President Bush's approval rating is mired near its record low amid concerns about his ability to manage the government and pessimism over the war in Iraq, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday.
The poll, conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, found Bush's approval rating at 38 percent -- down a percentage point from a mid-February survey and just a point above his record low of 37 percent in November. His disapproval rating was 60 percent, tying November's worst-ever mark.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1971 times:
Why is he suddenly an "unhinged liberal"? Is it because he's right? If you want, I can list failure after failure of Condolezza Rice as an official in this government. But hey, everybody praises her as another minority in this administration, so they must not be racist.
Rice is just as bad, just as corrupt, and just as much a liar as Bush, Cheney, and Rove.
Texdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1962 times:
I completely agree that Bush is in deep political trouble. No doubt about that.
Most of it has been his own laziness, his unflinching ability to look disinterested, and his inability to fire some of the old hands who have been there for 6 years.
However, when things get rough for Bush, as they did in early 2004 and at other times, the over-reaction and the vitriol from his enemies helps him immeasurably. Thus, Spike Lee's comments, and others, seem like piling on and Americans of all political stripes, look down at that behavior.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1905 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 9): Since there was nothing in the news about Kennedy or Sheehan, the wacko right has stooped to pulling up gossip column quotes that are unattributed as to date, time and place, just to stir the pot.
Actually, there was.
Sheehan To Participate In Peace Rally At UCSD
03-03-06 at 7:15AM
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan is back in San Diego Friday to take part in a daylong peace rally at UCSD.
The day will also include a march and a concert on the La Jolla campus.
Sheehan will speak as part of a panel discussion Friday night sponsored by the UC San Diego College Democrats.
Sheehan has gained national recognition for her protests outside President Bush's Texas ranch.
Zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5326 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1885 times:
Quoting WellHung (Reply 3): President Bush's approval rating is mired near its record low amid concerns about his ability to manage the government and pessimism over the war in Iraq, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday.
The White House to the Right gang need not worry! You are still omnipotent saints out to rid the free world of liberals, poor folk and any other human or for that matter critter that is not with you! And your mouthpiece in the media Fox News still keeps you perched on your holier than thou pedistal. The administration still walks on water according to Fox, Rush and leggy Ann Coulter.
BTW, I am not a Koom Ba Ya Liberal nor a mighty to the righty neo con.
He needs to get his name in the media somehow since the movies he puts out are crap. Unhinged liberal or not, he's in it for the publicity. The old adage of Hollyweird...any publicity is good publicity.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
SATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1834 times:
Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 1): He's just another cockroach, what he doesn't eat, he sh!ts on.
How do you get away with posts like this? Honestly?
Quoting Texdravid (Reply 7): Most of it has been his own laziness, his unflinching ability to look disinterested, and his inability to fire some of the old hands who have been there for 6 years.
Why complain about him not firing them? Why not instead complain about him hiring them in the first place? Or did they instead hire him before his election? Sometimes it's so hard to tell who's really running the show over there.
Quoting Texdravid (Reply 7): However, when things get rough for Bush, as they did in early 2004 and at other times, the over-reaction and the vitriol from his enemies helps him immeasurably.
Bush had an unprecedented chance to unify the country and perhaps the world after 9-11 and he blew it royally.
Quoting Texdravid (Reply 7): Thus, Spike Lee's comments, and others, seem like piling on and Americans of all political stripes, look down at that behavior.
I thought it was mainly just uber-patriots with no stomach for the opposition that look down on public dissent. You know, the same people who had no problem with those slickboat veterans who tried to convince us that John Kerry would rather blow himself up than server his country? Funny how all it took was his eventual disagreement with the war to make an absurd suggestion of self-mutilation suddenly believable in the eyes of most Americans.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1812 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 15): - The failures and lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
I think the article cited isn't a "failure," nor do I see any lies. It is an excellent example of what we thought at the time about Saddam's intentions and capabilities. Did some of the assumptions turn out wrong? Yes. That's what happens when you deal with a country that prevents international inspectors from doing their job.
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 15): Her original refusal to testify in the 9/11 comission, even though she was National Security Advisor
I'd call that a resounding success. NSA's are NOT senate confirmed officials. They shouldn't be expected to run to the Hill every time some whining senator wags his or her finger. Wait until there is a democrat in the White House. If Congress summons his/her NSA to testify,watch for all the feigned outrage from the WH as to how that is inappropriate.
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 15): - Her failure to notice any threat in memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S." prior to 9/11
Again, no failure. A mistake perhaps, but not a failure. She didn't say Bin Laden wasn't a threat. And you're taking a huge leap saying she failed to notice "any" threat in the memo. As the article said, the memo was considered to be "old news" and not new reporting. Now - if the restrictions on the sharing of intelligence removed by the Patriot Act hadn't been in place, perhaps the memo would have contained new evidence, and it would have been paid more attention to.
Question - do you equate "mistake" with "failure?"
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 15): As national security advisor, her failure to properly address the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue nations like Iran and North Korea.
I notice you cited no substantiation for this one, so let's conclude this is just your opinion. And it isn't based on the facts, so to consider it a failure is absurd. The nuclear problem in North Korea started LONG before Secretary Rice became NSA. And we all know who cut the deal that allowed the North Koreans to go forward.
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 15): Her ignoring of the now infamous Niger/Uranium misinformation in the president's state of the union, despite being warned on its authenticity
That one was a mistake. Not a failure, but a mistake.
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 15): Her part in the administrations failures involving the war in Iraq and September 11
How nice to give us a link to an article we can't access. Were mistakes made before 9/11? Sure. By a number of people in the then-current White House and prior WH, and on Capitol Hill. But to say Rice is a "failure" is simply not supported by the body of evidence. Even the sainted 9/11 Commission didn't point to Rice as the lynch pin of pre-9/11 failure.
I understand you don't like Rice. Not only is she a republican - and from your posts in the past, it is pretty clear that no republican can do anything right. And to make matters worse, she's a black female republican, which further incenses you, I'll bet.
But that's OK. Be as negatively partisan as you you want - you have the right. But those attitudes are part of the reason many of us have abandoned both the republicans and the democrats to be independents.
DeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1803 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17): And we all know who cut the deal that allowed the North Koreans to go forward.
Cigar Boy! He also had numerous chance to nab Bin Laden after the first attack on the WTC but passed it up. Is the Bush administration completely free of blame...no. Is Clinton's administration partly to blame...yes. Should we move on and fix the problems...yes. Will we...who knows. It's doubtful anyone will get it right due to the political issues and governmental fiefdoms in place at all levels of government.
[Edited 2006-03-05 16:27:38]
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
So far, the only people I ever hear making a big deal about the fact that Rice and her predecessor are black are those who want to drag them through the mud for it. I don't recall Bush trumpeting their race. He nominated them because they could do the job, and I doubt he notices what race they belong to. Wasn't that MLK's dream?
Sparky From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap
A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth
March 26, 2004
Download: DOC, RTF, PDF
CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]
CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]
CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]
CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]
Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding
CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04
FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
Richard Clarke's Concerns
CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04
Response to 9/11
CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]
9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans
CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]
Iraq and WMD
CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04
FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]
9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link
CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]
After the number of mistakes she has done, yes, I would say she has had many failures as NSA head. At what point does she get a free pass for her "mistakes"? At what point do we ignore that her "mistakes" may have cost the lives of thousands of people? She and other ignored the threat before 9/11, and 3000 people died. She and others either lied, manipulated, or were just plain wrong about Iraq intelligence, and now over 2000 troops and 30,000 Iraqis are dead. Failures? Absolutely, when so many people are dead.
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17): How nice to give us a link to an article we can't access.
Go down to the bottom, you can access the article by clicking "Free Read Salon Now", you will have to watch a short advertisement. The article is completely accessible.
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17): Not only is she a republican - and from your posts in the past, it is pretty clear that no republican can do anything right. And to make matters worse, she's a black female republican, which further incenses you, I'll bet.
Way to put words into my mouth. So now you're accusing me of disliking her because she's black? Because she's female? So now I'm a sexist and a racist? You know what happens when you assume, you make a big ol' ass out of yourself.