Bush not trustworthy, no longer inspires

[Psychoblues]

Six years too late, but better late than never.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.

A majority of the American people, 55 percent, no longer believe Bush shares their values. They also are not sure if he is honest and trustworthy or if he understands complex issues, a CNN poll released Thursday reports. The poll was conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Nearly 53 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, and the same number believes he does not understand complex issues. Fifty-one percent also say he is not a strong leader.

Only 37 percent believe that the president inspires confidence, compared to 61 percent who say that he does not. In 2005, 46 percent thought the president inspired confidence. Bush fared much better in this category in 2001 following the September 11 terrorist attacks, when 75 percent said that he inspired confidence.

More: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/p...2/poll-bush-not-trustworthy-doesnt-share.html


I was never inspired by the boy child. I’m glad the rest of the nation is finally catching on.

Psychoblues

 

[Gunny]

Six years too late, but better late than never.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.

A majority of the American people, 55 percent, no longer believe Bush shares their values. They also are not sure if he is honest and trustworthy or if he understands complex issues, a CNN poll released Thursday reports. The poll was conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Nearly 53 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, and the same number believes he does not understand complex issues. Fifty-one percent also say he is not a strong leader.

Only 37 percent believe that the president inspires confidence, compared to 61 percent who say that he does not. In 2005, 46 percent thought the president inspired confidence. Bush fared much better in this category in 2001 following the September 11 terrorist attacks, when 75 percent said that he inspired confidence.

More: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/p...2/poll-bush-not-trustworthy-doesnt-share.html


I was never inspired by the boy child. I’m glad the rest of the nation is finally catching on.

Psychoblues

Wow. A CNN poll. About as objective as psychoblues. Did they poll you and your branchless family tree, or what?

 

[Merlin]

Six years too late, but better late than never.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.

More: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/p...2/poll-bush-not-trustworthy-doesnt-share.html


I was never inspired by the boy child. I’m glad the rest of the nation is finally catching on.

Psychoblues

Remember, President Lincoln was the most hated man in the United States up until well into the 20th century and was being considered being impeached by Congress before his death. His death was the only thing that stopped that. A lot of people is jealous of greatness and I think in time, Bush will surpass Lincoln by too far to even count the miles.

 

[Psychoblues]

Most hated man in the USofA? Where did you get that little nugget of misinformation? One thing is for sure, however. Lincoln would certainly not be any part of what calls itself the Republican Party in this day and age. As for his reputation in the long run he certainly was and remains one of the most intelligent and genuine Americans to ever have been endowed the mantle President of the United States of America. As far as your comparison is concerned, there is none. If you were comparing GWB with Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon or maybe even J.P. Stevens you might have a point.

Remember, President Lincoln was the most hated man in the United States up until well into the 20th century and was being considered being impeached by Congress before his death. His death was the only thing that stopped that. A lot of people is jealous of greatness and I think in time, Bush will surpass Lincoln by too far to even count the miles.

Psychoblues

 

[Gunny]

Most hated man in the USofA? Where did you get that little nugget of misinformation? One thing is for sure, however. Lincoln would certainly not be any part of what calls itself the Republican Party in this day and age. As for his reputation in the long run he certainly was and remains one of the most intelligent and genuine Americans to ever have been endowed the mantle President of the United States of America. As far as your comparison is concerned, there is none. If you were comparing GWB with Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon or maybe even J.P. Stevens you might have a point.



Psychoblues

As usual, you present a one-sided, dumber than a brick POV.

President Lincoln placed his idealism above the Constitution which resuled in the US Civil War.

He divided a Nation. Revisionist history ignores the fact that while he is creditted for re-uniting a Nation, he did it by force of arms. While he did not believe in slavery, he did believe blacks were inferior to whites -- he was a racist. While he did free the slaves, he dumped a bunch of people on the street who were hardly self-sufficient.

And he couldn't pick a good military leader if one came up with a sign on that said "Good Military Leader."

 

[akiboy]

Six years too late, but better late than never.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.

A majority of the American people, 55 percent, no longer believe Bush shares their values. They also are not sure if he is honest and trustworthy or if he understands complex issues, a CNN poll released Thursday reports. The poll was conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Nearly 53 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, and the same number believes he does not understand complex issues. Fifty-one percent also say he is not a strong leader.

Only 37 percent believe that the president inspires confidence, compared to 61 percent who say that he does not. In 2005, 46 percent thought the president inspired confidence. Bush fared much better in this category in 2001 following the September 11 terrorist attacks, when 75 percent said that he inspired confidence.

More: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/p...2/poll-bush-not-trustworthy-doesnt-share.html


I was never inspired by the boy child. I’m glad the rest of the nation is finally catching on.

Psychoblues

Well I am not familiar with Dubya's domestic policies but the way in which he tackled the grave situation after 9/11 was very very courageous. I dont think any other President could have handled the aftermath of 9/11 the way Bush did. Also as an Indian I believe he is the most friendliest U.S president. You might think I am pursuing my own agenda here but thats the way I perceive it. Also, I dont think AlGore or Clinton would go after Taliban/Al Qaeda the way Bush did.

 

[Merlin]

Most hated man in the USofA? Where did you get that little nugget of misinformation? One thing is for sure, however. Lincoln would certainly not be any part of what calls itself the Republican Party in this day and age. As for his reputation in the long run he certainly was and remains one of the most intelligent and genuine Americans to ever have been endowed the mantle President of the United States of America. As far as your comparison is concerned, there is none. If you were comparing GWB with Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon or maybe even J.P. Stevens you might have a point.



Psychoblues

I'm not going to put a link to all the history books. Go to the library sometime and read some of them.
Gunny, you hit it on the head with the exception of Lincoln freeing the slaves. He didn't give a darn about the slaves and even said so before he even thought about running for president. He even told the southern states he wouldn't try to free them in they didn't secede from the Union. President Buchanan before him was going to free them but the Supreme Court cited the IV amendment and wouldn't allow it. Two years into his Presidency, Jan. 1 1863, when the war was going bad, he came out with the Emancipation Proclamation, but neither side recognized it as being legal and Congress started thinking about impeaching him for it. After the war it was still an on going debate, but he died April 14th, 1865 and that stopped the debate of impeachment. Andrew Jackson took his place and asked Congress to take up the consideration of freeing the slaves and they did. They freed them 8 months and 3 weeks "AFTER" Lincolns death.

 

[trobinett]

Most hated man in the USofA? Where did you get that little nugget of misinformation? One thing is for sure, however. Lincoln would certainly not be any part of what calls itself the Republican Party in this day and age. As for his reputation in the long run he certainly was and remains one of the most intelligent and genuine Americans to ever have been endowed the mantle President of the United States of America. As far as your comparison is concerned, there is none. If you were comparing GWB with Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon or maybe even J.P. Stevens you might have a point.



Psychoblues

What you don't know, won't hurt you as bad as what you think you know, that ain't true.

 

[Bullypulpit]

As usual, you present a one-sided, dumber than a brick POV.

President Lincoln placed his idealism above the Constitution which resuled in the US Civil War.

He divided a Nation. Revisionist history ignores the fact that while he is creditted for re-uniting a Nation, he did it by force of arms. While he did not believe in slavery, he did believe blacks were inferior to whites -- he was a racist. While he did free the slaves, he dumped a bunch of people on the street who were hardly self-sufficient.

And he couldn't pick a good military leader if one came up with a sign on that said "Good Military Leader."

So, you'd rather we still had slavery? So everything going on today is Lincoln's fault? Do you realize just how silly your argument sounds?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well I am not familiar with Dubya's domestic policies but the way in which he tackled the grave situation after 9/11 was very very courageous. I dont think any other President could have handled the aftermath of 9/11 the way Bush did. Also as an Indian I believe he is the most friendliest U.S president. You might think I am pursuing my own agenda here but thats the way I perceive it. Also, I dont think AlGore or Clinton would go after Taliban/Al Qaeda the way Bush did.

Chimpy pissed away the world's goodwill in his invasion of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden has yet to be found, the Taliban AND Al Qaeda are making a comeback in Afghanistan. As an Indian, you should realize that Chimpy is in political bed with Pervez Musharraf, the leader of Pakistan, and a party to the violence in Kashmir. Broaden your reading a bit.

 

[dilloduck]

Chimpy pissed away the world's goodwill in his invasion of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden has yet to be found, the Taliban AND Al Qaeda are making a comeback in Afghanistan. As an Indian, you should realize that Chimpy is in political bed with Pervez Musharraf, the leader of Pakistan, and a party to the violence in Kashmir. Broaden your reading a bit.

only 2 more years, Bully---oh wait--the democrats can bring this all to a screeching halt ! They control congress.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not going to put a link to all the history books. Go to the library sometime and read some of them.
Gunny, you hit it on the head with the exception of Lincoln freeing the slaves. He didn't give a darn about the slaves and even said so before he even thought about running for president. He even told the southern states he wouldn't try to free them in they didn't secede from the Union. President Buchanan before him was going to free them but the Supreme Court cited the IV amendment and wouldn't allow it. Two years into his Presidency, Jan. 1 1863, when the war was going bad, he came out with the Emancipation Proclamation, but neither side recognized it as being legal and Congress started thinking about impeaching him for it. After the war it was still an on going debate, but he died April 14th, 1865 and that stopped the debate of impeachment. Andrew Jackson took his place and asked Congress to take up the consideration of freeing the slaves and they did. They freed them 8 months and 3 weeks "AFTER" Lincolns death.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves only in those states "in rebellion." It was a strategic move on Lincoln's part, presuming this would cause widespread escapes/attempted escapes in the South, and draw Southerners to police and guard the home front that otherwise would serve in the front lines of the war. Some slaves may have heard about it and tried to revolt or escape, but all in all, the strategy failed to have any real impact.

He did so on the heels of a claimed US victory at Antietam. In the end, the US held the field, and that is how it was presented. With adequate military leadership, they could have destroyed Lee's army then and there. So from the point of view that Lee escaped with his army intact, the US failed. The South failed in that they expected popular support from Marylanders; which, they did not receive, and they were forced to leave the field to the US.

 

[Gunny]

So, you'd rather we still had slavery? So everything going on today is Lincoln's fault? Do you realize just how silly your argument sounds?

People like you are so damned predictable it isn't even funny. I don't suppose it occurs to you how silly your dumb ass sounds when I made exactly NONE of the assertions that you have just supplied on my behalf.

I neither agreed with, nor do I agree with one human being owning another, nor did I say anything going on today was Lincoln's fault. I merely expressed an opinon that Lincoln was hardly the water-walker many attempt to present him as and presented a few reasons why.

Anything else you might be reading into it is your imagination.

 

[Gunny]

Chimpy pissed away the world's goodwill in his invasion of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden has yet to be found, the Taliban AND Al Qaeda are making a comeback in Afghanistan. As an Indian, you should realize that Chimpy is in political bed with Pervez Musharraf, the leader of Pakistan, and a party to the violence in Kashmir. Broaden your reading a bit.

One, Osama bin Laden is a symbol, and capturing or killing him is just destroying one symbol. It won't have that much real effect on the leadership of AQ.

Two, the Taliban and AQ making a comeback in Afghanistan while hiding in caves in Pakistan sure sounds threatening to me.

Before you go to giving geo-political history lessons, perhaps YOU should broaden YOUR reading.

 

[Bullypulpit]

One, Osama bin Laden is a symbol, and capturing or killing him is just destroying one symbol. It won't have that much real effect on the leadership of AQ.

Two, the Taliban and AQ making a comeback in Afghanistan while hiding in caves in Pakistan sure sounds threatening to me.

Before you go to giving geo-political history lessons, perhaps YOU should broaden YOUR reading.

Hamid Kharzai, Afghanistan's president, is little more than the Mayor of Kabul. The Taliban are re-establishing Sharia law in southern Afghanistan.

<blockquote> The last couple of years have seen the re-emergence of the hardline Islamic Taleban movement as a fighting force in Afghanistan.

Nearly five years after losing power in the country, the Taleban are making their presence felt by launching guerrilla operations against Nato forces, killing aid workers and kidnapping foreigners involved in reconstruction work.

Parts of eastern and southern Afghanistan have been rendered more and more insecure due to the increasingly daring Taleban attacks. - <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1549285.stm>BBC</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>Taliban forces have gained a particularly strong foothold in eastern and southern Afghanistan where the links between the pro-Taliban, ethnic Pashtun tribes in Pakistan and elements of the Afghan Taliban have become stronger in recent years. Despite the stationing of around 80,000 troops in the tribal areas along the border, Pakistan has been unable to prevent al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters from crossing the porous border into Afghanistan and to prevent the radicalization of its own tribal belt. The Taliban has found a particularly hospitable environment in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the border areas of neighboring Baluchistan. - <a href=http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=559&language_id=1>PINR</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>The Afghan-Pakistani border, a remote and lawless tribal region where Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are suspected of hiding, has become a major haven for Islamic militants. Beginning in 2003, Pakistan has launched a major military offensive on its western border to combat al-Qaeda, and to a lesser extent, the Taliban, deploying 80,000 troops. But the region remains firmly under militant control, the civilian population has been alienated by the army's heavy-handed tactics, and the Pakistan army has suffered 800 deaths.

In September, Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf signed a controversial peace agreement with seven militant groups, who call themselves the "Pakistan Taliban." Pakistan's army has agreed to withdraw from the area and allow the Taliban to govern themselves, as long as they promise no incursions into Afghanistan or against Pakistani troops. Critics say the deal hands terrorists a secure base of operations; supporters counter that a military solution against the Taliban is futile and will only spawn more militants, contending that containment is the only practical policy. - <a href=http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html>Who Are the Taliban? - Their history and their resurgence</a></blockquote>

Hardly sounds like they're squatting in caves to me. And thanks to our good friend and ally in the "war on terror", Pervez Musharraf, they now have a safe base of operations along the Afghan/Pakistani borders.

 

[Gunny]

Hamid Kharzai, Afghanistan's president, is little more than the Mayor of Kabul. The Taliban are re-establishing Sharia law in southern Afghanistan.

<blockquote> The last couple of years have seen the re-emergence of the hardline Islamic Taleban movement as a fighting force in Afghanistan.

Nearly five years after losing power in the country, the Taleban are making their presence felt by launching guerrilla operations against Nato forces, killing aid workers and kidnapping foreigners involved in reconstruction work.

Parts of eastern and southern Afghanistan have been rendered more and more insecure due to the increasingly daring Taleban attacks. - <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1549285.stm>BBC</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>Taliban forces have gained a particularly strong foothold in eastern and southern Afghanistan where the links between the pro-Taliban, ethnic Pashtun tribes in Pakistan and elements of the Afghan Taliban have become stronger in recent years. Despite the stationing of around 80,000 troops in the tribal areas along the border, Pakistan has been unable to prevent al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters from crossing the porous border into Afghanistan and to prevent the radicalization of its own tribal belt. The Taliban has found a particularly hospitable environment in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the border areas of neighboring Baluchistan. - <a href=http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=559&language_id=1>PINR</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>The Afghan-Pakistani border, a remote and lawless tribal region where Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are suspected of hiding, has become a major haven for Islamic militants. Beginning in 2003, Pakistan has launched a major military offensive on its western border to combat al-Qaeda, and to a lesser extent, the Taliban, deploying 80,000 troops. But the region remains firmly under militant control, the civilian population has been alienated by the army's heavy-handed tactics, and the Pakistan army has suffered 800 deaths.

In September, Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf signed a controversial peace agreement with seven militant groups, who call themselves the "Pakistan Taliban." Pakistan's army has agreed to withdraw from the area and allow the Taliban to govern themselves, as long as they promise no incursions into Afghanistan or against Pakistani troops. Critics say the deal hands terrorists a secure base of operations; supporters counter that a military solution against the Taliban is futile and will only spawn more militants, contending that containment is the only practical policy. - <a href=http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html>Who Are the Taliban? - Their history and their resurgence</a></blockquote>

Hardly sounds like they're squatting in caves to me. And thanks to our good friend and ally in the "war on terror", Pervez Musharraf, they now have a safe base of operations along the Afghan/Pakistani borders.

And of course you expected terrorism to be wiped out in its entirety, right? No you didn't. You just use an unattainable goal as the bar for failure for a Republican administration. A typical lib ploy. Nothing new here.

As long as there are those that hate and are intolerant of difference, and are willing to use violence as a means of expressing themselves terrorism will exist.

The only way to stamp out Islamic fundamentalism is to exterminate all Muslims. Is it that which you support?

 

[akiboy]

Chimpy pissed away the world's goodwill in his invasion of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden has yet to be found, the Taliban AND Al Qaeda are making a comeback in Afghanistan. As an Indian, you should realize that Chimpy is in political bed with Pervez Musharraf, the leader of Pakistan, and a party to the violence in Kashmir. Broaden your reading a bit.

Pardon me but Bush just signed an historic nuclear deal with India including India in the elite Nuclear Club. We can now procure fissile materials from the United States and other members of the NSG (Nuke SUppliers Group) for our reactors. Also , Bush didn't rebuke India when we tested our nuclear capable Prithvi cruise missile and our Anti-Ballistic missiles. Also , there were no eyebrows raised in Washington when New Delhi purchased the latest Mig fighters from Moscow. Also Bush has no qualms on our future Sagarika nuclear capable cruise missile which will undergoe testing in early 2007 or India's ICBM projects (Surya 1 and Surya 2) which will be ready by 2008 and
operational by 2015.

If Clinton or any other President was in power in Washington then there wouldn't be any nuclear deal nor would there be acceptance to India's missile projects.

I must mention Bush persuaded the U.S Congress to pass the nuke bill very efficiently. There were no hassles (unless you count the nuclear proliferation jerks raising their heads).

So is Bush friendly to India or not ? I think I have made my self clear.

Akshay


PS:- Washington has got enough evidence about Pak ISI involvement in the terror attacks in India this year and Musharraf has got a nice diplomatic rap from Bush warning him to stop terror in Kashmir and the Pak-Afghan border

 

[Bullypulpit]

And of course you expected terrorism to be wiped out in its entirety, right? No you didn't. You just use an unattainable goal as the bar for failure for a Republican administration. A typical lib ploy. Nothing new here.

As long as there are those that hate and are intolerant of difference, and are willing to use violence as a means of expressing themselves terrorism will exist.

The only way to stamp out Islamic fundamentalism is to exterminate all Muslims. Is it that which you support?

Only Chimpy McPresident seems to expect any kind of victory in the "war on terror".

And just what sort of "unattainable goal" are you talking about? A stable democracy in Afghanistan? That went by the wayside when Chimpy and Co decided to invade Iraq.

As for exterminating Muslims, you know that's pure BS on your part, as were my remarks about slavery. Extremes serve no purpose but polarization and discord.

 

[Gunny]

Only Chimpy McPresident seems to expect any kind of victory in the "war on terror".

There can be victory in the war against Islamic terrorists in as far as it is minimized to its fullest. But that would require ruthless aggression; which, is not PC.

Terrorism has been around as long as Man. In and of itself, it is a tactic and cannot be "destroyed."

And just what sort of "unattainable goal" are you talking about? A stable democracy in Afghanistan? That went by the wayside when Chimpy and Co decided to invade Iraq.

A stable, western-style democracy was never attainable in Afghanistan, and that was not the mission. It's hard to get people to embrace a concept they can't fathom.

As for exterminating Muslims, you know that's pure BS on your part, as were my remarks about slavery. Extremes serve no purpose but polarization and discord.

Exterminating all Muslims would achieve the goal. I'm not talking ethics, just tactics.

You should know about extremes serving no purpose but polaraization and discord .... you've been swinging it like a battleaxe as if no one was onto you for as long as I have been a member of this board.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Exterminating all Muslims would achieve the goal. I'm not talking ethics, just tactics.

You should know about extremes serving no purpose but polaraization and discord .... you've been swinging it like a battleaxe as if no one was onto you for as long as I have been a member of this board.

Extreme? When the occasion warrants it. Mostly, I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. It's not my fault Chimpy and Co's excesses are so worthy of so much outrage.