"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:30:32 +0000, NOYB wrote:

What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that
there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be
considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy.

At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of
whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from.

I don't know if any charges will come from the Plame investigation, but I
will point out, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down,
it was the cover-up.

Shoot. You could very well be talking about Able Danger now.


If anyone in the Bush administration is charged, it
will be another nail in this lame duck's coffin. Bush is already wounded,
additional bleeding will put his numbers in the Carter area. Can you say
failed Presidency?

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...l_approval.htm

Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record
gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane
that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels.

There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval
points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right
now.

When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't
enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3
years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not.


Let's see...
Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated by
Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating would
have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval ratings?

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels.

Damn, NOYB, a realistic assessment. That doesn't sound like the Bush
cheerleader we all know. ;-)

There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval
points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right
now.

The blood bleeds slowly, NOYB. Remember, Nixon actually did win
reelection by a landslide, over 60% of the vote and all but one state. I
doubt that Bush will reach Nixon's lows, without Bush himself being
indicted (I don't expect that he will be). His core support is larger
than that, but Carter? He could easily reach Carter's lows.


When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't
enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3
years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not.


Let's see...
Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated
by Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating
would have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval
ratings?

Probably quite high. The country was overwhelmingly in support of that
war. Remember, there were very, very, few protesting our invasion of
Afghanistan. Our country was fully in support Bush going after bin Laden.
Iraq is Bush's downfall and the news from there, isn't looking like it
will improve. To me, it's looking like a Civil War is a very real
possibility.

The Sunnis have always been problematic, but now the Kurds are also
unhappy with the Shias. Jaafari in all probability is an Iranian agent.
Between Chalabi and Jaafari it's looking like the Iranians have played
Bush for a chump, and we are holding the dirty end of the stick. It's a
real mess.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels.

Damn, NOYB, a realistic assessment. That doesn't sound like the Bush
cheerleader we all know. ;-)

There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval
points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right
now.

The blood bleeds slowly, NOYB. Remember, Nixon actually did win
reelection by a landslide, over 60% of the vote and all but one state. I
doubt that Bush will reach Nixon's lows, without Bush himself being
indicted (I don't expect that he will be). His core support is larger
than that, but Carter? He could easily reach Carter's lows.


When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't
enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3
years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not.


Let's see...
Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated
by Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating
would have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval
ratings?

Probably quite high. The country was overwhelmingly in support of that
war.

The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl Harbor.
But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to die in
Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine Pass,
you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether we
should be there at all.





Remember, there were very, very, few protesting our invasion of
Afghanistan. Our country was fully in support Bush going after bin Laden.
Iraq is Bush's downfall and the news from there, isn't looking like it
will improve.

Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well.
But Americans are fickle and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way
in shaking the resolve of a good portion of our country.



To me, it's looking like a Civil War is a very real
possibility.

The Sunnis have always been problematic, but now the Kurds are also
unhappy with the Shias. Jaafari in all probability is an Iranian agent.
Between Chalabi and Jaafari it's looking like the Iranians have played
Bush for a chump, and we are holding the dirty end of the stick. It's a
real mess.

A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security.
Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other nations.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl
Harbor. But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to die
in Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine
Pass, you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether
we should be there at all.

Yeah, but, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler foolishly declared war on us. He
had hoped the Japanese would start another front with the Soviet Union.
They didn't. While it's true there were plenty of isolationists, Pearl
Harbor changed all that, and I would strongly suspect while Kasserine was
discouraging, Americans were still supportive of the war effort.


Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well. But Americans are fickle
and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way in shaking the resolve
of a good portion of our country.

To a degree, but I suspect the slow realization that it wasn't about WMD,
or bin Laden, or . . . plays a large part. When the cause is just, I
don't underestimate America's will, but to this day, no one in this
administration has come clean about the true reasons for this war.


A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American
security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to
other nations.

NOYB, even in the unlikely chance that a Civil War was contained inside
Iraq's borders, have you considered what it would do to the price of a
barrel of oil? Civil War means this administration has failed, and the
next administration will have to put the pieces back together. It also
means 2,000 young Americans have died in vain. That's unacceptable.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl
Harbor. But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to
die
in Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine
Pass, you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether
we should be there at all.



Yeah, but, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler foolishly declared war on us. He
had hoped the Japanese would start another front with the Soviet Union.
They didn't. While it's true there were plenty of isolationists, Pearl
Harbor changed all that, and I would strongly suspect while Kasserine was
discouraging, Americans were still supportive of the war effort.



I'm sure they were. But I'm talking relative dropoff in approval.

According to Rasmussen, Bush's poll numbers are almost exactly where they
were pre-9/11 and only slightly lower than they were pre-election 2004.


Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well. But Americans are
fickle
and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way in shaking the resolve
of a good portion of our country.

To a degree, but I suspect the slow realization that it wasn't about WMD,
or bin Laden, or . . . plays a large part. When the cause is just, I
don't underestimate America's will, but to this day, no one in this
administration has come clean about the true reasons for this war.


A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American
security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to
other nations.

NOYB, even in the unlikely chance that a Civil War was contained inside
Iraq's borders, have you considered what it would do to the price of a
barrel of oil? Civil War means this administration has failed, and the
next administration will have to put the pieces back together. It also
means 2,000 young Americans have died in vain. That's unacceptable.

Instability in Iraq isn't going to affect the price of oil as long as some
semblance of stability remains in Saudi Arabia. I believe the true purpose
of our going into Iraq was to permanently station troops in the Middle East
on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia...so that we didn't need to
leave our troops in Saudi Arabia.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:32:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:



I believe the true
purpose of our going into Iraq was to permanently station troops in the
Middle East on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia...so that we
didn't need to leave our troops in Saudi Arabia.

I don't doubt that is true, as per the PNAC policy papers, but we have yet
to hear it from anyone in this administration. It's also been glazed over
that the reason bin Laden declared war on us, was exactly those troops in
Saudi Arabia. So, did Bush capitulate to bin Laden? Our troops have left
Saudi, and bin Laden is still out and about.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:32:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:



I believe the true
purpose of our going into Iraq was to permanently station troops in the
Middle East on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia...so that we
didn't need to leave our troops in Saudi Arabia.

I don't doubt that is true, as per the PNAC policy papers, but we have yet
to hear it from anyone in this administration. It's also been glazed over
that the reason bin Laden declared war on us, was exactly those troops in
Saudi Arabia. So, did Bush capitulate to bin Laden? Our troops have left
Saudi, and bin Laden is still out and about.

I believe that it's a case of "be careful what you wish for". bin Laden
wanted us out of Saudi Arabia, but I doubt he wanted 5 times as many troops
in the country next door.

When we left Saudi Arabia, the Saudi royals were having a hard time with
internal strife, and were in real danger of losing control of the country.
By leaving, we removed a huge burden on them, as there was no longer a casus
belli among the Saudi population to overthrow the royals.

Regardless, we're better situated now to deal with any threats arising from
the Middle East.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security.
Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other
nations.


But, you've said in the past that Iraq was not a threat, and that Bush's
original list of reasons was just a polite disguise for the only real
reason: A military presence to protect the oil supply.

As far as a threat to security, you know that's ridiculous. There are steps
we should've taken 30 years ago in terms of increased vigilance - the same
types of things the Israelis have been doing for years. Iraq didn't keep us
from doing those things (increase airport security, for instance).