President Bushes job approval rating.

[shira]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
I am still amaze that people still say there is no WMD in Iraq. Saddam had a history of using chemical and biological weapon on his own people. The test and the mass grave is the prove of that. Just because you can;t find it doesn't made it was never used.

We invaded Iraq on the pretext that Saddam had WMDs at that point in time, not that he once had them. So your argument is just confused: Why would we invade Iraq if we thought Saddam no longer had them? What would be the threat that justified invasion?

Thus, all the justifications given for invasion were false: No existing WMDs. No Iraq-Al Qaida connection. No connection to 9/11. Iraq was NOT an imminent threat.

Regardless of what happens in Iraq from here on out, the invasion and occupation have been an utter waste of 4000+ lives, tens of thousands of shattered bodies, and $1 Trillion dollars.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We should have impeached GWB after he came up with zero WMD in Iraq. We should have impeached him many times since, and now after the dumb MF has basically collapsed the world economy, its way too late now.

Okay...you hate Bush, fine. But to say he alone drove the economy into the shitter is just ridiculous. Easy money policies first started under Greenspan post-internet bubble popping, are primarily responsible for the predictable growth in interest-rate sensitive industries like real estate, plus all the ancillary industries in finance that came with it. This in turn led to creative financial engineering by investment banks, which in turn allowed more people than should have to be able to buy a home. And enabled others to live a lifestyle well above their means for many years using their homes as ATM machines.

No my friend. Bush was the dumb SOB who happened to be in that seat when the debt orgy came to an end, period. WE -- the American people, caused this mess. And we deserve it.

All the other stuff -- Katrina, Terry Schiavo, waiting 3 years to toss Rummy and appoint a competent general to prosecute the Iraq war correctly, not vetoing enough pork-laden bills -- definitely his fault and then some.

 

[Xellos2099]

Ah, lawyers way of thinking, if you can't see it and can't find it, it doesn't exist. So we agree they had chemical weapon, correct?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: techs
RCP most recent data. Average of all recent polls:
26.6 percent Approve
68.3 percent Disapprove.

WTF?????
Seriously, 26 percent of Americans approve of Bushes Presidency?
What's up with that? I mean, that's like someone floating in the water watching the Titanic go down and saying "its unsinkable".

Come on, 26 percent of people really approve? Can someone explain it to me? I could possibly accept 10 percent, or even 15 percent given the bell curve on I.Q. but 26 percent?
What do you have to do as President to actually get below 10 percent?

It's IMPOSSIBLE for a President's approval rating to fall below the mid-twenties. Even Nixon at his lowest point had ratings of 24% approve and 66% disapprove.

Counting both the approval and disapproval numbers, Bush's ratings are essentially tied with Nixon for the all-time low. That's pretty bad.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Ah, lawyers way of thinking, if you can't see it and can't find it, it doesn't exist. So we agree they has chemical weapon, correct?

LOL, no. You've got it backward. It didn't exsist so we can't see it and can't find it, not the other way around. You're absolutely wasting your keyboard strokes if you think anyone is going to believe that horseshit line.

 

[Xellos2099]

Just because you can't find or see something, it doesn't mean it never existed. Not to mention the media claim that Bush and only Bush is completely at fault with the current mortgage crisis, which we know it is not true.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Just because you can't find or see something, it doesn;t mean it never existed.

That's circular reasoning. With that logic, we should invade all countries, because even though we can't see that they all have nukes doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Ah, lawyers way of thinking, if you can't see it and can't find it, it doesn't exist. So we agree they has chemical weapon, correct?

No. But since we looked really, really hard for a LONG time and have found nothing, it's most accurate to conclude, "Since the time of the invasion, there's no evidence that WMDs exist in Iraq." That includes chemical weapons.

Please keep holding on the the fantasy that there's a vast store of WMDs hidden somewhere in Iraq.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Just because you can't find or see something, it doesn't mean it never existed. Not to mention the media claim that Bush and only Bush is completely at fault with the current mortgage crisis, which we know it is not true.

Buchco has run the economy into the ground with deficit spending and has done little to help the working class people.

As far as your first statement, I'll go on record as stating that Bush and Cheney faked the evidence for war and pushed us into an illegal war. Just because I can find or see the evidence, it doesn't mean that it never existed. See how easy that is?

To the rest of the people in this thead, I think we have found one of the 26% of the Bush supporters left. Poor damn fool

 

[Xellos2099]

Iraq supported terrorism, they had biological weapon, there is NO denying of that. Bush might not be a perfect president, but his foreign policy prevent US from further terrorism attack for all these years after 9/11. Can you disprove it?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Iraq supported terrorism, they had biological weapon, there is NO denying of that. Bush might not be a perfect president, but his foreign policy prevent US from further terrorism attack for all these years after 9/11. Can you disprove it?

Show me some proof that Iraq supported Al Qaeda or had anything to do with 9/11 or actually had something that was a threat to the US?

I can say that we would not have been attacked again if we didn't go into Iraq. Can you disprove it?

I'm tired of wasting my time with you. You have absolutely no proof of your bullshit but just keep holding on.....maybe it helps you sleep better at night.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Iraq supported terrorism, they had biological weapon, there is NO denying of that. Bush might not be a perfect president, but his foreign policy prevent US from further terrorism attack for all these years after 9/11. Can you disprove it?

You really need to grow up.
Or at least get a brain.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Iraq supported terrorism, they had biological weapon, there is NO denying of that. Bush might not be a perfect president, but his foreign policy prevent US from further terrorism attack for all these years after 9/11. Can you disprove it?

Don't listen to all the libs here. 70% of the country wanted to go to war because we all saw the intelligence and knew he was hiding something. Just because he destroyed it after the fact doesn't mean it was not there before the invasion. It is like trying to deny the holocaust had Hitler destroyed all the concentration camps. There have been no attacks since 9/11 because we've taken such pre-emptive measures and that reason alone is enough for me to stand behind our President during this time of war.

 

[ProfJohn]

RE: Saddam's death toll.

Do the math and you end up with about 1 million dead due to Saddam.

You have the Iran-Iraq war that he started.
The hundreds of thousands killed in the post Gulf War attacks.
The hundred thousand kurds killed.
And the hundreds of thousands killed during the sanction era.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Iraq supported terrorism, they had biological weapon, there is NO denying of that. Bush might not be a perfect president, but his foreign policy prevent US from further terrorism attack for all these years after 9/11. Can you disprove it?

Don't listen to all the libs here. 70% of the country wanted to go to war because we all saw the intelligence and knew he was hiding something. Just because he destroyed it after the fact doesn't mean it was not there before the invasion. It is like trying to deny the holocaust had Hitler destroyed all the concentration camps. There have been no attacks since 9/11 because we've taken such pre-emptive measures and that reason alone is enough for me to stand behind our President during this time of war.

Another one drinking the Kool-aid. :laugh:

I'm sure 74% of the country is "liberal" and that is why they disaprove of the bastard.

Bush could pull a "Dick" (Cheney) and shoot you guys in the face and you would still pull for him. Hopeless....lol.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Iraq supported terrorism, they had biological weapon, there is NO denying of that. Bush might not be a perfect president, but his foreign policy prevent US from further terrorism attack for all these years after 9/11. Can you disprove it?

There's plenty denying what you've written.

The bipartisan Commission on Iraq concluded there was no evidence of an operational relationship between Al Qaida and Iraq. Bush and Cheney claimed such a relationship existed, and that was one of the false justifications for invasion.

They did NOT have biological weapons or any other WMDs at the time we invaded. Bush and Cheney claimed they did. That was another false justification for the invasion.

There's absolutely no way to prove OR disprove why there've been no further attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. On Bill Clinton's watch, there were no attacks after the 1994 attack until 9/11, on Bush's watch. Do you conclude that Clinton's policies prevented a further attack? And if we had an attack on U.S. soil tomorrow, would you conclude that Bush's policies were deficient? Somehow, my guess is you'll twist the results to fit your preconceived notion of who is good and who is bad. Congratulations, you're a true believer.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Iraq supported terrorism, they had biological weapon, there is NO denying of that. Bush might not be a perfect president, but his foreign policy prevent US from further terrorism attack for all these years after 9/11. Can you disprove it?

Don't listen to all the libs here. 70% of the country wanted to go to war because we all saw the intelligence and knew he was hiding something. Just because he destroyed it after the fact doesn't mean it was not there before the invasion. It is like trying to deny the holocaust had Hitler destroyed all the concentration camps. There have been no attacks since 9/11 because we've taken such pre-emptive measures and that reason alone is enough for me to stand behind our President during this time of war.

Another one drinking the Kool-aid. :laugh:

I'm sure 74% of the country is "liberal" and that is why they disaprove of the bastard.

Prove that your lack of proof constitutes innocence. Then you'll have a leg to stand on. Until then you're just another far left winger working against our Commander in Chief during a time of war.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Iraq supported terrorism, they had biological weapon, there is NO denying of that. Bush might not be a perfect president, but his foreign policy prevent US from further terrorism attack for all these years after 9/11. Can you disprove it?

Don't listen to all the libs here. 70% of the country wanted to go to war because we all saw the intelligence and knew he was hiding something. Just because he destroyed it after the fact doesn't mean it was not there before the invasion. It is like trying to deny the holocaust had Hitler destroyed all the concentration camps. There have been no attacks since 9/11 because we've taken such pre-emptive measures and that reason alone is enough for me to stand behind our President during this time of war.

Another one drinking the Kool-aid. :laugh:

I'm sure 74% of the country is "liberal" and that is why they disaprove of the bastard.

Prove that your lack of proof constitutes innocence. Then you'll have a leg to stand on. Until then you're just another far left winger working against our Commander in Chief during a time of war.

I don't have to prove anything. You dumbasses are spouting the WMD's crap and it's been 5.5 years and you've (Bush) found NOTHING. It wasn't there. It was a big ole lie to start the grand dream that the Neoconservatives wanted for so long. Thank god it's coming to an end and we can kick the prick and his bastard Cheney to the curve.

He's not my commander in chief...he's a real fucking douchebag...as is Cheney.

 

[Farang]

Curb. Kick Cheney to the curb.



😉

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
I am still amaze that people still say there is no WMD in Iraq. Saddam had a history of using chemical and biological weapon on his own people. The test and the mass grave is the prove of that. Just because you can;t find it doesn't made it was never used.

got any pics?

Oh yeah, Jesus must have came down and showed you the proof? God, probably told you and bush it was a good idea to go into Iraq.

I can't believe that 1 out of 4 Americans are in love with an idiot that tanked are nation.

Oh well...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: techs
RCP most recent data. Average of all recent polls:
26.6 percent Approve
68.3 percent Disapprove.

WTF?????
Seriously, 26 percent of Americans approve of Bushes Presidency?
What's up with that? I mean, that's like someone floating in the water watching the Titanic go down and saying "its unsinkable".

Come on, 26 percent of people really approve? Can someone explain it to me? I could possibly accept 10 percent, or even 15 percent given the bell curve on I.Q. but 26 percent?
What do you have to do as President to actually get below 10 percent?

It's all Bill Clinton's fault...didn't you get the memo?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
RE: Saddam's death toll.

Do the math and you end up with about 1 million dead due to Saddam.

You have the Iran-Iraq war that he started.
The hundreds of thousands killed in the post Gulf War attacks.
The hundred thousand kurds killed.
And the hundreds of thousands killed during the sanction era.

Hey. Let's play a little game. Suppose it's October 2002 again, and Congress is voting on the Iraq Resolution ("Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"). But let's say that back then, unlike the first time, we knew EVERYTHING about Iraq that we know now. And you can add your little list of justifications, too.

What do you think the vote would be?

Yeah, that's right, there's not a chance in hell it would have passed.

So stifle yourself with these useless justifications. The answer is clear: We were 100% wrong to invade Iraq in 2003. It's been an utter waste.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Iraq supported terrorism, they had biological weapon, there is NO denying of that. Bush might not be a perfect president, but his foreign policy prevent US from further terrorism attack for all these years after 9/11. Can you disprove it?

Don't listen to all the libs here. 70% of the country wanted to go to war because we all saw the intelligence and knew he was hiding something. Just because he destroyed it after the fact doesn't mean it was not there before the invasion. It is like trying to deny the holocaust had Hitler destroyed all the concentration camps. There have been no attacks since 9/11 because we've taken such pre-emptive measures and that reason alone is enough for me to stand behind our President during this time of war.

Another one drinking the Kool-aid. :laugh:

I'm sure 74% of the country is "liberal" and that is why they disaprove of the bastard.

Prove that your lack of proof constitutes innocence. Then you'll have a leg to stand on. Until then you're just another far left winger working against our Commander in Chief during a time of war.

Ya know, we haven't found any unicorns in Iraq, either. Not one. But we can't PROVE unicorns don't exist in Iraq. So it must be perfectly accurate to report, given our experience, "Existence of Unicorns in Iraq has not been disproved."

Does that about parallel your logic.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Farang
Curb. Kick Cheney to the curb.



😉

He might have meant "curve." Dead Man's curve.

 

[drifter106]

I don't frequent this part of this website but for some reason I did tonight...and yes I doubt if I come back. The only comment I would make after reading this thread is how it applies to the kids I have in school. If the comments in this thread give a "remote" indicator as to how the people in our nation look at our way of life in our country... well, it doesn't surprise me the way the students in my class behave. Yes, I voted for him but in my way of thinking, he was the most logical choice....AT THAT TIME. My way of thinking...Washington needs a big enema, starting at the top and going into both houses.