1
   

NEW LETHAL POLL FOR BUSH

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Titus
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 08:09 am
Apparently, Richard Clarke's revelations about Bush's failure to act against al-Qaida leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks are having their effect on Bush's poll numbers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4614818/

According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, the percentage of voters who say they approve of the way the president has handled terrorism and homeland security has slid to 57 percent, down from a high of 70 percent two months ago.

Lethal news for a President who bases his entire argument for reelection on his handling of terrorism.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,529 • Replies: 45
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 08:18 am
Oh no! Another poll! Whatever will we do?!
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 08:25 am
If by "we," you are referring to the Bush loyalists, then I would suggest you learn to say, "President John F. Kerry." LOL!!!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 10:49 am
If the idea here is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen, my response would be, nonsense, prove it. If the idea is that Bush should have seen it coming, and is a bad president for not doing so, my response is that hindsight is 20/20. No previous president has a particularly good record in this regard. To his credit, Bush did determine that OBL was responsibe, demand his extradition from Afghanistan, remove the Afghan government for harboring him, reorganize the US government to create the Department of Homeland Security, and begin to locate and deal with terrorist money sources. The idea that failure to anticipate every event, perform without flaw, and fight bloodless, surgical wars makes a president some kind of demon strikes me as silly. I see no evidence that Clinton would have done better in the same circumstances.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 10:51 am
I think what has been sticking in people's craw is that Bush has been running on how WELL he handled it.

Even if he couldn't have prevented it, Clarke has been taking the sails out of the notion that he handled it particularly well.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 11:04 am
There is also more and more reason to suspect that with the Shrub's pre-September 11th "get Iraq" agenda, he cynically exploited the aftermath of the attacks to further his personal and partisan agenda.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 12:24 pm
Setanta wrote:
There is also more and more reason to suspect that with the Shrub's pre-September 11th "get Iraq" agenda, he cynically exploited the aftermath of the attacks to further his personal and partisan agenda.

Personally, I believed very strongly that Iraq had to be invaded because of WMD, and I have no political agenda or intention ever to run for office. Therefore, it is not implausible to me that someone else who believes in invasion might do so for reasons similar to mine.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:55 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
There is also more and more reason to suspect that with the Shrub's pre-September 11th "get Iraq" agenda, he cynically exploited the aftermath of the attacks to further his personal and partisan agenda.

Personally, I believed very strongly that Iraq had to be invaded because of WMD, and I have no political agenda or intention ever to run for office. Therefore, it is not implausible to me that someone else who believes in invasion might do so for reasons similar to mine.

The problem with your statement is that there were no WMD.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:09 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
There is also more and more reason to suspect that with the Shrub's pre-September 11th "get Iraq" agenda, he cynically exploited the aftermath of the attacks to further his personal and partisan agenda.

Personally, I believed very strongly that Iraq had to be invaded because of WMD, and I have no political agenda or intention ever to run for office. Therefore, it is not implausible to me that someone else who believes in invasion might do so for reasons similar to mine.

The problem with your statement is that there were no WMD.

This is not even remotely a problem with my statement.

Setanta raised the possibility that Bush ordered the invasion for personal and partisan reasons. I said that I too believed we should go in, and have no such agenda, and so therefore it's plausible that Bush might have had a motivation similar to mine, rather than the ignoble reasons attributed to him. That is to say, that from the point of view of people with beliefs similar to mine, there were sufficient good reasons to go in that one wouldn't need to assume a base motivation. Is all of your logic this defective?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:59 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
hobitbob wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
There is also more and more reason to suspect that with the Shrub's pre-September 11th "get Iraq" agenda, he cynically exploited the aftermath of the attacks to further his personal and partisan agenda.

Personally, I believed very strongly that Iraq had to be invaded because of WMD, and I have no political agenda or intention ever to run for office. Therefore, it is not implausible to me that someone else who believes in invasion might do so for reasons similar to mine.

The problem with your statement is that there were no WMD.

This is not even remotely a problem with my statement.

Keep telling oyurself that. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Setanta raised the possibility that Bush ordered the invasion for personal and partisan reasons.

Mounting evidence supports Set.

Quote:
I said that I too believed we should go in, and have no such agenda, and so therefore it's plausible that Bush might have had a motivation similar to mine, rather than the ignoble reasons attributed to him. That is to say, that from the point of view of people with beliefs similar to mine, there were sufficient good reasons to go in that one wouldn't need to assume a base motivation.

The problem is that you work from the assumtion (debunked repeatedly here, over several threads) that "everyone" believed Hussein had WMD. This is patently false. the fact that the administration keeps changing the reason for the invasion also makes one rather suspicious as to the their motivation. In addition, the paper trail of the PNAC documents, various statements by Bush cronies in print, and statements by former adminsitration officials seem to indicate that the administration intended to invade from day one.


Quote:
Is all of your logic this defective?

What an interesting question.....
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:01 pm
Thanks, HB, for saving me the trouble . . .
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:05 pm
Keine probleme. You owe me a Guiness... to drink with Hassenpfeffer!
Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:59 pm
hobitbob wrote:
...The problem is that you work from the assumtion (debunked repeatedly here, over several threads) that "everyone" believed Hussein had WMD. This is patently false. the fact that the administration keeps changing the reason for the invasion also makes one rather suspicious as to the their motivation. In addition, the paper trail of the PNAC documents, various statements by Bush cronies in print, and statements by former adminsitration officials seem to indicate that the administration intended to invade from day one. ....

How did I work from the assumption that everyone believed that Hussein had WMD? I never said anything of the kind. I said that I believed that Iraq had to be invaded because of WMD, and, therefore, another person like Bush who favored invasion might favor it for reasons similar to mine, and one need not posit ignoble reasons. How do you get from this that I worked from the assumption that everyone believed Hussein had WMD??????? And how does the possiblility that they intended to invade from day one detract from this? I believed in invasion from day one because of the WMD issue.

What does the fact that WMD were not found have to do with my assertion that it was entirely possible to favor invasion without having a political reason for doing so?
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 06:07 pm
"I believed in invasion from day one because of the WMD issue." Brandon9000

And I believe in the Easter Bunny and the Santa Claus. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 06:10 pm
Geeze, North Korea's got WoMD, invade them? Hmmm, they might put up a real fight, forget that. Pakistan has WoMD, and they don't care who they sell the technology too, invade them? Well, we got that whole Afghanistan false front to uphold, we better leave that alone. India has WoMD, howzabout we invade them? Are you nuts, there's about 800 million of them jokers.

Hey ! ! ! I know . . . France, France gots WoMD, an' nobody likes them "surrender monkeys" anyhow . . .

Now yer talkin' . . .
0 Replies
 
Camille
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 06:27 pm
Titus wrote:
"I believed in invasion from day one because of the WMD issue." Brandon9000

And I believe in the Easter Bunny and the Santa Claus. :wink:


Eventually we all have to face reality.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 06:36 pm
Hans Blix is a real person.
"reorganize the US government to create the Department of Homeland Security, and begin to locate and deal with terrorist money sources.

Bushco was against Homeland Security until it looked like it was going to pass in the Hous and Senate, then they jumped on board and tried to give the impression that they came up with the concept.

The money trail has not been followed. I had an article here about that.

Bushco wanted to invade Iraq, knew that there were no WMDs, no Saddam nexus to 911 or to Osama but also knew that those were the best bogus reasons to sell to the American public. 911 Attack was Bushco's Pearl Harbor and they have milked and are milking it or all it's worth. They were right.Americans are mostly gullible.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 08:34 am
Titus wrote:
"I believed in invasion from day one because of the WMD issue." Brandon9000

And I believe in the Easter Bunny and the Santa Claus. :wink:

This is nothing more nor less than a personal attack which makes one suspect that you have no actual argument to make.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 08:44 am
Camille wrote:
Titus wrote:
"I believed in invasion from day one because of the WMD issue." Brandon9000

And I believe in the Easter Bunny and the Santa Claus. :wink:


Eventually we all have to face reality.

I won't talk to the WMD issue because it's off point in this line of argument.

I have made a simple point several times now and very clearly. Some people appear to be unable to comprehend it, or comprehending it, can only counter it by attempting to change the subject. When someone like me makes a simple, clear debating point, and someone like you responds with an irrelevant snipe, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that you are unable to attack the argument.

My point was that, since I, who have no political agenda, believed and still believe that the invasion of Iraq was correct, Bush could have favored invasion for reasons similar to mine, and one need not necessarily ascribe ulterior motives to him.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 08:47 am
Re: Hans Blix is a real person.
pistoff wrote:

Bushco...knew that there were no WMDs...but also knew that those were the best bogus reasons to sell to the American public.

I disagree and now challenge you to show evidence of this.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » NEW LETHAL POLL FOR BUSH
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:19:10
▲ ▼