sadly, it looks like "and not a day longer" is getting farther and farther away.
according to a general (ret) i heard interviewed the other day, we have a year before the military starts to "go over the edge". "we can't keep up this kind of sustained deployment with the same troop levels" he continued.
it's been mentioned often that bush is concerned about a legacy. well, looks like he's going to have one.
the worst president in modern american history. certainly in my lifetime.
There's a difference between fact and opinion. Lets take a look at just one example referrenced by Cyc in the article he just cited.
Cyc's ot particularly objective blog article wrote:Lost History: Saddam Hussein's power had collapsed and the newly arrived US-led coalition forces were unable to prevent a crime against history. Professional smugglers connected to the international antiquities mafia managed to break some of the sealed doors of the Baghdad Museum storage rooms. They looted priceless artefacts such as the museum's entire collection of cylindrical seals and large numbers of Assyrian ivory carvings. More than 15,000 objects were taken. Many were smuggled out of Iraq and offered for sale.
Sure, the lootin' was a tragedy, and armed with hindsight, the liberatin' forces might have prevented it. However, some folks seem yet committed to makin' more of it than there was. Somehow, these stories didn't get as much play as did some others surroundin' the events alluded to.
May 7, 2003
Thousands of Iraqi artifacts found - Many items found in museum vaults
May 8, 2003
Looted Iraqi artefacats 'returned'
June 11, 2003
Iraq: Most Museum Treasures Found Intact Despite Reports Of Looting
Sep 10, 2003
Transcript: Briefing on the Investigation of Antiquity Loss from the Baghdad Museum
Oct 22, 2003
Transcript: EXPLORATIONS - October 22, 2003: Iraqi Treasures Recovered
Nov 11, 2003
Hundreds of looted items returned to Iraqi museum
Screed is not evidence, no matter how entertainin' it may be.
Artifacts can be returned and so can the looted munitions. The problem of course they are being returned as bombs and bullets. The lack of sufficient forces because of Rumsfelds playing soldier should not and cannot be excused. Why, is that sh@@ head still secretary of defense. No doubt because the other sh@@head is still president. The present insurgency which gets stronger and more effective daily would have been short lived was it not for the military genius of Rumsfeld.
Amusin' too that Anti-Bushbots see no irony in their plaint that the folks who continually trounce the Dems in the polls are a buncha morons.
Polls, did you say polls.
Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point
By E&P Staff
Published: April 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET updated 7:00 PM
NEW YORK It's not uncommon to hear or read pundits referring to President George W. Bush as a "popular" leader or even a "very popular" one. Even some of his critics in the press refer to him this way. Perhaps they need to check the latest polls.
President Bush's approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.
All other presidents who served a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their election, Gallup reported.
Presidents Truman and Johnson had finished out the terms of their predecessors, and then won election on their own for a second term.
Bush's current rating is 45%. The next lowest was Reagan with 56% in March 1985.
More bad signs for the president: Gallup's survey now finds only 38% expressing satisfaction with the "state of the country" while 59% are "dissatisfied." One in three Americans feel the economy is excellent or good, while the rest find it "only fair" or poor.
Gallup noted that more challenges lie ahead for Bush, including public doubts about his Social Security plan and Iraq policies.
Here are the approval ratings for presidents as recorded by Gallup (all for March):
Truman, 1949: 57%.
Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.
Johnson, 1965: 69%.
Nixon, 1973: 57%.
Reagan, 1985: 56%.
Clinton, 1997: 59% .
Bush, 2005: 45%
It looks as if even the slow learners are beginning to see the light.
timberlandko wrote:Amusin' too that Anti-Bushbots see no irony in their plaint that the folks who continually trounce the Dems in the polls are a buncha morons.
er, timber. not to be a nudge, but the race did turn out to be 48-51%. not
quite a trouncin'.
i know that "close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades" an' all, but doesn't that look to you like nearly half of the country was against a continuance of the bush policies ?
au1929 wrote:Polls, did you say polls.
Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point
....
Clinton, 1997: 59% .
Bush, 2005: 45%
It looks as if even the slow learners are beginning to see the light.
as i remember, even clinton left office with a rating in the mid 60s.
World > Terrorism & Security
posted April 26, 2005, updated 11:30 a.m.
Iraqi insurgency far from 'fizzling'
Experts say insurgents have retaken momentum as politicians 'dither' over cabinet posts.
By Tom Regan| csmonitor.com
Just a few weeks after US military officials optimistically predicted that the Iraq insurgency was 'fizzling' because the number of attacks per day was down, many of those same officials now believe they were wrong, and that the insurgency is strengthing again. The Boston Globe reported Sunday that US military officials now believe that the greater coordination and sophistocation of attacks demonstrated by insurgents in recent weeks means they have changed their tactics, rather than disappeared or given up.
'One of the insurgency's strengths is its capacity to regenerate,' said retired Army General John Keane, who returned recently from a fact-finding mission in Iraq. 'We have killed thousands of them and detained even more, but they are still able to regenerate. They are still coming at us.'
.
More troublesome is that these same military experts also believe that the insurgents "are making inroads toward sparking a full-blown sectarian war," and that it may not be possible for the US to reduce its troop strength as quickly as some recent Defense Department statements have indicated.
The Wall Street Journal reported last Thursday that internal US Army analysis, writtenfor US troops going to Iraq to prepare them for the kind of dangers they will face, concludes that the number of attacks in recent months haven't lessened very much, but have shifted away from US troops to attacks on Iraqi civilians.
The Army report catalogs the five most deadly tactics employed by insurgents. It concludes that the most deadly threat to Iraqi civilians and security personnel comes from small-arms fire - typically AK-47 rifles or machine guns - and not roadside bombs. "Firing small arms in close combat remains the No. 1 casualty producing tactic," the report states. Iraqi army and police forces, which typically patrol in unarmored white pickup trucks, are especially vulnerable to attack from small arms.
The report also found that, increasingly, insurgents are pairing remotely detonated bombs with ambushes. In one example cited in the report, the insurgents used a remote-detonated bomb to stop a convoy of private security contractors. When the contractors got out of their vehicles to assess the damage, the insurgents began shooting at them. The report describes the incident as a 'disciplined' attack, noting that the insurgents collected their own casualties before fleeing.
The Belfast (Ireland) Telegraph reports on the inability of the US and Iraqi forces to quell the violence, particularly in Baghdad, and how that is being viewed by the local population.
The inability of the US army to secure the seven-mile road between Baghdad and the airport, also the site of the main US military base, has become a symbol of the failure of the US in Iraq. Heavily armored US patrols, prone to open fire unpredictably, are regarded as being as dangerous as the insurgents.
The Washington Post reports that many of the attacks have gone unchallenged by the Iraqi forces, particularly in areas of the country largely controlled by insurgents. US officials are also privately saying that "violence is getting much worse."
'My strong sense is that a lot of the political momentum that was generated out of the successful election, which was sort of like a punch in the gut to the insurgents, has worn off.' The political stalemate 'has given the insurgents new hope,' the official added, repeating a message Americans say they are increasingly giving Iraqi leaders.
dtom, mid-term gains in Governor's Mansions and Statehouses and in both houses of Congress, followed 2 years on by further gains at both State and Congressional level, accompanied by retention of the incumbent amount to a helluvalot more than squeekin' by. I'd call it trouncin'.
au, consider the opinion polls that had Kerry all but inaugurated. Only one poll counts.
As for the insurgency, no one contends it is over. However, the Iraqi populace itself is tirin' of it, increasin'ly providin' the authorities with actionable intelligence. Such a development greatly limits the insurgent's freedom of action, and increases the oportunity cost of that action. Bear in mind as well it is an insurgency, not an open rebellion or popular uprisin'.
timberlandko wrote:dtom, mid-term gains in Governor's Mansions and Statehouses and in both houses of Congress, followed 2 years on by further gains at both State and Congressional level, accompanied by retention of the incumbent amount to a helluvalot more than squeekin' by. I'd call it trouncin'.
d'ya think it's gonna be the same next year ? or do you think that bush's current rating of 43-44% is gonna hurt the republicans coming up for re-election ?
clinton lost the edge on congress to gingrich in the same time span. so isn't it fair to say that the only sure thing is that there's no sure thing ?
btw, kerry had the election to lose, imho. unfortunately, the ass kicker that i'd hoped he would be just sort of.. uh.. umm... err...
DTOM wrote: ... isn't it fair to say that the only sure thing is that there's no sure thing? ...
There is no sure thing in politics, thats for sure. I seem to recall, however, The Dems were confident of significant victories in '02 (Nov 6, 2002:
Republicans Stun Democrats :cool: )
- and held great hopes for at least some recovery through the special elections in '03.
I note too that much of the criticism and anger directed toward The Current Adninistration and its principals in large part echoes the Reagan Adminmistration's critics' blatherin'.
timberlandko wrote:DTOM wrote: ... isn't it fair to say that the only sure thing is that there's no sure thing? ...
There is no sure thing in politics, thats for sure. I seem to recall, however, The Dems were confident of significant victories in '02 (Nov 6, 2002:
Republicans Stun Democrats :cool: )
- and held great hopes for at least some recovery through the special elections in '03.
I note too that much of the criticism and anger directed toward The Current Adninistration and its principals in large part echoes the Reagan Adminmistration's critics' blatherin'.
could be timber, could be. now hold on to something solid and steady yourself, cause this is gonna be a shock.
i voted for reagan.
even though i thought some of his ideas were a little chancey, i trusted him. i respected him as a person.
and that is exactly why i didn't vote for george bush.
you may be right that critics are echoing some of the same things about bush as was said about reagan. but that is where any comparison between those two presidents ends.
just my opinion though. :wink:
Timber wrote
Quote:au, consider the opinion polls that had Kerry all but inaugurated. Only one poll counts
.
I of course agree. However I was responding to:
Timber wrote
Quote: Amusin' too that Anti-Bushbots see no irony in their plaint that the folks who continually trounce the Dems in the polls are a buncha morons.
Predictably, Timber turns the topic of any thread into a criticism of Democrats. This is the fiftieth or so time it has happened.
Why don't you add into your sig "I look down upon and insult Democrats" and save both you and us a bunch of time, Timber?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Predictably, Timber turns the topic of any thread into a criticism of Democrats. This is the fiftieth or so time it has happened.
Why don't you add into your sig "I look down upon and insult Democrats" and save both you and us a bunch of time, Timber?
Cycloptichorn
Some folks see the assault on DeLay as a purely partisan power play, Cyc - and I'm with that group. Who else is to be criticized for this particular purely partisan power play? While we're at it, I believe you yourself rather typically voice displeasure with conservatives in general and Republicans - particularly Republicans closely associated with the upper echelons of The Current Administration ... or do I misperceive your sentiment in such regard?
What was Whitewater if not a purely partisan power play?
My first preference -- that non-governmental malfeasance be ignored, since nobody's perfect.
My second preference -- once it becomes standard to hold people accountable for non-governmental malfeasance, that the standard be applied consistently.
(And that's not getting into whether DeLay's malfeasance is more or less governmental than Clinton's...)
Quote:Some folks see the assault on DeLay as a purely partisan power play, Cyc - and I'm with that group. Who else is to be criticized for this particular purely partisan power play? While we're at it, I believe you yourself rather typically voice displeasure with conservatives in general and Republicans - particularly Republicans closely associated with the upper echelons of The Current Administration ... or do I misperceive your sentiment in such regard?
No, you do not misperceive my sentiment, Timber.
As for DeLay, he got himself in hot water last year and did nothing to get out of it. It's not a partisan power play, though the dems are jumping on it just as the Republicans would (did) in the same circumstances.
It's a case of corruption, lies, and greed, that strikes to the very core of your party. You should be scared, seriously, that this is going to break the back of Republican dominance in Washington; not that you guys can get anything substantial done anyways, these days....
Cycloptichorn
Dunno if I'd go so far as to ignore all non-governmental malfeasance, but in general I agree with both your alternatives Soz, with a heavy lean toward equal and consistent application. Power plays do nothin' but obstruct the business of governin' the nation. Then again, the business of politics is purely power play, so what's to choose?
Anyhow, this is s'poseta be a Rummie-(as proxy for Bush)-bash thread - and I think the DeLay digression here was pretty much my fault. There's already a DeLay-(as-proxy for Bush)-bash thread, which would be a more appropriate spot for this particular silliness. The discussion here prolly oughtta turn back to Rummie-(as proxy for Bush)-bashin' silliness.
But that presupposes that there is no valid reason to bash Rummy -- and that's quite a presupposition.
(There, hope that brings things back around to the point.)
