Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

GOOD NEWS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA


"After Barack Obama's first six weeks as president, the American public's attitudes about the two political parties couldn't be more different, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds. Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House."

"What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank."

"By comparison, the Republican Party — which resisted Obama's recently passed stimulus plan and has criticized the spending in his budget — finds its favorability at an all-time low. It also receives most of the blame for the current partisanship in Washington and trails the Democrats by nearly 30 percentage points on the question of which party could best lead the nation out of recession."



Last week's Post-ABC News poll shows that voters trust President Obama on the economy by a remarkable 35 percentage points more than they trust Republicans in Congress -- the biggest advantage for a president on this question since George H.W. Bush basked in public approval of his handling of the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

The source of Obama's advantage is critical: independent voters, who give the president high marks on his handling of the economy and his job overall.

Obama won these voters, who famously recoil from what they see as overly partisan and shortsighted politics, by eight points in 2008 -- a dramatic improvement for the Democrats from 2004, when George Bush and John Kerry tied.

There are other groups of voters worth watching. Among those with a history of voting in presidential elections, Obama and Sen. John McCain essentially ran even. Obama won first-time voters by a convincing 39 points -- owing largely to a combination of younger voters, Hispanic voters and disaffected voters.

The sentiment seems alive and well today. Seventy-three percent of all voters, The Post found, believe that the president is trying to cooperate with Republicans. Only 36 percent believe the same to be true of the GOP.

It would surprise no one to learn where new voters and independents came down on that question.


Do you think Boss Limbaugh is paying any attention to this?


86 comments:

My Blog said...

"Do you think Boss Limbaugh is paying any attention to this?"


I hope not

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, you should know better. Plouffe is Obama's political guy.

If Rove wrote an article praising Bush, would you accept it at face value without discounting it because of his job as White House Political director?

This does not mean it isn't true, just that, in this case, you've been a little disingenuous. 8-)

Dave Miller said...

Chris I hope not too. Nothing is better for Obama and the Dems than to have the opposition rooting for him, and by extension, the country to fail.

Right now about 30% of the country is with the GOP. That approximates pretty close to their historic base, the most rabid devotees.

The other 65 - 70% of the people are fed up with the same old stuff from the GOP. Tax cuts, deficits, always say yes to defense spending, yet cut domestic spending.

No, I hope the GOP just keeps it up. By the way, who is the head of your party?

Shaw Kenawe said...

MyBlog,

I hope Rush isn't paying attention either.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave,

If you read what I posted, I quoted only the part of Plouffe's article that quoted the results of the ABC News/WaPo poll.

Not his opinion of Pres. Obama's first 6 weeks.

He's only restating the data.

Shaw Kenawe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shaw Kenawe said...

Holy Insanity, Batman! Go read Chris' newest post over at My Blog!

Bob said...

Shaw Kenawe said...
"Holy Insanity, Batman! Go read Chris' newest post over at My Blog!"

While you are at it, read mine.

Anonymous said...

I did! I've seen some nutbags, but yikes.

Anonymous said...

I recommend that you get root canal instead. It's infinitely better than reading that trash.

Thayer Nutz said...

There seems to be a correlation between Obama's high approval ratings and bat-shit crazy postings by the radical right.

Ruth said...

I will skip the blog you suggested for us, Shaw, as I read the WSJ on the subject. No one could be more inventive.

(It's discussed at the cab.)

Arthurstone said...

'Bob' proudly typed:

'While you are at it, read mine.'

Wow.

What a beautiful coming together of some of the 'great minds' of the amateur right-wing blogosphere. Indeed, a spectacular confluence of absolute boneheadism.

My question is how did Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels decide which of these robust 'thinkers' upon which to base each of their characters?

But give credit to the Farrelly brothers. Their characters lack the hate gene featured so prominently at My Blog.

dmarks said...

Oh well. I was hoping that good news for President Obama would be indicators of unemployment going down, stock market going up, and other economic recovery indicators.

But since there is none of that, he'll have to settle for getting some grins in a popularity contest.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

Pleeze! You can't be serious.

You think that Obama should have turned a GLOBAL economic turndown that affects us here around by now?

What the hell are you smoking?

Anonymous said...

Stock market is up 103 points. WTF dmarks?

TAO said...

Lets see Hitler inherited a devastated economy...Obama did the same.

Hitler was appointed Prime Minister by the President...Obama was elected by an outright majority...

Hitler said, "You are either with us or against us...." Oh, wait a minute that was George Bush....

Sorry...

Its not freedom of speech that scares me its the freedom to be stupid that really has me worried.

Fedaykinn said...

MORONIC Anonymous said...
"Stock market is up 103 points. WTF dmarks?"

Hey Idiot it's down from 14164.53 to
6,700 and you are excited?

Pistolmom said...

Interesting........
www.freedoms-fight.blogspot.com

Always Right said...

Hypocrite TAO said: Hitler said, "You are either with us or against us...." Oh, wait a minute that was George Bush.

And relating Bush to Hitler is just fine.

Loves To Debate said...

That "Bush=Hitler" analogy is a mean, cynical and insulting tool. I think those who buy into that are no better than the yipping bobbleheads who support the Emperor Obama

When the Liberals compared Bush to Hitler they shouted what the heck this is the USA and they could say whatever they wanted to.
But it wasn’t so when the newspaper printed a cartoon with a chimp that the “SAY” was compared to Obama. More Liberal hypocrisy

http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/46402/Adolph-Hitler-&-George-Bush


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiOpOGJsLhU

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Shaw said: "You think that Obama should have turned a GLOBAL economic turndown that affects us here around by now?"

There should be some sign. I think there would have been now if the "stimpack" had actually been about stimulus instead of sneaking through wasted money for pet projects. I'm sure if this were McCain's economic disaster since January 21st instead of Obama's, you'd blame it all on McCain.

dmarks said...

Tao said: "Hitler said, "You are either with us or against us...." Oh, wait a minute that was George Bush"

Actually, this has nothing to do with Hitler. Bush is paraphrasing an old 1960s phrase "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem"

Anonymous said...

Hey moron Fedaykinn or whatever the f... I meant today, stock market is up today.

Arthurstone said...

Pistolmom-

Not even a teensy bit interesting.

No back to planning your dream vacation jaunt to Canada for a bit of baby seal clubbing. Lots of unreconstructed liberals here who are likely immune to gun nuttery.

Shaw-

You've attracted some pretty quaint, shall we say, rustics of late.

Well done!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Alway Right,

TAO is referring to a blog post by Chris at My Blog, where HE compares Pres. Obama to Hitler.

dmarks,

You can search my blog to find any comparison of Bush with Hitler, you won't find it.

In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, January 2004, Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress, decried the comparison between Bush and Hitler:

"Comparing the commander in chief of a democratic nation to the murderous tyrant Hitler is not only historically specious, it is morally outrageous. Comparing an American president, any American president, to Hitler is an outrage."

Chris of My Blog, please take note.

dmarks wrote:

"I'm sure if this were McCain's economic disaster since January 21st instead of Obama's, you'd blame it all on McCain."

You're "sure?" Well you're sure wrong.

Expecting a president, whether it is Obama, or if it were McCain, to turn an economy as large and complex and with as many problems, failures, and bankruptcies as we have and one that is entangled with the global economy is just plain crazy and it sounds like the Sesame Street generation squawking that it's already been 5 minutes that they've been counting to 10, and now it's time for Ernie to sing "Rubber Duckie."

When you share with us your economic bonafides, I'll give you a more serious listen. Because no one knows what the hell is going to happen, and we won't for many more months.

Loves to Debate wrote:

"But it wasn’t so when the newspaper printed a cartoon with a chimp that the “SAY” was compared to Obama. More Liberal hypocrisy."

No. LtD, more radical rightwing ignorance. If you don't know the difference, then I suggest you go online and read about ape images and racism. After you've enlightened yourself, I trust you will no longer commit that sort of ghastly solecism in public.

*shudder*

dmarks said...

Shaw: "Because no one knows what the hell is going to happen"

The guy now at the top is acting like he has the least idea of anyone.

I don't think I accused you of equating Bush with Hitler. If I did, I apologize.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The guy now at the top is acting like he has the least idea of anyone.--dmarks

You obviously didn't hear him speak today, because he was pretty damn forceful and assuring.

Re: the Hitler comment, I prolly got you mixed up with someone else. Sorry.

My Blog said...

Shaw, I don't recall accusing YOU of the comparing Obama to Hitler I said that some do. As some did the samr to Bush. But I have to add that Mr. Obama should stop trying to frighten everyone into supporting his plans. That's not so cool either.
OK, Obama is not a Hitler , but is he a Mussolini?

Shaw Kenawe said...

But I have to add that Mr. Obama should stop trying to frighten everyone into supporting his plans. That's not so cool either.--Chris of My Blog

But...but...didn't President Bush say that we couldn't wait until Iraq produced mushroom clouds over the USA, so we HAD to invade and kill Saddam? Didn't he talk about Saddam buying yellowcake to make "nukular" weapons, then had to retract it when that proved to be false? Didn't those aluminum tubes turn out to be false, too?

In other words, Mr. Bush frightened the country into invading Iraq.

Were you as upset with him for frightening the American people as you are upset with Mr. Obama?

Shaw Kenawe said...

PS. Unlike the mushroom cloud of Pres. Bush's scare tactics, the worldwide financial meltdown is REAL.

Dave Miller said...

Great final points Shaw. Let us not forget the phrase "grave and gathering threat" that was used along with the other fear mongering that we were subjected to on a regular basis from the GOP.

If you vote Dem... the world will end, etc.

Also My Blog, no, not Mussolini either!

BTW, I am still waiting for your answer... Who is the head of the republican party?

dmarks said...

Shaw: "Re: the Hitler comment, I prolly got you mixed up with someone else. Sorry."

Actually.... I sent you an email earlier today with a suggested post topic about a different ridiculous Hitler comparison.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Who is the head of the Republican Party?

Rush Limbaugh.

I have witnessed Republican members of Congress grovel to him when they've criticized him, and just recently, the head of the RNC, when he acurately label Limbaugh what he is: an entertainer and incendiary.

He also had the prime time spot for his speech at CPAC and CNN carried the entire performance, as though he were a head of state.

Check out the box above my posts. I'm posting authentic, documented, racial slurs Limbaugh has made about Afro-Americans and other groups over the years. I'm posting only the ones that can be verified, there are a lot out there that are pretty bad, but not verifiable.

If that sort of talk were targeted say, to Jews, where would Limbaugh's career be now?

But he gets away with his malicious racism because his followers think it's "funny" and they believe to think otherwise is "political correctness."

But to test his slimey intent, just substitute some words in this slur:

HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED HOW ALL COMPOSITE PICTURES OF SHYSTER LAWYERS RESEMBLE JEWS?"--

Limbaugh would be off the air so fast he wouldn't have time to grab his bag of drugs and run with them.

But he says essentially the same racial slur about blacks and remains not only on the air, but wildly popular with the radical base of the Republican Party.

And they apparently love his racist humor and malicious stereotyping.

Yeah. They love him. And now he represents them.

dmarks said...

"Limbaugh would be off the air so fast he wouldn't have time to grab his bag of drugs and run with them."

Rush would have to leave talk radio, and perhaps find a job at the pulpit of President Obama's long-time church in Chicago. This is, after all, that called one of the worst antisemitic ranters in the country an epitome of greatness. There might be a place for him in that church of hate. An antisemitic Rush could win a "Trumpeter Award".

Gordon said...

Say it isn't so, Shaw.

Say that it's not true that you sold your independence and soul to a mudslinging operation run by Paul Begala at the behest of Obama's hatchet man, Rahm Emmmanuel.

Tell us it isn't true. Tell us that you haven't been parroting the talking points that have come out of this White House slimefest.

Because it sure looks like that's what you've been doing.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gordon,

I don't know anything about Paul Begala or what you're talking about.

My post originally was about the good news for Pres. Obama and how the American people continue to support him.

Some radical rightwingers came here and linked to their blogs that had postings about comparing Obama to Hitler, then the commenting went in all different directions, including my comment on Limbaugh.

If it offends you that I think Limbaugh is a despicable racist who enjoys unflinching support from the fringe of the Republican Party, that's a shame. I don't need a Begala or a Emmanuel to form my own opinion of a bigot.

The public record, in Limbaugh's own words and consistently over many years, is clear: Limbaugh is a common racist, and yet the radical fringe of the Republican Party admires him.

Pointing the truth out is NOT slinging slime. Talk about projection!

There are many intelligent, level-headed conservatives/Republicans who agree with me on this. Go visit David Frum's blog and see for yourself.

Read the comments of conservative folks who are appalled at where their party has been taken by the fringe right's favorite gasbag, the REAL slime slinger.

Stating that fact is not going over to any "dark side," it's opening the doors and letting the light of the truth shine in.

It may be that you don't like seeing things so clearly.

Arthurstone said...

Louis Farrakhan is the defacto leader of the Democratic party?

There's some video we need to see. Demos grovelling like the Republicans.

Gordon said...

Did you sell your soul to George Soros, Shaw? Or are you doing his bidding just for the fun of it?

Anonymous said...

Gordon, half the time you're incoherent and the other half, you're just plain silly.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gordon,

Your sexist remarks are not appreciated.

I wouldn't know what Soros looks like if I fell over him. I don't listen to him. Does he have a daily radio-talk show where he speaks to his dittoheads?

I and other women like me can actually think for ourselves and unlike the extremist in the Republican Party, we don't take marching orders from other people. We're not the dittoheads in America.

Instead of repeating your insulting and condescending question to me that implies I'm nothing but an unthinking zombie, why not address what I've posted
about Rush and his racist remarks and defend them?

When you avoid answering my charges about Limbaugh and instead imply that I don't think for myself, it appears that YOU are the one who is guilty of it.

My Blog said...

Shaw Said: "In other words, Mr. Bush frightened the country into invading Iraq."

What the hell are you talking about?
You are only showing how bias you really are BECAUSE!!!
Your analysis doesn’t include ALL those Democrat's that wanted to as well as Bush!
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and the majority of Democrat politicians including that little creep Harry Reid repeatably condemned Saddam Hussein as a tyrant, a war-monger, and a supporter of going into Iraq.
How come you didn't include them?
Even the U.N. believed that Hussein had some weapons of mass destruction,but were to politically involved with Saddam to do so. Look at those quotes and compare them to YOUR post, did all of these people believe that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat and had WMD to the same degree as Bush claimed to? There's a word for that: hypocrisy. Thank you for so thoroughly demonstrating that.

So do your homework.. But I'm sue you already knew that but rather forgot to remind us.
I am so tired of people LIKE YOU who believe (or should I say "Claim") that Bush lied about WMDs.

We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry, Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002

Any thing else?

Shaw Kenawe said...

What the hell are you talking about?
You are only showing how bias you really are BECAUSE!!!
Your analysis doesn’t include ALL those Democrat's that wanted to as well as Bush!
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and the majority of Democrat politicians including that little creep Harry Reid repeatably condemned Saddam Hussein as a tyrant, a war-monger, and a supporter of going into Iraq.
--Chris from My Blog

Chris, you're off the point. You stated that President Obama was frightening the country into accepting his stimpak, I answered you wondering if you were
just as upset with Bush when he frightened the country into invading Iraq--then gave you examples of the misinformation he and his administration gave to the country AND CONGRESS to cow them into voting for the war.

(By the way, thank you for posting this. Lots of rightwing radicals have bellowed about how the Democrats didn't support President Bush, therefore, they wanted him to fail. Your post proves that wrong. You just pointed out how plenty of Democrats supported going to war in Iraq.)

Listing a bunch of Democrats who agreed with Bush doesn't absolve Bush from the responsiblity of taking the country to war based on inaccurate intelligence that he and his administration fed to the country.

None of the Congress people you quote made that decision, Bush did.

TAO said...

You know politicians can go around and say anything they like and they do not have to be correct because they are not the ones that make the decision.

The President makes the call and bears the responsibility for basing his decisions on facts.

An American Girl said...

Excellent rebuttal “My Blog” and so truthful. But you can't really argue with a lefty..Sure these people already know the facts that you laid out so brilliantly. But like most liberals they choose to spin the truth and “Blame Bush” But they so conveniently omit that from their discussion.
And BILL CLINTON also said this: “ Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.
This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.”
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

An American Girl said...

TAO said..."You know politicians can go around and say anything they like and they do not have to be correct because they are not the ones that make the decision.
The President makes the call and bears the responsibility for basing his decisions on facts."

Good try TAO, but no cigar.
Go ahead and convince yourself,..but no one else is going to buy that crap. Except the lefties on this board.
Your post shows exactly why You Can't Argue with a Liberal

Shaw Kenawe said...

An American Girl said:

But like most liberals they choose to spin the truth and “Blame Bush” But they so conveniently omit that from their discussion.

Spin the truth? Is that why Pres. Bush had to retract those 16 words about yellowcake that he inserted in his 2003 SOTU? Why did he do that? Perhaps because those claims WERE NOT TRUE (some people would call that a lie and not "spin."

TAO answered your comments before you even pulished them here. Go back and read what he said.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Good try TAO, but no cigar.
Go ahead and convince yourself,..but no one else is going to buy that crap. Except the lefties on this board.
Your post shows exactly why You Can't Argue with a Liberal


An American Girl,

That's not an argument. You're making accusations. You're not rebutting what TAO or I say.

BTW, TAO is correct. The president made the decision to go to war, Congress gave him the right to do so, but it was HIS ULTIMATE DECISION TO DO IT.

Anonymous said...

People are still defending Bush???? Seriously???? Wow. I would like to meet that rare group. Do you wear bags over your heads or are you proud of it? Amazing.

dmarks said...

Shaw: "just as upset with Bush when he frightened the country into invading Iraq--then gave you examples of the misinformation he and his administration gave to the country "

It wasn't misinformation, and the quotes I saw were mostly from Clinton Administration officials.

Anon: No, we just defend him when he did the right thing, just as we condemn him for doing incorrect things. And his leading retaliation against the terrorists was certainly not incorrect.

Back to defending Bush, it starts from the top, where you will be disappointed not to find a mindless Bush-basher like tou want: "I thank President Bush for his service to our nation..." - from President Obama's inauguration speech.

Shaw Kenawe said...

It wasn't misinformation, and the quotes I saw were mostly from Clinton Administration officials.

The yellowcake from Niger (which Bush included in his SOTU, then retracted) and the aluminum tubes were misinformation, just for two examples.

I understood that "thank-you" from Pres. Obama in his inaugural speech as irony, as in "Thank you for your service to our country that has left me with a Herculean mess to clean up." LOL!

Right Is Right said...

Anonymous said...
"People are still defending Bush???? Seriously???? Wow. I would like to meet that rare group. Do you wear bags over your heads or are you proud of it? Amazing."


What a funny thing for someone that posts as ANONYMOUS to say... or is it?
LMAO

Gordon said...

Geez, now I'm a sexist--for raising concerns over your salvation in a gender-neutral way. I didn't write anything sexist on this thread.

Or is this the Soros-approved method of demonizing those who disagree? Is this the way James Carville says to do it?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gordon,

More than once you've attributed my opinions to having listened to and adopted someone else's ideas.

You did it with your Soros remark, and you've done it before.

And yes. It is sexist. Do you ask male liberals, or any males, that question and suggest they act like dittoheads when they express their opinions?

Wait. Did I say dittoheads?

Where have I heard a hirsel of people proudly assert their devotion to that mentality?

dmarks said...

1) The "you get your marching ideas from George Soros" idea is nowhere near sexist, as gender is not involved or mentioned.

2) That being said, it is not a very good argument. Just like someone saying "you get your marching orders from Rush Limbaugh" any time a conservative says anything about anything (whether or not they quote Limbaugh) is not a very good argument, either.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

I have experience with the male sex. And I've heard that remark more than once when I've given my opinion--it's depressing to read it from Gordon.

"Who've you been listening to?" is usually the question I get when I state something political or give my opinion on current affairs.

Do men ask the same of other males when they state their opinions?

I've been in many discussions in groups mixed groups, and I've never heard a man ask that of another male.

That is my experience and it is valid.

Lynne said...

Do you think when Bush is prosecuted for war crimes that they'll still defend him? He was wrong and as was stated recently, his presidency was more of a dictatorship. Everyone knows the truth by now except you "fringe" (the people that McCain was talking about when there was an outcry of all the hate mongering at his rallies - he said "there will always be a few fringe people") which represents, what, 18% of Americans? Yea, stick with your story but don't try to get the rest of us to buy into it. It's just plain wrong. I'll put my name too because posting anonymously is apparently a crime.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I have no problem with people posting as "anonymous" as you and other people who come here know.

Right Is Right said...

Lynne said...
"Do you think when Bush is prosecuted for war crimes that they'll still defend him?"

Lynne, When did you escape from the the NUT house?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Right is Right,

How generous of you to take time out from your busy day and tickle us with your incisive wit.

dmarks said...

Lynn: "....Bush ...his presidency was more of a dictatorship"

A "dictatorship" in which political opponents of the dictator launched long lucrative careers selling criticism of the dictator, and in which the political opposition gained ground in elections.

Yes, Bush was JUST like Stalin, wasn't he?

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

There are such things as non-Stalinist dictatorships. That is not the only model.

dmarks said...

If Bush was a dictator, then so is Obama. And if this is the case, then both are probably "just like Hitler" too.

Arthurstone said...

Well to be fair we aren't certain that Obama is quite so eager to dismantle the Constitution as his predecessor was.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-bush-memos_04mar04,0,2464157.story

Gordon said...

Oddly enough, Shaw, yours is the only liberal blog at which I have posted anything lately. Oh, once in a while I post something at RDB.

But for the record: I would ask the same question of any liberal male blogger. It ain't because you have merry dimples.

I'm just suggesting that I expect more of you than just to parrot the latest offerings of the Sorosphere.

Lynne said...

Right is Right, Yuk, yuk; you sure are a clever one. Just because he doesn't go to jail doesn't mean he's not a criminal. Rove too. Defend them all you want, we know what they did.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gordon,

Most of the blogs I read are in the conservative blogsphere, not the liberal.

I need to know what you guys are thinking.

You seem to have more than a touch of paranoia regarding Soros. And it's not just you. I read that in a lot of conservative blogs.

Instead of looking within yourselves for the reason the conservative movement is falling apart, it appears you and others find it easier to blame George Soros.

HINT: Soros isn't responsible. Examine the people you and other far right conservatives believe are the hope of the conservative movement (Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin) and you'll see why you've lost the last two elections and why more people are registering as Democrats rather than Republicans.

Time said...

Wow,

It's amazing how people can still argue, that which has been proven to be lies.

Much has not been proven, but that's mainly because Bush administration officials refuse to answer questions.

Rove has now been forced to testify. Will he tell the truth?

Scooter was sent to jail because he refused to tell the truth, now he hides the truth under Presidential clemency.

Powell admitted almost 3 years ago that the whole yellow cake, aluminum tubes thing was a lie )I posted Powell's statements at Ireland) but still conservatives claim they are true.

I also posted the report by two independent panels of reporters about the over 530 confirmed lies of the Bush administration (about Iraq and other issues) but still conservatives claim they never happened.

It's impossible to debate with those who deny the facts, or just make up their own facts.

It's sad, because if all would agree on the facts, there is still room to debate the motives.

Bush was no Hitler, and Obama is not a socialist, or communist.

There are plenty of issues that make a good debate, but this false, fringe stuff, is just futile, manure, demagoguery.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Shaw: "Examine the people you and other far right conservatives"

Gordon, far right? No, there is nothing extreme about him, and the far-right is hardly heard from here in the comments on this blog. I don't see any far-left extremists here either. Don't confuse strong convictions with extreme/fringe convictions.

-----------------

Time: "I also posted the report by two independent panels of reporters about the over 530 confirmed lies of the Bush administration (about Iraq and other issues) but still conservatives claim they never happened."

And I did fact-checking on this list and found that the first several were false claims of Bush lying (either things that Bush said that were true, or quotes deliberately taken out of context as to distort the meaning, or differences of opinion.... precious few "confirmed lies" if any). I stopped after the first several led me to believe that the entire list was a sham.

"It's impossible to debate with those who deny the facts, or just make up their own facts."

Which is certainly the case with these blind partisan axe-grinders who made this list under the guise of "journalism" and mindless fact-free Bush-bashing.

Back to the yellow-cake issue, check this page at Factcheck which reveals that Bush was accurately commenting on intelligence. Couple this with the fact that Saddam's regime did have a trade mission to Nigeria, and the most likely product they were seeking was yellow-cake uranium.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

Go over to Gordon's Ireland blog and see what he's posted.

He's accusing Pres. Obama of slimeing Rush Limbaugh! Really!

He's defending the guy who promoted "Barack the Magic Negro," who obsessed on Obama's race, who claimed Obama wasn't half-African, but Arab, who said we "should bend over" just because Obama is black, etc. etc., and Gordon claims Mr. Obama is slimeing Rush because the Dems are saying he's the head of the GOP!

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

Time said...

If you want to call Mr. Powell a liar, that's your delusion.

If you want to call two panels of experienced, reliable, independent reporters liars, that's your delusion.

Again, here are the articles.

Please prove, with your facts, how they are wrong.

Please prove that Mr. Powell never said these words.

Again, your not entitled to your own facts, nor can you make up your own facts. You are the liar.

I was wrong. It wasn't over 530 lies. It was over 930 lies.


Now Powell tells us

Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

THE PRESIDENT played the scoundrel -- even the best of his minions went along with the lies -- and when a former ambassador dared to tell the truth, the White House initiated what Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald calls "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." That is the important story line.

If not for the whistle-blower, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, President Bush's falsehoods about the Iraq nuclear threat likely would never have been exposed.

On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.

The harsh truth is that this president cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the president and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of a "mushroom cloud" over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.

"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons," said a dissenting analysis from an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research (INR) in the now infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was cobbled together for the White House before the war. "Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

The specter of the Iraqi nuclear threat was primarily based on an already-discredited claim that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. In fact, at the time, the INR wrote in the National Intelligence Estimate that it "accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose."

The other major evidence President Bush gave Americans for a revitalized Iraq nuclear program, of course, was his 2003 State of the Union claim -- later found to be based on forged documents -- that a deal had been made to obtain uranium from Niger. This deal was exposed within the administration as bogus before the president's speech in January by Ambassador Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA. Wilson only went public with his criticisms in an op-ed piece in the New York Times a half year later in response to what he charged were the administration's continued distortion of the evidence. In excerpts later made available to the public, it is clear that the Niger claim doesn't even appear as a key finding in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, while the INR dissent in that document dismisses it curtly: "[T]he claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment highly dubious."

I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

"The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote," Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush's State of the Union speech? "That was a big mistake," he said. "It should never have been in the speech. I didn't need Wilson to tell me that there wasn't a Niger connection. He didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. I never believed it."

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn't the president: "That was all Cheney." A convenient response for a Bush family loyalist, perhaps, but it begs the question of how the president came to be a captive of his vice president's fantasies.

More important: Why was this doubt, on the part of the secretary of state and others, about the salient facts justifying the invasion of Iraq kept from the public until we heard the truth from whistle-blower Wilson, whose credibility the president then sought to destroy?

In matters of national security, when a president leaks, he lies.

By selectively releasing classified information to suit his political purposes, as President Bush did in this case, he is denying that there was a valid basis for keeping the intelligence findings secret in the first place. "We ought to get to the bottom of it, so it can be evaluated by the American people," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I couldn't have put it any better.

E-mail rscheer@truthdig.com

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Hundreds of lies led to war, study says 2 journalism groups find U.S. made 935 false statements

Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The Center for Public Integrity, a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy, designed the new Web site to allow simple searches for specific phrases, such as "mushroom cloud" or "yellowcake uranium," in transcripts and documents totaling some 380,000 words, including remarks by President Bush and most of his top advisers in the two years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them, or had links to al Qaeda, or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al Qaeda, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al Qaeda.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements - amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts - was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists - indeed, even some entire news organizations - have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. But the new computer tool is remarkable for its scope and its replay of the crescendo of statements that led to the war. Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard Nixon used to dismissively call "wallowing in Watergate."

www.publicintegrity.org
Fund for Independence in Journalism:

www.tfij.org/

The New York Times contributed to this report.

Time said...

In fact Mr. Powell tells us who was perpetrating the lies, it was Cheney.

Your way to debate is to simply claim a person is lying, with no proof that is an accurate statement.

When you commented at my blog about Pat Buchanan you did the same thing. You simply stated Pat's fact were wrong, but never backed up your statement.

You are one of the delusional conservatives, who makes up their own facts.

If Bush himself (and that might happen) came out and said he lied, you would call that untrue.

You have a lot in common with the dictators of the World.

Lynne said...

They are NEVER wrong, plain and simple. They can't correct anything because they refuse to admit there's a problem. They believe their faux truths and defend themselves to the bitter end. You CANNOT convince a right-winger (sorry dmarks, these are right wingers) that they have EVER done anything wrong. Everything in the world could be perfect and rosy and they'd fight you on the color of the sky. In their eyes, they are perfect and until they look in the mirror and see what this attitude has done to them, they won't fix it. Go to any of their blogs, you will NEVER find a hint of an admission of guilt on their part. I believe that their criticism of Obama (many of it) is because they can't stand that a black man is our leader, the denial of global warming is their refusal to change anything in their lives; in short, they simply choose to stay stagnant.

Nancy said...

This is bullshit....once again everyone is missing the point .This is ridiculous its immature and petty and its a disgrace to the people who fought so hard to have the rights they do today. I am not black but I am ashamed to say I'm American this country is not the land of the free...and not the home of the brave...we arent free and we are cowards Im not saying racism is a one way street people but lets be honest with ourselves....most of of the time we know what side of the street racism is on most...
Most of these people are scared, uneducated, insecure losers who hate Obama because Obama overcame more obstacles in his life than those morons could ever dream of, or deal with.It just never ceases to amaze me how ignorant and racist these comments are.
Let's give Obama fair chance, who knows he could wind up being one of our greatest presidents.

dmarks said...

Time: "Your way to debate is to simply claim a person is lying"

That is exactly what you have done by claiming Bush lied. My way is to counter the lies by presenting facts.

"When you commented at my blog about Pat Buchanan you did the same thing. You simply stated Pat's fact were wrong, but never backed up your statement."

Pat gets lots of facts wrong. One he got wrong is the claim that Iran has never attacked anyone. He wants us to forget about Iran's creation of Hesbollah, and its resulting wars. I guess I made the mistaken assumption that other people look at Pat Buchanan's paranoid ravings with a critical eye. I guess I was wrong.

"If you want to call two panels of experienced, reliable, independent reporters liars, that's your delusion."

I never did. I never referred to independent reporters. However, I did get the number wrong. I was referring to a partisan pressure grop.

True, there are 930 false claims of Bush lies, not 530. A typo, really. And I have checked them. I take it you have not.

"Again, your not entitled to your own facts, nor can you make up your own facts. You are the liar."

You are the one making up facts, actually.

"If not for the whistle-blower, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, President Bush's falsehoods"

He was not telling falsehoods. I already provided the link to the facts in the factcheck article. I see here that you are the one who is making unsupported false claims.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda"

Another false claim of yours, followed by an opinion. For the first, more than 500 WMD were found after the invasion. For another, multiple positive ties and meetings were found between Saddam Hussein and Al Qeada. Whether or not they were "meaningful" is a value judgement. And it is clear that someone out to mindlessly bash Bush like Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith will raise the bar so no tie between Saddam and Al Qeade will be considered "meaningful" short of naked photos of Saddam and bin Laden in bed together.

WMD are WMD. Chemical weapons meet the definition of WMD. Chemical weapons from the Gulf War were prohibited, and supposed to have been turned over or destroyed.

Ties are ties. Getting caught in denying they are "meaningful" is just a deceptive tactic in order to get across the lie that the ties did not exist.

No amount of your lying will wish the WMD into nonexistence, or negate the historic fact of positive ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda.

"You have a lot in common with the dictators of the World."

That is kind of a meaningless insult. But you come across more dictator-friendly, with lies to defend keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

dmarks said...

Actually, Time, with "You have a lot in common with the dictators of the World.", I think you were fulfulling some version of Godwin's law, stopping just short of the dreaded H. word.

Lynn: Yes, they are right-wingers. However, if I were you I would not be so quick to have said "They are NEVER wrong, plain and simple." when you yourself earlier said that Bush's presidency was a dictatorship. Something you got wrong.

Time said...

dmark,

You twist the facts to try to make them fit your delusions, but you fail, because the facts don't change.

Bush did lie. Colin said so, so did many respected reporters. Again, it's not my fault that you deny the truth.

I still didn't hear any proof, besides your twisted ideology. Where's the proof?

Pat never said Iran has never attacked anyone. He said Iran has not attacked America, he is right.

You said that the lies the reporters were accusing Bush of were untrue, but they were not untrue, so you state that they lied.

The reporters are not a partisan group. What is your basis for calling them partisan?

You say that you read the 930 accusations of lies, but on "Ireland" blog, you wrote that you only read the first nine lies, considered them false and stopped reading. Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote.

I didn't make up, or even state facts. I simply repeated what Colin Powell himself said. You claim he is lying. I chose to believe Mr. Powell.

Again, Mr. Wilson was not lying. Mr. Powell said so, the CIA said so, and the NIE stated so. But you state no official that can dispute those claims. Where's your proof?

Sorry, it is beyond dispute that we found no WMDs in Iraq.

President Bush said so. Colin Powell said so. The United States military spent 4 years looking and publicly stated that they found no WMDs. what you talking about were weapons NOT classified as WMDs, except for the neocons who try to misinform the American people.

Like I said, even if President Bush says so, (he said there were no WMDs) you would not believe him, because it does not fit with your pre-decided delusion.

These are not my false claims, they are the statements and claims of Colin Powell and President Bush. Do you know how to read?

Our military defined what they found as NOT WMDs. Where ever are you getting your facts, they are lying. President Bush himself told the country that there were no WMDs.

It's not an insult to say you are like a dictator, you try to force people to believe lies, as the truth. That is a common practice of dictators.

Your facts are non-existent. Your statements fly in the face of what President Bush and his administration members have said. You lie, and present no proof to back up your falsehoods.

And again, I'm not making these statements you call lies, Colin Powell is, and President Bush is. Your argument is with them.

You are truly a simpleton.

dmarks said...

Time: I provided the link to the factcheck.org page about the yellow-cake "16 words" earlier. With proof, that Bush was not lying.

Your claim: "Pat never said Iran has never attacked anyone. He said Iran has not attacked America, he is right."

From Pat Buchanan's actual column:

"Iran that has not launched an offensive war against any nation within the memory of any living American."

Are you intentionally lying about Buchanan's quote, in which he referred to any nation, not America? Or did you not even bother to read the column. I will be generous and say it is probably the latter. To repeat your question, "do you know how to read?"

"It's not an insult to say you are like a dictator, you try to force people to believe lies, as the truth. That is a common practice of dictators."

You are deranged on this. If we set aside for a minute the argument over the false claim of Bush's lies, we have you claiming that I force people to believe things, just like a dictator. Force? Force? Come on. Where are my guns? Do you have any idea what you are saying when you make up insults like this?

You clearly have no idea what "force" means what dictators are like if someone expressing an opinion is the SAME as when a dictator massacres and imprisons people.

"And again, I'm not making these statements you call lies, Colin Powell is, and President Bush is. Your argument is with them."

When Bush made the statement about yellow-cake uranium, he was accurately reporting based on the information. The only lie involved is when someone claims he was not.

"what you talking about were weapons NOT classified as WMDs, except for the neocons who try to misinform the American people."

They were classified as WMDs. Chemical weapon warheads count. Please check into the originn of the term WMD? The term used to be NBC. And guess what the C stood for. Neocons? Few neocons were involved. Bush and Cheney do not actually meet the definition. Neocons are the modern version of "commies under the bed".

"The reporters are not a partisan group. What is your basis for calling them partisan?"

They are a left-wing biased pressure group. Much like FAIR on the left, and AIM on the right. Their own web page shows this. You have probably not visited it.

"You are truly a [insert meaningless playground insult here]"


Next time, try facts. And do a little reading.

Time said...

I'll just call you twisted bastard from now on,

I don't need fact check, I have the word of President Bush and Colin Powell. Lest see, was fact check personally involved? Did fact check have access to the top secret documents?

Who has Iran attacked? Iran has attacked no nation.

Powell said he knew the yellow cake story was a lie and told the President, it was Cheney who insisted on it being pushed as truth. Read again, 4th time now.

No, you check-the US military, after a 4 year search, said they found no WMD's and that's what President Bush has reported to Americans and the World for a long time now. Of course you were the only one in the World who didn't hear it, because you had your head up your ass.

It's only your BIASED interpretation that the reporters are leftist. I can't accept your opinion on these reporters, because you have proven that you are stupid.

Again, no facts, just your insipid opinion. No wonder the conservatives are a joke to the nation. they have idiot comics like you, spinning their lies.

Lynne said...

I keep telling you people, you can't argue with them. They think their opinions are fact, they get their news from Faux News and they are NEVER wrong. If dmarks decided the sky was green, he'd argue to the death that it was. Save yourself some time next time and just laugh at him.

dmarks said...

Time: "I don't need fact check"

Because to you facts don't matter, obviously.

"Who has Iran attacked? Iran has attacked no nation."

Earlier you said: "Pat never said Iran has never attacked anyone. He said Iran has not attacked America, he is right." It is like you are changing your tune, and you have forgotten Iran's numerous terrorist attacks on Israel. Are you even going to address your lying about what Buchanan said? Probably not.

"Powell said he knew the yellow cake story was a lie and told the President, it was Cheney who insisted on it being pushed as truth. Read again, 4th time now."

Read here. Again. Summary "Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying". This takes into account revealed top-secret documents.

The "may have been wrong" takes into account that Saddam's trade mission to Iraq is an undisputed fact, and it is most likely (but not certain) that he was seeking yellow-cake uranium.

The page says "But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken." and also how supposed "whistle-blower" Wilson also believed and pushed the idea from his own evidence.

"No, you check-the US military, after a 4 year search, said they found no WMD's"

No, they said they found unaccounted for chemical weapon munitions. Again. research what counts as WMD and what does not count.

"and that's what President Bush has reported to Americans and the World for a long time now."

Some expected WMD were found. Some were not. But actually, given the fact of WMD found, this might count as a lie from Bush.

"It's only your BIASED interpretation that the reporters are leftist."

The only bias is found on that web site. Have you even visited it?

I see you have retreated to playground insults. The bastard thing is clever! At least you aren't bothering with the "just like a dictator" claim!

"Again, no facts, just your insipid opinion. No wonder the conservatives are a joke to the nation. they have idiot comics like you, spinning their lies."

Ah. The claim of a "conservative" conspiracy. So why don't we listen now to some liberals, who also knew what was going on in Iraq, and who refute your claims that Saddam wasn't doing anything with WMD?

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

dmarks said...

Lynn: The sky is green? Did you read that in the Daily KOS?

Still waiting to find out how Bush was a dictator.

Lynne said...

Sorry, there's no way I'm wasting my time arguing with you, dmarks. You are right. It is whatever you say it is.

dmarks said...

At least I base my arguments on what actually happened. In that context, the green sky thing is something you made up out of thin air.