NEW LETHAL POLL FOR BUSH

Lethal poll? Well it is the season of the resurrection of the dead Smile

BUSH GAINS IN POLLS

WASHINGTON (March 30) - A majority of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling terrorism, according to a poll taken in the days after a former aide charged that Bush had underestimated the terror threat prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll released on Monday also showed gains in Bush's political position against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. . . .

According to the poll, 58 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the terrorism threat and 39 percent disapprove. His overall job approval rating stood at 53 percent, up four percentage points since a poll conducted at the beginning of March.

Given a matchup between Bush and Kerry, 51 percent of the respondents said they would likely vote for Bush -- up seven percentage points from a March 5-7 poll. Forty-seven percent said they would likely choose Kerry, down from 52 percent.

The poll of 1,001 adults was conducted March 26-28 and has an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.

0 Replies

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.

The problem with your statement is that it is premature. The correct statement is "No WMD have yet been found."

0 Replies

Bush's entire reelection bid is predicated on his handling of terrorism and security.

He certainly can't run on the economy or jobs -- LOL!!!

With a shocking 13 point drop since January on on the issues of his handling of terrorism and national security, IMHO, Bush is now vulnerable and his weakness is on display.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

The problem with your statement is that it is premature. The correct statement is "No WMD have yet been found."

The problem with your statement is the record of public statements and "spin" by the administration, which has been all over the road in a feeble attempt to justify a pre-emptive invasion after the fact, leading to a strong, justifiable suspicion that the Shrub and company play fast and loose with the truth when it comes to explaining the origin of their policy decisions. They have worked very hard to suggest that it is not about WoMD, because of the embarrassment, and now they and their conservative cheerleaders are trying to make it out to be a part of the war on terror--a war for which the administration has never shown any particular interest beyond eroding personal liberty in this country using the war on terror as an all-too-skimpy fig leaf.

0 Replies

Tarantulas 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.

The problem with your statement is that it is premature. The correct statement is "No WMD have yet been found."

Hi. Actually, the problem was that it was not relevant to the argument I had just made.

0 Replies

Talk about spin...

We know Saddam had WMD. Now they can't be found. That doesn't equate to "there are no WMD."

0 Replies

What would it take?
What evidence would it take for all the pro-Iraq-war people to change their minds about the war's merit as unwarranted?

BBB

0 Replies

Re: What would it take?

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

What evidence would it take for all the pro-Iraq-war people to change their minds about the war's merit as unwarranted?

BBB

This would help. If you can, please provide evidence of the following:

1. Hussein never had WMD.
2. He never lied about WMD.
3. He never used WMD.
4. One WMD smuggled in pieces into the US, assembled here, and then detonated, could not kill a huge number of people, and the number could not be a million for some of the more lethal forms of WMD.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

We know Saddam had WMD.

Note to operative verb tense--had.

0 Replies

"We know Saddam had WMD." tarantula

"We?" Who comprises this "we" you refer to?

In any event, what the poster really meant is, "we hope Saddam had WMD." Then, his hero, King George the Liar, and all the neocons orbiting Bush's tiny pinhead, would be exonerated. [/color]

0 Replies

Titus wrote:

"We know Saddam had WMD." tarantula

"We?" Who comprises this "we" you refer to?

In any event, what the poster really meant is, "we hope Saddam had WMD." Then, his hero, King George the Liar, and all the neocons orbiting Bush's tiny pinhead, would be exonerated. [/color]

Kind of curious here. What lie are you referring to?

0 Replies

You're just being obtuse now. You don't REALLY believe that Hussein never had WMD's do you?

0 Replies

McGentrix
The only WMD we are sure Saddam had are those Poppy Bush sent to him before the first Iraq war. Could one say those were U.S. WMD in distributation? Did they help the US balance of trade as do our other weapon systems? Usually, what goes around comes around, except in this case.

BBB

0 Replies

Then were did he get the Scud missiles from? Walmart?

0 Replies

McGentrix
McGentrix, lesson number #1: Scud missiles are not considered WMD by anyone I know of. Please don't keep shifting and confusing your own question. :wink:

BBB

0 Replies

Of course, the fact that the Scud Missile is not a WMD did not occur to you, did it?

0 Replies

*sigh* what do scud missiles carry? warheads. What are in warheads? Just about anything you want.

Why does EVERYTHING need to be spelled out for you?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

*sigh* what do scud missiles carry? warheads. What are in warheads? Just about anything you want.

Why does EVERYTHING need to be spelled out for you?

Why are you incapable of understanding the difference between WMD, and a delivery device? I wonder if this is a method you use to maintain your mental gestalt. If your worldview is proven incorrect, you seem to modify the parameters, in order to hold the same opinion, rather than accepting that you were wrong, and moving on. Your digression about the missiles is ridiculous.

0 Replies

I understand perfectly.

0 Replies

Titus wrote:

"We know Saddam had WMD." tarantula

"We?" Who comprises this "we" you refer to?

In any event, what the poster really meant is, "we hope Saddam had WMD." Then, his hero, King George the Liar, and all the neocons orbiting Bush's tiny pinhead, would be exonerated.

I meant exactly what I said. By "we" I mean the whole world, including the Iranians and the Kurds who were on the receiving end of Saddam's WMD. The fact that Saddam had them and used them is not open to argument.

By the way, my name is Tarantulas, not "tarantula." Try to keep up, will you?

0 Replies

NEW LETHAL POLL FOR BUSH

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know