<p>At this point, I wouldn’t trust this administration to run a neighborhood lemonade stand. </p>
<p>We’ve gotten successive stories about just how extensive warrantless snooping is, always getting larger and larger. Now we’re not even at checking out suspects but constructing giant fishing expeditions. Total power, total secrecy, no judicial review, no accountability, and a self-supplied definition of “need”. My ancestors sweated blood to escape such a system in its nascent stages.</p>
<p>All in the name of state security. That should evoke some chills among students of history. Using a litmus test of what <em>might</em> be, what <em>could</em> be is the same fearful reasoning that got us into the idiocy of Iraq…and could just as well justify a world-wide American imperium where we make the rules and are sole arbiters of the decisions, a fantasy that is both unethical and impossible.</p>
<p>For any who take comfort in the instant snapshot polls, I remind you that Bush’s approval rating was once at 90 percent and approval of the Iraq war was at 70 percent.</p>
<p>Mordor will fall. It’ll take another 30 months, but Mordor will fall.</p>
<p>Excerpts from the article below which indicates a nostalgia for the Clinton years. Bush rates substantially below Clinton in a host of areas.
*
In a new poll comparing President Bush’s job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.</p>
<p>Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). </p>
<p>On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton’s favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.</p>
<p>Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.</p>
<p>When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers – 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush – falling within the poll’s margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.
<p>Look for Bush to push the American Public into fearing the boogeyman so he can protect them. It looks like it will be mexican workers. The guy is definitely a divider not a uniter…which makes him a lier.</p>
<p>Seems Cheney has some dirty hands re the Plame case. Did a little reading this a.m. that was interesting, to say the least.</p>
<p>The right is all bent out of shape about immigration, and Bush is losing his base over this one issue. Can’t wait to see how he spins it tomorrow night. Mostly, I can’t stand to watch his speeches, but I am really curious to see what he has to say on this issue.</p>
<p>(CNN) – In a new poll comparing President Bush’s job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.</p>
<p>The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.</p>
<p>Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era – 1:57) </p>
<p>On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton’s favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.</p>
<p>Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.</p>
<p>When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers – 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush – falling within the poll’s margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.</p>
<p>Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later aquitted by the Senate.</p>
<p>At least, not today on Mother’s Day. But we’ll find out tomorrow after he makes his “illegal alien” address to the nation. </p>
<p>Are Aliens, not of this planet, are they also illegal? They may not have crossed any border between countries so there may not be an issue of illegal entry.</p>
<p>What ever GWB says on Monday, will even lower his approval rating lower, that has been the trend line. Why does he keep speaking? GWB handlers, Please stop his bullypulpiting.</p>
<p>unless bush does something incredible in the next 2 years, his administration will quite possibly go down as the worst in history, beating even grant. not only is america in general suffering from his mishandling of national and foreign affairs, texas is as well doing terribly thanks to the products of his governorship and his lieutenant governor rick perry’s term. fortunately for america, theres only two years left. but in the upcoming gubenatorial elections in texas, perry will win by a landslide, furthering the crap for 5 more years. strayhorn and friedman have no real chance. kinky may be all over the media, but all most texans see him as is as a publicity stunt. stupid texas conservatism(im a proud texas moderate, or as they call us in texas, liberal)</p>
<p>Comparing Bush’s approval ratings with that of Clinton during his presidential term is fallacious in every way…</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Clinton was never in a major war or extended reconstruction effort with so many troops deployed outside the United States. Thus, with an extended war such as this, approval ratings are bound to suffer, due to the American public’s view of bringing back our troops.</p></li>
<li><p>At the onset of this Iraqi Freedom Campaign, the American public was in favor of this liberation of Iraq. Bush, in a sense, went with the American response and went into Iraq. Similarly, the American public initially supported Clinton in going into Somalia. The difference is that Bush wants to finish the work in Iraq, while Clinton succumbed to the pressure of the American public and pulled out American troops once deaths were reported. Thus, one President left a job unfinished and another is trying to complete it, and using approval ratings, we should say that Bush is doing the wrong thing? No way.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>What people need to understand is that the media these days want quick results to any situation, and such a perception is in the American public also. There were many imperialist conquests in American history, especially in the late 19th to early 20th century, which took American military lives. However, the public did not “disapprove” of the Presidents of that time, as we are now. In today’s world, even more than then, an isolationist stance can not be taken by the United States. It is the duty and responsibility of Bush and our government to finish the job in Iraq.</p>
<p>If this brings his approval ratings down, let it be, but there is no way that this leads to Bush, 20 years from now, being looked upon as the worst President.</p>
<p>I would firmly agree with College2006’s assertion. Indeed, the best presidents in U.S. history are viewed as leaders who took a firm stance on foreign affairs. Take Teddy Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” policy and Woodrow Wilson’s efforts to acheive democracy. Without a doubt, even though short-term apporval ratings may suffer, the public, in the long-run, tend to redeem a leader, especially one who takes bold steps to ensure the security of our nation.</p>
<p>RollingStone:
In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a “failure.” </p>
<p>That means 19% of historians do not consider the Bush administration a failure. Bush bashers need to see things from the positive side.</p>
<p>College2006, your analysis depends on an assessment which finds the invasion of Iraq to have been a good idea. Since it was sold to the American public as a necessary move to protect us from WMD’s which turned out to be non-existent, even though our steamrolling of Iraq is not a “major war” (a major war requires a battle-worthy opponent, which we didn’t have in Iraq) the fact remains that the damage to Bush’s public approval is self-inflicted. Initiating an unnecessary and destructive war is hardly the hallmark of a “great leader” - at least in the generally accepted sense of the term.</p>
<p>By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON A majority of Americans disapprove of a massive Pentagon database containing the records of billions of phone calls made by ordinary citizens, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. About two-thirds are concerned that the program may signal other, not-yet-disclosed efforts to gather information on the general public.</p>
<p>POLL RESULTS: NSA database reaction</p>
<p>The survey of 809 adults Friday and Saturday shows a nation wrestling with the balance between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties.</p>
<p>By 51%-43%, those polled disapprove of the program, disclosed Thursday in USA TODAY. The National Security Agency has been collecting phone records from three of the nation’s largest telecommunication companies since soon after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.</p>
<p>You can not say, though, that “Bush is the worst President ever” because no WMD’s were found. The WMDs were a part of the reason to liberate Iraq, in addition to the liberation of a dictatorship regime and oil obviously. Also, this was looked upon as a way to fight terrorism as links between Usama and Saddam were found in those months. Granted, WMDs were not found, but this does not make the intention to invade a complete failure. Any occupation of a country or attempt to change its government, as we are doing, takes time to be successful as there are always rebel groups. Even Vladimir Lenin, when taking over Russia, needed 5 years to get the civil war in his country under control, and that example is of a leader with full control. A democracy taking control of many rival factions is much harder, and thus will take much more time than the American public is giving it right now. The fact of the matter is that leaving Iraq right now would make Bush the worst President, but staying in to do whats right and in the best interest of democracy and the world is not. </p>
<p>In addition, the economy was headed for a downturn after the booming 90s, and I think due credit should be given to Bush to control this economic collapse that was bound to happen, and actually get the economy to its previous levels once again.</p>
<p>Rather than blame, we need to approve of Bush in both the political and economic sense by giving him the due credit that he deserves in trying to liberate Iraq, handling the September 11th attack with a valiant reaction, and not allowing the United States to succumb into a long-term recession.</p>
<p>I agree with kluge. We have to remember what the Bush Doctrine is:
</p>
<p>The Bush Doctrine is a deviation from our long-standing policies and turns the USA into the Aggressor (or Bully, as some see it). Is this the legacy that will make him a Great President? In the words of one of the recognized Great Presidents (also from the wikipedia article) speaking on Polk’s invasion of Mexico:</p>
No, you need to go back and do your homework. The reasons for the war were multifaceted, only one of which pertained to WMD. The primary component of the WMD argument was to keep the Saddam’s WMD program from getting in the hands of terrorists. Despite the lack of finding current WMDs, the post Iraq invasion intelligence strengthens the notion that a) Saddam had every intention to re-establish his WMD program once sanctions were gone b) sanctions were rapidly evaporating due to the complicity of France and Russia and c) the ties to terrorism were evident.</p>
<p>But, as mentioned above, the WMD issue was just one of many reasons for the war. People who try to make it the only issue are attmpting to re-write history.</p>
<p>The reasons for the war shifted over time, multifaceted? thats a new twist of the reasons we went…</p>
<p>Good thing we knew all the reasons when Bush made all those speeches…</p>
<p>and # A- we were told HE HAD THEM< and Rumsfleid KNEW where they were</p>
<h1>B- that’s a new one</h1>
<h1>C- that’s a crock</h1>
<p>Nice try, FF, whatever the “rational” NOW is for the war, should we trust it at all considering we were mislead from the beginning</p>
<p>When Rumsfield say, WE KNOW WHERE THE WMD ARE…was he lying to us, or just misinformed? So we are to suddenly believe them with the sterling track record of honesty and correct information, no rather, their SHARING of correct information, cause they were told no WMD, no nucleur weapons, but ignored that </p>
<p>as for terrorists, we opened the doors to that</p>