PDA

View Full Version : Plummeting support for GW in new ABC/WA Post Poll


Ugg
Jul 11, 2003, 08:01 PM
link (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/poll030711_bush.html)

As would be expected, the Democrats are losing faith faster than the Republicans but they aren't all that enamored of him anymore either. This is the first time that a majority of Americans (52%) have said the death toll is too high. His overall rating is at 59%.

How low will it go?

macfan
Jul 11, 2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
link (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/poll030711_bush.html)

As would be expected, the Democrats are losing faith faster than the Republicans but they aren't all that enamored of him anymore either. This is the first time that a majority of Americans (52%) have said the death toll is too high. His overall rating is at 59%.

How low will it go?

Probably not as low as Gov. Davis in California. At 59 percent, the question is will it stop being so high, not how low will it go.

Vector
Jul 11, 2003, 08:51 PM
It is too early to be using this type of poll to judge bush's chances at reelection. First off, this poll is only a sampling of 1,000 people which is too low to create a representative poll. The poll was conducted by phone likely during the daytime, which creates a poll that samples a similar group of people rather than a diverse selection. Newspaper and televison (this poll is from abc) polls are historically unreliable and should not be viewed as research from which one can gain an accurate insight on political situations. Gallup polls are fairly reliable (at least respectively).

Anyway, this type of fall in approval was expected and even acknowledged months ago by the bush camp. If bush cannot turn the current iraq intellegence situation around, the public will began to question his credibility and his authority for beginning a war. He will began to be questioned by the public on all of his major decisions and some will look back on his past actions and question them. Bush must put the credibility question to rest soon before it becomes larger and cannot be erased come election time.

Bush must also focus on the economy, which has been improving slightly and is predicted to recover; however, the unemployment situation has yet to be addressed meaningly.

This poll does help to present a current if somewhat inaccurate picture of Bush's approval and thus his chance at reelection, but i would not place to much importance in its findings as of yet.

The Gallup Organization provides a slightly better breakdown of his current approval. It provides a good comparison to other two term presidents' ratings at this time in their respective terms. http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030702.asp

Maclarny
Jul 11, 2003, 08:54 PM
I guess the american people are finally getting fed up of a president who cheated his way into office, ruined the economy, gave massive payoffs (tax cuts) to the rich, started an unjustified war in which hundreds have and hundreds more will die, and lied to do it. It's about time...

macfan
Jul 12, 2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Maclarny
I guess the american people are finally getting fed up of a president who cheated his way into office, ruined the economy, gave massive payoffs (tax cuts) to the rich, started an unjustified war in which hundreds have and hundreds more will die, and lied to do it. It's about time...

LOL. When the apporval numbers drop into the low 40s or high 30s, your statement that people are fed up will be true, but when they remain in the high 50s, talk about the American people being fed up is little more than wishful thinking.

Vector,
A sample of 1,000 is quite sufficient if it is done properly.

IJ Reilly
Jul 12, 2003, 11:36 AM
I'd predict that the President's "numbers" will continue to slip, though how low they will go is difficult to say. His support, IMO, is a mile wide and about an inch deep, and a lot of people who were fully prepared to back the President when the stars and stripes were flapping over our troops in Iraq will be less inclined to provide their uncritical support as the grim realities of occupation take hold. It is gradually dawning on Americans that the Bush administration's plans for post-war Iraq were half-baked at best, and the rationales for the war were not, to put it kindly, entirely on the level.

There's a lot of game to be played between now and November 2004, but one thing is clear: the opposition to the Bush presidency is becoming more motivated and vocal every day, and they have a tremendous amount of ammunition at their disposal. The main question is how they use it, and whether their arguments begin to move the middle of American politics, where national elections are won and lost.

pseudobrit
Jul 12, 2003, 11:59 AM
The people love a president who wins. It's starting to become clear we didn't win.

mactastic
Jul 12, 2003, 12:27 PM
6 in 10 people approving doesn't sound like plummeting to me. It will be interesting to see how things go over the next year. I wouldn't be too surprised if WMD, Hussein, and bin Laden are all found before the election, or even one or two of them. If that happens in the months leading up to an election, Dubya will ride a massive wave of (war) popularity into a second term. Without them his prospects are much shakier (as in people will be thinking about the economy), although I have to say, none of the Democratic candidates look real strong right now. However, a week in politics can seem like an entire year, and a whole year can seem like forever. Who knows where this debate will be 12 months from now.

zimv20
Jul 12, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
6 in 10 people approving doesn't sound like plummeting to me.


it's trending downwards -- that's why the media is making a fuss.

Who knows where this debate will be 12 months from now.

very true.

SPG
Jul 12, 2003, 02:38 PM
The 2004 election is still a coin toss, and will be right up to the last minute.
The claims of Iraqi WMD, nuculur weapons, and links to Al Queda are all being revealed as lies and the growing storm should help trend those poll numbers even lower. With the door opened by these blatant lies a lot of the people in the middle should wake up to some of the other realities of this administration and all the nasty political games Karl Rove can think of won't ensure a second term for dubya.

Zaid
Jul 12, 2003, 04:44 PM
59% is still quite high, though i understand that the fuss is due to the fact that the trend is downward.

Also while a 1000 people is large enough to give a representitive sample, if the survey was conducted in the middle of the day, the sample may well be biased, (i.e. over representation of housewives, the unemployed etc, ) What was the aproval rating of the last major poll? The movement may not be statistically significant if its only a drop of a couple of percent or so, given the possibly biased sample. Though it is hardly bad news :)

He's still faring alot better than Blair.
The government recently faced its lowest parlimentry majority since it came to power.

what would be truely sad is if the conservatives won the next election (unlikely as that may be :) ) Though given how much like a conservative blair is, one would hardly know the difference :)

toontra
Jul 12, 2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Zaid
He's still faring alot better than Blair.
The government recently faced its lowest parlimentry majority since it came to power.

what would be truely sad is if the conservatives won the next election (unlikely as that may be :) ) Though given how much like a conservative blair is, one would hardly know the difference :)

There is a way out for Labour - get rid of Blair. It was largly his "passionate" personal beliefs which lead to this catastrophic misjudgement.
With Blair still in charge I (despite being a life-long Labour supporter) will not vote for Labour. With Gordon Brown or Peter Hain in charge, I just might.

SPG
Jul 12, 2003, 07:06 PM
Speaking of poll numbers, Kos weighs in with some new ones:

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003368.html#003368
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003367.html#003367

Ugg
Jul 12, 2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by SPG
Speaking of poll numbers, Kos weighs in with some new ones:



Very similar numbers and I can't believe that polls like that query the same people. The numbers in and of themselves are not surprising because post war approval of a president always drops but if lies continue to be exposed then that is another story altogether.


SPG, I've been reading KOS quite a bit ever since I saw it on your sig. Thanks!

Sayhey
Jul 12, 2003, 08:25 PM
SPG,
the poll trends are quite interesting, but what suprised me most was this:
What's really interesting about these polls is that they were conducted just prior to the current media storm over Bush's Yellowcake LIES. These drops in Bush's approval ratings are seemingly predicated on the growing casualty figures in Iraq.
I'll check back in a week and see if Tenet's falling on his sword is going to slow the trend.
The election is too far away for this to mean very much, but it might help energize some of the opposition. I worry that this fool is going to march the troops into Syria, Iran, or N. Korea just to move his numbers up. After all didn't just tell the Iraqi opposition to "Bring it on!" He dosn't seem to mind others blood being spilled in order to play John Wayne.

wwworry
Jul 12, 2003, 08:41 PM
As long as the opinion is based on Iraq I think Bush's numbers will stay high. People do not want to think we are in a useless war (even if we are). If the question becomes jobs (highest unemployment in 20 years), the environment (the list goes on like this one The Bush administration is now moving to endorse the testing of noxious and lethal chemicals on human beings. (http://villagevoice.com/issues/0328/tracy.php)), fiscal responsibility ($400 billion/yr. debt), supporting the troops (cutting veterans benefits, cutting combat pay), fairness in tax policies ($100,000 for Cheney - $000 for some poor people), Corporate weaseling (Enron energy policy, etc. etc.), far right-wing judicial appointments

then he will lose. The problem is that there is so much too dislike. How do you fit it all in a 30 second TV spot?

SPG
Jul 12, 2003, 08:44 PM
As I'm not one to hide my political leanings, I hope that we are witnessing the beginning of the end for bush. The real story will come out about each of his "initiatives" and promises, and I don't think the people will appreciate the constant bait and switch tactics.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I'll check back in a week and see if Tenet's falling on his sword is going to slow the trend.

Clearly that was the plan, but I don't think it's going to work. It's now come to light that Tenet personally warned the White House off this information back in October, which only makes Bush's efforts to blame the CIA now for what he said in January look even more cynical and self-serving. This story has "legs," and could easily defy the administration's efforts to control it. It also makes Ari Fleisher's recent statement that the administration considers this to be a "closed issue" sound like a laughable exercise in spin control.

zimv20
Jul 13, 2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It also makes Ari Fleisher's recent statement that the administration considers this to be a "closed issue" sound like a laughable exercise in spin control.

the whole idea of saying "bush has moved past this issue" is laughable. it's not for him to decide.

Ugg
Jul 13, 2003, 01:03 PM
Now that Ari and his patronizing paternalism is fini, I wonder how the new guy will do? A tough job I'm sure, how does any spokesperson (dem or rep, private or public) deal with all the lies they have to tell?

In a way, I think focusing on the uranium issue is taking away from all the other blatant lies that were told. What about the tons of chem and bio weapons that were "known" to exist? I think it's time for a systematic look at all the claims not just the uranium. I doubt that gw will be able to sidestep them so readily.

Sayhey
Jul 13, 2003, 02:00 PM
It's now come to light that Tenet personally warned the White House off this information back in October, which only makes Bush's efforts to blame the CIA now for what he said in January look even more cynical and self-serving.

IJ Reilly, I just read that story as well. It kind of defeats the purpose of blaming it on the CIA if they already stopped the WH from using the story once in October. The Doctors of Spin control must be going crazy at 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave.!

In a way, I think focusing on the uranium issue is taking away from all the other blatant lies that were told. What about the tons of chem and bio weapons that were "known" to exist? I think it's time for a systematic look at all the claims not just the uranium.

Ugg,
couldn't agree more. At some point the focus must be not just on the lies or exaggerations used to justify the war, but also the policy of this administration that could lead us into new conflicts.

mcrain
Jul 16, 2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
The Doctors of Spin control must be going crazy at 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave.!

With all the secrecy combined with the short fuse and hair trigger along with the seeming love for using the military, I wouldn't be surprised if the words "marshal law" have been uttered in the WH.

After Bush got elected, I had hoped that he would get mired in scandals as a sort of payback for the way the Republicans constantly attacked Clinton, but now...
GWB actually scares me. He and his administration have shown no desire to work for the little guy. They have shown no desire to try to make the country a better place for the majority. They seem intent only on oil, cutting federal income and estate taxes, and spending money on the military. Plus, to make things scarier, we just don't know what is going on. They love secrecy more than anyone I've ever seen, and the stuff they want to keep secret, affects us all.

macfan
Jul 16, 2003, 02:09 PM
There was a rather conservative woman I met once while the investigation of President Clinton was ongoing. Upon learning from a TV news report that Clinton had left some evidence on a certain blue dress, she was practically dancing around with glee saying that he was finished. My response to her was that this was far from the case, and I was proven to be correct. Many posters here have the same hopeful tone and blindness to the politcal realities of the situation.

This issue is just not likely to have traction. Think back just a few short months, and the issues were different: Iraq was going to attack Israel, the Arab street was going to rise up and over thow the governments in Egypt and Jordan, the entire region would be plunged into war. Later, the forces were stretched to thin, and Saddam was going to counter attack and drive them back to Kuwait because General Franks didn't have a good battle plan. Then, there was going to be massive house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. There were going to be hundereds of thousands of casualties in Iraq. The oil fields were going to be lit up like a Christmas tree and cause an environmental catastorphe. Then the entire Iraqi cultural heritage was falsely said to have been looted.

LOL, mcrain, or should I say, McFly, it's "martial law," not marshal law. Listen to yourself. You sound just like the right wing nut job idiots who said that Clinton was going to declare martial law.

Ugg,
What about the tons of chem and bio weapons that were "known" to exist?

Ask the UN weapons inspectors who provided that world with that information. Saddam was also known to exist, but no one has found him.

mcrain
Jul 16, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by macfan

LOL, mcrain, or should I say, McFly, it's "martial law," not marshal law. Listen to yourself. You sound just like the right wing nut job idiots who said that Clinton was going to declare martial law.


It is only martial law if you haven't been drinking. It's marshal law if you have been! :)

Yes, I sound like a right wing nut job, but considering those right wing nut jobs got Clinton impeached... I'm not ashamed about that. In fact, I think what Jr. did is far worse, and deserves far more criticism.

wwworry
Jul 16, 2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Ask the UN weapons inspectors who provided that world with that information. Saddam was also known to exist, but no one has found him.

So you really think it's OK to blame the UN for US intelligence failures and OK to blame the UN for the Bush "mistatements". Why then, if Powell claimed to know 3 days after the state-of-the-union address that the African uranium story was weak, did the administration not tell us then? Why did it take hundreds of news stories before the administration admitted to misleading the American people?

This is not some after work b-job. This is a war where thousands have died and many more are disfigured for life.

You consider the Iraq stories, the "small" deficit stories, the blocked scientific environmental information and it adds up to an administration whose lying approaches Nixonian levels.

George Bush is the New Nixon.

mcrain
Jul 16, 2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
You consider the Iraq stories, the "small" deficit stories, the blocked scientific environmental information and it adds up to an administration whose lying approaches Nixonian levels.

George Bush is the New Nixon.

At a minimum, the administration takes secrecy to a new level in a supposedly open, and transparent 'democracy.'

Sayhey
Jul 16, 2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by macfan
... Many posters here have the same hopeful tone and blindness to the politcal realities of the situation...


...Ask the UN weapons inspectors who provided that world with that information. Saddam was also known to exist, but no one has found him.

Macfan, I count myself as one of the "hopeful" who think that maybe some folks are waking up to some of the lies and distortions of this administration. I'm not "gleeful" about what is an extremely dangerous situation. I think the proliforation of WMD's in the world is the most import question humanity faces. It should not be used for political advantage. I would love to see UN weapons inspectors back in Iraq to search for what happened to stockpiles that existed at the end of the last Gulf War. It would give credible answers to very troubling questions. Unfortunately, the Bush doctrine is not a policy to recognize International authorities in the form of UN structures or treaties. It is rather an update of "Gunboat" diplomacy from an earlier era. My "hope" is the danger of such a policy and actions will lead more people to look to its consequences for our nation and the world. I did not support Reagan in his elections, but I did support treaties he negotiated that lessened the dangers of nuclear war. Likewise, while I would not support Bush's election, I would support his foreign policy if it was helpful for this nation. It is not. We are now at odds with people and countries with whom we should continue to have good relations. We have alienated a huge section of this world's population who are convinced we have no respect for their religion, traditions, or culture. In return all we have shown is that we still have the greatest military in the world and we have no restraint in using it. I would hope that the plummeting poll numbers are just the start of a turn around from where this President is taking us.

Lastly, if your going to make fun of other's spelling, grammer, etc. at least check your own (i.e. "...over thow the governments in Egypt and Jordan...")

macfan
Jul 16, 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
So you really think it's OK to blame the UN for US intelligence failures and OK to blame the UN for the Bush "mistatements". Why then, if Powell claimed to know 3 days after the state-of-the-union address that the African uranium story was weak, did the administration not tell us then? Why did it take hundreds of news stories before the administration admitted to misleading the American people?

I'm not blaming the UN. I don't see that there has been an intelligence "failure" on the part of the UN or anyone else. I'm saying that we don't have evidence that Saddam was clean. We haven't seen the outcome on the final disposition on Saddam's WMD programs yet.

The administration, BTW, has not " admitted to misleading the American people." That's just your own hackneyed political rhetoric. They said they wouldn't have included the information. Hell, the British still stand by the information on the Africa uranium story. We do know that he bought such material from there in the past, and it wouldn't surpise me in the least if the British were correct and he tried to get the stuff more recently as well.

IJ Reilly
Jul 16, 2003, 07:07 PM
Yes, thank you. I don't believe that macfan has any concept of how insulting it is to be characterized as "gleeful" over any of this. I would add, that several of the posters on this board have absolutely no concept of why so many people are frightened, outraged, incensed by the way this entire matter has been handled by the Bush administration.

wwworry
Jul 16, 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by macfan
The administration, BTW, has not " admitted to misleading the American people."

Well don't you think it's time they did admit the truth instead about all the new retorical bull **** they are bringing out.

"We said the british said ..."
"It was the CIA's fault ...."
"It doesn't matter if there are no WMDs ..."
"It's up to everyone else to prove Hussain was clean ..."
And the stupidest one: "We have not found Hussain but we know he exists."

nor did they find Ossama, nor the Anthrax killer, nor that missing economic recovery

typical corporate double-speaking liars

[mod. edit - Don't circumvent the profanity filter. First and only warning.]

Sayhey
Jul 16, 2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I'm not blaming the UN. I don't see that there has been an intelligence "failure" on the part of the UN or anyone else. I'm saying that we don't have evidence that Saddam was clean. We haven't seen the outcome on the final disposition on Saddam's WMD programs yet.

Agreed, we haven't seen the "final disposition on Saddam's WMD programs..." , but what we have seen is that at the very least there was a major intelligence failure in the estimation of the size and capabilities of those programs. One of the major reasons we were told by this administration that we had to go to war was the threat these weapons posed to our nation and the region. Furthermore, we were told that this could not be dealt with by the already agreed on methods of a very intrusive inspection regime. If those assertions were true we would have found something by now. Indeed, our troops would have likely faced the use of these weapons in battle. It is very important to question as to why our intelligence agencies failed so badly in their estimates. Was it because our agencies are so bad in their capabilities or was there a political motive for exaggerating what those agencies told the administration? The fact that the policy makers in this administration had as their goal the overthrow of the Iraqi regime for more than a decade prior to the actual onset of war, should make one suspicious. If the goal of elimination of WMDs could have happened without the bloodshed wouldn't that have been preferable? All one has to do is read some of the things Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol, etal have been saying for the last ten years and it would seem such questions are reasonable.

pseudobrit
Jul 16, 2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by macfan
LOL, mcrain, or should I say, McFly, it's "martial law," not marshal law. Listen to yourself. You sound just like the right wing nut job idiots who said that Clinton was going to declare martial law.

Oh goodie. Attacking people for their grammar mistakes is an option in our arguments now, macfan. I will eat you alive. Ooo, here's one now:

Ask the UN weapons inspectors who provided that world with that information. Saddam was also known to exist, but no one has found him.

"That world with that information," huh? Way to go, macfly!! LOL!
Listen to yourself: "Saddam was also known to exist, but no one has found him."

Don't you think it's a little easier to hide one person in a nation of 28 million than it is to hide an active NBC weapons programme that was about to go critical to the point where it would threaten the US?

3rdpath
Jul 17, 2003, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by macfan
I'm saying that we don't have evidence that Saddam was clean.

exactly what evidence will prove saddam is clean?

do you honestly think the bush administration is ever going to make that proclamation regardless of the lack of wmd/nuclear material/etc?

your arguements are like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic...

abdul
Jul 17, 2003, 11:07 AM
i have to agree with the most of the forum that the American people are still in favour of Bush. Generally as long as he gets more than 50% he can be re-elected for another term.

Originally posted by toontra
There is a way out for Labour - get rid of Blair. It was largly his "passionate" personal beliefs which lead to this catastrophic misjudgement.
With Blair still in charge I (despite being a life-long Labour supporter) will not vote for Labour. With Gordon Brown or Peter Hain in charge, I just might.

About Blair......umm....there is no way, i repeat no way that the public would vote for Labour if either Gorden Brown or Peter Hain were the leaders. Simple fact they are older than Tony, one reason. I know this is a sad thing to say, but very important none the least, they also wouldnt vote for Gorden Brown cos he has lost a child as well as he is from scotland.

All the other major labour mps have had and lost cabinet seats, and the others are not strong enough to go for leader.

The only hope the UK has is the Liberal Democrats, they might not agree with a lot of the socialist views....but more so than labour, as well as the conservatives are just plainly closet-nazis.

macfan
Jul 17, 2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
exactly what evidence will prove saddam is clean?

do you honestly think the bush administration is ever going to make that proclamation regardless of the lack of wmd/nuclear material/etc?

your arguements are like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic...

What are you going to say when the evidence of Saddam's programs does come out? Why do you think Blair remains confident? Some of the more hard headed opponents will claim that it was faked or that it is not sufficient no matter what it is, but most people will look at it and say that it shows Saddam was a long term threat. It takes time to assemble materials, conduct interviews, etc. etc. Even a relatively simple legal case can take months to put together, and that case is being assembled.

abul,
Calling one's political opponents Nazis is a rather assinine thing to do. The Tories are not Nazis to any greater degree than the Liberal Democrats are Stalinists intent on opeing Gulags in the English coutryside. There is no reason for anyone take you seriously when you make statements like that.

IJ Reilly
Jul 17, 2003, 02:21 PM
We've seen the administration's claims transmute from "imminent threat to US security" to "he had WMD programs" -- or from an issue which was very much in play (and the rationale for a war on the Bush timeline), to one which was never in dispute. So yes, if you keep lowering the standard of proof, you're eventually always going to be "right."

In fact, within the past few weeks I heard someone in the administration (I think it was Rumsfeld) say that Saddam would have reconstituted his nuclear weapons development program if the sanctions had been lifted. Well, duh -- isn't that why the sanctions were in place, and doesn't that suggest they were actually working?

Ah, but what's a little cheap prestidigitation between friends?

macfan
Jul 17, 2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
We've seen the administration's claims transmute from "imminent threat to US security" to "he had WMD programs" -- or from an issue which was very much in play (and the rationale for a war on the Bush timeline), to one which was never in dispute. So yes, if you keep lowering the standard of proof, you're eventually always going to be "right."

In fact, within the past few weeks I heard someone in the administration (I think it was Rumsfeld) say that Saddam would have reconstituted his nuclear weapons development program if the sanctions had been lifted. Well, duh -- isn't that why the sanctions were in place, and doesn't that suggest they were actually working?

Ah, but what's a little cheap prestidigitation between friends?

Actually, we've seen that administration say that the threat was not going to be allowed to become imminent.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies."

This was the argument: should Saddam be left in power unless and until there is an imminent threat, or should he be removed from power before that threat fully emerges. The decision was taken to remove him before that threat was able to fully emerge. Again, this is a policy on which one may agree or disagree, but it is not qute accurate, given the above quote, to say that we were told that there was an "imminent" threat. We were told that we would not accept the threat as it was or allow it to emerge. We were told that there was an ongoing threat that wasn't going to get any better with time. I tend to agree with that assessment, and that is part of why I supported removing Saddam by force.

The sanctions, BTW, were crumbling under a rather clever technique used by Saddam. They were not working. Saddam never did provide the cooperation required.

IJ Reilly
Jul 17, 2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by macfan
This was the argument: should Saddam be left in power unless and until there is an imminent threat, or should he be removed from power before that threat fully emerges. The decision was taken to remove him before that threat was able to fully emerge. Again, this is a policy on which one may agree or disagree, but it is not qute accurate, given the above quote, to say that we were told that there was an "imminent" threat. We were told that we would not accept the threat as it was or allow it to emerge. We were told that there was an ongoing threat that wasn't going to get any better with time. I tend to agree with that assessment, and that is part of why I supported removing Saddam by force.

Well, not really -- I have numerous quotes from the President and administration members that suggest something quite different about the degree to which Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US. But it's hardly worth playing word games with this, because clearly the difference between us is not about wether Saddam should have been removed, but how and when.

pseudobrit
Jul 17, 2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by macfan
What are you going to say when the evidence of Saddam's programs does come out?

When evidence of an active NBC programme that posed an immediate threat to the United States' population comes out? At this point, I think I'd say you were right.

I'm waiting.

Over three months and not a whiff of such a programme and I'm still waiting...

...still waiting...

...any day now, I'm sure...

pseudobrit
Jul 17, 2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Actually, we've seen that administration say that the threat was not going to be allowed to become imminent.

They've let a North Korean nuclear programme that threatens the US become imminent.

What about other possible threats that may become imminent? Brasil may become a superpower and wish to build bioweapons. South Africa may restart its nuclear programme and restock its weapons cache. I guess we shouldn't let these situations become imminent either, and just invade everyone now.

You understand the concept of clear and present danger being the justification for self-defence?

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

You changed the subject. Oops, my fault; it was Bush this time.

macfan
Jul 18, 2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
But it's hardly worth playing word games with this, because clearly the difference between us is not about wether Saddam should have been removed, but how and when.

Indeed, I think he should have been removed by force and as soon as possible (starting back in 1991), you think he should have been removed by dying in his sleep when his dark heart finally gave out. The Iraqi people are lucky that those who supported my way of thinking on it won out.

pseudobrit,
Iraq has no China. I suppose you would support military action to destroy the government of North Korea? Unless you are advocating that, you should shut up about the threat that it poses.

It is a stupid argument to ask why we don't invade Brazil or South Africa, and you probably know better to make it. Brazil and South Africa are not terrorist supporting nations with a history of using WMDs who have been fighting the US and UK for more than a decade and have in Saddam a madman with visions of reinventing the Babylonian Empire.

Rower_CPU
Jul 18, 2003, 11:37 AM
pseudobrit and macfan-

Both of you are treading a fine line with the new rules for this forum. While you may not be insulting each other or others directly, you are doing so indirectly. This is inflammatory behavior and will only result in arn cleaning out this forum again or closing it for good.

If you can't post without putting someone down, don't post at all.

IJ Reilly
Jul 18, 2003, 03:44 PM
What's more, macfan's assertion about what I believe is completely without any basis -- it is an effort to evade a debate by perpetrating a smear. I suppose he finds it more convenient to impose his own characterizations of what others believe then to respond to the ideas they have actually expressed with their own words. It is an act of desperation to do so in any debate -- and on a personal level, just plain rude.

Rower, I hope you won't find this post over or even near the line (in which case, feel free to delete it). I am simply taking this opportunity to clarify that my views have been crassly misrepresented. I could be charitable in theorizing that it was not deliberate, but only if it had not happened before.

macfan
Jul 18, 2003, 04:45 PM
IJ Reilly,
My assertion about what you belive does have basis. Here it is. It seems to me as though that is the policy you supported, a policy of not using force, because the evidence of 12 years of sanctions suggests that the only way to get rid of Saddam was to remove him by force, was a policy of leaving Saddam in power.

I do not find it more convenient to "impose my own characterizations" rather than respond to an arugment. I find it more convenient to analyze the likely outcomes of particular policies, and then describe the major points of difference. (In this case, the policy of use of force removed Saddam, the policy of not using force had not and was not likely to result in his removal). Thus, the policy of not using force was a policy that supported leaving him in power. (Leaving him in power was the policy for a time under the two previous administrations). Your policy of not using force supported leaving Saddam in power just like my policy of not using force against China is leaving an oppressive (though slowly changing) government in power.

You said I don't respond to the arguments made, but I did respond directly to your argument about the kind of threat described. You don't address what is pretty compelling evidence that contradicts your assertion that the administration claimed the threat was "imminent." Directly from the president's speech: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." The president went on to say that we would act before the threat became imminent because terrorists etc. don't issue calling cards and notification of their intentions. His arugment was that we must act before the threat became imminent (and it is a good thing for us and for the Iraqi people that we did act).

Yes, I used harsh language in describing pseudobrit's argument as "stupid," etc. and I apologize for that. However, the point still stands that North Korea, Brazil, and South Africa are very different from Iraq. Instead, I will just say that it is not a good argument to ask why we don't invade Brazil when talking about Iraq.

IJ Reilly
Jul 18, 2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by macfan
My assertion about what you belive does have basis. Here it is. It seems to me as though that is the policy you supported, a policy of not using force, because the evidence of 12 years of sanctions suggests that the only way to get rid of Saddam was to remove him by force, was a policy of leaving Saddam in power.

If you sincerely believe this to be my opinion, then I can only conclude that you have been paying even less attention to what I've been saying then I suspected. You might considering slowing down for a few moments in your mad rush to defend every action taken by the Bush administration, and actually stop and listen to what critics like myself are saying. It might get in the way of your use of mocking sarcasm, disdain and misrepresentation as a reply, but you might learn something.

Who knows? You might get more respect for your views if you showed at least that much respect for the opinions of others.

macfan
Jul 18, 2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Who knows? You might get more respect for your views if you showed at least that much respect for the opinions of others.

In another thread, we had a poster saying that there were people in the administration who he suspected of knowing in advance about 9/11 but letting it happen anywhere. Is there a reason why anyone should have respect for that view? I don't think so.

These forums are too unbalanced for any views that aren't anti Bush, sometimes to the level of paranoia (like the idea that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance), to get much respect.

If your opinion didn't involve leaving Saddam in power in Iraq, what was it?

Rower_CPU
Jul 18, 2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by macfan
These forums are too unbalanced for any views that aren't anti Bush, sometimes to the level of paranoia (like the idea that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance), to get much respect.

For some reason you seem to have a hard time with this fact: this is not a political website. This forum was created to prevent discussion around the time of the Iraq war from bleeding into the rest of the community.

This forum is an afterthought, and on its last legs. Saying it's too "unbalanced" belies an expectation for balanced discussion, something never advertised nor intended. Disrespecting this forum will end in its ultimate closure.

Backtothemac
Jul 18, 2003, 06:53 PM
I agree with Rower. The days of this forum need to go by the wayside. However, I am afraid that it would spill over to community.

We have to remember this is a MAC site. I know that i have posted my political views, but it is a Mac site.

IJ Reilly
Jul 18, 2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by macfan
In another thread, we had a poster saying that there were people in the administration who he suspected of knowing in advance about 9/11 but letting it happen anywhere. Is there a reason why anyone should have respect for that view? I don't think so.
I am not "a poster," I am me -- and I have not advanced this theory. So what is the point of bringing it up?

If your opinion didn't involve leaving Saddam in power in Iraq, what was it?
Again, if you were reading what I've been writing here over the last six months, then this question would be superfluous. In fact, if you'd read even the very post of mine to which you made your last sarcastic response, we would not be having this conversation.

mactastic
Jul 18, 2003, 08:37 PM
Yeah I guess this place is getting out of hand. Too bad, I enjoy all the articles that get posted to these forums, and enjoy the debating process, but this is a mac site, and I wouldn't want to see that get messed up. People can't seem to argue the arguments without someone resorting to insults, threats, flames, and some of the more irresponsible stuff posted. 'Tis a shame.

mcrain
Jul 18, 2003, 09:17 PM
Everyone needs to take a chill pill.

What is bothersome is that the level of mean rhetoric has increased dramatically since the legitimate doubts about the Bush regime have increased.

zimv20
Jul 18, 2003, 11:12 PM
link (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=721)

today's zogby poll shows more decline. not terribly scientific comparing the results of two company's polls, but i'll sum up nonetheless.

bush job peformance: 53% pos, 46% neg
re-elect: 46% for, 47% against

pseudobrit
Jul 18, 2003, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Everyone needs to take a chill pill.

What is bothersome is that the level of mean rhetoric has increased dramatically since the legitimate doubts about the Bush regime have increased.

I see that trend also. I think this forum has gotten infinitely better since it was reset, save for a couple incidents where someone who's suddenly decided he's the spelling/grammar nanny went off on folks.

mcrain
Jul 19, 2003, 08:50 AM
I read a quote from a book written by Bork (very conservative commentator and former US Supreme Court nominee [I think]), and his book's premise is that everything that is wrong with the US was caused by modern liberalism.

I then read a quote in newsweek from that tall, pretty conservative woman (I can't think of her name), and her quote was something like the solution for US would be for the democratic party to just give up and go away.

It certainly seems like modern conservative thinkers are moving more and more to a view that they are right, and anyone who questions them should go away. They seem to have forgotten the values of having a two party system with give and take, moderation, and negotiation.

Wouldn't a one party system where the Democrats just gave up and everything was run by a single party be a little too similar to a dictatorship for comfort?

I've heard liberals called socialists, communists, you name it, yet, you don't hear them suggesting that the Republicans are the root of all evils in the country, and that the solution is for them to just "give up" and go away, and let everything be run by the smarter, better, whatever democrats.

The name calling (socialist, communist) always bothered me, but it seems that the conservatives are pushing more and more towards a dictatorship mentality, and yet, when someone raises similarities with past dictatorships, they freak out.

I find that ironic.

In the past, there were serious cultural clashes between conservatives and liberals, however, in Washington and elsewhere, politicians worked together (even when they disagreed) to try to get their agendas moved forward. Now, it seems like both sides' sole goals are to get a majority so they can "stick it" to the other side and do whatever they want.

The conservatives got a majority in the House and Senate, and promptly did everything they could to prevent Clinton from doing much of anything. Dispite the constant investigations and battles with Congress, Clinton worked with the other side and got a lot of stuff done. Now, we have a Republican president and congress, and there seems to be no (there might be, I don't know for sure) regard for taking into account the concerns of the minority. Worse yet, the executive branch is shutting out the legislative branch so that the democrats won't have access to information.

Ok, I'll end my diatribe. I guess there wasn't much of a point, but, oh well.

mactastic
Jul 19, 2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
I read a quote from a book written by Bork (very conservative commentator and former US Supreme Court nominee [I think]), and his book's premise is that everything that is wrong with the US was caused by modern liberalism.

I then read a quote in newsweek from that tall, pretty conservative woman (I can't think of her name), and her quote was something like the solution for US would be for the democratic party to just give up and go away.


You are thinking of Ann Coulter, author of "Slander - Liberal Lies About the American Right". She's a peach. Right up there with Michael Savage in her lack of an ability to have a civilized conversation (i.e. without resorting to name calling) with anyone who is to the left of William Renquist.

macfan
Jul 19, 2003, 11:12 AM
Ann Coulter is a bomb-thrower. (rhetorically speaking). However, it's not like the other side doesn't have those offering similar rhetorical flourishes and insults.

IJ Reilly
Jul 19, 2003, 12:02 PM
Mcrain-

I believe you are quite right in your assessment. I've lived long enough to see the hubris once exhibited by liberals be visited upon conservatives -- the feeling that they've become a force of nature, and no longer bound by any conventions of basic civility or even a modicum of respect for the views of others. I see conservatism in the 2000s headed where liberalism went in the 1970s, towards a fall born of overreaching in an effort to consolidate their power absolutely. History tells us that no matter who adopts it, hubris is a dangerous character flaw, and ultimately leads to a downfall. Overreaching invariably has a payback, but those who do it tend to believe they are (almost by definition) exceptions to the ancient rules of political commerce. But history has a habit of having the last laugh, and I feel quite certain, it will again.

mcrain
Jul 19, 2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Mcrain-

I believe you are quite right in your assessment. I've lived long enough to see the hubris once exhibited by liberals be visited upon conservatives -- the feeling that they've become a force of nature, and no longer bound by any conventions of basic civility or even a modicum of respect for the views of others. I see conservatism in the 2000s headed where liberalism went in the 1970s, towards a fall born of overreaching in an effort to consolidate their power absolutely. History tells us that no matter who adopts it, hubris is a dangerous character flaw, and ultimately leads to a downfall. Overreaching invariably has a payback, but those who do it tend to believe they are (almost by definition) exceptions to the ancient rules of political commerce. But history has a habit of having the last laugh, and I feel quite certain, it will again.

I just don't understand how the political process got to this point again. I mean, there is no question that there are jerks on both sides of the isle. People who do nothing but impede progress and lesson the democratic process. There is no question in my mind that both parties are guilty of that sort of thing.

What gets me is that right now, the Republican party is acting like they represent the will of the American people, completely. They act like their opinions, their views, and their way of thinking is correct, and that any debate is not only unnecessary, but a sign of some sort of un-American evilness.

I for one lean liberal, but do not take what the Democrats say as gospel. While there are some who do, the number of conservatives who take what the current administration says, who take what Rush Limbaugh or other conservative commentators say as the "truth" is sort of scary.

I've been in situations where I've been warned not to bring up politics because the conservatives I was with were so adament they were right, that they could not have a discussion involving another viewpoint. That may not be typical, but it certainly seems to be a trend towards that sort of attitude.

The other thing that bothers me is that there has been politics for a long, long time. The party in power has always taken some advantages, be it in the way a map is drawn or the way bills are called for voting. But, the thing in Texas was out of control, and the thing in the House where the Republicans called the cops on the Democrats is beyond anything I had ever seen before.

Prior to 1992, I had never heard of talk shows dedicated to nothing more than bashing members of one political party. Sure, AM radio has commentary that critisizes, so does CNN, NBC, ABC, NPR, and so on, but the extent to which people have gone out of their way to bash and do 'hate speech' against the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Daschle, and other Democrats is just crazy.

Sure, the amount of media available has increased dramatically, but the rhetoric seems to far surpass that as an explanation.

I'm not '/ranting' against the Republicans, because right now, both parties are acting like little spoiled brats. (I personally believe that a lot of what the Dems are doing is a reaction, rather than instigating things, but that is open for debate).

Politics used to be something you would aspire to. It used to be a noble profession where people worked for the betterment of society in general; making decisions based on a political viewpiont. Now, it seems like a war, and the participants treat each other like the enemies, rather than fellow Americans. There is no low they won't stoop to to try to win or belittle/embarrass the other side.

I used to sort of let the politics around me just go by without much thought, but it has gotten so depressingly bad that I get myself worked up about the process and the things being done.

There have to be other people like me who would honestly want to do things that better all of society and would be willing to work with people of different viewpoints, but why would anyone like that want to go into politics now? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't (and that's saying something because I'm a lawyer, and people already can't stand that profession).

Backtothemac
Jul 19, 2003, 01:30 PM
Look, point blank. They are all friggin crooks, with their OWN interests in mind. Supprisingly the former Florida Secretary of State Mrs. Harris, is actually putting really good legislation on the floor. Still, I think personally that we need some major overhaul in the government. I am sick of seeing Harvard educated lawyers, and spoiled rich kids telling the average working family what is good for them. Spending billions of dollars on things that never work. Clinton spend over 11 billion on developing Ethanol to reduce our dependency on oil. Sounded good, but has produced negligible results. It is all pork barrel, and it is sick.

Everyone one of them is where they are because major buisnesses and rich contributors sponsored their campaigns. They say the right things because they look at polls, and then screw us blind when we are not looking.

zimv20
Jul 19, 2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Supprisingly the former Florida Secretary of State Mrs. Harris, is actually putting really good legislation on the floor.


what's she proposing?

Backtothemac
Jul 19, 2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
what's she proposing?

The best one that I have seen is an accountablility bill that makes all of the waste come public. It will attempt to stop all of the pork barrel stuff. Like Nancy Poleski slipping into a forestry bill an ammendment that gave her campaign manager 1 million to research campaigns.

Stuff like that is what pisses me off.

zimv20
Jul 19, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The best one that I have seen is an accountablility bill that makes all of the waste come public. It will attempt to stop all of the pork barrel stuff.

crazy. good idea but i'll be surprised if it goes anywhere. whence campaign finance reform?

Backtothemac
Jul 19, 2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
crazy. good idea but i'll be surprised if it goes anywhere. whence campaign finance reform?

Yea, when good people get elected, the pieces of **** stop them from doing the good things that they want to do.