SCOTUS declares military tribunals UNCONSTITUTIONAL
mmarsh
Active member
Italian Guy
1. Gallup is only 1 source. There are lots of polls lets see what the average of the polls is before drawing conclusions.
2. If you check your source its only over 2 months (Since May) and at 31% in March it was bound to go back up. The fact of the matter is Bush popularity has been in freefall since 2003. Taking a single poll of 2 months worth of good news compared to the privious 36 of bad news is not exactly a signs of a political turnaround, it has to be sustained to draw a conclusion.
3. 40% is still LOUSY rating. Bush remains a very unpopular president a brief surge in opinion polls doesnt change that. Furthermore if you look at the data you notice that the surge comes only from rallying unhappy Republicans. This was probably due to the recent attempts to pass bills banning gay marriage, flag burning and other totally useless bits of legislation the conservatives love. This is known as rallying the base, and its effects are usually short term.
Whats more telling is that the democrats and more importantly the independants remain unchanged, they are still strongly against Bush. Bush can rally his followers as much as he likes he still hasnt convinced the other 60% of the country.
1. Gallup is only 1 source. There are lots of polls lets see what the average of the polls is before drawing conclusions.
2. If you check your source its only over 2 months (Since May) and at 31% in March it was bound to go back up. The fact of the matter is Bush popularity has been in freefall since 2003. Taking a single poll of 2 months worth of good news compared to the privious 36 of bad news is not exactly a signs of a political turnaround, it has to be sustained to draw a conclusion.
3. 40% is still LOUSY rating. Bush remains a very unpopular president a brief surge in opinion polls doesnt change that. Furthermore if you look at the data you notice that the surge comes only from rallying unhappy Republicans. This was probably due to the recent attempts to pass bills banning gay marriage, flag burning and other totally useless bits of legislation the conservatives love. This is known as rallying the base, and its effects are usually short term.
Whats more telling is that the democrats and more importantly the independants remain unchanged, they are still strongly against Bush. Bush can rally his followers as much as he likes he still hasnt convinced the other 60% of the country.
Last edited:
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
True, I just observed a different trend than it's been recently.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
So what? ...
I really don't care what the poll numbers show TODAY ... the overall numbers have been in near free-fall for quite some time ... these little hiccups in an upward direction don't change the plain fact that GW has one of the lowest approval ratings in history ... not only that, the numbers showing the 'trust' factor are also at an all-time low. He is one of the most unpopular presidents in modern history.
The anti-Clintonites can NOT understand why Clinton's numbers are still running at double the numbers that GW is pulling. Clinton's economic and foreign policies may help explain GW's drop in poll numbers ... Clinton's problem while in office were of a 'personal' nature, and GW's problems arise from decisions that were justified by half truths and what some people have called out-and-out lies.
From a war that many people feel wasn't justified, to an economic program where tax cuts to the top 5% of the income earners are being touted for an economic up-turn based upon initially overinflated figures ... many Americans are beginning to view Bush's presidency as a complete failure. Only history will tell the whole story.
Until then, GW's numbers will continue to drop even though there MAY be temporary up-swings.
I really don't care what the poll numbers show TODAY ... the overall numbers have been in near free-fall for quite some time ... these little hiccups in an upward direction don't change the plain fact that GW has one of the lowest approval ratings in history ... not only that, the numbers showing the 'trust' factor are also at an all-time low. He is one of the most unpopular presidents in modern history.
The anti-Clintonites can NOT understand why Clinton's numbers are still running at double the numbers that GW is pulling. Clinton's economic and foreign policies may help explain GW's drop in poll numbers ... Clinton's problem while in office were of a 'personal' nature, and GW's problems arise from decisions that were justified by half truths and what some people have called out-and-out lies.
From a war that many people feel wasn't justified, to an economic program where tax cuts to the top 5% of the income earners are being touted for an economic up-turn based upon initially overinflated figures ... many Americans are beginning to view Bush's presidency as a complete failure. Only history will tell the whole story.
Until then, GW's numbers will continue to drop even though there MAY be temporary up-swings.
WarMachine
Active member
Yeah, when the president elect is decided in two years GW's numbers will go up since he'll be completely irrelevant at that point and that goes for his screw ups. You know i think it's pretty sad to think all this multilaterism and public policy changes he's doing now didn't exist in the beginning of his administration. He probably would have gone done a smoother more popular path in that case, now he's seen as somewhat willfully ignorant by his detractors. This sirs, was a president who when in 2000 promised to bring the focus back home instead of the international involvements that occured throughout the clinton administration, we all know how well he's been keeping that promise.
On the tribunal thing, it's the result of the geneva convention that US is a signatory of that this is not allowed. That's what the justification was and you can't pick and choose what treaties you want to follow and expect everyone else to play fair too. Bush himselft now wants to close the camp down, all that's left is trying to figure out where to put the prisoners.
Here's the reason why it's such a big issue to our allies: America is trying to spread democracy as its message right, freedom and justice for all is the idea. People in foreign nations and especially the muslim world keep hearing of these horrible reports from gitmo and are wondering why america would say one thing and do another. If america were true to their word then these men would receive fair trials and be properly investigated, that's not asking much at all. If you think they're all terrorists and enemy combatants and deserve to be treated as such that's one opinion, but the opinion of the rest of the world seems to be otherwise.
On the tribunal thing, it's the result of the geneva convention that US is a signatory of that this is not allowed. That's what the justification was and you can't pick and choose what treaties you want to follow and expect everyone else to play fair too. Bush himselft now wants to close the camp down, all that's left is trying to figure out where to put the prisoners.
Here's the reason why it's such a big issue to our allies: America is trying to spread democracy as its message right, freedom and justice for all is the idea. People in foreign nations and especially the muslim world keep hearing of these horrible reports from gitmo and are wondering why america would say one thing and do another. If america were true to their word then these men would receive fair trials and be properly investigated, that's not asking much at all. If you think they're all terrorists and enemy combatants and deserve to be treated as such that's one opinion, but the opinion of the rest of the world seems to be otherwise.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Half truths? Lies ? What are you talking about? Are you referring to foreign policy? Bin Laden actually was in Afghanistan protected by the Taliban, they have actually been defeated and scattered, Afghanistan is becoming a more democratic country as GW had promised.Chief Bones said:
Are you referring to Iraq only? The country is being helped on its hard and long path to democratization as GW had promised, Saddam had strong ties with international terrorism and his intelligence had contacts with al Qaeda as GW had said, he wasn't cooperating with the UN in disarming prior to March 2003, he was a dangerous terrorist himself and some material of mass destruction has been recovered. He has been caught as GW had promised, the troops haven't been pulled out of the country just like GW had promised, Zarqawi has been killed, al Qaeda has been weakened.
Even Lybia has decided to stop all of its nuclear plans and fully cooperate with us.
America is on the offensive and hasn't been attacked on its soil since 2001, and this was what GW had promised.
So what lies and half truths are you talking about?
Warmachine said:
Terrible reports by whom? Have you actually read the reports? Do you know what you're talking about or you're simply blindly following what the Guardian or some anti-American non-governmental organization says?
Guantanamo is truly a grand hotel and people don't know what they're talking about. Nuff said.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
IG
The half truths that I am referring to are the half truths that were used by GW to justify the invasion of Iraq in the first place. The ties to AlQaeda by Saddam have been proven to be rather low level ... and just exactly what ties to mass terrorism against the United States did Saddam have anything to do with? There are none that I am aware of where there has been any substantive proof offered to prove the ties.
GW's justification excuse was the "clear and present danger" (immediate danger) justification and it has never been proven. As a Matter of fact, every investigation has failed to uncover the type of immediate danger to the United States that would bear out ANY justification excuse used by GW to explain why it was necessary to invade Iraq. I will grant you that we could probably come up with reasons that we would have sooner or later had to deal with Saddam (even militarily), but we didn't have to do so because of an immediate danger.
I grant you, the Iraqi people ARE better off without Saddam's dictatorial misuse of force against them ... and ... the question about massive stockpiles of mass destruction weapons HAS been answered. Very small quantities have been discovered ... but ... not in the numbers that would have justified the invasion.
Democratization WAS NOT one of the original reasons for the invasion of Iraq ... this was a justification that was used after every other justification was proven to be false. It was an afterthought.
These are just a few of the truths and half truths that are plaguing GW's popularity ... it explains (in part), why his numbers have taken a nose dive and are among some of the lowest popularity numbers for an American President in history. Americans are beginning to realise that GW can't be trusted ... and ... his anti-terrorism policies in the United States are beginning to take on the tenor of a dictator who doesn't believe that American laws apply to him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Afghanistan was a righteous decision ... the Taliban were proven to be allied with the AlQaeda and they were giving these terrorists safe haven. The Taliban were shown to have first hand knowledge about 9/11 ... however ... the invasion of Iraq has not had one single justifications that has survived close scrutiny.
The half truths that I am referring to are the half truths that were used by GW to justify the invasion of Iraq in the first place. The ties to AlQaeda by Saddam have been proven to be rather low level ... and just exactly what ties to mass terrorism against the United States did Saddam have anything to do with? There are none that I am aware of where there has been any substantive proof offered to prove the ties.
GW's justification excuse was the "clear and present danger" (immediate danger) justification and it has never been proven. As a Matter of fact, every investigation has failed to uncover the type of immediate danger to the United States that would bear out ANY justification excuse used by GW to explain why it was necessary to invade Iraq. I will grant you that we could probably come up with reasons that we would have sooner or later had to deal with Saddam (even militarily), but we didn't have to do so because of an immediate danger.
I grant you, the Iraqi people ARE better off without Saddam's dictatorial misuse of force against them ... and ... the question about massive stockpiles of mass destruction weapons HAS been answered. Very small quantities have been discovered ... but ... not in the numbers that would have justified the invasion.
Democratization WAS NOT one of the original reasons for the invasion of Iraq ... this was a justification that was used after every other justification was proven to be false. It was an afterthought.
These are just a few of the truths and half truths that are plaguing GW's popularity ... it explains (in part), why his numbers have taken a nose dive and are among some of the lowest popularity numbers for an American President in history. Americans are beginning to realise that GW can't be trusted ... and ... his anti-terrorism policies in the United States are beginning to take on the tenor of a dictator who doesn't believe that American laws apply to him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Afghanistan was a righteous decision ... the Taliban were proven to be allied with the AlQaeda and they were giving these terrorists safe haven. The Taliban were shown to have first hand knowledge about 9/11 ... however ... the invasion of Iraq has not had one single justifications that has survived close scrutiny.
WarMachine
Active member
diito (more words here so it will let me post)
Missileer
Active member
I almost didn't post this but can't resist. Actually, I think the phrase was attributed to President Bush but was made by Ashcroft.
Now, if anyone is thinking I'm giving President Clinton a shot, they're very wrong. I supported his action and still do.
Clear and present danger
From SourceWatch
In a Department of Defense press release, President Bill Clinton announced that on December 16, 1998, he had ordered air strikes "against Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that Saddam Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere."[1] (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html)
CNN.com reported that on September 24, 2001, "Attorney General John Ashcroft appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and declared that 'terrorism is a clear and present danger to Americans today."[2] (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/10/08/danger.html)[3] (http://www.solcomhouse.com/ashcroft.htm)[4] (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_Investigation010925.html)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html
Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that
Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he
deemed military action necessary to prove the international
community, led by the United States, had not lost its will.
Failure to act, Clinton said, would have "fatally undercut the
fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination
in the region."
"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to
resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," Clinton said.
"Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act
now."
Less than an hour after American and British forces launched
Operation Desert Fox, the president addressed the nation to
explain his decision. He said the attack was designed to protect
the national interests of the United States and the interests of
people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against
his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
About the only thing the Bush administration is guilty of in this is being copy cats of the Clinton administration.
Now, if anyone is thinking I'm giving President Clinton a shot, they're very wrong. I supported his action and still do.
Clear and present danger
From SourceWatch
In a Department of Defense press release, President Bill Clinton announced that on December 16, 1998, he had ordered air strikes "against Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that Saddam Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere."[1] (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html)
CNN.com reported that on September 24, 2001, "Attorney General John Ashcroft appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and declared that 'terrorism is a clear and present danger to Americans today."[2] (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/10/08/danger.html)[3] (http://www.solcomhouse.com/ashcroft.htm)[4] (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_Investigation010925.html)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html
Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that
Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he
deemed military action necessary to prove the international
community, led by the United States, had not lost its will.
Failure to act, Clinton said, would have "fatally undercut the
fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination
in the region."
"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to
resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," Clinton said.
"Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act
now."
Less than an hour after American and British forces launched
Operation Desert Fox, the president addressed the nation to
explain his decision. He said the attack was designed to protect
the national interests of the United States and the interests of
people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against
his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
About the only thing the Bush administration is guilty of in this is being copy cats of the Clinton administration.
Last edited:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Missileer
I won't get into an argument about the relevent value of your sources.
What I will argue, is the time sensitivity value of this argument. When Clinton made his statement, the information available led he and the rest of the world to believe that Saddam presented a clear and present danger to the United States. At the time of GW's invasion decision, the inspectors had ALREADY determined that massive stockpiles that were attributed to Saddam and Iraq didn't seem to exist anymore. NOTE: They didn't say that the stockpiles DIDN'T exist ... They said the stockpiles DIDN'T SEEM to exist.
That removed the "clear and present danger" to a much lower threat level.
As far as the nuclear program threat, a short search of the internet will show you that NO credible evidence exists to indicate that Iraq was "actively" pursuing a nuclear program. Not that Saddam wouldn't have liked to have had a nuclear weapon or two in his arsenal.
I guess my main argument with what you have posted comes down to a simple statement of fact:
At the time of the Iraqi invasion, the justification of a "clear and oresent danger" was just so much hot air.
I won't get into an argument about the relevent value of your sources.
What I will argue, is the time sensitivity value of this argument. When Clinton made his statement, the information available led he and the rest of the world to believe that Saddam presented a clear and present danger to the United States. At the time of GW's invasion decision, the inspectors had ALREADY determined that massive stockpiles that were attributed to Saddam and Iraq didn't seem to exist anymore. NOTE: They didn't say that the stockpiles DIDN'T exist ... They said the stockpiles DIDN'T SEEM to exist.
That removed the "clear and present danger" to a much lower threat level.
As far as the nuclear program threat, a short search of the internet will show you that NO credible evidence exists to indicate that Iraq was "actively" pursuing a nuclear program. Not that Saddam wouldn't have liked to have had a nuclear weapon or two in his arsenal.
I guess my main argument with what you have posted comes down to a simple statement of fact:
At the time of the Iraqi invasion, the justification of a "clear and oresent danger" was just so much hot air.
WarMachine
Active member
That and i don't think clear and present danger is really the way to put it. Remember it was coined during WW1 when there were all sorts of anti sedition laws out and the government was justifying limiting people's rights for the war period. I don't this America really ever had a clear and present danger since it was usually more complicated than that, even the soviet union. Maybe the pearl harbor attack but it was a surprise and thus not clear and present.
But yeah, Bush just made up excuses to invade a country unilaterally that is now causing this administration and the rest of the country international scorn.
But yeah, Bush just made up excuses to invade a country unilaterally that is now causing this administration and the rest of the country international scorn.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
WarMachine said:
The point I was making was that GW and his sycophants were pushing a "clear and present danger" justification for the invasion of Iraq. History has proven that this supposition was so much hot air.
WarMachine
Active member
Exactly, i'm surprised he didn't use a gulf of tonkin like explanation for going to war, it would've been somewhat more credible