PDA

View Full Version : New polls out, Bush slip sliding away


Mavdog
04-06-2004, 10:14 AM
It seems that GWBush is not viewed by the public as favorably today as he was at the turn of the year. The job approval ratings have declined, the public is sensing that the War in Iraq isn't going as planned, his approach to the War on Terror is not as acceptable, and the public is getting concerned about the price of gasoline. Bottom line is that there is a feeling that the current administration isn't being honest with the American public...a very bad trend in an election year.

Is this the first sign of the same conundrum his father went through? It could be a "long, cold lonely summer" for the Pres...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Survey Reports

Public Support for War Steady, But Bush Job Ratings Slip
After Falluja

Released: April 5, 2004

Summary of Findings

Public support for war in Iraq has been unaffected by the murders and desecration of the corpses of American citizens in Falluja. However, continued turmoil and violence in Iraq may be taking a toll on President Bush's approval ratings. More Americans now disapprove of the way he is doing his job than approve, though by only a slight margin (47% disapprove vs. 43% approve). Just four-in-ten approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, his lowest rating ever and down from 59% in January. Bush's evaluations on other issues the economy, energy and even terrorism have fallen as well. And by a wide margin (57% to 32%) the public does not think he has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion.

Nonetheless, nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) continue to believe that the United States made the right decision in using military force against Iraq, which is unchanged from a mid-March Pew survey. However, public attitudes toward most aspects of the U.S. mission in Iraq have turned more negative since January, in the aftermath of the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Just 50% of Americans favor keeping troops in Iraq until a stable government is established there, while 44% support bringing the troops home as soon as possible. In January, the public by nearly two-to-one favored maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed (63%-32%).

The latest Pew Research Center national survey of 790 adults, conducted April 1-4, finds just 39% approve of Bush's handling of the economy, in spite of a government report released April 2 showing a sharp increase in job growth.

At this point, the spiraling price of gas may be overshadowing jobs on the public's radar. Public attention to news about rising gas prices, already quite high, increased markedly in early April fully 58% paid very close attention to reports on the high price of gasoline, compared with 36% who followed the recent attacks on Americans in Iraq very closely. Only about three-in-ten (29%) approve of Bush's handling of energy policy.

The president continues to receive majority support for his handling of terrorism (53% approve), down from 64% last September. Bush's ratings on this issue also declined in other national polls following allegations by former White House aide Richard Clarke that the administration did not treat terrorism as an urgent priority before Sept. 11.

In general, the public feels news organizations did a good job of covering the disturbing events in Falluja, while being careful to avoid presenting overly graphic images. Half feel news organizations did a good job in this regard, while 21% think news organizations showed too many graphic images and 7% felt the media held back too much.

In general, however, public attention to those events, while broad, was not overwhelming. A narrow majority (55%) say they saw video or pictures of the American citizens who were killed in Falluja, while 45% say they did not. Among those who report seeing these images, two-thirds say news organizations struck the right balance between showing important news while being careful about the graphic nature of the images.

Dooby
04-06-2004, 10:32 AM
I know what the poll says, but isn't it interesting that it isn't helping Kerry one bit? Zogby poll taken over the same time frame shows Bush with a lead.

National polls this far out are meaningless. In my mind all the polls are showing is that the american people are looking for a reason to vote for Bush; they want to vote for Bush. It all comes down to whether Bush can give them a good reason to do it. But I don't think it is directly Bush related; I think that is the advantage of incumbancy. Kerry has to win this election, while all Bush has to do is not lose.

MavsFanatik33
04-06-2004, 10:35 AM
I'm no political nut, but why would someone not vote for Bush? he's done everything a president should

Ok, here comes the Bush hating...

Dooby
04-06-2004, 10:37 AM
Interestingly, the same Zogby poll has arguably an even worse job approval rating for Bush than the Pew Research poll. But Bush is still winning. Hmmmm....

MavsFanatik33
04-06-2004, 10:39 AM
I DEMAND A RECOUNT!

Drbio
04-06-2004, 11:06 AM
Bush should be re-elected. Noone but the far left and uninformed actually believe Kerry in their heart. The Dems were screwed when Kerry became the front runner. There were better choices for them available than Kerry.

Mavdog
04-06-2004, 11:16 AM
The Pew poll suggests that there is increasing disenchantment with the Bush Administration among the American public. The handling of the War in Iraq is increasingly becoming a negative as more information is being digested by the voters that is not positive, especially as the rationale for the invasion comes apart at the seams.

The economy is improving as we see job growth start to rebound (although tenuous) so this may not be a negative issue come this fall. The price of gas seems to be very important to the public, and any further disruption in the oil markets will be a very negative result for Bush.

The change on the opinion of Bush's handling of the War on Terror is short term IMHO, due to the poor handling of the 9/11 commission as well as the onslaught against Clarke. The Bush WH made Clarke a very sympathetic person when they unleashed the attack dogs against him. It would have been much better for the Bush WH if they had been less aggressive on Clarke.

The Bush campaign isn't crashing but these numbers tell a story, that if Kerry can get some momentum Bush is in trouble.

Dooby
04-06-2004, 11:40 AM
On the contrary, I don't think people do care about the price of gas. I mean, you ask people and they say they care. But people just like to bitch. It hasn't led people to buy smaller cars or more efficient cars. They don't take the bus in great numbers and leave their cars at home. They don't move close to the city. People don't drive around looking for the lowest price of gas. Most people drive up to the station and pay without ever looking at the price. It is just something people do. And again, adjusted for inflation gas is as cheap as it has ever been, plus there are additional taxes and environmental costs added.

Also, if you examine the public opinion on Clarke, it is split almost entirely on party lines. I think the Bush whitehouse handled the Clarke thing perfectly. The current conventional wisdom is that it hurt Kerry because it refocused the public's attention on the war on terror and away from the economy. Let's be honest, does anybody think Condoleeza Rice is going to go before the 9/11 panel and do anything but shine? This is a woman that exudes confidence and authority with every breath and she is going to go before the panel and say George Bush is a great president. She is going to make an introduction, and be treated with the utmost respect by everyone in part because they don't want to look like they are attacking her and she is going to knock every softball question out of the park. And it is going to dominate the national news. Why democrats are looking forward to thursday is beyond me.

MavKikiNYC
04-06-2004, 12:05 PM
The Bush WH made Clarke a very sympathetic person when they unleashed the attack dogs against him. It would have been much better for the Bush WH if they had been less aggressive on Clarke.

I disagree on two counts.

Clarke is a sympathetic figure only to the most liberal talking heads making the rounds on the political talkshows. The WH has appropriately engaged his credibility, now lain low by his numerous contradictory statements; and Rice should provide a strong refutation of the crumb of substance that his allegations promised.

Only in the Dims' wettest dreams would the WH have allowed a tool like Clarke to've whaled away at the Bush administrataion's handling of national security without lifting a finger in self-defense---that might be how Democrats would respond (on many levels), but as the invasion of Iraq suggests, that's not GWB's style. And I, for one, am thankful.

Mavdog
04-06-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by: Dooby
On the contrary, I don't think people do care about the price of gas. I mean, you ask people and they say they care. But people just like to bitch. It hasn't led people to buy smaller cars or more efficient cars. They don't take the bus in great numbers and leave their cars at home. They don't move close to the city. People don't drive around looking for the lowest price of gas. Most people drive up to the station and pay without ever looking at the price. It is just something people do. And again, adjusted for inflation gas is as cheap as it has ever been, plus there are additional taxes and environmental costs added.

It's all about perception, the public sees that they are paying x amout more and want to lay the blame on somebody. The government is easy to blame. The fact that the average driver hasn't done anything to reduce their consumption of gas by buying more fuel efficient vehicles (what is up with all these humongous gas guzzling SUVs anyway? I have NO sympathy for these drivers and the increasing gas prices) means that increasing costs of gas at the retail level is even more apparent when they are buying gas every few days.


Also, if you examine the public opinion on Clarke, it is split almost entirely on party lines. I think the Bush whitehouse handled the Clarke thing perfectly. The current conventional wisdom is that it hurt Kerry because it refocused the public's attention on the war on terror and away from the economy. Let's be honest, does anybody think Condoleeza Rice is going to go before the 9/11 panel and do anything but shine? This is a woman that exudes confidence and authority with every breath and she is going to go before the panel and say George Bush is a great president. She is going to make an introduction, and be treated with the utmost respect by everyone in part because they don't want to look like they are attacking her and she is going to knock every softball question out of the park. And it is going to dominate the national news. Why democrats are looking forward to thursday is beyond me.

totally disagree on Clarke. The fact that people are still talking about him shows that the onslaught against him kept his name, and his comments, in the news longer than it would otherwise be. His 15 minutes is going on a half hour now...

Rice will do fine, nobody is going to attack her. Clarke is the only witness who was attacked, and as I said before that was unneeded. What is anyone expecting, that a witness will say "We all knew but we didn't want to stop it"? Everyone, including Clarke, admit that there was really no way to prevent the attack unless the group did something dumb to reveal themselves.

The bigger question is why Bush demanded to be interviewed only with Cheney...does he need Cheny there to tell him what to say?

Dooby
04-06-2004, 12:13 PM
I don't think people really are talking about Clarke anymore.


The bigger question is why Bush demanded to be interviewed only with Cheney...does he need Cheny there to tell him what to say?

I admit that I have no explanation for this. I don't even know what the whitehouse explanation is. It is odd. But then again, the whole hearings are odd.

MavKikiNYC
04-06-2004, 12:53 PM
Excerpts from an article in yesterday's NYTimes

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable
By PHILIP SHENON
Published: April 5, 2004
WASHINGTON, April 4 The leaders of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks agreed Sunday that evidence gathered by their panel showed the attacks could probably have been prevented.

Their remarks drew sharp disagreement from one of President Bush's closest political advisers, who insisted that the Bush and Clinton administrations had no opportunity to disrupt the Sept. 11 plot. They also offered a preview of the difficult questions likely to confront Condoleezza Rice when she testifies before the panel at a long-awaited public hearing this week.

In a joint television interview, the commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic House member from Indiana, indicated that their final report this summer would find that the Sept. 11 attacks were preventable.

They also suggested that Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, would be questioned aggressively on Thursday about why the administration had not taken more action against Al Qaeda before Sept. 11, and about discrepancies between her public statements and those of Richard A. Clarke, the president's former counterterrorism chief, who has accused the administration of largely ignoring terrorist threats in 2001.

"The whole story might have been different," Mr. Kean said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," outlining a series of intelligence and law enforcement blunders in the months and years before the attacks. "There are so many threads and so many things, individual things, that happened," he said. "If we had been able to put those people on the watch list of the airlines, the two who were in the country; again, if we'd stopped some of these people at the borders; if we had acted earlier on Al Qaeda when Al Qaeda was smaller and just getting started."

... ... 3-4 paragraphs later

Mr. Hamilton, a former chairman of the House Intelligence and International Relations committees, said, "There are a lot of ifs; you can string together a whole bunch of ifs, and if things had broken right in all kinds of different ways, as the governor has identified, and frankly if you'd had a little luck, it probably could have been prevented." He said the panel would "make a final judgment on that, I believe, when the commission reports."

Mr. Kean has made similar remarks in the past, but commission officials said it appeared to be the first time Mr. Hamilton, the chief Democrat on the panel, had said publicly that he believed the attacks could have been prevented.
... ...
Also appearing on "Meet the Press," Karen P. Hughes, one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers and an important strategist for his re-election campaign, rejected the suggestion that the attacks could have been prevented.

"I just don't think, based on everything I know, and I was there, that there was anything that anyone in government could have done to have put together the pieces before the horror of that day," Ms. Hughes said. "If we could have in either administration, either in the eight years of the Clinton administration or the seven and a half months of the Bush administration, I'm convinced we would have done so."

Since Mr. Clarke made his charges against the Bush administration in a new book and in highly publicized testimony before the Sept. 11 commission, public opinion polls have suggested that while Mr. Bush's overall approval rating is unchanged, public support for his handling of terrorism has slipped.

madape
04-06-2004, 01:02 PM
The minimal negative impact of this will last about as long as the whole Air National Guard AWOL thing. The democrats can try, but they will never be able to convince people that Kerry is tougher on terrorism, or stronger on defense than Bush. It's a fruitless effort. The dhims can wail and pout and cry, but on election day, 99% of the people who consider defense and the war on terror the most important issues facing this country will vote Bush. The more this issue is talked about, the more engraned this issue becomes in the minds of the populace. Fighting Bush on terrorism is a losing strategy for the dhims.

And while the left is pumping all their resources into sliming Bush's historic fight against terror, the republicans are hitting Kerry where it counts - defining him as a liberal, tax-raising, elitist, Massachusetts democrat.

MavKikiNYC
04-06-2004, 01:08 PM
I find this reporting very, very slanted in its depiction of what the commission's findings will be. (So they've already reached conclusions?)

The article characterizes the commissioners' findings as being that the attacks were preventable, taking great care to obscure their quotes saying that a LOT of IFs would've had to fall into place.

IMO, to say that the attacks were preventable pretty much flies in the face of common sense, and no matter how hard media outlets like the NYTimes try to spin the facts to the contrary, I believe that the average sentient voter knows and understands this.

The reference to poll results in the final paragraph is also telling--GWB's admin has taken the Dims' best punch (and in terms of political theater it was a good one), but this only influences public perception over handling of terrorism, not his overall approval rating.

Will be interesting to see if/how these numbers rebound after Rice's testimony.

If I were part of the vast left-wing conspiracy that is the Kerry campaign and the liberal media, I would be worried.

Mavdog
04-06-2004, 01:25 PM
I see a trend in the Pew poll that should be very disconcerting to the Bush campaign;

"The president continues to receive majority support for his handling of terrorism (53% approve), down from 64% last September. Bush's ratings on this issue also declined in other national polls following allegations by former White House aide Richard Clarke that the administration did not treat terrorism as an urgent priority before Sept. 11."

So there has been a approx. 20% decrease in the public's opinion of GWBush's handling of the War on Terror. With the campaign putting the War on Terror as their front and center issue, they better hope that there is no further erosion in the public's support or there's trouble in November.

My expectation is that the dem campaign will hammer the Iraqi situation as a distraction in the war against al Queda. That will have traction IMHO as the justification for the invasion is shown to not be based as much as an extension of the War of Terror as it is other rationale less easily defended. Bush hasn't seen "the demos best punch", that'll come closer to the election.

Usually Lurkin
04-06-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
IMO, to say that the attacks were preventable pretty much flies in the face of common sense, and no matter how hard media outlets like the NYTimes try to spin the facts to the contrary, I believe that the average sentient voter knows and understands this.

The more important question is: what has been done since then to reduce the possibility that it could happen again? This is how the Bush admin should be judged - not on what happened before 9/11. Before 9/11, 9/11 just wasn't a possibility - in anyones minds. Everyone who thought that such an attack was outside the realm of possibility shares responsibility for the error of that view. But there was simply no way then to know that such a view was in error.

MavKikiNYC
04-06-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
I see a trend in the Pew poll that should be very disconcerting to the Bush campaign;

"The president continues to receive majority support for his handling of terrorism (53% approve), down from 64% last September. Bush's ratings on this issue also declined in other national polls following allegations by former White House aide Richard Clarke that the administration did not treat terrorism as an urgent priority before Sept. 11."

So there has been a approx. 20% decrease in the public's opinion of GWBush's handling of the War on Terror. With the campaign putting the War on Terror as their front and center issue, they better hope that there is no further erosion in the public's support or there's trouble in November.

My expectation is that the dem campaign will hammer the Iraqi situation as a distraction in the war against al Queda. That will have traction IMHO as the justification for the invasion is shown to not be based as much as an extension of the War of Terror as it is other rationale less easily defended. Bush hasn't seen "the demos best punch", that'll come closer to the election.

There has been a change in public perception vis a vis the Bush administration's counter-terrorism policies and initiatives because Clarke's allegations/book campaign got long and loving coverage from the media. Again, I predict that Rice's testimony will counter any negative trend.

If by "other rationale less easily defended" you mean the "U.S. wants Iraqi oil" argument, that discordant, one-note samba of a song only seems get to play abroad. Fortunately, Europeans won't be voting in November.

Finally, do you have a sense of what the Dims' next "best punch" will be? Or are you just hoping there is one.

Mavdog
04-06-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
[quote]
There has been a change in public perception vis a vis the Bush administration's counter-terrorism policies and initiatives because Clarke's allegations/book campaign got long and loving coverage from the media. Again, I predict that Rice's testimony will counter any negative trend.

Rice will be very eloquent and give a positive impression. I don't expect that the majority of Americans will be glued to theur TV sets tho, so it's a good question as to the real affact of her appearance on these negative trailing poll numbers.


If by "other rationale less easily defended" you mean the "U.S. wants Iraqi oil" argument, that discordant, one-note samba of a song only seems get to play abroad. Fortunately, Europeans won't be voting in November.

The rationale for attacking Iraq has been linked to the War on Terrorism, and that is showing to be less and less credible and in fact a bogus excuse. The WH will need to come to its own defense on this, and that will be difficult as the situation continues to deteriorate.


Finally, do you have a sense of what the Dims' next "best punch" will be? Or are you just hoping there is one.

The campaign has just started...each side has some punchs to give, and they certainly wouldn't have rolled them out this early. They each need their "dry powder" as it were for this fall.

MavKikiNYC
04-06-2004, 02:17 PM
The rationale for attacking Iraq has been linked to the War on Terrorism, and that is showing to be less and less credible and in fact a bogus excuse.

On the contrary.

There could not have been an effective war on terrorism, without there also having been an invasion of terrorist- harboring and terrorist-supporting nation(s) like Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether, in hindsight, one can tolerate that WMDs have yet to be found, or that the coalition relied upon unproven (or disproven even) allegations that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials is ultimately not the point. Given Iraq's record, and given the information the administration had at the time, I'm perfectly comfortable with a probabilistic justification for invading Iraq.

What's bogus is the post-facto opposition by schmucks like Kerry.

Dooby
04-06-2004, 02:32 PM
Mavdog, I have bad news for you. The Rice testomony is getting hyped up at a level just below that of Ollie North in Iran-Contra and far greater than the testimony of Powell and Albright. The damn thing has two weeks of buildup. It will dominate the national news the night before. People will be paying attention.

Mavdog
04-06-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

The rationale for attacking Iraq has been linked to the War on Terrorism, and that is showing to be less and less credible and in fact a bogus excuse.

On the contrary.

There could not have been an effective war on terrorism, without there also having been an invasion of terrorist- harboring and terrorist-supporting nation(s) like Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether, in hindsight, one can tolerate that WMDs have yet to be found, or that the coalition relied upon unproven (or disproven even) allegations that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials is ultimately not the point. Given Iraq's record, and given the information the administration had at the time, I'm perfectly comfortable with a probabilistic justification for invading Iraq.

What's bogus is the post-facto opposition by schmucks like Kerry.

Totally disagree with the conclusion that to have an "effective war on terrorism" that a State, which has not been shown to support al Queda, to supply al Queda or to give refuge to al Queda, should require invasion and regime change.

There is absolutely NO linkage between al Queda and Hussein, and therefore the justification of the Iraq War as an appendage of the War on Terrorism is fraudulent.

What is truly bogus is the information that was fed to the American public to support the invasion, as that information has been proven to not be factual.

Mavdog
04-06-2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by: Dooby
Mavdog, I have bad news for you. The Rice testomony is getting hyped up at a level just below that of Ollie North in Iran-Contra and far greater than the testimony of Powell and Albright. The damn thing has two weeks of buildup. It will dominate the national news the night before. People will be paying attention.

It certainly wouldn't be "bad news" for me...I, just like many here, just want the truth.

Clearly you have a much greater regard for the average American's attention span than I do.

MavKikiNYC
04-06-2004, 04:08 PM
....which has not been shown to support al Queda, to supply al Queda or to give refuge to al Queda, should require invasion and regime change.

There is absolutely NO linkage between al Queda and Hussein, and therefore the justification of the Iraq War as an appendage of the War on Terrorism is fraudulent.

These are incorrect, not to mention wholly implausible.

And if one requires 100%-incontroveritble proof of red-handed collaboartion before a nation moves to defend itself, then one could be sifting through the ruins of BoA Plaza before one has a chance to react.

It shouldn't take that to justify a nation's defending itself.

Mavdog
04-06-2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

....which has not been shown to support al Queda, to supply al Queda or to give refuge to al Queda, should require invasion and regime change.

There is absolutely NO linkage between al Queda and Hussein, and therefore the justification of the Iraq War as an appendage of the War on Terrorism is fraudulent.

These are incorrect, not to mention wholly implausible.

And if one requires 100%-incontroveritble proof of red-handed collaboartion before a nation moves to defend itself, then one could be sifting through the ruins of BoA Plaza before one has a chance to react.

It shouldn't take that to justify a nation's defending itself.

Not incorrect, and I'd love to see any factual contradiction you can provide.

america should o everything to protect itself from those that are attacking it. Iraq does not fall within this definition as they had no weapons which could threaten America nor the means of delivering those weapons if they did come about getting them. They were in no way connected with 9/11.

I invite you to prove me wrong on that statement.

MavKikiNYC
04-06-2004, 05:02 PM
Not incorrect, and I'd love to see any factual contradiction you can provide.

They (Iraqis) were in no way connected with 9/11.

I invite you to prove me wrong on that statement.

What is your threshhold for contradiction? What will you accept as evidence to the contrary?

I mean, I don't want to pursue video clips when interviews of captured Iraqi military and intelligence agents might suffice.

Mavdog
04-06-2004, 05:48 PM
With due respect Kiki, I already know the answer. The hope that evidence exists has been dashed by the failure of the current administration to reveal such; testimony at the 9/11 hearings are constant in the opinion that there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq; and I would be comfortable in wagering that Condi testifies with the same conclusion if asked.

The "captured Iraqi military and intelligence agents" wouldn't be very credible if their motivation is to save their hides now would it? These prisoners would tell us anything that they feel would be to their own benefit in getting the best treatment.

Ask yourself why the Bush WH doesn't offer us any evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11...it is because they can't.

So yes, if you can produce such a connection all of America (including the Bush WH) would like to see it.

madape
04-06-2004, 06:33 PM
What does this contested point about Saddam and 9/11 have to do with anything anyway? Iraq was all about a broader war on terror. I don't remember Bush ever saying that the reason we went into Iraq was because Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The Bush adminstration made their case to the UN by arguing that Iraq had violated dozens of UN ordinances regarding their weapons programs (they did... constantly. making a joke out of the UN in the process).

It was a legal war, and a war that unquestionably fits into a war on terror . If you don't beleive that, I can find you boat loads of documentation of Saddam funding terrorist organizations, allowing terrorists to set up training camps in Iraq, creating and USING biological terror weapons himself, etc etc...


There is also quite a bit of evidence showing that Iraqi agents met with Al Qaeda operatives several times prior to 9-11. I know you've seen the evidence before, because you've commented on it in the lounge area. I'm guessing that you've selectively ignored it.

MavKikiNYC
04-06-2004, 06:37 PM
With all due respect, Mavdog, I believe the goal line is moving.


There is absolutely NO linkage between al Queda and Hussein, ...

is not the same as


They (Iraqis) were in no way connected with 9/11.

Even so, there is considerable evidence of linkage between al Quaeda and Hussein's government, dating back more than a decade, and from multiple intelligence agencies and sources, both foreign and domestic.

Link (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=198710)

It's pretty dry reading, but I"ll give you the conclusion up front:


...CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.

So Feith's memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a "Cliff's Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.

Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don't know. We may someday find out.

But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.

So while not yet providing the DNA-fingerprint of Iraq on 9-11 that some seem to seek, there is substantial basis to establish the plausibility of Iraqi involvement, perhaps even a probability.

One might (more or less legitimately) raise the question of whether captured Iraqi agents were providing credible evidence, but when the reports come from multiple sources, over an extended period of time, and in many cases corroborated independently, then I think the individual facts are not so easily dismissed.

After the U.S. was attacked, it rightly, justly and appropriately began a policy of pre-emptive deterrence--not sitting around waiting for another attack to provide the justification for further response, but identifying the most likely threats and eliminating both them and their sources of support. And as these intelligence reports show, there was plenty of reason to regard Iraq as a threat because of its past support of and contacts with al-Quaeda.

This is what's most maddeningly hypocritical to me--the same Dim-wits who criticize the Bush administration for not doing enough in its 8 months in office to prevent an unpreventable attack, then turn around and in the next breath criticize the Bush administration for having gone too far to avert future threats. This type of opposition is patently unprincipled and transparently political.

reeds
04-06-2004, 08:44 PM
AWSOME- the public may be waking up...

Mavdog
04-06-2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
With all due respect, Mavdog, I believe the goal line is moving.

There is absolutely NO linkage between al Queda and Hussein, ...

is not the same as

They (Iraqis) were in no way connected with 9/11.

Even so, there is considerable evidence of linkage between al Quaeda and Hussein's government, dating back more than a decade, and from multiple intelligence agencies and sources, both foreign and domestic.

To quote your favorite ex-terrorism chief, Dick Clarke, here's his statement in regard to aby connection between al Queda and iraq, as well as Iraq and 9/11:

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Your link is one of the "research papers" written by the Office of Special Plans and the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group which were established by Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith and other defense hawks. These are the folks who brought us the African Uranium hoax, and the clearly incorrect "imminent threat" of Saddam Hussein's WMD.


This is what's most maddeningly hypocritical to me--the same Dim-wits who criticize the Bush administration for not doing enough in its 8 months in office to prevent an unpreventable attack, then turn around and in the next breath criticize the Bush administration for having gone too far to avert future threats. This type of opposition is patently unprincipled and transparently political.

I don't blame Bush for 9/11. However, the invasion of Iraq does not 'avert future threats" and may very well be an unfortunate distraction from the war against terrorism.

dude1394
04-07-2004, 12:12 AM
MavskikiNYC. It really doesn't matter much what mavdog reads, hears or whatever. He will always come to the same conclusion. Clinton said that regime change was our policy with respect to Iraq. Clinton said they had WMDs. His WIFE said they had WMDs. France, Germany, Russia the consensus of the WORLD was that he had wmd. The security councel voted unanimously to give him one more chance. The US congress voted overwhelmingly to give Bush authorization to go to war.

All of those people were just what?? Confused? Mistaken? No MISLED!!! Because after all of that crap and 10 years+ of sanctions/no-fly zones.. US bombing Iraq (without anyone's by-your-leave). You know what the real answer is going to be. BUSH LIED!! The democrats are mostly just pathetic. They don't have a clue how to deal with being out of power. It's actually scary to think they could be elected.

MavKikiNYC
04-07-2004, 08:41 AM
So, Dog....are you rejecting that any of those events documented in those intelligence reports ever took place?

They're making the whole thing up?

Mavdog
04-07-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
So, Dog....are you rejecting that any of those events documented in those intelligence reports ever took place?

They're making the whole thing up?

I find it contradictory that the sources in the link are CIA (who has not EVER publically stated a connection) and also the FBI, who would not be involved in espionage investigations outside the US.

The infamous Prague meeting is mentioned, which is not a verified encounter and in fact most likely false.

The statement toward the end is that this memo is "the Cliffs notes version" and the evidence will be forthcoming. Don't you ask where the evidence is? Why would we be here a year after the war and nothing has been shown to legitimze the invasion?

Ask yourself this...if you were in the GWBush WH and campaign, isn't a verified rationale for invading iraq almost a guaranteed reelection? They would have it out the door and in the press in a nanosecond.

I would welsome a valid justification for this war. IMHO it is lacking, and it seems like such a series of missteps, a tremendous loss of life and also a huge cost to our country that, again IMHO, was avoidable.