Proof of Bush's Lies

[Irvine511]

The Presidents poll numbers have obviously been battered by bad news in Iraq and Katrina.

is the implication here that these are two events that Bush could have done nothing about? or is it most likely that these two events (one a calamity, the other a long oozing wound) are precisely why he has lost clout and credibility due to his incompetence?

Good news would of course have the opposite effect and his poll numbers would rise. Lets not forget that Bush still has nearly 3 years left in office. Thats a lot of time.

agreed that he does have plenty of time, though i don't think a generally good economy (it's still not the late-1990s) is enough to override Katrina and Iraq.

and then there's this:


[q]
Republicans Increasingly Critical of Bush
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
Mon Apr 3, 7:13 AM ET

WASHINGTON - From Iraq to deficits, from immigration to port security, some of the most pointed criticism leveled at President Bush is coming from within his own party. Republicans these days are almost sounding like perennially divided Democrats.

The rising GOP angst stems from Bush's deep slump in the polls and the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war.

But it also reflects a political reawakening as Republicans follow their own political interests in this midterm election year and as would-be 2008 presidential contenders seek ways to set themselves apart — from each other and from Bush.

"It's open season on him. George Bush has lost trust on too many issues," said presidential historian Thomas E. Cronin of Colorado College. "We saw it happen with Johnson, we saw it with Nixon. And now, sadly, we're seeing it with Bush."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403...16yFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[/q]

 

[verte76]

Many conservatives think this Administration is overly fond of spending the taxpayers' money.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

is the implication here that these are two events that Bush could have done nothing about? or is it most likely that these two events (one a calamity, the other a long oozing wound) are precisely why he has lost clout and credibility due to his incompetence?





agreed that he does have plenty of time, though i don't think a generally good economy (it's still not the late-1990s) is enough to override Katrina and Iraq.


[/q]

Well, I think one has to look at the scale of what is being done in Iraq. Invading and defeating a dictator on his own territory and then rebuilding a country of 25 million people is a difficult task. Its wrong to assume that all of the problems of the past 3 years are do to mistakes, incompetence etc.

Certainly the administration has lost a lot of credibility and clout do to what many feel is his administrations incompetence. But the fall is not irreversible.

In 1997, the unemployment rate hit a 27 year low of 4.9%. The current unemployment rate under Bush is 4.8%. The average unemployment rate of Clinton's last four years in office was 4.4%. With 3 years left in office and a falling Unemployment rate, its likely the average unempoyment rate in Bush's second term will equal that of Clintons second term, or in fact fall even lower.

Bush's approval rating in the summer of 2008 will look a lot different if Iraq has a stable government with a military doing most of the fighting, and US troops in a primarily training and advisory role. In addition, by then unemployment may be at a historic record low, below 4%.

Katrina does not really have the strength to keep the administration down, but failure in Iraq and on the Economy do.

In any event, I'm sure every one hopes for great success in Iraq and on the economy over the next few years, regardless of where they stand politically.

 

[diamond]

we didn't see it. we were invited to a BBQ centered around the Final Four (this being DC/NoVA, Mason are very popular, even though they beat my beloved UCONN) and never made the movie.

bball? uh huh

dbs

 

[Irvine511]

bball? uh huh

dbs

it's true! i even went to the two UCONN games here at the Verizon center -- saw them beat Washington in OT, and then lose to GMU in OT.

i even know what a travel is and everything!

(and i saw U2 in that building ... twice)

 

[AchtungBono]

I just read this articlehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006032...vRqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl.

The key points are that:

1. Bush and Blair knew there were no WOMD and they had yet to find any in IRAQ;
2. Bush was going to war with Iraq no matter what - he even "penciled in" a date, as if it was a lunch meeting;
3. Bush was willing to incite a reason for war, such as faking a U.N. plane (to provoke an attack) or even suggesting the assassination of Saddam!

This appeared in the NY Times.

For the last few years, I've asked why Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair, while Bush was not. Republicans have stated that it's because Bush didn't "lie" - they went with the knowledge they had at the time. I think this document shows that Bush was lying through and through. This document proves that Bush should be impeached and removed from office. He created a war, when he had no reason to do so. He has cost the lives of thousands. Clinton's affair hurt no one. Tell me how Bush deserves to be in power.

Oh well...we HAVE to believe the New York Times, right? They DON'T have anything against Bush, right?

I'd believe the National Enquirer before I believe anything anti-government in the NYT.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Oh well...we HAVE to believe the New York Times, right? They DON'T have anything against Bush, right?

I'd believe the National Enquirer before I believe anything anti-government in the NYT.

the NYT is still, clearly, the best newspaper in the US, if not the world. no one has better, more comprehensive coverage of national and international events, and their arts/culture reporting is unparalleled.

and let's not forget that it was the NYT's own Judy Miller, a patsy of the administration, who helped sound the drumbeat for war in 2002 with her Ahmed Chalabi-induced front page NYT stories about fantastical WMDs in Iraq.

 

[DaveC]

I don't have time to read any farther past the first page so I don't know where the discussion has gone, but here's my reply to what's on the first page...I don't give a rat's red ass about whether the lying came under oath.

Clinton lied and cheated on his wife. Reprehensible, yes, but in the grand scheme of things, "normal" people do the same thing on a daily basis.

Bush lied and 2,000 young men and women in the prime of life are dead.

I can't fathom how anyone can compare the two and think that Bush's crime is equal to that of Clinton.

 

[blueyedpoet]

Impeachment is a meaningless political maneuver. The two times it has been used are really a historical embarrassment.

Maybe Clinton should have said breaking the law is an executive privilege like Bush seems to think.

Melon

I love how the Bush administration has argued that, by definition, the President cannot break the law. They claim this so that the President can keep spying on Americans. However, with this logic, Clinton also could not have broken the law.