Fruitcake Polling Higher Than Bush
According to the latest CBS News poll, the president's overall approval rating has dipped to 28 percent—the lowest number in his presidency and dangerously close to Nixon's all-time low of 24 percent. To lend a little context to this historic feat, we found some other people and things with equal or greater popularity.
It has a list of things that share a 28 percent approval rating. What really is revealing is the list of things that have a higher approval rating than George W. Bush! This is tell all for sure!
Some of the things that rate higher than Bush:
• Brussels Sprouts (51%)
• Fruit Cake (40%)
• Kevin Federline (45%)
• Crocheting (72%)
• The Dentist (45%)
• Hanson (53%)
• In-Laws (68%)
• The "Dude, You're getting a Dell!" Guy (42%)
• The Backstreet Boys (66%)
• Stepping in Dog Shit (35%)
• Walking in the Rain Without an Umbrella (60%)
• Getting Kicked in the Balls (41%)
49 comments:
"Stepping in dog shit (35%)"
That's the best one! If he is lower than stepping in dog shit, would that make him the dog shit? I sincerely believe it would.
And yet we allow this guy to control a war and those who fight in it? Are we insane?
It must be charming to be one of the 28%ers and know people like stepping in dog shit better than associating with them. It's true. I have a cousin by marriage who is still a Bush supporter and I will go way out of my way to avoid him. He is totally obnoxious.
Newsflash, Donnie: Bush isn't running for election for anything, so these polls don't matter a heck of a lot. Of course GWB has never been much of a Clintonian finger-in-the-air-focus-group-poll-watcher kind of leader anyway.
The dentist surprised me. I'm not afraid of the dentist at all...but most people are. So people would rather have their teeth pulled without novocain eh?
Garry,
This shows that he has not been any kind of leader period! Come on, even K-Fed is liked more...K-Fed!!!!!
Getting kicked in the nads and hanging with the inlaws are better than Dubya. Does that not make you cringe?
Newsflash, garry: Der Fuehrer Bush may not be running, but being a Dictator means he don't have to step down either.
God Bless
lpf: If you think being a "leader" means bending with the winds of the public opinion polls (which are fluid and fickle), then you have no idea of what being a leader means. President Lincoln was wildly unpopular at various points during the Civil War; should Lincoln have packed it in after, say, the 1863 draft riots in New York? Or after the disaster at Cold Harbor in 1864, where 10,000 Union troops were killed or wounded over the space of 20 minutes?
No, he continued to fight - and thank God he did - even though it put his re-election in doubt: many war-weary Americans were ready to oust Lincoln, and when the Democratic Party nominated Gen. McClellan for President, the key part of the 1864 Democratic Party Platform demanded that "immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities" (sounds a lot like today's Dems).
Being a leader often means doing what is unpopular, and not what the whim of the moment demands.
Anon-paranoid: Bush is not a "dictator", his is the lawfully elected President. I presume your description of him as "Der Fuehrer" is meant to imply that Bush is comparable to Adolf Hitler. If so, that is not only a historically idiotic comparison, but also an insult to the victims of Hitler, in that it demeans and minimalizes the vast scope of worldwide human suffering wrought by his Nationalsozialistische movement.
And God Bless to you, too.
Kevin Federline?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Garry writes: "Of course GWB has never been much of a Clintonian finger-in-the-air-focus-group-poll-watcher kind of leader anyway."
I would argue that. Bush has flip-flopped on so many issues (most based on opinion polls), it defies logic. See also: terrorism as a top priority; the creation of the 9/11 Commission; the formation of the Dept. of Homeland Security; the creation of the ISG, and on and on...
"Bush is not a "dictator", his is the lawfully elected President."
That depends on what the definition of "lawfully elected" is.
He's a Dick-tater!!! Bwahahaha!
The creation of the 9/11 Commission, the DHS, and the ISG were poll-driven, Todd? I defy you to show me a single public opinion poll that asked anything along the lines of "Do you favor the creation of a Homeland Security Department?", or "Do you favor the creation of an Iraq Study Group?", or "Do you favor the creation of a Commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks?"
The definition of "lawfully elected" as far as President goes is pretty clearly spelled out in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution - the person having the greatest number of votes as cast by the Electors from each state shall be the President. As I recall, Bush got the most Electoral College votes in 2004.
BTW, that same CBS poll put approval of the Democratic Congress at only 33% - which is also lower than Federline, doggie poo, etc etc (of course you won't find that info in the main body of the CBS News article - you have to dig down in the raw data supplied in the PDF file linked within the article).
Garry writes: "I defy you to show me a single public opinion poll that asked anything along the lines of "Do you favor the creation of a Homeland Security Department?", or "Do you favor the creation of an Iraq Study Group?", or "Do you favor the creation of a Commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks?"
This NYT article sites the "overwhelming public support" for Homeland Security (right before Bush caved):
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60816F83D5F0C778CDDA90994DA404482
This site has all sorts of opinion polls showing people favoring a 9/11 Commission:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/
The bottom line is Bush read the polls and caved (there and a billion other places). Some "leadership" that is.
Dear Donnie,
i like fruitcake!
peace, peter
garry
If I recall, Bush was not "elected" in the first election, he was "appointed". The results in Florida were skewed because of that air head Kathleen Harris, who made it almost impossible to count the votes correctly. The butterfly ballots gave Bush votes that he didn't deserve. The people themselves said that they were so confused that they ended up voting the wrong way or wasn't sure how they voted. You may say that by the "letter of the law" Bush won, but we all know who really won that election.
If Bush was truly the winner in that race, his lawyers would not have fought so hard to keep the votes from being counted. Of course, honesty and integrity has never been the forte of this administration, which, if you haven't noticed, has managed to lose a good portion of their people to long sentences in prison.
I can't wait to see Bush's polls after the new report comes out that shows how Bush and Cheney picked the intel to go to war in Iraq. From what I hear, the White House isn't going to be too pleased with that information being made public. They can't keep it buried now that we have a Democratic majority. This should be fun, heh..heh..heh.
The facts are piling up!!! What say you?
I say we impeach Bush and Cheney and Nancy Pelosi is our new President. I also say that Bush and Cheney should be brought up on charges of outing a CIA agent. I don't know how they got away with that. Libby is taking the fall, which he should, IMO, but he shouldn't go down alone. He got his information on Plame from Cheney. Cheney had to know, with his security clearance that Plame was an active undercover CIA agent. If anything, he was part of the conspiracy to cover it up. I hope Libby sings like a bird before he's hauled off to jail. Maybe they'll give Cheney, Bush and Libby a group rate at the prison.
You're singing my song Mary Ellen!
Donnie: There's something "piling up" here all right, but it sure ain't facts. To wit -
Todd: The NY Times article (it's actually an editorial, to be precise) you link to says nothing about a public opinion poll on DHS, and in fact the editoral berates the President for "foolishly holding up" the creation of the DHS. Furthermore, a full site search of the keyword "poll" on your moonbat "911citizenswatch" link only turns up two hits, neither of which relates to any public opinion poll "favoring a 911 Commission", as you claim.
Mary Ellen: It's hard to believe there are still libs out there drinking the Kool Aid from the 2000 election, after all this time. But, gentle and caring person that I am, I will take the time to spoon-feed you reality, point by point:
~ The infamous "butterfly ballot" was not used statewide in Florida; it was used only in Palm Beach County, and it was designed by a Democratic election supervisor, and was approved by the county's Democratic election board (the election supervisor, Theresa LePore, later became known as "Madame Butterfly").
- It was the Gore camp, not Bush's, that "fought so hard to keep the votes from being counted". Bush wanted a statewide recount, while Gore wanted a recount only in 4 Democratic counties. Then when it appeared a statewide recount might happen, the Gore side tried to invent new standards by which votes would be counted. SCOTUS did not "appoint" Bush, it simply reversed the Florida Supreme Court ruling that would have created a new recount process out of thin air. SCOTUS remanded the matter back to the Florida Supreme Court, but that court was unable to issue a new ruling that would have avoided violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
- We all "really know" who won the election? Let's check with the New York Times, and see if they "really know":
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
One more thing - the Bush administration has "managed to lose a good portion of their people to long sentences in prison"? Just which people are you referring to?
In regards to the Libby situation: Libby is on trial for perjury and obstruction, not for "outing" Ms. Plame - who was a DCI desk jockey in WINPAC, not an "active undercover CIA agent" - which is why Fitzgerald didn't charge anyone under the IIPA. And this is old news, but you apparently missed it: it was Richard Armitage at the State Department, not Libby or Cheney or anyone else, who first mentioned Plame's name to the media. After this was learned, the Washington Post put the blame for the whole fiasco squarely where it belonged:
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
Ok garry
Now read this...take it slow, I know you GOPers have a little trouble with the facts.
In the 2000 election there was 3.600 allegations made to the Attorney General about voting irregularities, 2,600 complaints about not being allowed to vote or file an appeal and 1,000 letters written because of threats made at the polls when they tried to vote.
Now, tell me that everything was on the up and up in that election.
Here's your problem, garry, you support a President who was not elected, but was appointed. That is a fact. The Supreme Court made their decision without any knowledge of what votes remained to be counted, without looking into the allegations of voter fraud and voters turned away from the polls and without the re-count. This should have been in the hands of the State Supreme Court because it was a State issue. They should never have heard this case to begin with. The Gore camp was more than willing to accept whatever recount vote came up after the Florida Supreme Court made their decision. It was the Bush camp that didn't want that recount and they didn't want the State to look into the problems with the butterfly ballot because they knew they would lose.
Now, I understand you are partially brain dead, because there is nothing else that can explain your loyalty to Bush, so I won't be too hard on you. But, you might also want to check your information regarding the status of Valerie Plame...the desk jockey story was debunked a long time ago. Really, garry, quit reading Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh's sites, it isn't helping your case.
What you can do, however, is try and get some help. I hear there are places that will do re-programing for guys like you. Now, put your Kool Aid down and back away from the computer....
Oh....and if you REALLY want to support your President, I hear there is going to be a surge in Iraq, you still have time to enlist.
Here ya go, garry....to show you that Valerie Plame was not a "desk jockey" as you said. Umm...before you read this...you have a little Kool Aid mustache, you might want to wipe that off.
//Larry C. Johnson, "a former CIA analyst who was in Plame's officer training class in 1985-86"[12], left the Agency in 1989, and later served as Deputy Director for Special Operations, Transportation Security, and Anti-Terrorism Assistance in the U.S. State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism until October 1993, has posted as a "special guest" in a blog on 13 June 2005 that prior to Novak's column of 14 July 2003 Valerie Plame was indeed a "non-official cover operative" (NOC):
Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. . . . Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.[13]
Johnson, joined by ten other CIA officials, has presented a formal statement to the U.S. Congressional investigation into this matter dated July 18, 2005, addressing the consequences of disclosing Plame's identity in detail.[14]
Special Counsel Fitzgerald affirmed further that Plame served in a classified position as a CIA officer and the necessity for protecting such classified information during his October 28, 2005 press conference:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.//
garry writes: "Todd: The NY Times article (it's actually an editorial, to be precise) you link to says nothing about a public opinion poll on DHS, and in fact the editoral berates the President for "foolishly holding up" the creation of the DHS."
Apparently you don't know how to read. Linked to the Times piece is this:
http://people-press.org/otherpolls/
Feel free to scroll down to the various and sundry polls from 2002 that show the "American public overwhelmingly, by margins of 75%, support the creation of Department of Homeland Security." And then note Bush's flip flop on the issue.
"Furthermore, a full site search of the keyword "poll" on your moonbat "911citizenswatch" link only turns up two hits, neither of which relates to any public opinion poll "favoring a 911 Commission", as you claim."
And once again, you clearly don't know how to read. The polls are there in black and white, showing incontrovertible evidence that the "public supported the creation of a 9/11 commission" long before Bush caved in and allowed it.
Denying the facts doesn't make the facts any less true, Garro. Even in the "alternate reality" you wack job conservatives live in.
Well, Mary Ellen, I will attempt to respond to your screed, in spite of the fact that I am "partially brain dead".
Regarding the election, your recounting of events in 2000 is, to put it kindly, creative. Almost every statement you've made here is a distortion of the actual events - I back my assertions up with links to the facts, where are yours?
Regarding Plame, at least you're able to offer a cut & paste job from the Wikipedia. However I'd hardly rely on that site as a definitive source. It's quite true that Plame was - was NOC earlier in her career. But by 2003 she was at DCI working for WINPAC, according to a Vanity Fair article that Wilson & Plame supplied their biographical material for. If she was a NOC she wouldn't be driving to Langley every day - NOCs don't let themselves be seen within a 100 miles of Langley.
Was Plame's position in WINPAC classified? Certainly, but the legal burden for prosecution under the IIPA requires that it be proved the identity of a covert agent was "intentionally disclosed". The statute defines a "covert agent" as one "whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States". It had been way more than five years since Ms. Plame had a foreign posting, thanks to her apparent outing by the traitor Aldrich Ames in 1994. This latter part is why Fitzgerald isn't prosecuting anyone under the IIPA.
At least you got one part right: "The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003". And, as indicated earlier - say it with me now - Novak's source was Richard Armitage.
Like the WaPo said - the main culprit for the outing of Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson. When he wrote his infamous NYT op-ed, he had to know reporters all over DC would start asking questions - questions like, why was a retired diplomat with zero experience in nuclear counterproliferation and zero investigatory experience sent to Niger by the CIA? Ohhh, his *wife* at CIA helped set it up - now we get it. From the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report:
On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."
Your definition of "various and sundry" is rather different than mine, Todd. At http://people-press.org/otherpolls there is a grand total of one poll from 2002 relating to the creation of DHS:
"Nearly three-quarters of Americans (72%) back President Bush's decision to create a new cabinet-level agency to handle homeland security"
So I get it now - Bush decided to create the DHS because he knew future polling would favor it! Man, that guy is amazing...he follows the polls before they're even taken!
Regarding the "911citizenswatch" site, I still don't see any opinion polls linked at the site related to the creation of DHS. But since I'm a "wack job" (who is also partially brain dead, according to Mary Ellen), perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide direct links to these mysterious polls that are purportedly at that site. Since they're right there in "black and white", that shouldn't be too hard to do, eh?
Here ya go, gerry. Again, you just can't seem to get the facts straight on Valerie's job with the CIA.
// The [Senate Intelligence] committee also questioned Wilson's repeated denials that his wife had "anything to do" with his selection by the CIA to go to Niger. It quoted from a memo by Plame that lays out Wilson's qualifications for the assignment. Wilson and the CIA confirm that the agency, not Plame, selected him for the mission. He says the memo merely laid out his qualifications after he was picked.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" said that "interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicated that his [Wilson's] wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Divison] employee, suggested his name for the trip." But CIA officials have disputed the accuracy of a State Department intelligence document that reportedly indicates that Plame "suggested" Wilson's name for the trip. Moreover, the bipartisan committee did not officially conclude that Plame suggested the trip. In a partisan addendum to the report, committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) wrote that Democrats opposed including the statement: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee," in the full report.//
Did you get that? The CIA agency are the ones who asked Wilson to go. They only asked that Valerie give them his list of qualifications. Got it? This information came from the Senate Intelligence Committee report. That good enough for you, garry?
Geez....you really have to get yourself de-programed, buddy.
Oh....that last comment was from Mary Ellen. The site keeps blocking my blogger account for some reason. I wouldn't want garry to get confused, he's confused enough as it is.
>Mary Ellen
Garry writes: "Almost every statement you've made here is a distortion of the actual events - I back my assertions up with links to the facts, where are yours?"
You? Facts? That's rich. Most of the links you provided above re Valerie Plame don't even back up your assertions (especially regarding her outing). Your use of the WaPo cite, for instance, isn't even an article dealing with the matter.
"But since I'm a "wack job" (who is also partially brain dead, according to Mary Ellen), perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide direct links to these mysterious polls that are purportedly at that site."
I can only point you to the water, my friend, but I can't make you drink. The facts are right there in front of you, but despite being proven wrong, don't listen to a "moonbat" like me.
And btw, why the double identities here and over at Dem Daily? Normally I'd not waste my time responding to trolls, *Moondawg*.
Ugh-oh....looks like garry was just outed! moondawg! :-D
Mary Ellen (I knew it was you, who else uses such charming repartee as "get yourself de-programed"?): the key word in the phrase "partisan addendum" is partisan. And of course Media Matters (which is where you got this info from) is trying to spin this favorably to Wilson, left-wing outfit that they are. But the SSCI Report said that "interviews and documents" indicated that Plame suggested Wilson for the trip. That's interviews, plural, documents, plural. The CIA's disputing of a single State Department document does not obviate the other evidence.
Todd: My WaPo site "isn't even an article dealing with the matter" of Plame? Let's read the whole piece, shall we, and let folks decide for themselves whether that article is relevant to the Plame/Wilson discussion:
End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
Regarding the poll issue - since you are unable to provide direct links, I can only assume that these polls do not exist. Again, I invite you to provide a direct link so I can be "proven wrong".
Double identities? It's very simple - my Blogger ID is Garry, but when I registered myself at Dem Daily I didn't figure that name would be available, so I used "Moondawg", which was my nickname in Officer Candidate School - and it also refers to my own blog's name, Moondawg's Den, which Donnie has had the pleasure of visiting.
Since my Dem Daily profile links to Moondawg's Den, and since it shows "Garry" as a contributor to that blog, I would have figured that the connection between the identities would have been pretty easy to make - for anyone willing to do about 30 seconds of investigation, that is.
Garry Garry Garry
Oh dear, you don't like where I got my information. What to do, what to do? Sweetheart, listen carefully. It doesn't matter where the link came from when from that link I gave you direct quotes from the text of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Please, Garry, I know it's hard for you. Multiple personalities aside, I feel sorry for you. I really do. To see all those around you, leaving the Bush camp, packing up their kool aid cups to come into the light.
BTW, how are you holding up with all the information coming out about the cherry picked intel before the war? Does it make you want to cry? Go ahead, Garry, cry. It won't make you less of a man. Only being a Republican can do that.
I'm not sure what poll links you are talking about. But, that's ok, Garry. You get some rest now. Tomorrow's another day. The sun will come out tomorrow..tomorrow..you can bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow...there'll be sun....
sigh.
garry....
Yes I do imply that your CIC is comparable to his surrogat father Adolph.
No I am not disrespecting those who died by Hitlers hands of Gestapo. I don't want too see that happen here as it seems that everyone has forgotten how Hitler rose to power in Germany.
He used the German Legistlators to pass laws giving him the power to take over the country legally, just like Der Fuehrer Bush and Dark Lord Dick {Goebells} Cheney has done. So lets review those laws and the power he has now.
First how about spying on American Citizens without a warrant in violation of the FISA law. Hitler spied on the German citizens also as does most dictatorships. Der Fuehrer calls it the TSA law.
Under the Patriot Act he got 10,000 uniformed SS bodies who have the ability to arrest anyone without a warrant if they think there going to do something illegal. Thought police is what I call them. Dictatorship countries also do that.
He authorized and condoned Torture which was not only a violation of Article III of the Geneva Conventions and International Law, but also under the American War Crimes Act.
Then we have the Military Commissions Act. In that law he and his Gestapo were given immunity from prosecution under the American War Cimes Act for the war crimes committed by them and their agents. However, under International Law there still guilty of War Crimes.
It also authorized the continuation of Torture, they just redefined what they said Torture is. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is is.
But the real kicker is the stripping of Habeas Corpus from the Constitution and Der Fuehrer and the Head of Homeland Security being able to label anyone an enemy combatant that they feel is committing a hostile action against the United States. That includes American Citizens as well as non citizens. That was an act of Treason by those who were elected to represent American Citizens.
Now they may not have given him an Enabling Act, however he has the Executive Orders he institute and then there are all those signing statemensts that he says he will interpet as he determines what the laws congress passes means. And only he will decide what laws he has to obey or disregard, so in fact he writes his own laws.
Yes indeed your CIC is a Dictator and one day him and all his Nazi enablers will stand trial in the Hague for their War Crimes. And like the Nazi's of Germany there will be no place on the face of the Earth they will be able too hide from justice.
Oh by the way, right now he is working on starting a War with Iran. And if he does you may as well stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. Russia and China won't let him destroy the Oil Fields and neither will the rest of the World. There will be nukes flying both ways and if anyone survives they can start to rebuild the World or whats left of it.
So please go ahead and defend your Fuehrer, right to the very end.
God Bless
garry...
By the way I forgot to mention all the Torture he authorize at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Those were also War Crimes and it was not just a few bad apples.
The sad part is that they were following orders, the problem was that they were illegal orders and they should have refused to carry them out.
They should have also been charged with War Crimes as should all those at the very top of the Chain of Command. They brought dishounor to the Uniform they wore and the Military they served in. They also brought dishounor to the United States of America and because of those events we have lost the respect of the whole world.
This whole administration should be taken to the Hague and when found guilty given the same sentence as Saddam Husein got. Only difference is that Saddam died like a man, these criminals will piss and shit their pants when they stand over the trap door and will cry for their mommies.
I hope I'm still alive so I can watch it happen and see these evil SOB get their just rewards.
God Bless.
Mornin', Mary Ellen - first off, the thing about poll links was directed at Todd, not yourself. Second, I do know that part of the text you quoted came from the SSCI. Hello??? It so just happens to be the part that supports the assertion that Plame helped set up Wilson's Niger trip:
"interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicated that his [Wilson's] wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Divison] employee, suggested his name for the trip."
The refutation of this assertion came from the Media Matters so-called "analysis", and from the Democratic partisan addendum - not from the official report that Senators from both parties signed. You want more "direct quotes" from the SSCI report (the bi-partisan sections, that is)? You're gonna get the bonus plan:
On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.
And get this - below is the key part of Wilson's findings on his Niger trip - which he strangely failed to mention in his subsequent NYT op-ed:
Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(DELETED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
And more - -
"The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, (DELETED). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective. SENTENCE DELETED The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
And what "cherry-picked" intel are you talking about, pray tell?
Anon-paranoid: you are aptly named, indeed. Seldom have I seen such paranoic ranting posing as legal analysis. Anyway, as it happens I addressed this issue about a year ago, after the idiotic Harry Belafonte compared the DHS to the Gestapo - I will reprint here for your edification:
-------------------------
Over the weekend the moronic (and increasingly delusional) Harry Belafonte compared the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to the dreaded Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei) of Nazi Germany:
Entertainer Harry Belafonte, one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, compared the Homeland Security Department to the Nazi Gestapo on Saturday and attacked the president as a liar.
"We've come to this dark time in which the new Gestapo of Homeland Security lurks here, where citizens are having their rights suspended," Belafonte said in a speech to the annual meeting of the Arts Presenters Members Conference.
The DHS equals the Gestapo? Let's compare the two, shall we, Harry?
Nazi Gestapo: Staffed Einsatzgruppen, which murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians across Europe during WWII.
Dept of Homeland Security: Staffs the TSA, which makes hundreds of thousands of people take off their shoes at the airport.
Nazi Gestapo: Fabricated border attacks by Polish troops to give Hitler an excuse for invading Poland and thus touching off a World War.
Dept of Homeland Security: Trumps up an occasional Orange Alert, giving cops an excuse for extra overtime.
Nazi Gestapo: Established and administered slave labor camps and annihilation camps, where millions of innocents died.
Dept of Homeland Security: Administers FEMA, which was a little slow in getting help to the boneheads that decided to ride out a Cat. 5 hurricane.
Nazi Gestapo: Took thousands of civilians from occupied countries to Germany for secret trial and punishment.
Dept of Homeland Security: Captures about 1 in 1,000 undocumented workers illegal aliens at the border (whenever the ACLU lets them, that is) and takes them back to Mexico so they can try to sneak over the border yet again.
Nazi Gestapo: During WWII, was the most feared organization in all of Germany and the Nazi-occupied countries.
Dept of Homeland Security: Is ranked about 15th on the list of most feared government agencies, way behind the No. 1 Internal Revenue Service and just a couple of notches above the Dept. of Education.
Yep, Harry, you can hardly tell the difference between the Gestapo and the DHS...
-------------------------
Garry writes: "Since my Dem Daily profile links to Moondawg's Den, and since it shows "Garry" as a contributor to that blog, I would have figured that the connection between the identities would have been pretty easy to make - for anyone willing to do about 30 seconds of investigation, that is."
Yeah, and being a troll is still being a troll, Garro. At least that's what they say in my neck of the woods.
"Regarding the poll issue - since you are unable to provide direct links, I can only assume that these polls do not exist. Again, I invite you to provide a direct link so I can be "proven wrong"."
[snicker] Links have been provided, evidence is right there in front of you. Frankly, since you are unable to discern factual information, the burden of proof now shifts to you to prove Bush doesn't flip/flop on the polls.
I await your links. And please try to have some that actually have anything to do with the subject, if possible (since you've so far yet to back up *anything* in this thread).
Not only is Bush a liar, but he is a disgrace to this nation! The worst President Ever!
BTW, anon-paranoid, meant to address Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Regarding Gitmo, if you think that playing loud music, sitting in uncomfortable positions, bright lights, etc is torture, then there's not much that can be done for you (I endured far worse during my fraternity initiation week in college, perhaps I should go to the Hague and contact the ICC).
Regarding Abu Ghraib, the miscreants in that case were acting without command authority, which is why they were subjected to courts martial and punishment under the UCMJ. For example, PFC Lynnie England, one of the primary instigators, wasn't even a guard at the prison - she served in a clerical role. England, who was celebrating her birthday, was in the prisoner section to be near her boyfriend, SPC Charles Graner (her mere presence in that area of the prison was a violation of standing orders at the facility).
Those charged at Abu Gharaib weren't even trying to elicit information, they were engaged in simple sadism for pleasure. They disgraced their uniform, and got what they deserved.
Todd: Just what is a "troll"? I've seen this apparent insult bandied about on the Web, and best I can tell it refers to someone who dares to disagree with you.
You have provided a grand total of two links, Todd. One, the http://people-press.org/otherpolls, actually undermines your position. The other, the moronic 911citizenswatch.com site, apparently does not have any of the poll information that you claim it does.
I invite anyone to visit that site and see for themselves, that the information you claim is there simply doesn't exist.
Bush is a liar, Donnie? Surely you can do better than that. Do tell, what has he lied about?
garry...
Der Fuehrer lied us into a war in Iraq.
Hitler lied to invade Poland.
Der Fuehrer transported the residents on New Orleans across the United States and did not tell them where they were going until the planes took off.
Some of them where placed in fenced componds with guard carrying two way radios and weapons.
Families were house seperately and they were not allowed to even cook for themselves.
Der Fuehrer kept ghost prisoners in both Abu Ghraib and the secret torture prisons in foreign countries where they were tortured.
And if you don't believe that torture wasn't committed at Abu Ghraib perhaps you should google Torture Photos Iraq.
You go ahead and support your Fuehrer as now he is laying out his lies to take us to war with Iran.
God Bless you
anon-paranoid: What "lies" did Bush tell, specifically? I asked Donnie the same question, and await an answer.
"Der Fuehrer" did not transport New Orleans residents "across the United States", the Air National Guard did. As it happens I was mobilized to State Active Duty during Katrina, and for several days worked 12-hour shifts at the Joint Operations Center at Dobbins ARB. Evacuees were being flown out of New Orleans on ANG transports, and often the flight crews themselves did not know where they were going till they were airborne. And sometimes even after they did, they were ordered to a different destination after already being en route. Those decisions were being made on an ad hoc basis, depending on the status of each of the air bases serving as intake points during that time. To say that Bush was sitting in the White House sending planes around the country willy-nilly on a whim is asinine and absurd.
It's true that some of the evacuees wound up in "fenced compounds" with armed guards (at least temporarily) - they're called military bases, genius.
I've already addressed the torture issue - you believe coercive interrogation (extremes of hot & cold, loud music, etc) of terrorists is torture, and I do not.
And, as I've already said, Abu Ghraib was unlawful, disgraceful sadism, and those involved were rightly court martialed and punished.
And I've got news for you: we're not "being taken to war with Iran" - Iran is already at war with us, helping to kill US troops.
Ok...looks like Blogger isn't going to let me log in, so I'll do anonymous.
Mary Ellen says:
Garry, again with the Bush talking points. So, you think Gitmo is nothing more than a fraternity hazing party? Figures, you would say that, since this is the talking point on numerous right wing rags. In fact, if I recall, Limbaugh said the same thing. You guys really are a bunch of pea brained parrots.
Also, that ridiculous statement about Abu Gharib being just a product of a few low level soldiers is another one of those Republican snow jobs. Did your forget that General Bantz Craddock who was the commander of the U.S. Southern Command testified before the Senate with information that absolutely refutes that statement of yours? Here ya go...read it and weep.
//The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee.
Gen. Bantz Craddock, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, testifies about the investigation of alleged detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay.
Gen. Bantz Craddock, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, testifies about the investigation of alleged detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay. (By Chip Somodevilla -- Getty Images)
Military investigators who briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday on the three-month probe, called the tactics "creative" and "aggressive" but said they did not cross the line into torture.
The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.//
Hmmm....again, Garry's talking points turn out to be nothing but fluff. :-D
garry...
Let me guess, it's all the Jews fault right?
It's against the law to mass transport american citizens without first telling them where there going.
One of the put up concentration camps was a church summer camp that FEMA leased and inclosed with fencing and armed guards. That was not a military base.
But enough, its obvious your support of Der Fuehrer is total. Like Joseph Goebbell's said tell a big lie often enough and eventually it'll be believed by the massess.
God Bless
Garry writes: "Just what is a "troll"? I've seen this apparent insult bandied about on the Web, and best I can tell it refers to someone who dares to disagree with you."
A troll is a person who blogs/posts to usenet under a variety of fake names, inflaming people with nonsense, then disappearing when called out. So far, the only part of the definition that doesn't seem to fit you is the latter (yet).
BTW, "Garry", here's another fun site someone emailed me about Bush and his flip flops. I think you'll enjoy these almost 30 examples of Bush "changing positions when polls ran contrary" to his initial position.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
"Garry" writes: "What "lies" did Bush tell, specifically? I asked Donnie the same question, and await an answer."
See link above. Now it's your turn: where exactly has Bush ever told the truth? Name one time/issue, specifically (and provide a relevant "link" if possible).
todd mitchell
I dont' think garry will be able to find anything...for one thing, you have to know what is the meaning of truth or lie. Republicans struggle with that. They seem to think if they repeat the same thing over and over enough, or if they hear the same thing over and over enough, it must be the truth. Sad group, don't you think?
While I don't have the time to go look for the links since I do have a job which I am about to leave for, I will throw this one at you to think about.
That asscrack you like so much, claimed that he is a uniter and not a divider! Holy Shit!!!! What a damn whopper that one is! Unless you are feeling all united and in a hug everybody kinda mood.
Or unless he meant that he would unite everybody in universal hatred of him. Now he might have something there. Sorry to have slept today to be able to not fall asleep at work tonight and make you wait for this answer. That's what they call a JOB!
Time to leave now, have to train someone else tonight. I sure hope this guy is not a Bush supporter. I just hate having to explaiin the use of a doorknob for an hour so they can get out.
donnie
Yeah...those Bush supporters and doorknobs, exit strategies aren't exactly their forte.
garry...
You say that there was no Torture at Abu Ghraib than go check out the video below. Click on the link and scroll down to the below listing.
SBS in Australia broadcasts the Abu Ghraib footage the US government has not allowed you to see.
February 16, 2006
On Wednesday 16 February 2006, Australian public broadcaster SBS current affairs program DATELINE telecast a segment featring 60 new photos of the torture inflicted on prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These photos were secured by court order - the ACLU figures prominently in the report - but these photos haven't yet been shown in the media anywhere in the United States. Because of the broadcast on SBS, you now have access to both Web-downloadable versions and BitTorrent file-sharing network versions of the broadcast on this site. THESE PHOTOS ARE VERY DISTURBING. Please do not view this video if you are easily disturbed by graphic imagery of torture and death.
Abu Ghraid Torture Video
Its 13MB and if your on dial-up it will take a long time to download. Save it to your desktop and when download is complete, minimize your browser and watch it. Its in Quicktime format.
Then come back and tell us that we do not torture those in our custody.
God Bless
Well happy Monday to ya, Mary Ellen. The text you quote is from a 2005 WaPo story, and is not Gen. Craddock's Senate testimony. Perhaps you should actually read the full article, it doesn't even present a single word of the General's testimony. Again I reinterate, PFC England and her cohorts at Abu Ghraib were acting without authority. England was in violation of orders for even being in that part of the prison.
Todd: sorry that I'm not "disappearing" on you. Once again, you provide a link to prove that polling drove Bush on creation of the DHS - yet another link which does not provide information on a single public opinion poll relating to the matter.
Donnie: Please, is that the best you can come up with? That he hasn't been "a uniter and not a divider"?? If you have to make hard choices on policy, you're going to upset people no matter what you do. Sometimes leaders have to make unpopular decisions - surely you would have learned at least that much from your time in uniform.
Anon-paranoid: just what part of my statement that "Abu Ghraib was unlawful, disgraceful sadism" did you not understand? Yes, I would even say that it crossed the line into torture. Not on par with Saddam-era torture, to be sure (throwing prisoners off the tops of buildings, dripping acid on them, mutilating genitals, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes), but still abusive and, without higher command authority, illegal.
However, it's always been interesting to me that liberals go bonkers if an Iraqi had to wear panties on his head, but whispered not a word when Iraqis were disfigured, dismembered, and murdered under the Saddam regime.
Post a Comment