3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 09:14 am
Quote:
Is John Yoo also the one who drafted a statement of support for Bush's torture bill, which the White House then pressured a group of JAG lawyers to sign?


Yoo works down the hall from me at UC berkeley law school.

He always has an unpleasant look on his face

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 09:17 am
Kick him in the shins for me, please.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 09:44 am
SierraSong wrote:

Huh. Never occured to me that there would be folks here who didn't understand the difference between 'favorable' and 'approval'.


I don't see why. When the favorability rating is given on TV broadcasts, frequently the difference between the two needed to be explained on air.

Gee, could it be possible that with all this talk on the forum about low-but-slightly-rising Bush job approval ratings, you slipped the higher favorability in there hoping it would get confused with the lower job approval ratings?

Nah.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 09:50 am
A delicious quote from Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation"...

Quote:
The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim any more ludicrous or offensive.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 09:55 am
kelticwizard wrote:
SierraSong wrote:

Huh. Never occured to me that there would be folks here who didn't understand the difference between 'favorable' and 'approval'.


I don't see why. When the favorability rating is given on TV broadcasts, frequently the difference between the two needed to be explained on air.


This isn't a TV broadcast. I thought my original post spelled it out pretty well.

kelticwizard wrote:
Gee, could it be possible that with all this talk on the forum about low-but-slightly-rising Bush job approval ratings, you slipped the higher favorability in there hoping it would get confused with the lower job approval ratings?

Nah.


Take a look at the title of this thread and then at the last line in my original post.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 10:13 am
kelticwizard wrote:

When the favorability rating is given on TV broadcasts, frequently the difference between the two needed to be explained on air.



Sierra Song wrote:
This isn't a TV broadcast. I thought my original post spelled it out pretty well.


Your original quote simply repeated the question which was asked. But unless a person is really, really up on polling, the difference between "favorability" and "job approval" is likely to confused, especially since "job approval" is most often shortened to mere "approval" when the number is given. That is why the distinction is made in TV broadcasts.
0 Replies
 
MarionT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 03:17 pm
The ratings for Bush are in the low thirties! Read the polls in the papers. I am amazed that there would be so many people who would still after all of the horrible things he has done to this country be in favor of Bushie. It just goes to show how many stupid people there are in the USA!
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 03:49 pm
Media Misses the Point
On C.I.A. Leak Story

By Joe Conason


To observe the Washington press corps is to wonder why so many people who don't remember what happened yesterday and can't master basic logic are expected to analyze politics and policy. The latest developments in the Valerie Plame Wilson case?-as revealed in Hubris, a new book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn?-proved once more that the simplest analysis of facts is beyond the grasp of many of America's most celebrated journalists.

What Messrs. Corn and Isikoff reveal, among other things, is that the first official to reveal Valerie Wilson's covert identity as a C.I.A. operative to columnist Robert Novak in June 2003 was Richard Armitage, who then served as Deputy Secretary of State. Unlike other Bush administration figures who were involved in leaking Ms. Wilson's identity, such as Karl Rove and Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Mr. Armitage was known to be unenthusiastic about the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

From those two facts, numerous pundits and talking heads have deduced that Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby were guiltless, that there was no White House effort to expose Ms. Wilson, and that the entire leak investigation was a partisan witch hunt and perhaps an abuse of discretion by the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald. The same pundits now proclaim that Mr. Armitage's minor role somehow proves the White House didn't seek to punish Valerie Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, for his decision to publicly debunk the Presidential misuse of dubious intelligence from Niger concerning Iraq's alleged attempts to purchase yellowcake uranium.

But whatever Mr. Armitage did, or says he did, in no way alters what Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby did in the days that followed, nor does it change their intentions. It's a simple concept?-two people or more can commit a similar act for entirely different reasons?-but evidently it has flummoxed the great minds of contemporary journalism.

In this instance, Mr. Armitage says he was merely "gossiping" with Mr. Novak, who seems to have been primed to question him about the Wilson affair. But both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby sought to undermine Joe Wilson's credibility?-and perhaps to victimize him and his wife?-by planting information about Valerie Wilson with two reporters. Mr. Rove gave that information to Time reporter Matt Cooper, who got confirmation from Mr. Libby. And Mr. Libby provided the same poisonous tip to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Almost from the beginning of his investigation in December 2003, Mr. Fitzgerald has known about the blabby Armitage, who at least came clean promptly. But Mr. Fitzgerald, a Bush appointee of impeccable reputation, understood that the Armitage confession was of limited relevance?-and it didn't discourage the special counsel from conducting a thorough probe that uncovered a secretive, high-level effort, emanating from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, to discredit Joe Wilson and to use his wife's two decades of undercover work for her country as a weapon against him. Indeed, the only reason Mr. Armitage knew about Valerie Wilson was that he had read a negative dossier on Joe Wilson prepared at the behest of Mr. Libby.

On his blog, Mr. Corn, the Washington editor of The Nation, recently responded to the opinion-makers who were so eager to misuse his reporting to exonerate the White House. "As Hubris will make clear," he wrote, "Rove's leak (to Robert Novak and Matt Cooper) and Libby's leak (to Judith Miller and Cooper) were part of a campaign to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson. That's no conspiracy theory. The available evidence proves this point."

According to an article published by Mr. Corn in The Nation on Sept. 5, the available evidence also proves that Valerie Wilson was not only a genuine C.I.A. undercover officer, but that she was in charge of agency operations seeking proof of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. Specifically, she ran the Joint Task Force on Iraq, which was part of the Counterproliferation Division of the C.I.A.'s Directorate of Operations. She worked overseas, including trips to Jordan and other theatres of operations, using a "nonofficial cover." By disclosing her identity, the Bush officials ruined her career and endangered the sources and methods she had used in the President's service. Hubris also suggests strongly that her alleged role in dispatching her husband to Niger has been exaggerated.

All this is quite contrary to the dominant right-wing perspective in Washington. So now we will see whether those who were so thrilled by the Armitage scoop are honest enough to confront more significant and embarrassing facts. But the fundamental issues have not changed.

Rather than confront Mr. Wilson's accusations directly, the White House went after him and his wife?-and then lied about the involvement of its senior officials in disclosing her identity. The perpetrators of these unpatriotic partisan acts have yet to be punished, and the President, as usual, has failed to uphold his own professed ethical standards. It is a simple matter, and yet still too challenging for the national press to understand.

http://www.observer.com/20060911/20060911_Joe_Conason_politics_joeconason-2.asp
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 04:41 pm
It's neat seeing who supports Bush on A2K. You never can trust your own reading or senses, but the rampant posting in this thread just goes to show that you can never really tell a person's political stripe.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 08:48 pm
"rampant"...

I love it when you talk dirty
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 08:49 pm
Embarrassed yeah, he said "political stripe" too..
such a bawdy man...
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 09:07 pm
The president has 'professional ethical standards'?????


Who knew.......



Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.


Nothing new under the sun. The sheeple are more than happy to have their rights taken away under the guise of 'keeping citizens safe'. Balderdash. Baaaaaaaaaaa....................
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 05:42 am
A bit more on propaganda...

Quote:
White House soiree: Boortz, Hannity, Gallagher, Medved and Ingraham were reportedly invited to meet with Bush in the Oval Office
In a September 16 posting on his weblog, nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz wrote that he had been invited to "the West Wing of the White House" for a "30-minute meeting with the President in the Oval Office [which] turned into 90 minutes." Boortz added that the "other invitees were [conservative radio hosts] Sean Hannity, Mike Gallagher, Michael Medved and Laura Ingraham." As the weblog Think Progress noted, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in a September 17 posting on its website that conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been invited to the meeting but could not attend.

Below, are examples of some noteworthy comments, previously documented by Media Matters for America, from each of the recent guests who reportedly visited the White House...
you'll love these quotes!
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 08:57 am
Thomas wrote:
The Zogby favorability figure apparently wasn't chosen at random. No pollster currently has Bush's approval rating anywhere near 50%, and no pollster except Zogby has his favorability rating anywhere near it, either.


But, on 9/14 Rasmussen had Bush's approval rating at 47%. Near enough to 50% to suit me Smile

Today, it's 40% - tomorrow, who knows?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 10:35 am
SierraSong wrote:
Today, it's 40% - tomorrow, who knows?

Good for you -- this means Bush's approval rating is now only 20% worse than Bill Clinton's at the time of his impeachment. I'm sure that makes Republican Congressmen happy to have him on their campaign teams.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 10:42 am
Thomas wrote:
SierraSong wrote:
Today, it's 40% - tomorrow, who knows?

Good for you -- this means Bush's approval rating is now only 20% worse than Bill Clinton's at the time of his impeachment. I'm sure that makes Republican Congressmen happy to have him on their campaign teams.


Why is always Clinton with you guys?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 10:54 am
McGentrix wrote:
Why is always Clinton with you guys?

He is Mr. Bush's predecessor in office, so provides an obvious benchmark to compare Bush to. If instead I benchmark Bush against other presidents, his approval rating now matches Reagan's at the height of the Iran-Contra scandal, up from Nixon's during the Watergate affair. Do you like that better?
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 11:23 am
McGentrix wrote:
Why is always Clinton with you guys?


Easier to change the subject than admit he's wrong on a fact (however inconsequential), maybe. Except, he's usually quick to admit when he gets it wrong.

I think we'll see more of this the closer it gets to Nov. 7. The lefties are definitely getting edgy.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 12:33 pm
"The president has 'professional ethical standards'?????"

nah, just a bit of irony from the author is all...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 05:09 am
Dick Cheney, when asked by Tim Russert last week whether, given the chance to alter decisions and plans re Iraq, replied "We'd do exactly the same thing again"

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 20 ?- A United Nations report released Wednesday says that 5,106 people in Baghdad died violent deaths during July and August, a number far higher than reports that have relied on figures from the city's morgue.

Across the country, the report found, 3,590 civilians were killed in July ?- the highest monthly total on record ?- and 3,009 more were killed in August. There were 4,309 Iraqi civilians reported wounded in August, a 14 percent increase from July.

The report also describes evidence of torture on many of the bodies found in Baghdad, including gouged-out eyeballs and wounds from nails, power drills and acid. "Hundreds of bodies have continued to appear throughout the country bearing signs of severe torture and execution-style killing," the report found.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/world/middleeast/21iraq.html

The heavenly moral revitalization of the world, courtesy of Bush and Cheney.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 02:44:43