Originally posted by bamthin
Zogby says 49% as of January 18th.
-Bam
In other words, they polled only NH, and about .0000000001% of the nation.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by bamthin
Zogby says 49% as of January 18th.
-Bam
Originally posted by jimnyc
In other words, they polled only NH, and about .0000000001% of the nation.
Originally posted by bamthin
No that sample was nationwide.
-Bam
Originally posted by wonderwench
Nice use of selective polls results bammie.
Here's a wider perspective, most recent from a variety of sources:
Newsweek - 50%
Fox - 53%
ABC/Washingon Post - 58%
Zogby - 49%
CNN/Time - 54%
CBS/NY Time - 50%
Gallup & CNN/USA Today - 54%
NBC News & WSH - 54%
Pew Research Center - 56%
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Take a look at the Negative ratings in each of these. Bush is still viewed for more favorably than he is negatively.
Originally posted by wonderwench
Bush experience a brief surge right after Saddam was captured, and now his approval levels have dipped down again.
Nothing strange about that at all.
Originally posted by Kathianne
Bam it's becoming obvious that you refuse to actually discuss, just want to screed. While you make broad generalizations from your 'sources' you jump on a rounding factor that WW made.
I produced evidence to the contrary and discredited the theory.
Originally posted by jimnyc
I just love it how some are constantly speaking out against death of any sort, as ammunition against Bush. Then in the next breath they'll state he didn't do enough to kill someone, as ammunition against Bush.
Let's turn this around for a second. Bam, was war declared prior to 9/11? Are you saying you support murder?
I support my President protecting the country and Bush failed to do that.
Clinton tried to take out bin Laden and I had no problem with that.
And why shouldn't war have been declared BEFORE 9/11 if all the evidence against Clinton is so damning?
Bush had nine months to declare war before 9/11. Bush was sternly warned that Bin Laden was a real threat and needed to be pursued
Then, the CIA presented opportunities to Bush to take out Bin Laden, but Bush was too busy planning the Iraq invasion and not paying attention to the real threat.
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...Osama Bin Laden was initially funded by the CIA during Russias invasion of Afghanistan, along with other mujahedin, many of whom later became the Taliban. And if we go back further, there are established financial ties between Dubbyuh when he headed up Harken Energy and Khalid bin Mafouhz, former BCCI banker and brother-in-law to Osama Bin Laden.
Bin Laden is another Frankenstein created by short-sighted US foreign policy, under Republicrat and Demopublican administrations.
Originally posted by jimnyc
And our government thinks the War on Terrorism is protecting our country. Iraq is a huge part of this war, but you don't support that initiative. Although it's part of the overall war on terror, you would rather focus on any issue you can to bash Bush.
Originally posted by jimnyc
When? Are you speaking of the 3 times Sudan offered to hand him over and Clinton declined?
Originally posted by jimnyc
Declare war on one man? You can't support a war after nearly 3,000 deaths, do you expect us to believe you would have supported a declaration of war on one man?
Originally posted by jimnyc
Declare war with whom?
Originally posted by jimnyc
And you have proof of this of course? Something other than that pathetic O'Neill please. You'll notice he still hasn't released any proof of his assertions. Why do you think it is he won't release this supposed evidence?
And I think that Bush is not to be trusted with a blank check to wage this war. Iraq has little, if anything, to do with 9/11 and is no threat to the US. Bush does not make me feel safer, on the contrary, he makes me feel LESS safe.
I am refering to the missle strike in Sudan, which, by the way was lambasted by the GOP witchhunters as a Lewinsky distraction tactic. The events that you are refering to in 1996 are a little more involved than that. But I guess you got the Drudge report version. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden from Sudan, but at the time, there was no case to indict him. It was our Constitution that prevented Bin Laden from coming here, not Clinton's refusal. Clinton tried to have Saudi Arabia accept and deal with Bin Laden because there justice system is more "streamlined", but they refused, That's how Bin Laden ended up in Afghanistan where he later was complicit in the Khartoum, Cole and 9/11 attacks.
You seem to have wanted Clinton to do that.
Isn't the gist of the argument against Clinton is that he treated the WTC attack as a criminal problem rather than declaring a war on terrorism?
This is the underlying theme in the conspiracy to blame Clinton for 9/11. At least that's how I have read it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The same "whom" we are now. The elements of terrorism responsible for 9/11. (not just peripheral countries that have no connection to 9/11)
Another Bush administration official backed up O'Neill's assertion.
Originally posted by jimnyc
Missing the point? What the hell does this have to do with Clinton's actions in handling Bin Laden? When a terrorist is offered to you on a silver platter, you either accept or turn down the offer. Clinton declined.
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The Dems and Repubs have BOTH blown it. Dubbyuh blew a chance while Bin Laden was hospitalized in early 2001.
BTW, if Osama Bin Laden is still alive, where is he getting his dialysis supplies from?
Originally posted by jimnyc
Missing the point? What the hell does this have to do with Clinton's actions in handling Bin Laden? When a terrorist is offered to you on a silver platter, you either accept or turn down the offer. Clinton declined.