Just another Democratic perception scam...

Matt, how do explain this finding than?

"Just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest of his presidency. That compares with 36 percent approval in early April.
**Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president.**"

Nearly half of the base hates this guy!

That's a pretty gigantic leap, even for you Barney, to go from job disapproval to hate. If true, however, it certainly puts the lie to the constant harangue from you, maf53 and muirgeo that conservatives just blindly march in lockstep behind Bush and can't think for themselves.

Is every poll biased against Bush?

Seems like everyone has his approval rating and support for the war in the 30s.

Americans are down on this war, in no small part because we were sold a different war than we have today (and save the "you can't plan for a war, it happens how it happens" stuff. there were many, many people warning we'd be in the situation we are now before the war, only to be rebuffed by the administration).

The administration is weakened because of this. Just look at this exchange from yesterday...

McGovern: "You said you knew where they were."

Rumsfeld: "I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were."

McGovern: "You said you knew where they were, near Tikrit, near Baghdad and north, east, south and west of there. Those are your words."

***Appearing on ABC on March 30, 2003, Rumsfeld said about WMD: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."***

These guys misled America into the war. They gambled that we needed to go in and that once we did, it would be clear we did the right thing. Well, they lost that gamble. Now we're treading water until Iraqis get a government and army together. What happens when we leave? That's anyone's guess. And for what we were sold, to have such an uncertain, unstable and dangerous situation occurring in Iraq... well, we were hoodwinked.

its pretty much official - even the base is starting to realize they elected an irresponsible, unintelligent, faux cowboy for president. what a sad embarrassment for the conservative party.

Ha! an irresponsible, unintelligent, faux cowboy that continues to make monkeys out of democrats.

Didn't the group (CIA) McGovern worked for provide the intelligence to Rummy? So what the hell is he complaining about. There's no evidence here that Rummy or anyone else in the administration misled Americans. Only the screeching left, with their ex-CIA agents turned cronies to John Conyers' loony bin crowd, believe that Bush lied, without proof, of course. It requires more than what Rummy said to claim he lied. All of the investigations done have shown there was no manipulation of the prewar intelligence. The only manipulation going on is the left's, it's more like scrambling... of their brains.

Tom Shipley wrote

"Now we're treading water until Iraqis get a government and army together. What happens when we leave?"

Ask the British. They "liberated" Iraq from their oppressors (regional governors from the Ottoman Empire) after the end of WWI. After marching into Baghdad and declaring victory (I'm sure they would have found GWB's "Mission Accomplished" banner useful!), they occupied the country for 12 years.
Although their ultimate goal was to get a good deal for themselves on Iraqi oil and establish military bases, they DID build democratic institutions and held elections.
Loss of more than 2,000 British soldier's lives and the exorbitant expense of security led to rising protest against the occupation back at home.
In 1932, the British signed a favorable treaty with the new government, allowing them favored access to oil and to their air bases, and declared that the new Iraqi army British forces had trained was now ready to defend the new democracy against civil war and external threats.
Shortly after the British gave up and went home, the democratic institutions they had established collapsed, along with the national government. Chronic instability and sectarian violence ensued, and a weakened Iraq was invaded by hostile neighbors. Eventually, military coups led to autocratic rule, bringing the process full circle.
I wonder if Cheney, Rummy and Bush were up on their world history, when they engaged in pre-war planning.

"These guys misled America into the war."

Posted by: Tom Shipley at May 5, 2006 10:24 AM

Are you denying that Saddam possessed WMD and had used them? There are tens of thousands of Iranian and Kurdish corpses that prove otherwise. Are you denying the reports of the UN Weapons Inspectors and the Iraq Survey Group who found evidence of continued WMD programs and prohibited weapons? Are you denying the first hand knowledge of Iraqis that have defected or that have come forth since the liberation of Iraq? Or since all this evidence doesn't fit your pre-concieved belief that President Bush is evil and lied to get us into Iraq, are you ignoring it?

Who are "these guys" you are talking about? Are they the leaders of the Democrat Party (Kerry, Reid, Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi) who all stated publically before the war that Saddam posed a threat and must be disarmed?

Or was it your idol, Joe Wilson, who said: ""I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions"?

One of your brothers on the left claimed on another thread that those of us on the right were pushing the "liberation from oppression" theme because the first 12 justifications for our actions against Iraq were fabricated. So I listed 12 factual justifications (below) besides liberating them from oppression, then added another 4 for good measure. But like a good liberal, rather than respond, he scurried off with his tail between his legs.

Here are the justifications:

1. Invaded Iran and Kuwait, two soverign nations (that actually could be two separate reasons, but I'll combine them into one).

2. Used WMD against the Iranian Army.

3. Used WMD against the Kurds.

4. Violated the 2001 Ceasefire Agreement.

5. Fired at US and UK aircraft patroling the No-Fly Zone.

6. Was training terrorists at Salmon Pak, Samarra, and Ramadi.

7. Continued WMD programs in violation of UN Resolutions.

8. Failed to fully declare all WMD and WMD programs (they actually issued at least five "full and final declarations" only to have inspectors discover additional WMD).

9. Refused to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq after the 1st Gulf War.

10. Attempted to assassinate President George H. W. Bush.

11. Harbored known terrorist leaders, such as Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal.

12. Failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.

Here's a few bonus justifications:

13. Purchased prohibited weapons systems and materials in violation of the UN Resolutions.

14. Paid surviving family members of terrorist bombers $25,000.

15. Diverted billions of Oil-for-Food payments meant for food and medicine and spent it on palace construction, bribes, and prohibited weapons.

16. Bribed the French, Germans, and Russians to oppose UN military action.

I challenge you to show how any of these 16 reasons are "fabricated".

ChuckShick,

Don't you know that its the seriousness of the charge, rather than the lack of proof that's important.

A-10,
I’m sorry to point this out but, if you’ll closely check the Barney and Shipley posts you’ll see that the question is more important than the answer. The accusation carries weight, not the explanation. Besides, their attention span won’t hold out to read your post.

This says it all:
"NEW YORK USA Today founder Al Neuharth, once known for his generally Republican views, appears to have seen enough of President Bush....
"How low can Bush's approval rating go? My hunch is it's at or near the bottom," he suggests. "That 34% represents mostly unshakeable far-right wingers. Like Bush, Vice President Cheney and company, they are in denial..."

He is talking about you guys!

Another example of that liberal media bias!

Every major newspaper in the country is carrying stories about a drunk Kennedy (dog bites man). I have yet to see a story on the front page about something so trivial as the Secretary of Defense getting caught in a lie about a lie that was used to commit our troops and resources to war.

If you are the parent of one of the 2,000 plus people killed in Iraq, wouldn't you want to know about this?

A-10,

You can list all those reasons, and they were all legitimate concerns about Iraq, but the invasion would not have occurred without the Bush administration selling the idea that Saddam had WMDs, had a nuclear program that could result in Mushrooms clouds in the US and that he was a growing and gathering threat.

Those claims were shown to be wrong. And there is plenty of evidence to show that intelligence was ignored by the administration that pointed to the truth that Iraq did not have these stockpiles of WMDs and did not have an active nuclear program.

Even Rumsfeld is backtracking, claiming he said he knew where alleged sites were when he said he "knows where they (WMDS) are." So he concedes that he didn't KNOW where they are, but where they suspected them to be. Yet, he told the American people that we knew where they are. That's misleading.

Especially when you have the head UN weapons inspector saying they were not finding anything amid greater cooperation from the Iraqi government.

This invasion was not even close to the last option. At the time, it seemed to me this war was done more out of impatient than actual necessity. I still feel that way.

A-10,

Are you denying that Saddam possessed WMD and had used them?

Actually Rumsfeld answered that question for you. In yesterdays exchange with Ray McGovern Rumsfeld eventually said "It now appears there were no WMD in Iraq"

Which is why this is such an important interchange for Americans to see. And why the media is not that evil liberal enterprise Mark always claims.

"If true, however, it certainly puts the lie to the constant harangue from you, maf53 and muirgeo that conservatives just blindly march in lockstep behind Bush and can't think for themselves." - Spook

Haha. He still has a 33% following, Spook - those would be the blind ones. The unshakeable ones. The proud ones. You, Noonan, Dbog, A10, AAR, Keefer, Bearman .............

Rathaven, A-10,

RE: "...its the seriousness of the charge, rather than the lack of proof that's important."

RE: "... the "question" is more important than the answer. The accusation carries weight, not the explanation. Besides, their attention span won’t hold out to read your post."

I agree with you on both. I forget Rush Limbaugh's exact terminology, but it's along the same line. It's the "seriousness" of the "charge" or "allegation" that matters, not whether there is one word or one ounce of truth to it.

Yes... Another biased poll, but Republicans had better start paying attention to them. Republicans are starting to get their base really irritated. Now, how do we make them understand that before they are on the unemployment rolls?

If I responded to a poll, yes, I would disagree with the way the country is headed ... the way President Bush is doing his job ...and, the way Republicans are doing theirs. President Bush is being too easy on liberal Democrats. Some of his positions are too liberal. And Republicans are sitting in their nice offices, not pushing conservative issues, and not fighting the Dims -- hard ...very hard!

Ask a question, allege something -- anything, or even make a misleading statement, and then. leave it up to the listener or reader to draw their own conclusion and misinterpret the what was said. The facts don't really matter at all. The question, charge, or allegation can be a 100% complete fabricated lie. Many people will hear the charge, they will repeat it to others who repeat it, etc. The media will pick up on it and repeat and repeat and repeat it. Many, many hear the question or allegation before it's over and believe it is the truth. A retraction can be printed or aired the very next day, but most of those same people will never hear it and it will not draw the attention the original story did. The real truth will never the original listeners and readers, and besides, the retraction will probably be printed on the bottom of the obituary page and or aired at the end of some little watched newscast.

True, the media is severely biased against Republican and Conservatives, but from what I have seen, I don't think the Republicans understand how to use the media, how to get their message across, or how to stop the Democratic propaganda machine. Republicans have the Presidential pulpit, the House pulpit, and the Senate pulpit, but who do we hear in the news 24/7 pushing their propaganda on the American public? Not the Republicans! No, it is the Democrats who know how to manipulate and "feed" the American public.

For five years I have waited for Republicans to go on the attack, but what do we get... President Bush and Congress trying time after time to be tactful, understanding, and placating to the liberal Democrats. How long does it take for them to understand that is a lost cause. They will never please the liberals even if they gave them everything they wanted and ever last tax dollar we can earn. Instead, they sit on their rear ends in their offices as the "majority" party while the liberal Democrats aggressively beat them up day after day, 24/7. They take body blow after body blow until they are too weak to fight. And when do they finally fight? ...When it's election time and hope is about to run out!

Take Iraq as a prime example, I fault the Democrats for encouraging and providing hope to the terrorists and for all of their anti-Bush, anti-American propaganda. But I fault the Republicans for allowing them to get away with it. Republicans should have been openly and aggressively fighting the left on Iraq every since the war began. It's has to be a 24/7 fight from the Republicans, not an occasional response to days and weeks of their propaganda. For example, President Bush and our military have been working to turn the fighting and police work over to the Iraqis, training their troops and police since the beginning. It takes time to do that, especially when the liberal Dims are also encouraging the terrorists to kill our troops and the Iraqi recruits. So what do the Dims propose? ... That we train the Iraqi troops and police to take over the jobs our soldiers are doing. Oh... a novel and new idea ....great thinking from the Dims ...the Dims have a solution! Garbage!!! But... the Republicans and President Bush let them pull it off by not having the President, his cabinet, and all Republican members of Congress in a day after day, weeks long media blitz to expose the Dim's ploy!

Yes, I'm very irritated with President Bush and Republicans. But because they are not fighting for Conservative principles and really fighting the liberals. Where are those amendments making English our official language, the anti-gay marriage amendment, the "under God" amendment, the amendment to curb activist judges, etc., etc.

I've even had democrats say they were against President Bush because he will not stop gay marriage. They actually believed that he President Bush was trying to appoint more activist judges to make gay marriage legal and oppose issues like "under God". Talk about ironic and unbelievable, but it is a fact! Republicans can't even educate Americans on the activist judges. They talk to their base who does understand the problem, but not to the rest of America who do not understand but are believing what the Dims say because Republicans can't or won't understand how to present their message. They can't wait until another judge is up for approval, and let the Dims get away with their same old "questions, charges, and allegations." It is past time to fight!

We have had one gas shortage after another. Each time, Republicans fight for a few days and then get back to their cushy desks and comfortable offices until the issue blows up again and they get the blame... again. Why don't I hear Republicans pushing ANWR 24/7? Why don't I hear them proposing some energy task force or something that lets people know they are working the issue? Why don't I hear them our 24/7 exposing the Dims stalling and blocking? Not just today, but for the past 5 years.

Do Republicans read any of the comments on this blog or others? Is there a group of Republicans who can be made to under stand and enlighten their colleagues? How can we get them to wake up before Dims turn their lights out for them?

That's why I have said before, we need some sharp, energetic, vocal, aggressive, and real Conservatives run as independents or another party outside of the Republican party, but who basically vote with Republicans. They could light the fires, put the heat on the Dims, push for conservative values, fight for conservative ideas, and work to gain the American public's support. After they have taken the heat, the blame, and done the heavy lifting, the Republicans could take their work, put it in a bill, and get the credit!

If Republicans won't fight the liberal left Democratic nuts, we must elect someone who will.

Yes, I'm irritated at President Bush on some items Republican in Congress on others, but am I going to vote Democratic? Absolutely not! That would be cutting off my nose because I didn't like what my ears are hearing or my eyes are seeing!

That would be committing suicide!!!

AAR

A-10 said: "I challenge you to show how any of these 16 reasons are "fabricated".

Well gosh, since you asked...
Abu Nidal died in August 2002. He was in the process of being arrested by Saddam's boys when he either committed suicide or was shot dead by them. There are rumors circulating that he may have been sent by Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia to assassinate Saddam. At any rate, Saddam didn't support him. As for Abbas, his situation is very interesting. He was the ringleader in the Achille Lauro incident back in the 70's. He was subsequently apprehended by the Italians who then RELEASED HIM! Jeepers! Not only that, but after apologizing for the Achille Lauro hijacking, Israel allowed him to travel around the Gaza Strip unimpeded throughout the 90's because he supported the peace negotiations. But his base was, as you said, Iraq. He was captured by coalition forces after the invasion and died in custody, presumably of natural causes.

As for the terrorist training bases in Salmon Pak, Samarra, and Ramadi, I believe you are referring to inferences made in the recently released hoarde of captured documents. They appear to confirm the opinion of Sabah Khodada (a Captain in the Iraqi army who defected in 2001) and Khidir Hamza, Iraq's former chief of nuclear weapons (I don't know when he defected, but it was before the war started), and others.

I suppose it is worth mentioning that both Khodada and Hamza were affiliated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC -- Chalabi's group). But the more important question is this: If those bases really existed for the purpose of training international terrorists, it would be a significant justification for the Iraq invasion. If true, you would thus expect the Bush administration to be shouting them from the rooftops. But they haven't. Why not? I've heard that the reason is that those bases were either (a) non-functional for 10 years or more, or (b) used for ANTI-terrorist training, not terrorist training. And if that's not the case then don't you think it's incumbent on some administration official to go on record to say they believe the evidence to be accurate that they WERE actively used as terrorist training camps? I mean if they do believe that, why aren't they saying it? The documents are out there now, so it can't be a matter of national security... so what's the problem?

I offer the above observations in the interests of honesty and clarity. However, my observations should not detract from your essential point, A-10, that it was very clear that Saddam was a very rutheless, dangerous person, and had no intention of changing his stripes -- a fact which no one can deny. Regime change was therefore a very valid goal. But to believe in the righteousness of the goal implies nothing about what one thinks about the most effective methods for achieving that goal. You can't just do the right thing. To be effective, you have to do the right thing right. In other words, one's opinions regarding the correctness of the goal and one's opinions regarding the correctness of the methods employed to achieve those goals are not the same.

Rathaven, A-10, others,

RE: "...it's the seriousness of the charge, rather than the lack of proof that's important, ... the 'question' is more important than the answer, ...the accusation carries weight, not the explanation."

Question:

If we understand that and Rush Limbaugh reminds listeners of it all the time, why doesn't President Bush and the Republicans see it?

Why do Republicans let the liberal propaganda continue unchecked and unanswered until they are severely hurt, perhaps fatally, by it?

What does it take to get them to wake up, understand, and do something to stop or counter it?

Does it take a "significant emotional event" -- unemployment notice -- to get them moving?

AAR

Tom Shipley,

Your answers are proof that liberals can never be allowed to control our national security again. There is irrefutable proof that Saddam used WMD in the past, that his WMD programs were intact or could be reconstituted within months, and that he had known ties to terrorist organizations. However, you would have preferred to allow him to continue to murder 100 Iraqis a day, shoot at US & UK aircraft, harbor, train, and support terrorism, skim billions from the Oil-for-Food Program, etc, etc, etc.

Further, since the Iraqis never accounted for 100% of their WMD materials, the possibility existed that they still possessed WMD. We still don't know where these unaccounted for WMD materials are. They could have been destroyed. They could have been buried in the desert. They could have been secreted into Syria. We don't know, and we can't take the chance that when a tyrantical leader of a nation has used WMD, has terrorist links, and refuses to comply with UN Resolutions.

I am not an expert on polls but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last week. With polls there is a large number of people who shift their party id along with their opinions. So if they are sour on the GOP at this moment, they may be more opt to self identify as democraps or lean that way.

Thats why if you look at the polls now, compared to after the election when Bush was in the low 50s, you see voter id for the demos has risen, as Bush has dropped.

I've actually read this explained by Rasmussen as the reason that pollsters generally do not weight for party id.

Tom Shipley,

One more question. You obviously don't believe we did the right thing when we liberated Iraq. After everything Saddam had done, what would you have done to ensure he would never again produce and use WMD, would not give WMD to the terrorists he harbored, trained and supported, and would cease to be a threat to peace in the Middle East?

His numbers are down because conservatives like myself are frustrated. On the domestic front, Bush is not behaving as a conservative in so far as entitlements, spending, and S. Ct. Nominees are concerned. Thankfully, the S.Ct. Nominee was torpedoed by people like myself and Bush seems to have paid attention on that matter. In the war on terror, He is doing a good job.

This is the reason for the low poll numbers.

"After everything Saddam had done, what would you have done to ensure he would never again produce and use WMD, would not give WMD to the terrorists he harbored, trained and supported, and would cease to be a threat to peace in the Middle East?"

Well, I'm no statesman, but I would kept the sanctions, kept pressure through inspections and tried the best we could to support change from within.

It certainly looks like sanctions and inspections decimated his WMD and nuclear program. Was it the ideal situation? No. But you do the best you can. And I'm not to say that military intervention in Iraq would not have occurred down the road, but the timing of the invasion, the fact that we got so much wrong and planned so poorly for the post-invasion period are really what make invading Iraq such a huge error.

"that his WMD programs were intact or could be reconstituted within months"

Where is the proof that his WMD programs were intact?

Tom wrote,
"Well, I'm no statesman, but I would (have) kept the sanctions, kept pressure through inspections and tried the best we could to support change from within. "

The sanctions were falling apart, and France and Russia were pushing to lift them entirely.

"Where is the proof that his WMD programs were intact?

Thank you for identifying the very problem that the UN was dealing with with the Resolutions; where was the proof that he destroyed them?

It's the ILLEGALS stupid.

Why all the blame of the Iraq war or the drive-by media for the low poll numbers. Every conservative in the Southwest can tell you the low approval numbers for the Republicans in general and Bush in particular are due to the illegal alien issue – pure and simple. The Republicans had 6 years controlling everything in DC and didn’t do a thing about it. During those 6 years, 3 million more are estimated to have strolled across, and nobody did a dang thing down here in the border states to stop it. And with 9/11, the Republicans had the perfect opportunity to tighten up the border – and they would not even do that.

I once was proud to call myself a broken-glass Republican. You know: I would have crossed a room of broken glass barefoot to get to a voting machine to vote out Gore & the Clinton cronies. But now with the Republicans in power, absolutely nothing has been done to stop the invasion from the South, or to stop employers from hiring them, or to stop illegals from freely using our social & medical services. I don’t wish ill on the illegals, they’re just doing what I would do under similar circumstances. But I do hold the politicians responsible for allowing this to happen -- even with laws on the books right now that could have prevented it in the past and stop it currently.

So I’m a Republican no longer but I’ll be a conservative forever. Many of my like-minded friends are just as mad, frustrated and turned off with the Republicans. Once we were the portion of the Republican party called the “base”. Now we just don’t care anymore who wins because the Republicans have sold us down the river.

Can the Republican Party do something on the illegals to start getting tough? I doubt it; and even if they could, it would just be perceived as an election gimmick.

Anyone needing a good laugh, or anyone goofing off on government time should type in as*hole into google's search engine.

LOL

Speaking of media bias ...

Why no mention of Rummy's choke job yesterday?

Or the Boston Globe article about Dubya's signing statements?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=full

maf if the "biased media" had been doing it's job in 2003 when Rummy and Cheney and Bush were spouting their pablum about WMD in Iraq, and had called them on it then, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now in.

rather than being liberally biased, they were intimidated by a dastardly strategy of calling anyone with a legitimate question "unpatriotic"

Thank God for Seymour Hersh and Ray McGovern. These lying bas*ards are squirming now.

Not this again...

When a party embarasses the loose "supporter," they are more likely to consider themselves independent.

Look back to times, such as the Carter administration, for the opposite effect.