POL - You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie

[rexallllsc]

hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html

04/20/06 FOX Poll: Gloomy Economic Views; Bush Approval at New Low
Thursday, April 20, 2006
By Dana Blanton


Click image to enlarge
STORIES ARCHIVE
•
Bush, GOP Approval Ratings Hit New Lows
NEW YORK — More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.

[rexallllsc]

Let's see, he's managed to lose all of the "political capital" he had shortly after 9/11, has allowed the borders to remain unsecured. Hasn't addressed the illegal immigration problems (which will probably be an epidemic in the near future). Started a war based on a lie. Has surrounded himself with people who are out of touch.

Wow, are people finally waking up to this?

[Kodos]

Don't forget making much of the world hate us.

[Crapshoot]

Don't worry - Dutch will be in here claiming its the "liberal media" to blame.

That being said, I'm actually more of a fan of some of Bush's recent actions - doing the right thing, as opposed to the populist thing.

[Franklinnoble]

Let's see... the Dow Jones is at a five-year high, unemployment is down, interest rates are still low, and inflation is in check - in spite of record oil prices.

The immigration "problem" is no better, worse, or even any different than it has been in decades - it's just getting more airplay because of congress and resulting protests.

Despite your disapproval of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, we haven't had any further attacks on US soil since 9/11/01. What, exactly, do you use to measure success here? I say if there are no suicide bombers blowing up buildings in the US, then we're winning the war.

But, I guess we're all upset that France doesn't think we're cool anymore...

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Don't worry - Dutch will be in here claiming its the "liberal media" to blame.

That being said, I'm actually more of a fan of some of Bush's recent actions - doing the right thing, as opposed to the populist thing.

I think he has quite often done upopular things. See Stem Cells and the Schiavo case.. as examples of things where he apparently believes he is doing the "right" thing against public opinion. Even though he often does things I don't approve of, I consider his "principled stands" on issues to be a strength.

Of note "starting a war based on a lie", wasn't one of the things I didn't approve of. I feared that if I attempted to change the spin on Rex's volley, that the whole thread might have unravelled.

Also of note, while I was 100% behind dealing with Saddam and Iraq, I wish we had taken care of business in Afghanistan before Iraq.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

...
The immigration "problem" is no better, worse, or even any different than it has been in decades - it's just getting more airplay because of congress and resulting protests.

...

I forgot to mention this. Immigration isn't any more of a problem than it has been in the past. Not to mention that it would be difficult to imagine it worsening to the point that it would be called an epidemic.

[CraigSca]

Approval polls are just so damn lame and their airplay to significance ratio is astronomical. Are there really people out there who approved of Bush two weeks ago, but don't now? How 'bout the week before?

The bottom line is - vote Democrat if you feel differently. The people had their chance - they bitch and complain - and then still vote the same way.

I've said this ad nauseum - Harry Truman's approval ratings were absolutely awful through his presidency and yet he was a damn good president. Do what's right - if Joe and Josephine Blow don't get it, they can vote differently next election.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Let's see... the Dow Jones is at a five-year high

If Bush is responsible for the Dow being at a 5-year high, then he's also responsible for its crash in 2001, right?

unemployment is down

Again, compared to the heights they reached under his administration.

interest rates are still low

Which is an attempt to stimulate a moribund economy.

record oil prices.

Yes, let's talk about this....

Despite your disapproval of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, we haven't had any further attacks on US soil since 9/11/01. What, exactly, do you use to measure success here? I say if there are no suicide bombers blowing up buildings in the US, then we're winning the war.

The Londoners and Madrilenos say "hi".

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

The immigration "problem" is no better, worse, or even any different than it has been in decades - it's just getting more airplay because of congress and resulting protests.

6 hospitals closed in Los Angeles last year.

Despite your disapproval of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, we haven't had any further attacks on US soil since 9/11/01. What, exactly, do you use to measure success here? I say if there are no suicide bombers blowing up buildings in the US, then we're winning the war.

No further attacks doesn't mean much to be, to be honest. Hell, there were 8 years between attacks the first time. I think it's clear that these guys have no problem waiting.

As far as the War on Terror, I think it's pretty clear that we've failed in Afghanistan (not only is the Taliban creeping back in, but their poppy fields are reaching an all-time high in production). The War on Terror seems to be functioning much like the War on Drugs. Bloated and ineffective.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The Londoners and Madrilenos say "hi".

Wait a second - it's Bush's fault these occurred?

Was the Achille Lauro the president's fault? The Lockerbee bombing?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I forgot to mention this. Immigration isn't any more of a problem than it has been in the past. Not to mention that it would be difficult to imagine it worsening to the point that it would be called an epidemic.

Yeah, what is happening to California hospitals and schools - not a problem at all.

[CraigSca]

Well - we can attempt to move all illegal aliens out of the country. However, that would be likened to "criminalizing Jesus". So...we can make all the illegal aliens suddenly legal, and have non-citizens dictate American policy. Take your pick.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If Bush is responsible for the Dow being at a 5-year high, then he's also responsible for its crash in 2001, right?



Again, compared to the heights they reached under his administration.



Which is an attempt to stimulate a moribund economy.



Yes, let's talk about this....



The Londoners and Madrilenos say "hi".

1. The crash in 2001 had nothing to do with Bush. It was a combination of things, the two biggest of which were:

A. 9/11 - And if you wanna get partisan, blame Clinton for not doing anything about Bin Laden after the embassy and Cole bombings.

B. Accounting fraud - Again, you can blame the fast-and-loose business policies allowed by Clinton.

2. Unemployment... see above.

3. Low interest rates - what the hell is wrong with that? Are you actually COMPLAINING about the Fed's attempt to stimulate the economy and put money in your pocket?

4. Oil prices - Hmm... when did all the oil company mergers happen? Remind me...

5. Sorry... I love Spain and Great Britain, but London and Madrid aren't on US soil... read what I said.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Well - we can attempt to move all illegal aliens out of the country. However, that would be likened to "criminalizing Jesus". So...we can make all the illegal aliens suddenly legal, and have non-citizens dictate American policy. Take your pick.

Legal. Reform of the guest worker program. People want to come here and work. Fine with me. You just have to pay your fair share, like the rest of us.

Also, non-citizens have dictated American policy for a while now, unfortunately.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Wait a second - it's Bush's fault these occurred?

Was the Achille Lauro the president's fault? The Lockerbee bombing?

Bush is not without blame for the London bombings, but it is not completely, or even mostly, his fault. If Blair hadn't been trying to shove his head so far up GWB's arse to try and look through his mouth, we wouldn;t have been attacked.

But at the same time, if GWB & the US hadn't initiated the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, I don;t believe the London bombings would have occurred. However, the attack on Afghanistan was understandable, and that may well have been enough to prompt our 7/7, even without the highly controversial Iraq war.

So IMHO Bush had one of many causal effects on the London bombings, but if we had done things differently, they wouldn't have occurred.

As for Lockerbie - it was an attack on an American plane by Libyans as a direct response to US actions: therefore yes, this can be directly attributed - the fact that the plane exploded over Scotland does not reflect that it was an attack on the Scots or British.

[Ksyrup]

It amazes me that people try to make perfect causal connections between Presidents and the economy or even terrorist attacks. I judge a President by the same criteria I vote for him - underlying philosophy. That's why I voted Republican and why Gore/Kerry were not viable options for me.

On that criteria, though, Bush has been a disappointment. He's a fiscal liberal, and it sickens me. I'd probably think even less if him if his socially conservative beliefs really meant anything to me. Regardless of who is in office, economies ebb and flow, things could be done better, there are going to be lapses in intelligence, etc. That's all pretty meaningless to me. But Bush abandoned and/or gave lip service to the underlying fiscal philosophies of the Republican Party, and for those of us who don't vote based on politicians' abortion/homosexual/social cause platforms, he let us down.

That said, I can't imagine voting Democrat next time, so I'll probably be in line for the next disappointment in 2008.

Oh, and whoever above used the tired "he lied to start a war" argument. Sheesh, give it a rest. You can criticize the administration's policies since the first 100 days or so, but the decision to go o war was based primarily on faulty intelligence gathered by the previous Republican and Democrat administrations and widely believed by the rest to the world to be true. Even Clinton has said as much. They may have underestimated what it would take to finish the job, but going in still seems like a no-brainer to me based on what we thought we knew.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Oh, and whoever above used the tired "he lied to start a war" argument. Sheesh, give it a rest.

I guess it's too much to ask for a President to be absolutely sure of the intel before invading another country.

hxxp://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It amazes me that people try to make perfect causal connections between Presidents and the economy or even terrorist attacks. I judge a President by the same criteria I vote for him - underlying philosophy. That's why I voted Republican and why Gore/Kerry were not viable options for me.

On that criteria, though, Bush has been a disappointment. He's a fiscal liberal, and it sickens me. I'd probably think even less if him if his socially conservative beliefs really meant anything to me. Regardless of who is in office, economies ebb and flow, things could be done better, there are going to be lapses in intelligence, etc. That's all pretty meaningless to me. But Bush abandoned and/or gave lip service to the underlying fiscal philosophies of the Republican Party, and for those of us who don't vote based on politicians' abortion/homosexual/social cause platforms, he let us down.

That said, I can't imagine voting Democrat next time, so I'll probably be in line for the next disappointment in 2008.

Oh, and whoever above used the tired "he lied to start a war" argument. Sheesh, give it a rest. You can criticize the administration's policies since the first 100 days or so, but the decision to go o war was based primarily on faulty intelligence gathered by the previous Republican and Democrat administrations and widely believed by the rest to the world to be true. Even Clinton has said as much. They may have underestimated what it would take to finish the job, but going in still seems like a no-brainer to me based on what we thought we knew.

What Ksyrup said.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I guess it's too much to ask for a President to be absolutely sure of the intel before invading another country.

hxxp://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

Yeah, pretty much, when that's next to impossible. There weren't 10 people in office back then who didn't believe Iraqz had WMD. The only argument was over whether to give them more time to come clean. Everything since then is shoulda would coulda hindsight BS.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Let's see... the Dow Jones is at a five-year high, unemployment is down, interest rates are still low, and inflation is in check - in spite of record oil prices.

The immigration "problem" is no better, worse, or even any different than it has been in decades - it's just getting more airplay because of congress and resulting protests.

Despite your disapproval of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, we haven't had any further attacks on US soil since 9/11/01. What, exactly, do you use to measure success here? I say if there are no suicide bombers blowing up buildings in the US, then we're winning the war.

But, I guess we're all upset that France doesn't think we're cool anymore...

What about the falling dollar? As for financial policies, I believe that the president has some control over in regards to tax cuts, but it's the Fed that is the "director".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Wait a second - it's Bush's fault these occurred?

Was the Achille Lauro the president's fault? The Lockerbee bombing?

Have Bush's actions quelched the Al-Qaeda threat? London, Madrid and countless Al-Qaeda actions around the world (but not in the U.S... yet) seem to suggest not.

[duckman]

For st.cronin:

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Yeah, pretty much, when that's next to impossible. There weren't 10 people in office back then who didn't believe Iraqz had WMD. The only argument was over whether to give them more time to come clean. Everything since then is shoulda would coulda hindsight BS.

Huh?

Remember all the talk of the tubes and "Yellow cake"?

Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."
---
The previously undisclosed review by Hadley was part of a damage-control effort launched after former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged that Bush's claims regarding the uranium were not true. The CIA had sent Wilson to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate the purported procurement efforts by Iraq; he reported that they were most likely a hoax.
---
Most troublesome to those leading the damage-control effort was documentary evidence -- albeit in highly classified government records that they might be able to keep secret -- that the president had been advised that many in the intelligence community believed that the tubes were meant for conventional weapons.
---
The President's Summary was only one of several high-level warnings given to Bush and other senior administration officials that serious doubts existed about the intended use of the tubes, according to government records and interviews with former and current officials.

In mid-September 2002, two weeks before Bush received the October 2002 President's Summary, Tenet informed him that both State and Energy had doubts about the aluminum tubes and that even some within the CIA weren't certain that the tubes were meant for nuclear weapons, according to government records and interviews with two former senior officials.

Official records and interviews with current and former officials also reveal that the president was told that even then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had doubts that the tubes might be used for nuclear weapons.

So there were doubts. By people and by departments. But GW went ahead with it anyways, stating that they were clearly for WMD.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

1. The crash in 2001 had nothing to do with Bush. It was a combination of things, the two biggest of which were:

A. 9/11 - And if you wanna get partisan, blame Clinton for not doing anything about Bin Laden after the embassy and Cole bombings.

B. Accounting fraud - Again, you can blame the fast-and-loose business policies allowed by Clinton.

So Bush isn't responsible when the stock market crashes, but it's his work when the stock market goes up? You can't have it both ways.

2. Unemployment... see above.

Yeah, either the President has an effect on the economy or he doesn't. Take your pick. Or keep flip-flopping. Your call.

3. Low interest rates - what the hell is wrong with that? Are you actually COMPLAINING about the Fed's attempt to stimulate the economy and put money in your pocket?

It's all about short term "money-in-your-pocket" thinking with you Republicans. The Fed lowers interest rates to stimulate the economy. Sure, it's nice for the consumer in the short term, but as a macro indicator, it suggests that all is not well with the economy.

4. Oil prices - Hmm... when did all the oil company mergers happen? Remind me...

Hmm... when did the oil companies post record profits? Could it be when their former comrade was in control of the White House and Congress? I'm sure there's no favoritism there. And letting them help set energy policy behind closed doors was just icing on the cake.

5. Sorry... I love Spain and Great Britain, but London and Madrid aren't on US soil... read what I said.

Yeah, you don't care about non-Americans. We get it already.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

What Ksyrup said.

What you said he said

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by duckman

For st.cronin:

You have some commentary on this or are you going down with the Titanic here?

Hard for me to imagine Republicans being proud of this guy.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

He's a fiscal liberal, and it sickens me.

No he's not. He's simply fiscally irresponsible.

A fiscal liberal is someone like FDR, who believes in using government money to directly achieve specific ends (usually social and economic).

Describe for me Bush's coherent fiscal policy. I'd argue that he doesn't have one, and his fiscal policy is essentially a collection of whims.

Oh, and whoever above used the tired "he lied to start a war" argument. Sheesh, give it a rest.

So Dick Cheney goes on national television days after 9/11 and says Hussein is "effectively controlled" and then less than 6 months later the same Dick Cheney is describing Hussein as the biggest threat to the free world and you don't see something fishy there?

How about the fact that Colin Powell said he didn't trust the Pentagon's data on Iraq, to which Rumsfeld's aides simply created more slanted memos? Plus the fact that a lot of the "data" behind these memos consisted of hearsay from dingbats like Ahmed Chalabi, who hadn't actually lived in Iraq for years and stood to gain financially from Hussein's overthrow (nevermind the fact that Chalabi was also convicted of bank fraud in Jordan).

Or the fact that El-Baradei and Blix weren't convinced that Hussein was still a threat? Or the fact that the State Department's internal intelligence agency disputed the CIA's findings on Iraq?

How much more proof, exactly, do you people need here?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

You have some commentary on this or are you going down with the Titanic here?

Hard for me to imagine Republicans being proud of this guy.

My commentary is this:

When are you going to quit harping over this shit? You have brought nothing and I mean NOTHING new to the table for discussion. Great, you don't like Bush and the way he has handle his presidency. Are you going to keep bringing it up over and over and over again like you are going to magically change their opinions?

Truth is that I see you are a bigger political troll than Jesse ever was. You keep bringing this tired shit back up over and over and over again because you like to get a rise of people. Sure, you post some facts and figures to make these "discussions" look legit, but reality is that you are just stirring the kettle some more. There hasn't been a civil discussion on this issue ever, yet you keep brining it back up. It's pretty obvious what you are doing in my mind.

And before you start in on my political leanings, I would like you to know that I disapprove with Bush's record on domestic issues. He is one of the most fiscally irresponsible US Presidents in history. I'm also not a fan of his handling of post-war Iraq. The laundry list is too long for me to even name what I felt he did wrong over there.

Now, go do us all a favor and go back to bitching about your XBox 360 not working and let this shit die already.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by duckman

My commentary is this:

When are you going to quit harping over this shit? You have brought nothing and I mean NOTHING new to the table for discussion. Great, you don't like Bush and the way he has handle his presidency. Are you going to keep bringing it up over and over and over again like you are going to magically change their opinions?

I probably will keep bringing it up, yes. I think it's a pretty important topic.

Truth is that I see you are a bigger political troll than Jesse ever was. You keep bringing this tired shit back up over and over and over again because you like to get a rise of people. Sure, you post some facts and figures to make these "discussions" look legit, but reality is that you are just stirring the kettle some more. There hasn't been a civil discussion on this issue ever, yet you keep brining it back up. It's pretty obvious what you are doing in my mind.

Tired? This is a brand new article. I don't think it's necessarily "tired" to bring up a guy who I feel has really set this country back in a big way.

I'm certainly not trolling, and if you disagree, that's fine. You can put me on your ignore list.

Now, go do us all a favor and go back to bitching about your XBox 360 not working and let this shit die already.

I think this is a very important topic in our country right now (if not the most important), and I don't think there's anything wrong with discussion of it. You're certainly well within your rights to skip over it.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Started a war based on a lie.

Anyone catch the Iraqi general they had a daily show a few weeks back? He was the head of the Iraqi Air Force and he said he knew for sure Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they were moved to syria before the war began. Very interesting story. Very interesting story, which really took Jon Stewart back...

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Anyone catch the Iraqi general they had a daily show a few weeks back? He was the head of the Iraqi Air Force and he said he knew for sure Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they were moved to syria before the war began. Very interesting story. Very interesting story, which really took Jon Stewart back...

Yup, I did see that. Interesting. Something that should definitely be looked into.

Doesn't really change things in regards to the aluminum tubes or the Niger yellow cake, though.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Anyone catch the Iraqi general they had a daily show a few weeks back? He was the head of the Iraqi Air Force and he said he knew for sure Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they were moved to syria before the war began. Very interesting story. Very interesting story, which really took Jon Stewart back...

Here's the relevant part of the transcript:

STEWART: This is obviously the most controversial part of the book. In it you say that right before the invasion of Iraq Saddam had his weapons of mass destruction taken to Syria.

SADA: That’s true. He had them there before Americans came and liberated the country. The weapons were transported to Syria by air and by ground.

STEWART: That would seemingly get the Bush administration off the giant hook that it appears to be on. Why wouldn’t they pursue that line of evidence? Or have they? It seems like for us it would be hard to understand that that really happened. Given that the whole world was looking for those.

SADA: I am sure in the coming days the authorities are going to tell the public and tell all Americans after they will have all the evidence in their hands and they can verify everything to the Americans.

STEWART: You still feel, now this is first-hand knowledge of yours? Somebody told you this? You’ve seen it in documents? You’ve seen it on video.

SADA: Oh yes, the weapons of mass destruction I have seen them myself because you see I was the number two man in the air force. Then I know how they were used against our nation. Of course—

STEWART: But in the later ‘90s after they thought they had rid them of it, you still saw them.

SADA: After the ‘90s they were there. How I knew they were there, after they were transported the pilots who transported they told me.

STEWART: The guys that flew them …

SADA: The guys who were responsible.

STEWART: How do you fly a weapon? Isn’t that a large thing or do you put it….

SADA: No. They are raw materials; some of them are like barrels, yellow barrels, of course, with skulls and cross bones on them.

STEWART: You think if you’re going to hide that stuff you think you might paint something like you know, spam.

[WSUCougar]

Let's try and keep this civil, folks. You each know how inflammatory things are to the other side of the aisle.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I probably will keep bringing it up, yes. I think it's a pretty important topic.

That makes you a troll.

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Tired? This is a brand new article. I don't think it's necessarily "tired" to bring up a guy who I feel has really set this country back in a big way.

New article. Same tired subject matter. It's not new. It's the same "I hate Bush and so should you" tripe.

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I'm certainly not trolling, and if you disagree, that's fine. You can put me on your ignore list.

Why would I put you on ignore when I can post those smileys for all to enjoy?!

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I think this is a very important topic in our country right now (if not the most important), and I don't think there's anything wrong with discussion of it. You're certainly well within your rights to skip over it.

I'm also within my rights to make fun of you too for thinking people can't see through the real meaning of this "discussion" (flamewar is more like it). What do you really think this accomplishes? Nothing if you listen to most people's opinions. People have better things to do than worry about somebody who is going to a lame duck President in the next few months. All you are doing is creating divisions on this board and not making this place where people can relax and enjoy hearing reasonable opinions about reasonable subject matter. Again, you are my definition of a troll.

[flere-imsaho]

I think the article's important for two reasons:

1. Bush's 33% approval rating is very relevant when you consider he's thinking about attacking Iran in our name.

2. It's a Fox News poll. Seriously, who would have thought a Fox News poll would have put Bush at 33%? Who do they think they are, Le Monde?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by duckman

I'm also within my rights to make fun of you too for thinking people can't see through the real meaning of this "discussion" (flamewar is more like it). What do you really think this accomplishes? Nothing if you listen to most people's opinions. People have better things to do than worry about somebody who is going to a lame duck President in the next few months.

The only one engaging in a "flamewar" is you, and if you want to "make fun" of me, go ahead. I'm not going to get into that with you, though.

You're right, some people do have better things to do than to talk about the President on a message board. Those are the people who skip the thread. For the people who feel like discussing it, this is the thread to do it.

All you are doing is creating divisions on this board and not making this place where people can relax and enjoy hearing reasonable opinions about reasonable subject matter. Again, you are my definition of a troll.

I'm not interjecting my opinions of George Bush in other threads. I think it's clear that I can engage in discussion in other topics just fine, and can discuss these things with people whose political beliefs I completely disagree with without a problem. I also think it's pretty clear what this thread is about, and if it's going to fill your trip to the board with anxiety, maybe it would be best if you didn't read the threads that involve George Bush?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

He's a fiscal liberal, and it sickens me. I'd probably think even less if him if his socially conservative beliefs really meant anything to me. Regardless of who is in office, economies ebb and flow, things could be done better, there are going to be lapses in intelligence, etc. That's all pretty meaningless to me. But Bush abandoned and/or gave lip service to the underlying fiscal philosophies of the Republican Party, and for those of us who don't vote based on politicians' abortion/homosexual/social cause platforms, he let us down.

I hate to get into this thread, but I really disagree with this.

Bush and this congress are not fiscally liberal. They are fiscally irresponsible. It is often easy (and I admit I am guilty of this, as well) to assign political shortfalls as characteristics of the opposing party, but it is incorrect in this case. You can say they (Bush and Congress) are liberal in that he has increased government spending with additional projects and funding (although I would probably object to that, based on the manner of spending), but the tax cuts don't really jive with a liberal policy.

Basically, he has cut government income and increased government spending. Irresponsible, not liberal.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

...
Or the fact that El-Baradei and Blix weren't convinced that Hussein was still a threat? Or the fact that the State Department's internal intelligence agency disputed the CIA's findings on Iraq?

How much more proof, exactly, do you people need here?

Blix stated about two months before the invasion that the Iraqis hadn't even come to grip with fundamental conclusion that they need to disarm. They didn't know that Saddam had any WMDs, but it was certainly not unreasonable to believe that he did based solely on his actions.

The rest of the stuff quoted here is cherry picking through the dozens of reports on pre-war intelligence.

You simply CAN'T prove that the war was entered into under any sort of false pretenses. When are you people going to come to grips with that. The funny thing is, I have the feeling most of you would have been on the other side of this thing had Clinton gone into Iraq. I can definatively say, that my position wouldn't have changed one iota. Saddam needed to be dealt with.

[TroyF]

I'm not going to put a ton of input in here other than the stock market stuff.

Yes, it is entirely possible for Bush to not be at fault for the collapse and have credit for the recovery. Bush didn't create 9/11, the Xerox, Enron, MCI World accounting errors. He didn't create or do anything with the .com collapse.

There isn't a specific policy that could have been there to prevent any of that. I'm not putting the blame on anyone there. It just happened. Again, you cannot point to a single thing Bush could have done to prevent any of those issues.

Now, can we point to any specific thing he did to reverse the process? I'll let other people debate that one.

It isn't surprising to me that Bush has low approval numbers. Most dems hate his guts and always have. Short term support after an attack isn't surprising in the least, it's expected. Nor is the reversal.

As for the people who voted for him, many voted on what they felt was the lesser of two evils. They didn't vote FOR their candidate they voted AGAINST the guy they despised. So is it really shocking many of those voters would have a low approval of Bush? They never were really thrilled to begin with.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You simply CAN'T prove that the war was entered into under any sort of false pretenses. When are you people going to come to grips with that. The funny thing is, I have the feeling most of you would have been on the other side of this thing had Clinton gone into Iraq. I can definatively say, that my position wouldn't have changed one iota. Saddam needed to be dealt with.

Personally, it already has been proven. They had the info that the yellow cake and tubes were either false or not used for what they said it was. That's enough for me.

As far as Clinton, if he went on the same grounds I'd be saying the same thing. It's funny, I didn't like Clinton at all - thought he was the worst kind of Politician. Unfortunately (really unfortunately), Bush trumped him.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Personally, it already has been proven. They had the info that the yellow cake and tubes were either false or not used for what they said it was. That's enough for me.

As far as Clinton, if he went on the same grounds I'd be saying the same thing. It's funny, I didn't like Clinton at all - thought he was the worst kind of Politician. Unfortunately (really unfortunately), Bush trumped him.

Because one piece of information was questioned, or not given the appropriate weight in other people's estimation of the facts, you are willing to say they are bold faced liars. That's mighty open minded of you.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Because one piece of information was questioned, or not given the appropriate weight in other people's estimation of the facts, you are willing to say they are bold faced liars. That's mighty open minded of you.

I noted at least two pieces of information, and I'm sure there's more.

But yes, I'm willing to say that they're liars, but don't let that bother you - I think about nearly every politician. This isn't exclusive to GW's administration.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I noted at least two pieces of information, and I'm sure there's more.

But yes, I'm willing to say that they're liars, but don't let that bother you - I think about nearly every politician. This isn't exclusive to GW's administration.

That's a pre-requisite for the role isn;t it

There's a view that if somebody wants to be a politician, they should immediately be barred from doing so. Kinda reverse logic, but there's an elemnt of truth to it.

[Franklinnoble]

I give up. I just gotta start putting people on ignore.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Blix stated about two months before the invasion that the Iraqis hadn't even come to grip with fundamental conclusion that they need to disarm. They didn't know that Saddam had any WMDs, but it was certainly not unreasonable to believe that he did based solely on his actions.

Blix also stated that he felt the inspection regime needed more time.

You simply CAN'T prove that the war was entered into under any sort of false pretenses.

I disagree. This is a classic case of "you're going to believe what you want to." I don't see how anyone can look at the Downing Street Memo, for instance, and the supporting documentation for it that has come out since, and come to any other conclusion.

And no, I wouldn't have supported Clinton invading Iraq, and I base that upon my lack of support for him sending in troops into Somalia and Bosnia.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I give up. I just gotta start putting people on ignore.

At the (major) risk of being flamed, isn't this the attitude that has led to sections of the world being upset by the US?

i.e.: I don't like/agree with what I'm hearing, therefore rather than accept that other people have alternatives that I may not agree with, I am going to bury my head in the sand/force my way upon others.

IMHO, the world needs to recognise that what works in one place is not necessarily what should be attempted/imposed unilaterally.

As a side note (and FN: please don't take this as a personal/theological attack) this is my opinion as an atheist. I mention this only as the majority of wars through history have been based on religion, although granted in more recent times, economics have been a far more prevalent factor.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I give up. I just gotta start putting people on ignore.

Either that, or start backing up some of your statements with facts and logic.

[Buccaneer]

Troy said it best, along with Ksyrup. Too many believe that because you voted against someone it meant that you voted for the other. I think you will many here (as indicated by the several polls we've had over the last 5 years) have never been enamored with Bush, it was just voting for the other guy was more evil.

By the way, it always been funny to see the blame for liberal fiscalness or fiscal irresponsibility (same thing, even in FDR's day) solely with the Executive Branch when it is the Legislative Branch that holds the purse strings. The Executive Branch does not have the balls anymore (it's been that way for a while or will be for years to come) to veto. Clinton, Bush, President 2008, President 2012, et al have and will go along with whatever Congress shovels and hope that there's another PC or Dot Net revolution.

Vote for libertarians next time, esp. for Congress. See below.

[Franklinnoble]

Two ignore adds, and suddenly the thread gets a lot easier to read.

I suppose I'll miss some cute diagrams as a result, but on balance, I think I've improved my overall FOFC experience.