and Cheney collect in the profiteering...priceless. for everything else, there's Haliburton.

Windfall for Bush and Cheney in profiteering. Your are BADLY misinformed or just making stuff up.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

In addition, remember that we are not suppose to care about the Iraqis that are killed. Why do you think they are called "collateral damage?"

people like JoeEpcotRocks just say that people die in war, tough crap.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

Windfall for Bush and Cheney in profiteering. Your are BADLY misinformed or just making stuff up.

there you are, Joe. Haliburton, no bid contract.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

In addition, remember that we are not suppose to care about the Iraqis that are killed. Why do you think they are called "collateral damage?"

To say we are not supposed to care is nonsense. Those who preferred that Iraqi's stay under Saddam's rule are the ones who seem not to care.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

A little fact you seem set aside: Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq and not Clinton, Kerry, Gore or anyone else. The invasion and the conduct of this war is due to Bush's actions and no one elses.

The liberation is to President Bush's credit.

We know what Clinton did.

Kerry still isn't sure what to do.

Gore is still blowing hot air about global warming

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

there you are, Joe. Haliburton, no bid contract.

1) Your are assuming no-bid contracts are bad. Negotiated contracts are not uncommon in construction, especially with very large jobs that a very limited number of companies can handle.

2) Haliburton's profits (or losses) have no financial impact on Bush or Cheney.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

people like JoeEpcotRocks just say that people die in war, tough crap.

I've never said "tough crap." I said "blame the terrorists."

 

[Sylvester McBean]

1) Your are assuming no-bid contracts are bad. Negotiated contracts are not uncommon in construction, especially with very large jobs that a very limited number of companies can handle.

2) Haliburton's profits (or losses) have no financial impact on Bush or Cheney.

Cheney, definately. Bush's income is tied directly to the UAE.