A new Gallup Poll, conducted in late January, reveals that just 39% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling Iraq, with 58% disapproving.Last time I checked, 53% was a majority.
Over half (53%) now say the administration "deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," with 46% disagreeing. Gallup notes that this finding is "essentially reversed" from one year ago.
Then there's this from a recent ABC/Washington Post poll taken in January 23-26 of approx 500 adults nationwide. When asked whether they believed whether the statement "He is honest and trustworthy" applies to George Bush, 53% said no.
Last time I checked, 53% was a majority.
Two different polls show that majorities of Americans believe that the administration deliberately misled the public about WMD and that Bush himself is not "honest and trustworthy."
Something, I guess, we missed while getting our news from the "so-called liberal media."
Hey, and wasn't there a poll out there that said that if the president misled the country (which the polling data suggests a majority of Americans already believe) that the congress should consider some sort of constitutional solution?
But I can't remember the word...oh, that's right. The word is:
IMPEACH
Just more fixed poll results, eh dayvoe? pa-the-tic you are.
ReplyDeletepa-the-tic you are.
ReplyDeleteLadies and Gentleman, I give you Yoda! Let's have a big round of applause for Yoda.
Hey Dayvoe: With all of the Bush bashing and accusations you do on an almost daily basis, here's something for you to gnaw on and make excuses for:
ReplyDelete* Number close to the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 44
* Number of convictions during his administration: 33
* Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
* Number of imprisonments: 14
* Number of presidential impeachments: 1
* Number of independent counsel investigations: 7
* Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 72
* Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 17
* Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 19
The Clinton machine now holds the record for the administration with:
* The most number of convictions and guilty pleas
* The most number of cabinet members to come under criminal investigation
* The most number of witnesses to flee the country or refuse to testify
* The most number of key witnesses to die suddenly
* The greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
* The greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad.
The Bush Administration has quite a bit of catching up to do ……
OH yeah, and let's not forget this:
ReplyDeleteJanuary 16, 2006 at a Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Service at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem, Hillary Clinton launched into an impassioned attack on the Bush administration.
Hillary Clinton, with a straight face, blasted the Bush Administration saying:
“We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence. I predict to you that this administration will go down on history as one of the worst that has ever governed out country.”
The Bush Administration has a tall task ahead of it if it wants to catch the previous Administration in indictments (1 indictment of VP Assistant, Scooter Libby), convictions (0), and imprisonments(0).
For the sake of assisting the Former First Lady with her memory, here is a list of blemishes from the Clinton Culture of Corruption Years:
* Number close to the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 44
* Number of convictions during his administration: 33
* Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
* Number of imprisonments: 14
* Number of presidential impeachments: 1
* Number of independent counsel investigations: 7
* Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 72
* Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 17
* Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 19
You left out this:
ReplyDelete"Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
Not sure how you left it out as it looks like it came from the same source you got the other stuff from.
Maria, are you really *that* dumb? Do you honestly believe what you just said? I am willing to take bets that you'd just as well believe that poop smelled good if either of the Clintons or John Kerry, along the rest of the liberal crowd said it did. You'd argue with Bush if he said poop stunk. Admit it, you know you would.
ReplyDeleteBraden:
ReplyDeleteIn another post, you "implored me" to reveal the source of the memo that showed that Bush was planning on invading Iraq even if the UN inspectors failed to find any WMD (something I had already done, by the way)
So now that the shoe is on the other foot (or should I be talking about the sauce for the goose being good for the gander??) I officially implore you to show the source of every one of those "facts." For instance, how do you define "close to the Clinton machine"? And for the "convictions during the Clinton administration," who were they, what were they convicted of? And what did those convictions have to do with the Clinton administration?
Until all of those questions are answered, we have to assume that at the very least some, if not all, of it is bullshit. You've offered up no sources for your charges.
You've got a lot of work here, my friend. But you made the charges - the burdon of proof is on your shoulders.
Until then, these are all "so called facts."
Something wrong dayvoe? Don't you like "facts" like this? Makes one mad huh? My sources are just as reliable as yours. yep,what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
ReplyDeleteBraden (I am assuming the last "anonymous" commentor is Braden),
ReplyDeleteYou're not doing this very well, my friend. I have to say I'm disappointed.
I notice that while you taunt me with the assertion that your sources are just as good as mine, you haven't actually given a source for any of those "facts." Mine came from established polling organizations. The data is there. Anyone can check them.
You, on the other hand, have offered us nothing. No supporting data, no information explaining your mudslinging attacks. Nothing but your assertion that what you say is true is actually true.
I can only assume that you either don't want to give us a link to your source material (because it won't say what you said it says) or you can't (because it doesn't exist).
That's a perfect way to erase whatever credibility you may have once had.
And now everyone that bothers to check way down here in the comments knows it, too.
If it's NOT Braden, then my apologies - though I note that I STILL haven't seen any source material for Braden's most recent attack.
Dayvoe,
ReplyDeleteMy good, fine fellow:
Here is the source:
http://prorev.com/wwindex.htm
Now, that being said, are you going to sit there and argue these facts, when you yourself will sit there and claim your "facts" as being the truth? So, what you're saying is your sources of information are 100 percent factual and infallible, no matter how outlandish they may be? C'mon guy, I know you can do much better than that.
By the way, being that you are so versed in the constitution and the way it works, I am sure you know that laws do not supersede the constitution, only amendments to the constitution. Need an example? An amendment was passed creating prohibition, and another passed repealing it. http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v90y1997i1-4p139-63.html
Now, you going to sit there and say this has nothing to do with the NSA wire tap issues? Well, it doesn't. However, it does in terms of giving you examples of how invalid the Democrat argument being against the NSA wiretap issue is, because I sure do not see an amendment on that.
And furthermore, has your political party had any considerations as to what our enemy (the terrorists, in case you forgot) is thinking when they hear about this? I am sure they are not only shaking their heads in complete disbelief, but they are also thanking Allah for folks like you. If you're going to sit there and think that our enemy (again, the terrorists, in case you forgot) is not listening to all of this, then you are sadly mistaken. You and those like you are giving the terrorists exactly what they want. How can you sleep at night knowing all of what I just said? The Democrats, and those like you if anything, are nothing more than the Defense Attorneys for the terrorists.
You are enablers, nothing more, nothing less.
And I will be sure to copy this comment, because I am confident that you'll delete it.
Braden, my friend.
ReplyDeleteAre you really sourcing your argument from THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW?
Ok, fine. It's your source. Not my place to decide this for you.
However, in merely sending along the URL, you still haven't answered my questions. For instance you quoted:Number close to the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 44
Again, who were these 44 people? What were they charged with? How do you define "associated" and "Clinton machine"? and Finally, what did either they or their crimes have to do with the Clinton Administration?
Until you answer these questions, the number is still meaningless.
On the other hand, I am happy to note that you find THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW a valid source of information.
You do realize they call Bush AWOL, right?
http://prorev.com/bush5.htm#mil
Take a look at the picture at the top of the page.
Some other interesting stuff from the website you like so much. From Kitty Kelley's Book:
Page 253: At Andover, George W. Bush writes a morose essay about his sister's death. Searching for a synonym for "tears," he consults a thesaurus and writes, "And the lacerates ran down my cheeks." A teacher labels the paper "disgraceful."
Nothing illegal about that. But Kelley also writes:
Page 304: While working on a 1972 Alabama Senate campaign, Bush, witnesses say, "liked to sneak out back for a joint of marijuana or into the bathroom for a line of cocaine."
And:
Page 575: A friend says Laura Bush was the "go-to girl for dime bags" at Southern Methodist University.
So according to the same source YOU use to show the corruption in the Clinton Administration, George Bush was AWOL from his military duty and used cocaine. Oh, and that he's an idiot and that his wife was a drug dealer.
Are you still such a big fan of THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW?
I'm not sure you helped yourself on this one, my friend.
Progressive review? Why I certainly thought you'd take that as a valuable source, being they undermine Bush so much. You didn't think I read that beforehand? I "knew" about what they said. I went with it, and you took the bait. Sucker.
ReplyDeleteHow convenient of you to ignore my comment about you and those like you being the "defense attorneys" for the terrorists, as well as you and those like you being the enablers for the terrorists. You really don't give a rat's behind, do you? It's all about your hatred for GWB...nothing else matters. With that being said, there's no getting through to you.......ever. I'd have a better chance in getting Michael Moore to join Weight Watchers than to get you to understand a single god forsaken word I've said in regards to you being an "enabler." Like I said...nothing else matters....just your undying hatred for one man....that same undying hatred which is severely putting our national security at risk. Fact is, all while you and those like you are putting our national security at risk, you'd be the very first to cry, whine, and be outraged if this country were to get hit by another terrorist attack. You know what my friend? If that ever does happen (and I pray to God it never does), then I suggest you take a long, hard look in the mirror and see one of the reasons why it happened. Why? Because like I said, you're an enabler based on your hatred. You my friend, are twisted, and sick. As far as I am concerned, nothing you say holds any importance, no intelligent value, and no meaning. All you know how to do is undermine GWB's attempts at fighting terrorism from occurring in this country. You just don't care.
And then you wonder why your party continues to lose elections. Go ahead, respond with your lashing out; which I am sure you will. I've had it up to "here" with people like you who do nothing to contribute to our national security, all you know how to do is undermine and enable the terrorists to do what they want to do. You haven't a single clue as to how much your political hatred is hurting this country's national security, and I doubt you ever will. You-Just-Don't-Care
Braden, Braden, Braden...
ReplyDeleteThis is getting tiresome, isn't it?
For the record, there's no way I buy that your use of The Progressive Review was in anyway "bait." The shrillnes of your comment exposes your shock at learing that the website you were touting as "facts" about Clinton's corruption also showed that Bush was an AWOL coke-user. You're just back pedalling.
But let's assume it was bait - does that mean that you didn't think all those numbers are true?
You got caught in your own BS, my friend. Remember it was YOUR source material, not mine.
I didn't comment on your "enabler" stuff because it wasn't worth debating. Your silly subjective reactions about me aren't worth my time.
" I'd have a better chance in getting Michael Moore to join Weight Watchers than to get you to understand a single god forsaken word I've said..."
ReplyDeleteChange the "you" in that sentence to "anyone" and you'd be pretty much on target.
"I've had it up to "here" with people like you.."
Then unless you're a masochist of the highest (lowest?) order, maybe you should go away.
:I didn't comment on your "enabler" stuff because it wasn't worth debating. Your silly subjective reactions about me aren't worth my time."
ReplyDeleteTranslation = "I just don't give a rat's behind about national security because of my blazing hatred for GWB, so that being said, national security doesn't matter."
There, that's better.
Whatever you say, Braden.
ReplyDeleteIt's things like that that make me wonder whether you even believe what you say.
Best of luck to you.
Again, you just demonstrated that you cannot respond. You have nothing to say. Again, you demonstrate that you don't give a rat's behind about our national security. All you care about is undermining this administration as much as you can. Nothing else matters....ever. That's right. Whatever I say, and I just said it..that is definitely something you and I do agree on. Best of luck *to you* my friend. You're going to need it.
ReplyDelete