Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/874671.asp?0dm=N22FN

If you go to the sight, please note the slide show that is full of twisted anti-American, hateful and social disreputable
personalities:

Tw
Public Rallying Around Bush's Call for War
But less than majority support war without new U.N. vote


by David W. Moore
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the wake of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's appearance before the United Nations Security Council last week, as well as President George W. Bush's speech to the nation the week before, public support for war against Iraq appears to be on the rise, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Overall, 63% of Americans support an invasion of Iraq, up from 58% last week prior to Powell's U.N. presentation, and 52% the week before, prior to Bush's State of the Union speech. The percentage of supporters with firm opinions has also increased, to 37% from 31% last week.

A solid majority of Americans say that the Bush administration has made a convincing case for military action against Iraq. The percentage is slightly higher than it was last week, but is up by seven points over the past two weeks. Also compared with last week, Americans are now more likely to say that Iraq is obstructing U.N. weapons inspectors, has facilities to create weapons of mass destruction, and has biological or chemical weapons.

At the same time, Americans remain unconvinced that Iraq represents an immediate threat to the United States, and only four in 10 are willing for the United States to invade Iraq without a new authorizing vote by the U.N. Security Council.

The poll was conducted Feb. 7-9, and shows that support for an invasion of Iraq is the highest it has been since November 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Bill, perhaps one of our resident experts on anti-American behavior would be willing to examine that slide and let us know the degree to which that person is unpatriotic. We need to know--and fast! Heck, there may be a war soon--we may need to round these folks up...

Is there going to be unPatriotic American Camps built down in GitMo, maybe Bush can buy some land from Castro!

I have offered links to recent polling that shows I am right several times. Must I do it every time someone makes these false claims?

(sigh) Let me look back through the same discussions I assumed others here have read so that I may enlighten you :wink: as to what the facts, in fact, are...

Okay, I found the post under the "Greater Danger..." discussion. (I posted this just this past Saturday, 2/15):



(Headlines above are links to the complete stories.)

So you see, D'Art, in this case at least, I wrote as if I were citing facts because I was in fact citing facts. The majority of Americans surveyed not only agree with going to war, but are willing to do so without UN approval. (BTW, thanks for the polite tone of your response. It's nice to see that some people here can disagree without being disagreeable.)

And PD, I don't know where you live, but where I do there was no question on the ballot in 2000 regarding whether or not you favored military action in Iraq. That being the case EVERYWHERE, the only way anyone can claim to know what the electorate think on the issue is to look at recent polling among them. This I have done, and find your claim that you represent the majority to be completely baseless. I don't doubt that you think your position SHOULD be agreed with by the majority, but the sad truth is that it is not. Yours is the minority position, and the passage of time is only increasing the numbers coming around to the administration's position.

Great, it is agreed by all on this thread due to many and all causes:

Let's replace GWBush in 2004 - sooner would be better. Ask or tell him to step down with inept administration in tow the position never won, never achieved and never able to lead!!!!!!!!!!

Tres
This from the Gallup poll I posted. You did see it did you not.
At the same time, Americans remain unconvinced that Iraq represents an immediate threat to the United States, and only four in 10 are willing for the United States to invade Iraq without a new authorizing vote by the U.N. Security Council.

No, not everyone is agreed that Bush should be replaced in the next election. True, the clamor and din of partisan Democrats and ultra-liberals seems to predominate at this time. There are large and vocal demonstrations in the streets of our major cities denouncing our governments resolve to deal at last with Saddam. unsubstanciated charges of misfeasance and malfeasance are slung about with abandon. The shrill outcry from those currently out of power drowns out those who support the President, and his actions.

Every pronouncement, no matter how calm or reasonable, from the administration is hooted at and denounced as lies and propaganda. Anyone who doesn't join the mob is presumed to be a warmonger and part of some right-wing conspiracy. Anyone expressing support for the President must be blind, and mentally defective. The pronouncements of the commentariate are seized upon as proof that everything in the country is hell-bound because a Republican is in office, and half the Congress is Republican. Polls are worth less than used toilet paper, no matter whoses point of view they seem to support.

Partisanship coupled with distrust of our elected representatives has very nearly torn this country apart for the last 45 years. Isn't it about time that we stopped the personal attacks on the national leadership. These folks are politicians, and that's a pretty unsavory occupation. They are expected to be self-serving, to lie and put the interests of their supporters above the national interest. In times of peace, we overlook their little pecadillos. However, when our security threatened it is time to unite behind whoever is in office, and for those in office to put the national good above petty politics.

Can anyone deny that this nation and Western Civilization is not threatened by Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, and Bin Ladin? These rogue states, among others, have clearly stated their intent to attack and kill anyone associated with the West. Terrorist attacks sponsored, financed and armed by these outlaws have been carried out all over the world for over twenty years. All of these killers have demonstrated their willingness to kill to advance their personal interests. These are all proven murderers with the blood of thousands on their hands, and the desire to kill millions more in their hearts. These are the people that the peace demonstrators are trying to protect and shield from the just anger of the American People. The Bush administration is trying to protect the nation, as is its sworn duty. There is not one credible piece of evidence that anyone in the administration has willingly lied about anything. There are certainly a lot of opinions floating around that the administration isn't forthright, but those opinions support the partisan and American hating rhetoric of the left, so they must be correct.

Those here who support the administration have tried very hard to avoid making unsubstanciated claims, or name-calling. I don't think that the anti-administration faction can say the same. The pro-administration postings have almost uniformly given the opposition credit for being sincere, loyal-Americans who want only whats best for the nation. The sneering and dismissive tone taken against anyone who isn't wildly against Mr. Bush and his administration is evident in many postings.

Civility is a two way street. How about a little respect for those who don't share your opinions for a change.

Mind of the beholder! I forget, what is the title of this thread -

Quote: "when our security threatened"...... When it "IS" threatened, all Americans (and probably the whole world) will support our president. That's the bottom line. The only problem is we don't agree on the "threat." c.i.

"How do you lose a P.R. war with Saddam Hussein? I mean, how could you be so inept that this lying thug dope addict serial killer is beating us in the court of world opinion. How could you be that inept?...Why is this administration so inept that it is letting this clown beat the living tar out of them in the court of world opinion?...The problem is that this administration is so inept it can't even beat a thug at a P.R. war."
--James Carville, Crossfire, 02/19/03

Answer, their only reply is:

"If you ain't on my side then your on his side!"

And that BS just don't fly!

That really screws up, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." c.i.

I wouldn't have predicted it, PDiddie. In fact, I thought that the ONLY thing this administration was good at was PR (of a singularly satanic variety). As noted elsewhere, they are however good at saying one thing and doing the opposite. And getting away with it. So far. But my main question is, How can Carville live with Matalin? I would have thought those two would have demolished each other with WMD's by now...

Tartar, Very good point. How does that go? My wife is my enemy, but she's my best friend. c.i.

Arianna Huffington nails it as far as I'm concerned:


Boys, boys, you're all right. Sure, it's Daddy, oil, and imperialism, not to mention a messianic sense of righteous purpose, a deep-seated contempt for the peace movement, and, to be fair, the irrefutable fact that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein.

But there's also an overarching mentality feeding the administration's collective delusions, and it can be found by looking to corporate America's bottom line. The dots leading from Wall Street to the West Wing situation room are the ones that need connecting. There's money to be made in post-war Iraq, and the sooner we get the pesky war over with, the sooner we (by which I mean George Bush's corporate cronies) can start making it.

The nugget of truth that former Bush economic guru Lawrence Lindsey let slip last fall shortly before he was shoved out the Oval Office door says it all. Momentarily forgetting that he was talking to the press and not his buddies in the White House, he admitted: "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."


This is the key to Bush-think. No matter how much criticism they are receiving now, if they successfully prosecute the upcoming invasion they believe that all will be forgiven and they can continue on, business as usual. They have already gone past the point of no return in this strategy. The invasion must proceed if there is to be any hope that they can put the Iraq matter behind them.

The fact that they could be creating a situation of chaos that could take years to settle down is ultimately unimportant to these people. What they care about is what the immediate image will be right after the fall of Saddam. If it looks good on TV, then they will consider their actions leading up to that point to have been justified.

The sad thing is, given our current media market, they are probably right.

Which is why it needs to be made clear, now, before the invasion, that an attack on Iraq is the wrong action at this time regardless of the initial outcome. We need to make it clear that flushing Saddam out is not sufficient cause for declaring victory and then going home. We need to hold their feet to the fire even more after their grand and glorious victory.

The key to the future belongs to whomever gets to define what "victory" means.

Agree, PDiddie, but am not optimstic. As you point out, it's the media... and who gets to define victory... as usual. I'm angry at the extent to which the assumption now is WAR. The answer is, of course, to stop the war. Because so many live in a kind of fictive world, they are looking for the next chapter in the story, no matter what it is. A fill-in local talk show host, glad to have the mike for a day, was yelling this morning, "I'm tired of waiting. Everyone's tired of waiting. It's getting so boring I can't stand it. Why do we have to wait so long for them to make the next move, boring the heck out of everyone. Let's go into Iraq for god's sake..."

Hey -- it's just a movie...

i agree, diddie, about why he HAS to have his war now. And the sad fact is, after the first American comes home in a bag, the voices of dissent will be totally silenced out of fear of being perceived as not only seditious, but disrespectful of the honorably fallen dead.

As I've pointed out on another forum, it's been my understanding that over fifty percent of Iraqis are children under the age of 15. That means the collateral damage will be in the form of dead children on our t.v. sets. If they think this is gonna be good PR, they'd better get another PR man real quick. c.i.

Fair enough. Gallup's polling disagrees with the polling I cited on how people feel about whether to wait for a new UN resolution. That's a perfectly valid point. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.


Of course, the point I was arguing was that PD's opinion that we should not attack Iraq was the minority opinion in this country. That point is proven BOTH by your Gallup poll and by my citations. So, in the end, you've helped me prove my point. The MAJORITY of Americans support war in Iraq if it is found to be necessary.

Thanks for bringing the Gallup poll to my attention.