Bush Job approval rating now at 44% - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-21-2006, 01:14 AM   #76
Blue Crack Overdose
Get me off the internetz!
 
Carek1230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: wishing I was somewhere else....
Posts: 114,587
Local Time: 01:45 PM
I'd be interested to hear the explanations of these idiotic morons who are supposedly going to vote Republican after all. WHY?!!!!!
__________________

__________________
Carek1230 is online now  
Old 09-21-2006, 02:58 AM   #77
Refugee
 
jacobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 1,601
Local Time: 10:45 PM
BUSH is just another misguided religious fanatic* like the islamic terrorists. BUSH is on the same terroristic level as they are. he is just a dumb devil in a suit living in a white house.
hey US americans show him the red card and then deport him to a snowy white frozen island in antarctica. and don't forget to give the alcoholic a few bottles of whisky.
tarzoon is the shame of the jungle but dumbass BUSH is the shame of the US.

*like a preacher stealing hearts at a travelling show
__________________

__________________
jacobus is offline  
Old 09-21-2006, 03:32 AM   #78
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:45 PM
This is a discussion forum, folks, not a flamebait factory or some teenager's slam book. If you really have nothing more to contribute than negative emoting about the topic, then at least do it civilly and in a mature fashion. And if you actually wish to better understand how people who don't see eye-to-eye with you think, then starting out by calling them morons and idiots is not the way to go.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-21-2006, 10:15 AM   #79
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



or could it be the bullshit so often spewed by many liberals who fail to acknowledge anything the military has accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq and will only talk about the negative events inside both countries there be creating a distorted image that does not truely reflect the reality on the ground in both places as as so often been expressed by soldiers and marines that have served in both countries.

The State Department and Pentagon have had dozens of plans for the invasion and occupation of Iraq since 1991. No plan is ever perfect and taking down a regime and rebuilding a country is always a tasks that takes years if not decades. The administration chose to make several changes to existing plans that probably contributed to a lot of the problems that soon arose after Saddam had been defeated.

Iraq had been an ongoing problem for years, and the containment regime that had been built in 1991 had totally fallen apart by 2002. There was effectively no no arms embargo or sanctions across the entire Syrian/Iraq border by the year 2000. Airstrikes currently being contemplated against Iran were tried in 1998. Despite Billions of dollars being spent every year, weekly airstrikes on Iraqi air defense and related military targets for 12 years, Saddam had not complied with the Security Council Resolutions necessary for the security of the region and the planet. Everything short of full scale military action to remove the regime and tried and failed to enforce the resolutions vital the security of the world after 12 years. That in a nutshell is why regime change was necessary.

The administration successfully brought democratic elections to Iraq within 20 months after the fall of Saddam. Years earlier than it was done in either Germany or Japan. Nothing in regards to the political development of the country by the administration has demonstrated that they had any idea of installing anyone much less Chalabi.


keep on trying!



[q]U.N. Finds Baghdad Toll Far Higher Than Cited
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
BAGHDAD, Sept. 20 — A United Nations report released Wednesday says that 5,106 people in Baghdad died violent deaths during July and August, a number far higher than reports that have relied on figures from the city’s morgue.

Across the country, the report found, 3,590 civilians were killed in July — the highest monthly total on record — and 3,009 more were killed in August. There were 4,309 Iraqi civilians reported wounded in August, a 14 percent increase from July.

The report also describes evidence of torture on many of the bodies found in Baghdad, including gouged-out eyeballs and wounds from nails, power drills and acid. “Hundreds of bodies have continued to appear throughout the country bearing signs of severe torture and execution-style killing,” the report found.

As Baghdad has become the main stage for intensified sectarian fighting, the counting of the dead has become a contentious issue. Some American officials say figures released by the Baghdad morgue are inflated. The United Nations report includes the morgue’s figures of 1,855 killed in July and 1,536 killed in August. But it also counts bodies received at other hospitals in the city.

Throughout Baghdad, 2,222 people were killed in August, a 23 percent reduction from the July total of 2,884, the report found. It said the reduction “may be attributed to a degree of improved security” from recent large-scale sweeps by American and Iraqi troops through Baghdad’s most dangerous neighborhoods.

But the report also said casualties had climbed in other regions, notably in Diyala and Mosul. And it said that while the number of killings decreased at the beginning of August, “further increases were evident towards the end of the month in Baghdad and other governorates.”

While most deaths occurred in Baghdad, the report suggests it may not reflect all casualties from other areas because of difficulties collecting information. Anbar Province, an insurgent haven west of the capital and one of the deadliest regions in Iraq, reported no deaths in July.

Torture remains widespread, not only by death squads but also in official detention centers, according to United Nations officials. The report said some detainees showed signs of beating “using electrical cables, wounds in different parts of their bodies, including in the head and genitals, broken bones of legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns.”

Bodies found in Baghdad, the report added, often show signs of torture that include “acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails.”

The report was released as American military officials in Baghdad described a sharp rise in executions in the capital and said that terrorists appeared to have intensified efforts to kill American soldiers.

Killings in the capital appear to have risen sharply in the past week, as close to 200 bodies have been found. An Interior Ministry official said 28 bodies were discovered Wednesday. “This past week, there was a spike in execution-style murders in Baghdad,” Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the chief American military spokesman in Iraq, said Wednesday. “Many bodies found had clear signs of being bound, tortured and executed. We believe death squads and other illegal armed groups are responsible for this type of violence.”

[/q]



and there was never any evidence of ever having a postwar plan, and Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who wanted to come up with a postwar plan:

[q]Planning continued to be a challenge.

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-21-2006, 02:29 PM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Re: Re: Re: Bush Job approval rating now at 44%

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its the #1 metric used by the Presidents opponents to claim that he is somehow politically powerless to do anything and has lost all his support in the country. Now their #1 metric is no longer supporting their widely held claims.
And it works both ways. You gave us tons of explanations why the low poll numbers aren't indicative of the job Bush is doing, but as soon as those numbers go up, all of the sudden they are valid.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 09-21-2006, 03:02 PM   #81
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:45 PM
[q]Poll Finds Most Americans Displeased With Congress
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

With the midterm elections less than seven weeks away, Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the Republican-controlled Congress, with substantial majorities saying that they disapprove of the job it is doing and that its members do not deserve reelection, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The disregard for Congress is the most intense it has been since 1994, when Republicans captured 52 seats to end four decades of Democratic control of the House and retook the Senate as well. It underlines the challenge the Republican Party faces in trying to hold onto power in the face of a surge in anti-incumbent sentiment.

By overwhelming margins, respondents said that members of Congress were too tied to special interests and that they did not understand the needs and problems of average Americans. Two-thirds said Congress had accomplished less than it typically does in a two-year session; most said they said they could not name a single major piece of legislation that cleared this Congress. Just 25 percent said they approved of the way Congress was doing its job.

The Times/CBS News poll also found that President Bush did not improve his own or his party’s standing through the intense campaign of speeches he made and events he attended surrounding the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The speeches were at the heart of a Republican strategy to thrust national security to the forefront in the fall elections.

Mr. Bush’s job approval rating was 37 percent, virtually unchanged from the last Times/CBS News poll, which was conducted in August. On the issue that has been a bulwark for Mr. Bush, 54 percent said they approve of the way he is managing the effort to combat terrorists, again unchanged from last month, though up from earlier this spring.

Republicans continue to hold a slight edge over Democrats on which party is better at dealing with terrorism, though that edge did not grow since last month despite Mr. Bush’s flurry of speeches on national security, including one from the Oval Office on the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary.

But the Times/CBS News poll found a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who say they approve of the way Mr. Bush has handled the war in Iraq, to 36 percent from 30 percent. It also suggests that after bottoming out this spring, Mr. Bush’s approval ratings on the economy and foreign policy have returned to their levels of about a year ago, both at 37 percent. The number of people who called terrorism the most important issue facing the country doubled to 14 percent in this poll from 7 percent in July; 22 percent named the war in Iraq as their top concern, little changed from July.

Across the board, the poll found marked disenchantment with Congress, highlighting the opportunity that Democrats see to make the argument for a change in leadership and to make the election a national referendum on the performance of the Republican-controlled Congress and Mr. Bush’s tenure. In one striking finding, 77 percent of respondents — including 65 percent of Republicans — said that most members of Congress had not done a good enough job to deserve re-election and that it was time to give new people a chance. That is the highest number of voters who said it was “time for new people” since the fall of 1994.

[...]

For all the clear dissatisfaction with the 109th Congress, 39 percent of respondents said their own representative deserved re-election, compared with 48 percent who said it was time for someone new. What is more, it seems highly unlikely Democrats would experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994. Most political analysts judge only about 40 House seats to be in play at the moment, compared with more than 100 seats at this point 12 years ago, in large part because redistricting has created more safe seats for both parties.

[/q]



i think the last paragraph is important. it's quite obvious that Congress and the White House are deeply unpopular, but this isn't going to translate into a sweep like 1994 for a variety of factors, probably the biggest being the gerrymandering that has been done in so many districts by both parties. i think it is absolutely false, and hugely misleading, to set the Democrats up for a loss if they fail to win back both the House and the Senate, or even just the House or just the Senate. there's a 15 seat difference betweeen the Dems and the Reps. if we are to take the lines spun by Republicans, and many pundits looking for headlines and soundbytes, the Democrats will be failures if, say, the only win 14 seats in the House.

so, let's keep all this in mind as we approach the elections. to say that it's a loss if they win by less than expected, or that 2006 will be antoher 1994, is little more than political spin, and spun it will be.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-23-2006, 04:47 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511






and there was never any evidence of ever having a postwar plan, and Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who wanted to come up with a postwar plan:


[/q]
Well, Brigadier General Scheid was Colonel when the events happened in 2001-2002. In contrast, 4 star General Anthoney Zinni was in charge of Central Command for many years back in the 1990s. General Zinni has said they developed multiple plans for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The problem was that the administration chose not to follow many parts of those plans once Saddam was overthrown. This was a big mistake and contributed to the creation of the insurgent movement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2006, 04:55 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Job approval rating now at 44%

Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


And it works both ways. You gave us tons of explanations why the low poll numbers aren't indicative of the job Bush is doing, but as soon as those numbers go up, all of the sudden they are valid.
I only bring up the poll numbers not because I think they are more valid now with Bush at 44% as opposed to when he was at 31%, but because the Democrats and others believe this is the best gauge of how popular the President is. Now, what Democrats believe is the best gauge of the Presidents popularity is no longer showing him to be the weak powerless "lame duck" President the Democrats constantly try to make him out to be.

I still think elections are by far the best gauge of the Presidents popularity.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2006, 05:20 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]

i think the last paragraph is important. it's quite obvious that Congress and the White House are deeply unpopular, but this isn't going to translate into a sweep like 1994 for a variety of factors, probably the biggest being the gerrymandering that has been done in so many districts by both parties. i think it is absolutely false, and hugely misleading, to set the Democrats up for a loss if they fail to win back both the House and the Senate, or even just the House or just the Senate. there's a 15 seat difference betweeen the Dems and the Reps. if we are to take the lines spun by Republicans, and many pundits looking for headlines and soundbytes, the Democrats will be failures if, say, the only win 14 seats in the House.

so, let's keep all this in mind as we approach the elections. to say that it's a loss if they win by less than expected, or that 2006 will be antoher 1994, is little more than political spin, and spun it will be.
The November elections are not the equal of a Presidential election of course, but they are significant and I do think the Democrats taking back the House would be significant although if they only get it back by one or two seats, it will not be the "Tsunami" that liberals like Chris Matthews are predicting.

Many Democrats of course want to de-emphasize any results of the election likely because they fear the "Tsunami" predictions will not come true, and they know how the past 3 elections have gone for them.

Regardless of any of the many theories people have out there about how many seats are in play, at the end of the day, the Republicans will either still be in control of the House and Senate or they won't be. Most people will concede that it will be a historic victory if the Republicans retain control of the House and Senate. When was the last time you had nearly 8 years of total control of the White House, House, and Senate by one party?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 12:50 AM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:45 PM
*When was the last time you had nearly 8 years of total control of the White House, House, and Senate by one party?*

A two party system is so democratic,....
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 03:40 AM   #86
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono


A two party system is so democratic,....
A two party system sucks!!!
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 07:34 AM   #87
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 08:45 AM
i still dont see you people celebrating the fact that 440 people approve of bush. shameful.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 11:55 PM   #88
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
that liberals like Chris Matthews are predicting.



you think Chris Matthews is a liberal?

please, explain what precisely a liberal is, other than a catch-all noun/adjective for those who hold a different position than you do.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-25-2006, 12:44 AM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





you think Chris Matthews is a liberal?

please, explain what precisely a liberal is, other than a catch-all noun/adjective for those who hold a different position than you do.
Ok, I should have said "Democrats like Chris Matthews". He is a moderate democrat, not apart of the "liberal wing", but he certainly agrees with that part of the party on certain issues.

The definition of a liberal is a topic for another thread.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 09:09 AM   #90
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The administration successfully brought democratic elections to Iraq within 20 months after the fall of Saddam. Years earlier than it was done in either Germany or Japan. Nothing in regards to the political development of the country by the administration has demonstrated that they had any idea of installing anyone much less Chalabi.
I haven't read the entire thread, but this caught my interest

it is true that democratic elections have been held

the reason they have been held in my opinion has more to do with that it was a goal of the US + allies to have elections asap (so that they have something to show for all their efforts and can report this on internet sites) than that Iraq was ready for democratic elections

elections or not
that country is far from being out of trouble
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com