Sunday, August 07, 2005

Bush Approval Ratings Reach Record Low.

A new AP-Ipsos poll has found that Americans’ approval of Bush’s handling of Iraq is at a new record low.


Approval of Bush’s handling of Iraq has been in the low to mid 40s for most of 2005, but has gone to a new record low of 38%. Midwesterners were the most likely to abandon Bush’s handling of Iraq in the last six months.

The poll also found that fewer than 50% think Bush is honest, and a growing number see Bush’s confidence as arrogance.

6 Comments:

Blogger MiamiMiami said...

I guess that would be important to someone who is so very interested in people liking him alot. Most liberals and leftitsts seem to be convinced that they can only be doing a good job if people like them.
Just to put things into persepetive,Clinton's numbers were pretty high yet we were being attacked left and right by Islamic terrorists. Bush's numbers may be low but there has only been one since his term. And remember your "Christian Terrorists" McVeigh and Rudolph did their evil work during the Clinton years.

Just a historical perspective Truman's numbers at their lowest were during the Korean war and they were at 23%.

I guess if you make your decisions based on how much people will "like" you after you have made them then we need to elect a President who will just play nice with everyone and everything should be just fine.....right?

5:48 AM  
Blogger Alva Goldbook said...

Miami, you're quite wrong. There has been more terrorist attacks against the United States than any other time in our history since Bush has come into office.

Second, last I checked, the United States was supposed to be a representative democracy. A president who ignores public pressure, and just does what the hell he wants to instead, is a violation of the principals this country was founded upon. It is the clearest indication that no form of government can truely represent the will of the People unless it is DIRECTLY DEMOCRATIC.

5:55 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Miami, you're quite wrong. There has been more terrorist attacks against the United States than any other time in our history since Bush has come into office.

====>More terror attacks against the US since Clinton? Ummmm. Let's see I count the 9/11 attack as one. Clinton had the USS Cole, the Embassy in Africa, and the World Trade Center in 1993. Funny how math makes you look kind of silly don't it?

Second, last I checked, the United States was supposed to be a representative democracy.
====>Wrong we are a Republic.

"I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

A president who ignores public pressure, and just does what the hell he wants to instead, is a violation of the principals this country was founded upon.

====>Wrong again. A president is not put in power to do what ever the public wishes him to do. To bow to public pressure is nothing more than mob rule. That is why we elect people to represent us in the form of a Republic.

It is the clearest indication that no form of government can truely represent the will of the People unless it is DIRECTLY DEMOCRATIC.

====>Which is why we are a Republic. Pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. If this were the case the Civil Rights Act would have never been passed due to public pressure. The Nazi's would have never stood trial in nuremburg they would have brought here and beaten in the public sqaures of every small town that lost a son to Hitler. Slavery would still be legal due to public pressure.

12:22 PM  
Blogger Alva Goldbook said...

Miami,
Perhaps you missed the “Patterns on Global Terrorism” report for 2004. Not that I can blame you, since the Bush administration SILENCED IT. From what little has been released to the public we know that the 2003 report showed 172 significant attacks, and in 2004 there were at least 655 significant attacks, the highest number of terrorists attacks in it’s 20 year history. Funny how math makes you look kind of silly, don’t it?

Are you really citing the freaking pledge of allegiance for determining what kind of nation we are? All you have to know about it, is that the “under God” part was added in the 1950’s during the McCarthy red scare. In reality, we are a constitutionally limited democratic republic. And if you were able to ask James Madison he would say a republic and a democracy is the same damn thing.

Ah, so we elect our representatives to NOT represent us, but their own personal interests? If that was the case we would call it the House of Tyrants instead of the House of Representatives. All elected officials are put into office to work the will of the PEOPLE. If this was not the case, than we would not have the right to vote.

Suppose you get into trouble and have to go to trail. You hire a lawyer to REPRESENT you. So, isn’t that lawyer supposed to act in accordance to your wishes? Or should he just ignore your wishes and say you plead “guilty” while you wish to plead “not guilty”?

A pure democracy is nothing of the sort. Incorrect, if this were a direct democracy slavery would have ended sooner, the Civil Rights Act would have passed before the Civil War started, and blacks wouldn’t have spent 500 years as slaves or second class citizens. The Nazi’s would have been beaten in public squares?

Miami, let me ask you a question. Do you beat up everyone who’s ahead of you in line at the grocery store? The reason why you don’t is because you are PRACTICING ‘mob rule’.

Or do you think that generally speaking, people are loathsome violent creatures that must be forced to behave with any amount of decency? If you think THAT’S the case, then would it be rude to ask, “are YOU a schmuck too?”

10:21 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Perhaps you missed the “Patterns on Global Terrorism” report for 2004. Not that I can blame you, since the Bush administration SILENCED IT. From what little has been released to the public we know that the 2003 report showed 172 significant attacks, and in 2004 there were at least 655 significant attacks, the highest number of terrorists attacks in it’s 20 year history. Funny how math makes you look kind of silly, don’t it?

=====>Funny how you, again, like to use the facts to your advantage. Those were not attacks against US interests. Those were total attacks in general. Yeah math is funny but only when you know how to read the numbers. and how can Bush specifically silence a publically available report. I mean does this mean that they will be coming in black SUV's and Helicopters to find you now that you "uncovered" a publically available document from the State department? HAHAHA.

Are you really citing the freaking pledge of allegiance for determining what kind of nation we are?

=====>I was trying to keep it simple for you. I used the Pledge of Allegiance, you know to this country you hate so much. It tells everyone that we have a Republic. Funny however how you chose to ignore the fact that we are a Republic and chose to focus on the one part that scares you more than anything, God.

All you have to know about it, is that the “under God” part was added in the 1950’s during the McCarthy red scare.

====>All I have to know about it is that I voluntarily chose to defend that pledge, our flag, and your right to spew out nonsense against it. The under God part is not what I have to know about it. Funny how you assume that my conscience is only limited to your fear of religion.
And make no mistake about it you do show great fear of religion but not any religion that has fostered the majority of terro groups like Islam or more respectively radical Islamofacism.

In reality, we are a constitutionally limited democratic republic. And if you were able to ask James Madison he would say a republic and a democracy is the same damn thing.

====>I am sure that if you asked the founding fathers they also would have told you that no where in the Constitution is there a separation of church and state but you would still claim there was. And I think you answered your own question, we are a Republic.

Ah, so we elect our representatives to NOT represent us, but their own personal interests? If that was the case we would call it the House of Tyrants instead of the House of Representatives. All elected officials are put into office to work the will of the PEOPLE. If this was not the case, than we would not have the right to vote.

====>Yes they do. The problem you have is that the majority of the people are getting what they asked for. You are still having trouble reconciling with the fact that you ilk are NOT the majority. You guys are the small barking dog at the fence of a house when someone walks by. Al bark and no substance. When Clinton does a recess appointment 140 times its ok, Bush does it it's evil. Clinton proposes private Social Security accounts it's good, Bush proposes it then it is bad. Clinton says Iraq has WMD's he's good, Bush repeats the same information provided to him by the same guy that provided it for Clinton then Bush is a liar. So in effect your kind loves to paint the House and Senate as tyrants so long as they don't have that cute little "D" at the end of the name.


Suppose you get into trouble and have to go to trail. You hire a lawyer to REPRESENT you. So, isn’t that lawyer supposed to act in accordance to your wishes? Or should he just ignore your wishes and say you plead “guilty” while you wish to plead “not guilty”?

=====>No the same. You have the right to defend yourself in a court of law. Your personal counsel is NOT part of a representative government in the form of a Republic. IN fact you have the right to fire your PRIVATELY contracts attorney, even the one appointed to you by the court, and ask for another one. If you attorney did not act in accordance to his professional standard then he faces disbarment. The two are not synonymous.

A pure democracy is nothing of the sort. Incorrect, if this were a direct democracy slavery would have ended sooner,
====>Ending slavery got Lincoln killed. Did Lincoln do the right thing regardless, yes. It led to war. Is war popular no. So Lincoln did NOT act with regard to public opinion.

the Civil Rights Act would have passed before the Civil War started, and blacks wouldn’t have spent 500 years as slaves or second class citizens.

=====>Negative again sir. The Civil Rights act was very unpopular to most Americans. Even amongst Democrats it was a very unpopular thing. Kennedy showed how great a President he was when he broke ranks with his Democrats to join the Republicans, yes Republicans, to get the Civil Rights Act passed.

The Nazi’s would have been beaten in public squares?

====>The Germans at the time were very for them being killed in public. They were instead tried in Nurmeberg, the ones that survived anyways.

Miami, let me ask you a question. Do you beat up everyone who’s ahead of you in line at the grocery store? The reason why you don’t is because you are PRACTICING ‘mob rule’.

====>I don't have a Democracy in a privately owned business. What does that have to do with what we are talking about? I have to follow the rules of that PRIVATELY owned business if I am to be allowed in there.

Or do you think that generally speaking, people are loathsome violent creatures that must be forced to behave with any amount of decency? If you think THAT’S the case, then would it be rude to ask, “are YOU a schmuck too?”

====>I am merely pointing out that you are more concerned with being seen in a positive light than doing the right thing. You started out this post with a popularity contest and equated it with doing a bad job. My point is that popularity contests have nothing to do with doing the right thing. I have provided ample examples of how the two do not ALWAYS correlate especially with concern to a Presidency and how well they function. You however must have such a problem with you self esteem that you have a fixation with being seen as a "nice guy" that you would rather do the "popular" thing and avoid doing the "right " thing for fear of not being voted the prom king.

5:43 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Clinton was very popular in September of 2000 yet failed to act when his administration had information regarding the 9/11 attacks. So I guess being popular is better than stopping terrorists? Here is the article. Mind you that it was not Bush in charge in September of 2000. It was not Bush who was on vacation at that time either like Michael Moore would like you to believe.

Read it here...

Did DoD lawyers blow the chance to nab Atta?

By Jacob Goodwin
In September 2000, one year before the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11, a U.S. Army military intelligence program, known as “Able Danger,” identified a terrorist cell based in Brooklyn, NY, one of whose members was 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta, and recommended to their military superiors that the FBI be called in to “take out that cell,” according to Rep. Curt Weldon, a longtime Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who is currently vice chairman of both the House Homeland Security and House Armed Services Committees.

The recommendation to bring down that New York City cell -- in which two other Al Qaeda terrorists were also active -- was not pursued during the weeks leading up to the 2000 presidential election, said Weldon. That’s because Mohammed Atta possessed a “green card” at the time and Defense Department lawyers did not want to recommend that the FBI go after someone holding a green card, Weldon told his House colleagues last June 27 during a little-noticed speech, known as a “special order,” which he delivered on the House floor.

Details of the origins and efforts of Able Danger were corroborated in a telephone interview by GSN with a former defense intelligence officer who said he worked closely with that program. That intelligence officer, who spoke to GSN while sitting in Rep. Weldon’s Capitol Hill office, requested anonymity for fear that his current efforts to help re-start a similar intelligence-gathering operation might be hampered if his identity becomes known.

The intelligence officer recalled carrying documents to the offices of Able Danger, which was being run by the Special Operations Command, headquartered in Tampa, FL. The documents included a photo of Mohammed Atta supplied by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and described Atta’s relationship with Osama bin Laden. The officer was very disappointed when lawyers working for Special Ops decided that anyone holding a green card had to be granted essentially the same legal protections as any U.S. citizen. Thus, the information Able Danger had amassed about the only terrorist cell they had located inside the United States could not be shared with the FBI, the lawyers concluded.

“We were directed to take those 3M yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other terrorists and pretend they didn’t exist,” the intelligence officer told GSN.

DoD lawyers may also have been reluctant to suggest a bold action by FBI agents after the bureau’s disastrous 1993 strike against the Branch Davidian religious cult in Waco, TX, said Weldon and the intelligence officer.

“So now, Mr. Speaker,” Weldon said on the House floor last June, “for the first time I can tell our colleagues that one of our agencies not only identified the New York cell of Mohammed Atta and two of the terrorists, but actually made a recommendation to bring the FBI in to take out that cell.”

Weldon has developed a reputation for making bold pronouncements and, occasionally, ruffling the feathers of some of his colleagues. His recent non-fiction book, “Countdown to Terror,” which draws on information from an Iranian expatriate source Weldon has dubbed “Ali,” has drawn criticism from the CIA, others in the intelligence community and some congressional colleagues.

A longtime champion of firefighters and first responders, Weldon has a particular interest in this subject because he has been openly and actively pushing since 1999 for the establishment of an integrated government-wide center that could consolidate, analyze and act upon intelligence gathered by dozens of U.S. agencies, armed services and departments.

Weldon’s proposal was based on the innovative intelligence gathering capabilities he had witnessed at the U.S. Army’s Information Dominance Center, based at Fort Belvoir, VA, (which was formerly known as the Land Information Warfare Assessment Center.) This Army center had employed data mining, profiling and data collaboration techniques before several other intelligence agencies, and was using such cutting edge software tools as Starlight (developed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) and Spires.

For years, the CIA resisted the congressman’s recommendation, Weldon told GSN in a telephone interview on August 1, claiming that his plan to integrate dozens of discrete and classified intelligence streams was both unworkable and unnecessary. Weldon had dubbed his proposed organization the National Operations and Analysis Hub, nicknamed NOAH, because the center was intended “to protect our nation from the flood of threats,” he explained.

Sixteen months after 9/11, such a “data fusion center,” named the Terrorism Threat Integration Center (TTIC) was indeed established by the Bush Administration.

At the urging of the 9/11 Commission, the TTIC has since been restructured and renamed the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC).

Weldon is pleased that steps have been taken to unify the nation’s intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities, now headed by a newly established Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Negroponte, but Weldon remains concerned that the “stovepipe” mentalities that plagued the intelligence community in the past continue to inhibit true information sharing between intelligence agencies.

He is also extremely frustrated by the fact that so little official attention seems to have been paid to the intelligence failure related to the Mohammed Atta cell in Brooklyn. Weldon contends that few in the Bush Administration seem interested in investigating that missed opportunity.

“If we had had that [military intelligence] system in 1999 and 2000, which the military had already developed as a prototype, and if we had followed the lead of the military entity that identified the Al Qaeda cell of Mohammed Atta, then perhaps, Mr. Speaker, 9/11 would never have occurred,” Weldon said during his special order remarks.

According to Weldon, staff members of the 9/11 Commission were briefed on the capabilities of the Able Danger intelligence unit within the Special Operations Command, which had been set up by General Pete Schoomaker, who headed Special Ops at the time, on the orders of General Hugh Shelton, then the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Staffers at the 9/11 Commission staffers were also told about the specific recommendation to break up the Mohammed Atta cell. However, those commission staff members apparently did not choose to brief the commission’s members on these sensitive matters.

Weldon said he was told specifically by commission members, Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana; and John Lehman, a former secretary of the Navy; that they had never been briefed on the Able Danger unit within Special Ops or on the unit’s evidence of a terrorist cell in Brooklyn.

“I personally talked with [Philip] Zelikow [executive director of the 9/11 Commission] about this,” recalled the intelligence officer. “For whatever bizarre reasons, he didn’t pass on the information.”

The State Department, where Zelikow now works as a counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said he was traveling and unavailable for comment.

“Why did the 9/11 Commission not investigate this entire situation?” asked Weldon on June 27. “Why did the 9/11 Commission not ask the question about the military’s recommendation against the Mohammed Atta cell?”

Weldon is also disappointed with himself for not pushing harder against the intelligence bureaucracy that he saw as resisting his proposal to set up a more integrated intelligence-gathering operation. But he saves some of his greatest ire for the lawyers within the Department of Defense -- he is not sure if they were working within the Special Operations Command or higher up the organizational chart, within the Office of the Secretary of Defense -- for their unwillingness to allow Able Danger to send to the FBI its evidence and its recommendation for immediate action.

“Obviously, if we had taken out that cell, 9/11 would not have occurred and, certainly, taking out those three principal players in that cell would have severely crippled, if not totally stopped, the operation that killed 3,000 people in America,” said Weldon.

Shining a spotlight on this intelligence gaffe has not been easy. Russ Caso, Weldon’s chief of staff, explained to GSN the steps his boss has taken to shed light on the situation.

Weldon spoke with Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, about conversations he has had with several members of the Able Danger intelligence unit. Weldon has urged Hoekstra to investigate the reasons why Able Danger’s revelations were not shared with the FBI. Hoekstra looked into the matter at the Pentagon, but after several days of fruitless inquiries, was unable to find anyone at the Defense Department who seemed to know anything about Able Danger or would acknowledge the intelligence unit had ever existed, explained Caso in a telephone interview with GSN.

Unwilling to let the matter drop, Weldon arranged for a face-to-face meeting in late July between Hoekstra, himself and the former intelligence officer who had worked with Able Danger, and who outlined his former unit’s evidence and recommendations for Hoekstra.

“Congressman Weldon has met with several people who were working on Able Danger to identify where Al Qaeda was set up around the world,” said Caso. “They made the suggestion that this information be passed to the FBI, and lawyers within the Defense Department -- whether within Special Ops or within OSD, we don’t know -- and the lawyers said, ‘No’.”

A report about some of these events appeared last June 19 in The Times Herald newspaper, of Norristown, PA, which is located in the Philadelphia suburbs that Rep. Weldon represents in Congress.

1:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home