NationStates Jolt Archive

Aug. 23, 2006 at 5:31PM
The National Priorities Project has calculated the cost of the Iraq war by congressional district, city, state and even household.
You owe $1,075.
The NPP() uses government data to illustrate the impact of federal policies on local communities. It targets large ticket government programs and tax breaks -- mostly dear to Republicans -- for scrutiny, including tax breaks for the top 1 percent of earners, the cost of missile defense, maintaining a massive nuclear weapon arsenal, and the Iraq war.

NPP bases its Iraq war calculations on a Congressional Research Service report from June, which totaled the war at $318.5 billion.
"That is $2,844 for every American household or $1,075 for every American. The money (already spent or allocated) is being spent at a rate $10 million per hour and $244 million per day,"

http://washtimes.com/upi/20060823-051747-8542r.htm
Sources: Yahoo/WashingtonTimes/OcceanNEWS©2006

My2cents: ... there are some things money can't buy, for everything else there's MasterCard"
http://www.dubyasworld.com/dubya-fundraiser-priceless.jpg

OMG OMG OMG IM GOING TO BE BROKE!!!!!!!!!

NOOOOO!!!!


you know, you really annoy me with all you're anti america anti bush anti military stuff.

I don't have any money...

Quite frankly I would have expected it to be more. I guess we all have to put in our fair share for this experiment of getting caught up in civil wars we created in the hope of establishing a shi'ia theocracy friendly to Iran. Yay for staying the course and leaving countless innocents dead.:rolleyes:

Amadenijad iz a puss :D:D :p :D (you should have come to the socce game.. You Iranian piece of Chicken Shit)

I wonder how long you have to wash dishes for if you can't pay.

OMG OMG OMG IM GOING TO BE BROKE!!!!!!!!!

NOOOOO!!!!


you know, you really annoy me with all you're anti america anti bush anti military stuff.
So you would rather him be pro-imperialism, pro-stupidity, and pro-nationalism and murder? Because to me that would be annoying.

you are a pussy Amadenijad. (you should have come to the socce game.. You Iranian piece of Chicken Shit)
careful buddy. getting close to flaming there

careful buddy. getting close to flaming thereWe are allowed to flame the President of Iran ;)

I don't have any money...

Thats because Bush took it all to fight teh ebil terrorists *nods*

OMG OMG OMG IM GOING TO BE BROKE!!!!!!!!!

NOOOOO!!!!


you know, you really annoy me with all you're anti america anti bush anti military stuff.

Usually it's anti-Israel rather than specifically anti-American. You do always have the option of not reading his posts.

Stay the course, as we rack up more losses, drain our forces, and pave the way for another Middle Eastern theocracy while we stand impotent in the face of new threats because so many of our troops are tied down in Iraq. As more and more civilians die and the country falls in to worse and worse chaos I've really got to wonder who is going to have the balls to say we screwed up and its time to get out of there and let the chips fall where they may.

You're doing a heckuva job Bushie...the sooner this clown leaves, the better.

Our wise and glorious President George W. Bush is a True Christian (TM) and thus can never be wrong. God loves Bush. Alot more than he loves you godless liberal heathens of NS general.

Bush isn't wrong. You are. God is in Bush's side. The devil must be in yours!

PS: The money is irrelevant, I mean THE RAPTURE is close, so who needs fiscal discipline?

I am simply floored when you compare the progress that's been made in Iraq to a dollar value to a US citizen. You simply have absolutely no idea what's happening in Iraq, do you?

If the US had not gone there again, do you think that Iraq would just sit around and collect dust? Of course not. Intelligence shows that Iraq was trying to get both Nuclear weapons and a means to deploy them, launch them, and fly them over to the US. Would you rather get rid of this threat now, or have Washington, Boston, New York, Dallas or any number of other cities turned into a radioactive wasteland? If you have no respect for the men and women that fight for your country, maybe you should pack up your belongings and go to Iraq, and witness why the US is still there.

Bush may not sound like the smartest man of all time, but he is correct in his view that the problem of terrorism in the middle east MUST be dealt with. If it means a large sum of money and the spending of lives. Wouldn't you be honored to know that your tax dollars are going to save the middle east from starvation, terror and death some day? If you disrespect your countries decisions so much, get out. That's all I can say. If you think the US should leave Iraq tommorow then you are sorely mistaken. If left to fester, the terrorists and their allies in Iran will cause another Sept. 11th, or something even more devastating. Do you want to see that happen? I didn't think so.

Please, for the love of god, support your troops overseas, for all our sake's.

I am simply floored when you compare the progress that's been made in Iraq to a dollar value to a US citizen. You simply have absolutely no idea what's happening in Iraq, do you?

If the US had not gone there again, do you think that Iraq would just sit around and collect dust? Of course not. Intelligence shows that Iraq was trying to get both Nuclear weapons and a means to deploy them, launch them, and fly them over to the US. Would you rather get rid of this threat now, or have Washington, Boston, New York, Dallas or any number of other cities turned into a radioactive wasteland? If you have no respect for the men and women that fight for your country, maybe you should pack up your belongings and go to Iraq, and witness why the US is still there.

Bush may not sound like the smartest man of all time, but he is correct in his view that the problem of terrorism in the middle east MUST be dealt with. If it means a large sum of money and the spending of lives. Wouldn't you be honored to know that your tax dollars are going to save the middle east from starvation, terror and death some day? If you disrespect your countries decisions so much, get out. That's all I can say. If you think the US should leave Iraq tommorow then you are sorely mistaken. If left to fester, the terrorists and their allies in Iran will cause another Sept. 11th, or something even more devastating. Do you want to see that happen? I didn't think so.

Please, for the love of god, support your troops overseas, for all our sake's.

I like you. You're silly. :)

I like you. You're silly. :)

Don't be mean.

There might be a logical explanation for him.

He might have been kidnaped by aliens 3 years ago, and dropped home in front of his computer 5 minutes ago, without anything better to do than to post in NS general.

That sounds logical, right?

Don't be mean.

There might be a logical explanation for him.

He might have been kidnaped by aliens 3 years ago, and dropped home in front of his computer 5 minutes ago, without anything better to do than to post in NS general.

That sounds logical, right?

If I wanted to be mean, I would've responded with this:

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/bsmeter.gif

:D

I suppose right-wing logic is always defeated by NSG Left-wing magical thinking

:headbang:

I suppose right-wing logic is always defeated by NSG Left-wing magical thinking

:headbang:

Good to know should right-wing logic ever poke it's ugly head here. :p

Some things for you to read by Bill Whittle:

Sanctuary, Part 1 (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html)
Sanctuary, Part 2 (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000126.html)

Read those, its a long read, but they explain my point in more detail. Stunning detail. XTREME 3D Detail.

Some things for you to read by Bill Whittle:

Sanctuary, Part 1 (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html)
Sanctuary, Part 2 (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000126.html)

Read those, its a long read, but they explain my point in more detail. Stunning detail. XTREME 3D Detail.

Yes, we all know that the US can do no wrong, GOD ALL MIGHTY IS IN THE SIDE OF THE US! He even sent His second son, Jesus Bush to guide the US.

Seriously.. you know that its an established fact that Iraq did not had any WMD manufacturing program, no capabilities to wage war on the US (and no one else, for that matter), no links to Alqaeda or any support to terrorist organization, apart from giving money to widows from dead Palestinians, etc.?

Yes, we all know that the US can do no wrong.

When did I say that? I never said the US was perfect, and I'm certainly not defending it. I'm just sick and tired of people using arguments that are crumbling logicly at the best of times.

Some things for you to read by Bill Whittle:

Sanctuary, Part 1 (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html)
Sanctuary, Part 2 (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000126.html)

Read those, its a long read, but they explain my point in more detail. Stunning detail. XTREME 3D Detail.

I have to ask; There's a point in there somewhere?

I have to ask; There's a point in there somewhere?


Yes there is, you have to read both to the end.

Seriously.. you know that its an established fact that Iraq did not had any WMD manufacturing program, no capabilities to wage war on the US (and no one else, for that matter), no links to Alqaeda or any support to terrorist organization, apart from giving money to widows from dead Palestinians, etc.?

How do you know that? Did CNN tell you? CNN is FAR from neutral, just so you know.

Hmm, another one for you to read,

War (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000027.html)

Edit: Now that I look, this one is more relvent than the other.

Yes there is, you have to read both to the end.

Yes. I did. But perhaps you can point me in the right direction...

If I wanted to be mean, I would've responded with this:

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/bsmeter.gif

:D
You should have been meaner, and employed the meter. :D

Hmm, another one for you to read,

War (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000027.html)

Edit: Now that I look, this one is more relvent than the other.
Oh, hear ye, oh hear ye, a proclamation from your linked article. Such a profound tid bit of wisdom:

But there can be an end to this war. It will end when all people are inside the bubble we have built for ourselves and our children – warm, well-fed, free to pursue their dreams and ambitions, their minds and bodies and women liberated, racial and tribal hatreds put aside, and so on.

Building bubbles are we? :rolleyes:

You should have been meaner, and employed the meter. :D

After calling me 'left-wing' and making me read two pages of babble, I think you may be right. :p

How do you know that? Did CNN tell you? CNN is FAR from neutral, just so you know.


Of course, along with reality, CNN as a liberal bias.

Iraq did not had WMD (unless you discount old shells with sarin, leftovers of a period when Saddam was a "friend") . You can have that information here from the ISG, mirrored in Global Security.

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. " (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm)

Colin Powel said he regretted his presentation to the UN were he said that Iraq had the capability to threaten the US (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1), do I need to say more?

Can we bill the war supporters only? If thats not possible perhaps we can bill those who voted for Bush - perhaps double the bill for the ones who voted for him twice

You may be taking the piss, but who knows these days...

. Intelligence shows that Iraq was trying to get both Nuclear weapons and a means to deploy them, launch them, and fly them over to the US. .

No, it does not. It showed that he closed the program due to lack of cash. The whole uranium from Africa crap was based on documents proved to be forgeries, as accepted by the IAEA and now rather belatedly the CIA.

.
Would you rather get rid of this threat now, or have Washington, Boston, New York, Dallas or any number of other cities turned into a radioactive wasteland? If you have no respect for the men and women that fight for your country, maybe you should pack up your belongings and go to Iraq, and witness why the US is still there..

The ruins of a once fairly well developed country are unrelated to the current state of America. There was no nuclear weapons program.

.
Bush may not sound like the smartest man of all time, but he is correct in his view that the problem of terrorism in the middle east MUST be dealt with...

So he strips Afghanistan of troops to run around Iraq with no international mandate, alienating most of the planet, and creating enough bitterness to keep the jihadists going for decades. Not to mention his unilateral support of Ariel fucking Sharon (of all people)......

.
Please, for the love of god, support your troops overseas, for all our sake's.

"God" has nothing to do with it, and they are many here not American.

Don't be mean.

There might be a logical explanation for him.

He might have been kidnaped by aliens 3 years ago, and dropped home in front of his computer 5 minutes ago, without anything better to do than to post in NS general.

That sounds logical, right?

happened to me.:(

Can we bill the war supporters only? If thats not possible perhaps we can bill those who voted for Bush - perhaps double the bill for the ones who voted for him twice

I really like that Idea, you love Bushies war so much you pay for it ya assholes.

Can we bill the war supporters only? If thats not possible perhaps we can bill those who voted for Bush - perhaps double the bill for the ones who voted for him twice

Hmmm, rather, I think the ‘supporters’ and other who have actually served in the military and conflict (including civilians workers like the truck drivers from a couple of years ago) should get some additional monies returned to them above and beyond what their taxes were. They should have it put back into their coffers because they and their families have been charged too much and they have been over paying for years, while the rest of us get the opportunity to bitch and moan about paying out taxes and trying to figure out how to make them pay even more than us :rolleyes:

... run around Iraq with no international mandate, alienating most of the planet, and creating enough bitterness to keep the jihadists going for decades. Not to mention his unilateral support of Ariel fucking Sharon (of all people)......
...

I think there has been more than enough 'bitterness' directed at the US from various parts of the world long before Bush was elected, even while the US government was under Democrat (and other Republicans) guidance and control. Blaming Bush for everything is simply scapegoat Monday morning quarterbacking…

Hmmm, rather, I think the ‘supporters’ and other who have actually served in the military and conflict (including civilians workers like the truck drivers from a couple of years ago) should get some additional monies returned to them above and beyond what their taxes were. They should have it put back into their coffers because they and their families have been charged too much and they have been over paying for years, while the rest of us get the opportunity to bitch and moan about paying out taxes and trying to figure out how to make them pay even more than us :rolleyes:


Not if they supported the war they shouldnt. If you supported the war then you should accept the sacrifices that came with it.

those of us that didnt want our taxes going towards this war or our friends and family members dying for it, should be exempted from paying taxes until the rest of you have paid the debt off.

Not if they supported the war they shouldnt. If you supported the war then you should accept the sacrifices that came with it.

those of us that didnt want our taxes going towards this war or our friends and family members dying for it, should be exempted from paying taxes until the rest of you have paid the debt off.

Yup, there you go... *ducks as Logic flies out the window*

In other words, you think every American should have line item veto powers when April 15 rolls around?


For crying out loud, what do they teach kids in schools these days? :headbang:

I think there has been more than enough 'bitterness' directed at the US from various parts of the world long before Bush was elected, even while the US government was under Democrat (and other Republicans) guidance and control. Blaming Bush for everything is simply scapegoat Monday morning quarterbacking…

There's been bitterness at the US for as long as the US has existed as a nation. It's just gotten a lot worse in the past 5 years relative to its levels in the 1990's; Bush's irresponsible actions have alienated a lot of people and countries especially amongst our allies and the nations involved in the Iranian enrichment negotiations.

He's a thoroughly disliked or even hated president in many parts of the world. Even in the US his approval ratings are hovering at levels similar to those of Nixon or Carter. Reagan was also disliked, but at least Reagan was competent when it came to running the country and making decisions and had support from both Republicans and Democrats. Bush is neither, and is just plain unpopular.

Yup, there you go... *ducks as Logic flies out the window*

In other words, you think every American should have line item veto powers when April 15 rolls around?


For crying out loud, what do they teach kids in schools these days? :headbang:


No you can go ahead and feel as smug as you want because you win - we (the detractors) have to pay for the blood lust/revenge fantasies of this countries conservatives. enjoy the victory.

But yes I do think that people should be able to decide what percentage of their taxes goes into what. If you are a military person then choose to put the majority of your taxes towards it - me I would choose education, healthcare, social services and things that are good for the US and its people - not death and destruction for people in foreign lands who are not a threat (I would perhaps choose .01% of my taxes to go towards the military).

You choose corporate welfare and I'll choose social welfare. But yet again, it's just a fantasy and you win again because I have to pay for your precious $5,000,000.00 pentagon toilet seats and $20,000,000.00 oil subsidies paid to the most profitable companies in the world so they can go explore for more oil.

There's been bitterness at the US for as long as the US has existed as a nation. It's just gotten a lot worse in the past 5 years relative to its levels in the 1990's; Bush's irresponsible actions have alienated a lot of people and countries especially amongst our allies and the nations involved in the Iranian enrichment negotiations.

Prove that the quantum total is more now than it was forty years ago... I propose that lines change, but the totals remain about the same.

He's a thoroughly disliked or even hated president in many parts of the world. Even in the US his approval ratings are hovering at levels similar to those of Nixon or Carter. Reagan was also disliked, but at least Reagan was competent when it came to running the country and making decisions and had support from both Republicans and Democrats. Bush is neither, and is just plain unpopular.


Reagan was disliked? Really? What is your definition of who is liked and who is not liked then? I would suggest you cannot be looking at election day results and comparing them with other presidents because your statements don’t make any sense then.

I submit that MOST presidents are actively hated by a good percentage of the people pretty much continuously, regardless of who is in charge. The difference is, which one political person is actively defended by their supporters and which ones have been given up by their supporters. Such as Theodore Roosevelt, his support died and he become an unpopular candidate, but at one time, he was one of the most popular candidates.

You have not proved your assertion, you’ve stated your opinion that the world hates America more now than before, but simply because you assert it to be true is not proof that it is.

Bush had more total votes AND more percentage of the votes than Clinton did in their combined dual election results. That's just an example, one must be careful of how people can misclaim or misrepresent popularity via public polls via after-the-fact public opinion posturing.

Our wise and glorious President George W. Bush is a True Christian (TM) and thus can never be wrong. God loves Bush. Alot more than he loves you godless liberal heathens of NS general.

Bush isn't wrong. You are. God is in Bush's side. The devil must be in yours!

PS: The money is irrelevant, I mean THE RAPTURE is close, so who needs fiscal discipline?

Quoted for scaryness.

I am simply floored when you compare the progress that's been made in Iraq to a dollar value to a US citizen. You simply have absolutely no idea what's happening in Iraq, do you?

If the US had not gone there again, do you think that Iraq would just sit around and collect dust? Of course not. Intelligence shows that Iraq was trying to get both Nuclear weapons and a means to deploy them, launch them, and fly them over to the US. Would you rather get rid of this threat now, or have Washington, Boston, New York, Dallas or any number of other cities turned into a radioactive wasteland? If you have no respect for the men and women that fight for your country, maybe you should pack up your belongings and go to Iraq, and witness why the US is still there.

Bush may not sound like the smartest man of all time, but he is correct in his view that the problem of terrorism in the middle east MUST be dealt with. If it means a large sum of money and the spending of lives. Wouldn't you be honored to know that your tax dollars are going to save the middle east from starvation, terror and death some day? If you disrespect your countries decisions so much, get out. That's all I can say. If you think the US should leave Iraq tommorow then you are sorely mistaken. If left to fester, the terrorists and their allies in Iran will cause another Sept. 11th, or something even more devastating. Do you want to see that happen? I didn't think so.

Please, for the love of god, support your troops overseas, for all our sake's.
Okay, Karl. You have important things to do at the Whitehouse. You shouldn't be wasting your time chatting with a bunch of people on the internet and you, Mr. Rove, of all people should know that! :mad:

Bush had more total votes AND more percentage of the votes than Clinton did in their combined dual election results. That's just an example, one must be careful of how people can misclaim or misrepresent popularity via public polls via after-the-fact public opinion posturing.I'll let Vetalia handle the rest. He's pretty good at proving his points. This is bullshit, though. Clinton faced more opponents in his elections. Third party candidates were much more viable, especially Ross Perot who I think approached 20% of the vote. In the last election all of the third party candidates taken together totaled less than 1% of the vote. If you look at the percentage that Clinton won his office by and compare it to Bush you'll find that Clinton had a much clearer mandate. With Bush it came down, both times, to a few thousand votes in a couple states.

Reagan was disliked? Really? What is your definition of who is liked and who is not liked then? I would suggest you cannot be looking at election day results and comparing them with other presidents because your statements don’t make any sense then.

People outside the US don't vote in US elections; that's who I'm talking about when I say he was "disliked". Many people worldwide did not like Reagan or his policies in the 1980's, especially the military buildup or the attempt to bankrupt the USSR. They saw him as a destabilizing force that was eroding nearly 20 years of detente and negotiations with the Communist bloc.

However, Reagan was a very popular president in the US and was a very competent president to boot; Bush is neither popular in the US or the world,
and his administration is nowhere near as competent as his father's, let alone the Reagan Administration. The world's views of Reagan were incorrect, but their views of Bush aren't.

I submit that MOST presidents are actively hated by a good percentage of the people pretty much continuously, regardless of who is in charge. The difference is, which one political person is actively defended by their supporters and which ones have been given up by their supporters. Such as Theodore Roosevelt, his support died and he become an unpopular candidate, but at one time, he was one of the most popular candidates.

Well, GOP candidates are trying to distance themselves from Bush as much as possible, so if they're jumping ship now then it's pretty clear that Bush is running out of defenders.

All polls show low approval ratings for Bush; Reagan and Clinton both had points where their approval ratings were low like Bush's, but their ratings climbed throughout their Administrations while Bush's has fallen steadily since he took office and has fallen steadily since the 9/11 attacks.

You have not proved your assertion, you’ve stated your opinion that the world hates America more now than before, but simply because you assert it to be true is not proof that it is.

A collection of BBC articles describing reaction to reelection of Bush (http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=bush+reelection&edition=i&scope=all&tab=all&recipe=all)
Documenting the Phenomenon of Anti-Americanism (http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/papers/speulda.pdf)
An older report from 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.protests.rodgers.otsc/)
Pew Global Attitudes Report (see table on right) (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252)
A Year After the Iraq War (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=206)

Do you need more or more sources? All of them show huge declines in views of the US since 2001 and are a clear sign that Bush is having a massively negative effect on the world's view of the US.

Bush had more total votes AND more percentage of the votes than Clinton did in their combined dual election results. That's just an example, one must be careful of how people can misclaim or misrepresent popularity via public polls via after-the-fact public opinion posturing.

20% more people were registered to vote in 2004 compared to 1996 or 30.6%more compared to 1992. There are simply more people voting; in fact, Kerry also got more votes than any Presidential candidate in US history even though he only had 48% of the vote compared to Bush's 50.7%. Also, voter turnout in 2000 and 2004 was much higher than it was in 1996 which means more people voted not only in nominal terms but as a percentage of the voting population. In 1996, only 49% of the voter population voted compared to 51.3% in 2000 or 55.3% in 2004, so the numbers are further inflated.

Lastly, in 2000/2004 there was no real third-party to take away a significant number of votes. Perot won nearly 8% of the vote in 1996, possibly costing Dole both that amount and the 1996 election. In 1992, Perot got 19% of the vote, costing both parties a significant number of votes. As a result, people who might have supported a third-party candidate (like many possible Bush/Dole voters in '92 or '96) voted for the Republican candidate giving Bush an edge that he might not have had. In 2004, Bush got 50.7% of the vote, barely a majority and only 2.4% more than Kerry despite Kerry being an "anybody but Bush" candidate. Also, Bush only had 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 251, compared to Clinton's 379 votes in 1996 and Dole's 159 votes; he barely won Florida and Ohio, either of which would have tipped the election to Kerry were he to carry them.

Bush only won by a small margin; in fact, most of his electoral votes were only gained because of changes in population rather than any change in voting trends. Also, voter turnout in red states was overall higher than in blue states giving Bush a further edge; in fact, more than half of Bush's popular vote margin over Kerry came from his home state of Texas. Kerry lost because he was chosen as an alternative to Bush rather than because he was John Kerry or because he had new ideas.

I am simply floored when you compare the progress that's been made in Iraq to a dollar value to a US citizen. You simply have absolutely no idea what's happening in Iraq, do you?

If the US had not gone there again, do you think that Iraq would just sit around and collect dust? Of course not. Intelligence shows that Iraq was trying to get both Nuclear weapons and a means to deploy them, launch them, and fly them over to the US. Would you rather get rid of this threat now, or have Washington, Boston, New York, Dallas or any number of other cities turned into a radioactive wasteland? If you have no respect for the men and women that fight for your country, maybe you should pack up your belongings and go to Iraq, and witness why the US is still there.

Bush may not sound like the smartest man of all time, but he is correct in his view that the problem of terrorism in the middle east MUST be dealt with. If it means a large sum of money and the spending of lives. Wouldn't you be honored to know that your tax dollars are going to save the middle east from starvation, terror and death some day? If you disrespect your countries decisions so much, get out. That's all I can say. If you think the US should leave Iraq tommorow then you are sorely mistaken. If left to fester, the terrorists and their allies in Iran will cause another Sept. 11th, or something even more devastating. Do you want to see that happen? I didn't think so.

Please, for the love of god, support your troops overseas, for all our sake's.
Supporting the troops and being against the war in Iraq are not contradictory. Please, for the love of god, stop equating the two.

...
Do you need more or more sources? All of them show huge declines in views of the US since 2001 and are a clear sign that Bush is having a massively negative effect on the world's view of the US.

Your sources, and you, continue to use examples to prove a non sequitur. It's irrelevant that US popularity since 2001 has gone down, by the end of the year of 2001 American popularity in the world was at it's highest levels since WWII, of course it went down, it HAD to go down. So proving how much it has gone down is irrelevant and without merit.

Instead of using non-comparable presidential situations to contrast to Bush's situation today, taking note of the fact that the US is currently fighting in an unpopular war that doesn't have “instant gratification results of advances made against the enemy” for broadcast on the nightly TV news, the last time this situation occurred, President Johnson was a beat up so bad he didn’t even run for office again, and this President, in comparison, has done remarkably well, his situation was similar but the results are decisively different.

In 1992, Perot got 19% of the vote, costing both parties a significant number of votes.

Really? You believe that? You really think there were would-be Liberal's or Democrats who voted for Perot over Clinton? I think you exaggerate for argument's sake. I don't think you really believe that. ;)


Bush only won by a small margin; in fact, most of his electoral votes were only gained because of changes in population rather than any change in voting trends. Also, voter turnout in red states was overall higher than in blue states giving Bush a further edge; in fact, more than half of Bush's popular vote margin over Kerry came from his home state of Texas. Kerry lost because he was chosen as an alternative to Bush rather than because he was John Kerry or because he had new ideas.

Nah, go back and look at all the elections again, many elections are not won by 50% or more, they are won by less than 50%. You can make all the excuses you want but the truth is quite simple, Bush got MORE voter via a higher percentage of the total votes the second time around even while fighting an unpopular war and while he is hated by so many, it's astounding actually. Only F.D.R., did better, unless you say Nixon getting over 60% makes him a popular war time President.

Reagan was disliked? ."Cut-and-run" Reagan was disliked around the world.

No, I cannot prove most of the World disliked Reagan (just like I cannot prove Bush is disliked by most).. but
Yes, I can prove Reagan did Cut-and-run.

Some things for you to read by Bill Whittle:

Sanctuary, Part 1 (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html)
Sanctuary, Part 2 (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000126.html)

Read those, its a long read, but they explain my point in more detail. Stunning detail. XTREME 3D Detail.
Let's see what your wonderful man who explains your point of view so succinctly actually does have to say for himself:
There were three or four people in the lobby, and some microphones, behind one of which sat a douchebag in a bow tie calling for – you’ll never guess! – higher taxes…and uh, Janeane Garofalo. There she sat. Right in the middle of her radio show: Majority Report, named again no doubt free of the irony caused by the Bolsheviks naming themselves “Majority” when they were a minute fraction of the pre-Soviet revolution.
...
so much attitude in front of so little talent.
...
I stared at her (Janeane Garofalo) for a very long time... I was fixing her with that solemn, introspective, deeply serious gaze I reserve for those moments when I am trying decide whether or not to strangle someone with their own entrails.

After many long moments of weighing the pros and cons, I decided against it in the end. Given the bias of the news media these days, the headline was more likely to read RIGHT WING LUNATIC DISEMBOWELS FAMOUS COLLEGE DROPOUT, rather than the more fitting OVERDUE JUSTICE METED OUT TO BITTER CELEBRITY MORON.
Why, what a wonderful man.
He diasagrees with someone else's point of view, so proceeds to call them a douchebag, a communist, talentless and then proceeds to explain how much just being in their presence almost sends him into a murderous rage.
He then lambasts the 'liberal' press because it wouldn't applaud him killing another human being. Nasty media with there appalling liberal bias.

What a nice man.
Way to right-wingers - supporting freedom of speech as long as everyone agrees with you.

If this guy best displays your pov, then I suggest you seek immediate psychiatric help.

Xtreme 3D detail?

Xtreme psycho-fuckup-rabid-rightwing-apologist 3D detail more like.

I am simply floored when you compare the progress that's been made in Iraq to a dollar value to a US citizen. You simply have absolutely no idea what's happening in Iraq, do you?

If the US had not gone there again, do you think that Iraq would just sit around and collect dust? Of course not. Intelligence shows that Iraq was trying to get both Nuclear weapons and a means to deploy them, launch them, and fly them over to the US. Would you rather get rid of this threat now, or have Washington, Boston, New York, Dallas or any number of other cities turned into a radioactive wasteland? If you have no respect for the men and women that fight for your country, maybe you should pack up your belongings and go to Iraq, and witness why the US is still there.

Bush may not sound like the smartest man of all time, but he is correct in his view that the problem of terrorism in the middle east MUST be dealt with. If it means a large sum of money and the spending of lives. Wouldn't you be honored to know that your tax dollars are going to save the middle east from starvation, terror and death some day? If you disrespect your countries decisions so much, get out. That's all I can say. If you think the US should leave Iraq tommorow then you are sorely mistaken. If left to fester, the terrorists and their allies in Iran will cause another Sept. 11th, or something even more devastating. Do you want to see that happen? I didn't think so.

Please, for the love of god, support your troops overseas, for all our sake's.
funny you mentioned leaving because I am really considering settling down in China.

Your sources, and you, continue to use examples to prove a non sequitur. It's irrelevant that US popularity since 2001 has gone down, by the end of the year of 2001 American popularity in the world was at it's highest levels since WWII, of course it went down, it HAD to go down. So proving how much it has gone down is irrelevant and without merit.

Just because approval is at record levels doesn't mean it has to go down significantly. This isn't the approval rating of the president, but their view of the country at large; we're seeing views of the US turn from strongly positive to strongly negative very quickly, and that's not just drift from record highs but a total reversal of sentiment. From 2000-2002 approval of the US in Germany fell by 11% and France actually rose by 1%, but both were still over 60%. Two years later, those countries' approval ratings had fallen by over 23% to only a little more than a third of their countries' populations and never recovered.

These declines aren't he kind of drift one would associate with a normal decline in popularity; we're talking falling from 75% to 30% or from 83% to 56%. We're seeing these ratings halved or more over the course of six years. Regardless of how high approval is, it doesn't fall from 78% to 37% in a US ally like Germany without something else happening to push it down. Also notice that approval ratings only start to fall faster once the Iraq war was launched; there's a lot of causal evidence that suggests there is a relationship between the two.


Instead of using non-comparable presidential situations to contrast to Bush's situation today, taking note of the fact that the US is currently fighting in an unpopular war that doesn't have “instant gratification results of advances made against the enemy” for broadcast on the nightly TV news, the last time this situation occurred, President Johnson was a beat up so bad he didn’t even run for office again, and this President, in comparison, has done remarkably well, his situation was similar but the results are decisively different.

Vietnam and Iraq are nowhere near the same. In 1968, the US was not just fighting a guerilla war in a distant country; there was also a draft, higher taxes, soaring inflation, massive social change outside of the war and to top it off casualties were many times higher, with at least 58,000 dead and 153,000 wounded over the course of the war. There is simply no comparison between the two situations, especially when you consider that this war is being fought entirely by a volunteer army and taxes have been cut from their prewar levels since the fighting began.

Really? You believe that? You really think there were would-be Liberal's or Democrats who voted for Perot over Clinton? I think you exaggerate for argument's sake. I don't think you really believe that. ;)

No, I think a lot of union members voted for him. Recall that the 1992 election in particular occured after a recession that was devastating to the US manufacturing sector; Clinton also ratified NAFTA, which further divided many union members and pushed them to the Perot camp. In '96, Dole couldn't have won even if all of the Perot voters went Republican.

Unless Bush Sr. was going to win over 56% of the vote in 1992, I doubt that all of the votes were Republican. Recall that Clinton also only got 43% of the vote in 1992 compared to Bush Sr.'s 38%.

Nah, go back and look at all the elections again, many elections are not won by 50% or more, they are won by less than 50%. You can make all the excuses you want but the truth is quite simple, Bush got MORE voter via a higher percentage of the total votes the second time around even while fighting an unpopular war and while he is hated by so many, it's astounding actually. Only F.D.R., did better, unless you say Nixon getting over 60% makes him a popular war time President.

Well, there's several reasons for that. One is simply because many people prefer the president who started the war to stay in office for another term in order to finish it. Even by November of 2004 the Iraq war still had about 49% support and Bush's approval was 50%; he wasn't particularly unpopular and the situation in Iraq wasn't as deteriorated to the point it is now. Even Clinton had only 55% in 1996; Bush's situation at the time was pretty average compared to other presidents.

Also, in 2004, you also had the symbolic fact that it was the first post-9/11 election; I think that also pushed more people in to the Bush camp much like how people voted for Johnson in 1964 out of sympathy or the belief that he was needed to carry the War on Terror for another 4 years.

...
No, I think a lot of union members voted for him. Recall that the 1992 election in particular occured after a recession that was devastating to the US manufacturing sector; Clinton also ratified NAFTA, which further divided many union members and pushed them to the Perot camp. In '96, Dole couldn't have won even if all of the Perot voters went Republican.

So make up your mind and pick one of the two elections. I was talking about the first one, and I cited the 19% year quote of yours that you claimed stole voters from both of the other two parties, and I claimed foul at that. Now here you cite the Unions switching sides, but they did NOT vote for Perot the first time around, Clinton and NAFTA had not happened yet...

...Unless Bush Sr. was going to win over 56% of the vote in 1992, I doubt that all of the votes were Republican. Recall that Clinton also only got 43% of the vote in 1992 compared to Bush Sr.'s 38%.

56%? That sounds about right. Bush actually won the war he was in, Nixon was only promising to get out of his war, and he won with 60%. Bush Sr. rated in the top 99% of the highest approval ratings for any presidents of all time just two years before the election. A 56% win would NOT have been anything special, Reagan had a 58% win in his second election.

It would be a preposterous embellishment to pretend that a 56% for Bush Sr., at his second running would have been anything out of the ordinary ...

The rest of your post is opinion and theory-craft, some right and some stretching it (or so it seems to me) and some sour grapes.

"Cut-and-run" Reagan was disliked around the world.

No, I cannot prove most of the World disliked Reagan (just like I cannot prove Bush is disliked by most).. but
Yes, I can prove Reagan did Cut-and-run.

Reagan was mostly disliked by the soviets as I recall.

As to your attempt to slam Reagan with your cut-and-run attack, is this really a facade for you? Aren't you the fellow who has been advocating that the west, and the US particularly, SHOULD do exactly that? Wouldn't you, of all people, actually applaud the event if it happened today? I thought you've been campaigning with your multiple posts for the US to cut and leave the middle east entirely and leave them to resolve their own issues?

And that's exactly what Reagan did in Lebanon in the early eighties, why do you now damn both leaving (with Reagan) and staying (with Bush)? Seems you have a personal agenda slip showing there, perhaps a tailor can help you fix that so your slip doesn't show quite so badly in future statements of yours. This one could only be comparable to the princess Diana photo of her see through skirt fiasco, especially when you do it so transparently like that was.

I'll be dead, or Canadian, before they get a cent out of me.

Nah, go back and look at all the elections again, many elections are not won by 50% or more, they are won by less than 50%. You can make all the excuses you want but the truth is quite simple, Bush got MORE voter via a higher percentage of the total votes the second time around even while fighting an unpopular war and while he is hated by so many, it's astounding actually. Only F.D.R., did better, unless you say Nixon getting over 60% makes him a popular war time President.
Nothing outstanding here except perhaps questionable 2000 election results and a case of disenfranchised voters in Florida (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm)thanks to Katherine Harris.

And then of course there is the 2004 elections:

The 2004 US Elections: The Mother of all Vote Frauds (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html)

Also, this is interesting to note:

President Bush won reelection last Tuesday with 286 electoral votes (over Kerry's 252).

That is the second lowest electoral margin for the winning candidate since 1916 when Woodrow Wilson beat Charles Evans Hughes by a margin of 277 to 254.

(ed. note: Between 1900 and 1912, the size of the electoral college went from 447 to 531 -- only seven fewer than there are today. So comparisons to elections more than one hundred years ago don't work unless the electoral spread is judged in percentage terms.)

And what was the lowest margin? President Bush four years ago with 271.
Not as rosey a picture as you would paint?

And despite how you might want to put Georgie boy in a good light, a recent poll suggests that Clinton is seen to be more favourable than Bush:

In May 2006 a CNN poll comparing President Clinton's job performance with that of successor, President George W. Bush, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on every single issue in question.

The poll of over a thousand random adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. Margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

When asked which man was more honest as president, 46 percent favored Clinton to 41 percent for Bush. Respondents favored Clinton by near 3-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Bill Clinton has been referred to as the best president of the modern era by many young Democrats with those opinions based on overall quality of life, economy, and the wellbeing of the average American..
I especially find that honesty showdown interesting.