George W. Bush will end his presidency on a new low, an approval rating of 22 percent according to the latest CBS Poll.
Mr. Bush’s final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago.
The rating is far below the final ratings of recent two-term presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who both ended their terms with a 68 percent approval rating, according to CBS News polling.
Recent one term presidents also had higher ratings than Mr. Bush. His father George H.W. Bush had an end-of-term rating of 54 percent, while Jimmy Carter’s rating was 44 percent.
Harry Truman had previously had the lowest end-of-term approval at 32 percent, as measured by Gallup.
Bush proves Lincoln’s words that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Sooner or later the lies catch up with you. Future presidents be warned.
#1 by Cliff Lyon - January 17th, 2009 at 08:43
Becky,
Either 22% of American are too stupid to understand the question or 22% percent of Americans think that Gallup is a Sweepstakes and if they answer “approve,” Ed McMahon will come knocking.
Otherwise, 22% of Americans are felony-dumb and Jason Chavetz is really trying to say is we should build detention camps for illegal “ignorants.”
#2 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 08:52
It’s puzzling that, while his approval has finally dropped below 50% in this reddest of red Utah, 44 percent of Utahns still actually think Bush was a good president. Yes, let’s round them up — they are a danger to themselves and society!
#3 by Richard Warnick - January 17th, 2009 at 09:02
Today’s Salt Lake Tribune editorial basically apologizes for their endorsement of Bush in 2004. I guess they read the latest poll, too.
#4 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 09:23
I don’t forgive them for that endorsement. They had plenty of criticism of the Bush presidency prior to that time, but it was believed by many of us that they caved to the owner Singleton and his conservative views with that endorsement. Something worthy of the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
#5 by notcav - January 17th, 2009 at 09:24
(De-lurking – I cain’t hep myself – It is PARTY TIME afterall)
Paraphrasing Bush / Cheney, and of course, Lincoln: (this always made me fume ’cause Cliff is most correct) “You can fool all of the people some of the time…Market to these folks, it’ll please our ba$e.
All they really needed to kick this travesty off was ONE supreme court member, the rest is, as they say, History…and good riddance!
#6 by notcav - January 17th, 2009 at 09:26
OOps…”Some of the people ALL of the time”. Feh.
Perhaps I’m one, The potential exists.
#7 by Cliff Lyon - January 17th, 2009 at 09:29
Becky,
Either 22% of American are too stupid to understand the question or 22% percent of Americans think that Gallup is a Sweepstakes and if they answer “approve,” Ed McMahon will come knocking.
Otherwise, 22% of Americans are felony-dumb and Jason Chavetz is really trying to say is we should build detention camps for illegal “ignorants.”
I thought this was so clever, it should be re-posted.
Get it? …
Chavetz has a speech impediment. ‘Illegal Immigrants’ vs ‘Illegal IGNORANTS.”
I’m rolling on the floor cracking myself up (ROFCMU).
#8 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 09:34
I got it, Cliff, and thought it was pretty good myself. I got a laugh out loud from it!
#9 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 09:34
Notcav, is that you cav? You sound like cav.
#10 by notcav - January 17th, 2009 at 09:44
nunbutt
#11 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 09:48
So glad to hear from you, Cav! <3
I’ll see all of you guys a little later. This girl has Saturday errands!
#12 by notcav - January 17th, 2009 at 10:07
And hello to you too, Becky.
Let me add this sliver of praise for GW before slipping back into the either for that undetermined break (or not), He can be thanked for what I hope will be the destruction of the Republican Party, for at least as long as I’m likely to be alive. Pitty the children.
#13 by Cliff Lyon - January 17th, 2009 at 10:22
It gets funnier every time I think about it.
Either 22% of American are too stupid to understand the question or 22% percent of Americans think that Gallup is a Sweepstakes and if they answer “approve,” Ed McMahon will come knocking.
I thought this was so clever, it should be re-posted.
Get it? …
Chavetz has a speech impediment. ‘Illegal Immigrants’ vs ‘Illegal IGNORANTS.”
I’m rolling on the floor cracking myself up (ROFCMU). Ha, ha ha!
#14 by Rich Okelberry - January 17th, 2009 at 12:43
I read that Bush actually surged in the Gallup rating to 34% approval and 64% disapproval which historically puts him in line with Carter and Truman. (You guys on the left still think Carter was a great President, right?) It was the CBS/NY Times poll that had him at 22…
I know that liberals love to point to Bush’s approval ratings as an example of failure, but I wonder how many have actually asked themselves why his approval ratings are so low and his disapproval rating is so high. I imagine that the knee jerk reaction would be to blame the war, but I have a different theory.
You see, even considering that there are many on the Left that suffers from Bush derangement syndrome, few recognize that Bush was a very centrist President. While he may have appeared very bullish and conservative in the public eye is voting record tells a completely different tail. You see while many on the left may have shrieked at the sound of the name of God coming from the president’s mouth and nearly vomited at the idea of a secret domestic surveillance program we must remember that it was his willingness to spend tax payer’s dollars at an alarming rate that was ultimately his downfall.
We all know that those on the left were going to hate Bush regardless because they continue to perpetuate that lie in the own minds that he wasn’t legitimately elected. The rest was just filler. But ultimately, it was has lack of fiscal conservatisms that was his down fall. The best example of this is the single largest new entitlement program in recent history, the Medicare Prescription Drug Program that helped turn his own base against him. You see if conservatives had stayed with him, he may not have been the most popular president in history, but he certainly wouldn’t have been near the bottom.
Still I will miss the guy, because I absolutely love using his name on leftist blogs to wrench liberal bellies into knots. I imagine more than once here at One Utah a bit of vomit has backed up into the mouths of readers as I explain that Bush never lied about WMDs. What is even better is when liberal readers and writers then fail miserably to prove him to be a liar by throwing conspiracy on top of speculation to prove their point. Heck, the owner of this very site still believes that it was Bush and Cheney that flew the planes by remote control into the towers on 9/11.
So farewell honorable President George W. Bush. There are many of us in the blogosphere that will miss you dearly, ‘W’!
BTW: Becky, would you like to defend your statement, “or later the lies catch up with you.” Richard Warnick most recently failed to prove that Bush lied about WMDs, would you like to give it a shot? There is still time for one more little Bush debate!
#15 by Rich Okelberry - January 17th, 2009 at 12:44
Crap, I forgot to hit the email followup button again… Sorry!
#16 by Obama the Paul [MEROvingians] - January 17th, 2009 at 12:59
ro:
Do not confuse pity with support.
#17 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 13:09
Cliff, you continue to crack me up!
But RO, you are cracking me up even more! Your schizophrenic diatribe can’t decide whether to bash or praise Bush. It’s safe to be on both sides, I guess.
As to whether or not Bush lied, let me ask you RO, were there or were there not WMDs in Iraq? What about the mobile bio-labs? How about attempts to acquire yellow cake? How about the persistent implication, even as recently as yesterday, that Iraq had something to do with the terrorism visited upon the U.S.? (There’s a reason why something like 70% of Americans for a long time thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11 — that was no fluke.) And yes, he did have Colin Powell do his lying for him at the U.N. — all the more shame for Powell.
#18 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 13:28
Oh, and Rich, I like my poll better than your poll because it just gives me more hope for the intelligence of the American people.
If you follow that link, you’ll also read the Bush enjoyed the highest approval rating for a president ever; that is, 90 percent right after 9-11. And then he blew it. I wonder how that happened.
#19 by Rich Okelberry - January 17th, 2009 at 13:46
Becky,
Oh Fun! I am so surprised that you actually took that baited question.
First, I want to say that I have never been a big fan of Bush, against the wishes of my parents, but will always speak the truth about him.
You see, your questions actually help to illustrate how people have been suckered by leftists and Democrats who had to scramble to excuse their support for the war. You have been suckered Becky and you still don’t even know it.
Let me ask you one simple question; Does the fact that we eventually learned that there were no WMDs in Iraq after the invasion, logically dictate that Bush must have lied about them? Read carefully what I just asked you before answer.
To help you out I will ask you a similar hypothetical question: If I tell you that we can buy Tootie Fruities down at the grocery store, then discover when we get there that they are all sold out and won’t be restocking because the company that makes Tootie Fruities is no longer making them and only selling CooKoo Poopoo’s, does that make me a liar.
Are you absolutely sure you want to have this discussion? As I said, Richard Warnick who is almost an expert on “Bush lies” eventually had to abdicate.
BTW: Are you a liar for posting your poll results as being from Gallup when they are actually from CBS? Hmmmm…
#20 by cav - January 17th, 2009 at 14:24
RO, I confess, I am almost forced to wretch whenever i’m forced to peruse one of your ridiculous comments.
I assume that it is because of GW’s immanent departure – coincident to any possibility that justice and accountability may be had, that his more-than-minor-league ‘favorables’ has risen. A real sign of relief felt by those who only now can approve. (See above 10:07, where even I found something to like about him).
#21 by George - January 17th, 2009 at 15:34
How long do we have to wait for his book, “The Collected Wisdom of George W. Bush” (a slim volume)?
#22 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 15:37
RO, we are having fun now! I’m glad I’ve been able to brighten up your Saturday afternoon.
A lie is a lie is a lie. But some lies carry more serious consequences than others. If I told you my poll was from Gallup (and I’ll correct that), you might be slightly inconvenienced. When Bush lied, thousands of people died.
And Cav, I liked your sliver of praise. If it means ‘leftists’ remain in charge for the remainder of my cognizant life, and long enough to make RO wriggle in discomfort until he comes over to the bright side, it will almost make it worth enduring these 8 years. All except for that war thing.
#23 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 15:40
Haha, George, it reminds me of the line from someone, Jay Leno I think, who said more or less this, “They’ve started work on the George W. Bush library. They’ve installed the shelf.”
#24 by Rich Okelberry - January 17th, 2009 at 16:25
Becky,
Boy you are learning a lot here at One Utah about how to avoid engaging in a losing argument while still holding on to your convictions. I assume that you refused to answer my core question about what constitutes a lie because you have quickly discovered that the term doesn’t apply to President Bush as far as the run up to the war goes. You see, ultimately people that hold on to the catchy phrase, “Bush dies and people died,” do so out of ignorance of the topic.
That phrase is a perfect example of something Hitler said about lies,
In fact, by using your logic I could argue that you are a liar because you have perpetuated a lie against George W. Bush by repeating that phrase. Of course, I don’t believe you are a liar. I believe you have come to believe something that is not true by a preponderance of false information.
Do you want to know what is true, Becky? Do you want to understand what REALLY happened leading up to the Iraq War? Are you so certain that you understand the truth in this matter?
Before you answer, did you know that even Saddam’s generals believed that Iraq had WMDs?
And one final quote I guess you could apply to me…
#25 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 16:58
RO, you assume wrongly about me.
As for Bush and the run up to the war, don’t take my word for it. Here are links to the 935 lies Bush and his administration told in the run up: CNN, and YouTube video.
Do you want to understand what is true, Rich? Or do you just want to cling to your convictions at the expense of knowing the truth?
Allow me to update, here is a link to the study. Just read the Key False Statements. Case closed.
#26 by Rich Okelberry - January 17th, 2009 at 20:57
Becky,
Did you really just post a video from MSNBC? Are you serious? That’s worse than if I would post a video here of Sean Hannity from FOX arguing my side. I mean MSNBC doesn’t even claim to be a news channel anymore. They are held up in jounalism schools as what not to do when you graduate. Heck maybe I should start quoting the Enquirer.
I tell you what Becky; I will make it easy for you. Give me the one statement made by President Bush where he made a statement that he knew to be absolutely false. Since, I am only requiring you to give me one single lie to prove your point, I would like a little evidence to back up your statement. You know what evidence is right? Like solid testimony from a reliable source or maybe documents where Bush ordered such fabrications. Heck, there have been plenty of people like Ari Fletcher that was there for the whole thing and are no long buddy-buddy with Bush. You should be able to find something that would hold up in court.
Well let me explain. Just because Bush said there were WMDs and there wasn’t does not qualify as a lie. You must prove that he went beyond mere exaggeration and actually fabricated the information.
As I explained to Warnick the last time we had this debate, when Clinton told us that he had no sexual relations with Lewinski, that was a bold faced LIE. But when his aids went out and told the same story to the media on all the Sunday morning programs, they were NOT lying because they truly believed the information that had been given them. Please don’t make me get more semantic than that. I mean my 4 year old get this part.
I am dying with anticipation over which of the nearly 1000 lies that you have presented you will choose. Which is going to be the clincher?
This is going to be gooooood!
I noticed that you didn’t have anything to say about Bill, lying about WMDs to justify attacking Iraq. Hmmmm… You do know that Hilary, Obama’s new Secretary of State is the only first lady to have an office near the Presidents and has been reported by people who were there to have been involved in all high level decisions, right?. You’re not going to by a hypocrite like Warnick and fail to apply the same tests and standards that you would apply to Bush to the Clintons are you?
#27 by Rich Okelberry - January 17th, 2009 at 21:09
Becky,
I thought these quotes might help you in your deliberations. Are these all lies?
#28 by Rich Okelberry - January 17th, 2009 at 21:12
Oooops forgot this humdinger…
#29 by Shane Smith - January 17th, 2009 at 21:51
“You see, even considering that there are many on the Left that suffers from Bush derangement syndrome, few recognize that Bush was a very centrist President. While he may have appeared very bullish and conservative in the public eye is voting record tells a completely different tail. You see while many on the left may have shrieked at the sound of the name of God coming from the president’s mouth and nearly vomited at the idea of a secret domestic surveillance program we must remember that it was his willingness to spend tax payer’s dollars at an alarming rate that was ultimately his downfall.”
The problem with this statement is that it assumes that somehow spending tax payers money is NOT a hallmark of the right wing. History says that the only thing they do better and more often is stoke the culture war fire.
#30 by cav - January 17th, 2009 at 21:58
So the shadow government pulls strings on both parties?! Both dems and repugs need look no further than haliburton, carlyle or other members of ‘the complex’ for the ‘heft’ they need to freely share the love of democracy espoused in their propagandizing, swaying both hearts and minds of any who might not play our game.Who knew?!
They’ve polished turd to the point that no other lie can even begin to compete.
Proof poz that GW is a truth-teller…and we do not torture.
#31 by Shane Smith - January 17th, 2009 at 22:05
Rich, the fact that the people you quote after 2001 all got their intel from a group that Bushco put into the pentagon specifically to create and cherry pick intel that would match the right wing talking points kinda strengthens Beckys case. The fact that the lines before 2001 are about preventing the development WMDs, and that prevention worked, just makes the fact that you buy the Bush line even sadder…..
#32 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 22:15
Good God, RO, please be more succinct. I, no lie, fell asleep while reading your first of three comments. You could start by editing out the condescending rhetoric like, “You know what evidence is right?” That would reduce the blah blah blah by a third.
So you took one look at the video and didn’t bother to watch I guess, or you would have seen quite a bit more than MSNBC. Particularly compelling was Senator Durbin’s speech. You didn’t bother to click on the link to the study itself I guess. Per your request, here is one bald-faced lie that Bush had to know was a lie:
But you quibble, Richard. As the study states “President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.” That means deliberate. You need to stop looking at little individual twigs, step back and take a look at the forest. The whole thing taken together gives you a very clear picture. It was a PR campaign, manufactured and produced with one aim: war in Iraq.
As for Bill, Hillary, and various members of congress, if they were privvy to all of the same intelligence information that Bush & Co. were, yes, they are responsible too. Only an investigation will reveal all of that.
#33 by Becky - January 17th, 2009 at 22:24
Cav, as always you cut to the core of the issue. Follow the money.
#34 by Cliff Lyon - January 18th, 2009 at 01:21
Jesus Christ Okelberries! That was a winner apology. Do you mind if I top post it as a classic example of the authoritarian personality?
Please understand, it hard for the rest of us to understand how someone would abandon reality to protect ones leader.
I guess if you are afraid Bush can still ‘get you’ I suppose some will make moral compromises to protect your family.
I’ll remember not to thank you when and if America ever returns to her founding principles.
#35 by Rich Okelberry - January 18th, 2009 at 07:19
Shane,
When I speak of Bush losing support from conservatives, this doesn’t automatically mean the ‘Right Wing’ or even Republicans. Also, when I use Bush’s tendency to spend like a mad man, it certainly is not the only issue that made conservatives feel abandoned. Bush’s weak stance on immigration and his failure to secure the boarders, especially post 9/11 is two other examples that lead to his abandonment.
Imagine for a moment if Obama after taking his oath fails to close GITMO or fails to bring an immediate end to the war in Iraq. There are those whose early support for him on these issues that led to him eventually defeating Hillary and securing the nomination. If he now chooses to take a more centrist position on the war, he will be in jeopardy of losing support from a significant portion of his base.
#36 by Rich Okelberry - January 18th, 2009 at 07:23
Cav,
So if I read you right, are you saying that you interpret my prior statements as saying that it was ‘the complex’ that fed misinformation to Bush? Hmmm… I really don’t know what to say to that but Becky seems to agree with you.
#37 by Rich Okelberry - January 18th, 2009 at 08:12
Shane,
Initially the Bush Administration relied heavily on intelligence gathered during the Clinton Administration because little new intelligence had been gathered on Iraq after Bush took office. Additionally, Congressional leaders had access to ALL the information on Iraq that the President did through foreign intelligence briefings. That is the purpose of those committees. If they chose to only look at the “cherry picked” information then that was their fault then they are just as guilty as Bush.
Also consider that when Clinton made his statements he was relying not on current intelligence, because he was not privy to it, but his own beliefs about Iraq and WMDs from when he served as President. He passed this misinformation and his belief about WMDs onto Bush. So it could be said that Clinton is just as responsible for putting our nation on a war footing with Iraq as those that cherry picked which information would be put before the President’s eyes.
I notice that you have nothing to say about the “lies” told by the Clinton Administration prior to Bush taking over. How convenient that you refuse to recognize that even Bill was willing to use such weak information to launch attacks against Iraq.
#38 by Rich Okelberry - January 18th, 2009 at 08:23
Cliff my Brother!!!
I know that anything said in this conversation will not convince you that Bush did not lie to the American people to take us to war in Iraq. After all, you still believe that Bush and Cheney had the Twin Towers destroyed by remote control on 9/11.
Still, if you really would like to top post you have my blessing. I have gathered enough information here to write an essay on the subject over at KVNU For the People. Perhaps you will join us there and you can tell us all why we are all fools to believe that terrorists attacked us on 9/11.
(Sorry if that sounded condescending. I certainly wouldn’t want to ruffle anyone’s sensibilities.)
#39 by Shane Smith - January 18th, 2009 at 08:46
“Initially the Bush Administration relied heavily on intelligence gathered during the Clinton Administration because little new intelligence had been gathered on Iraq after Bush took office. Additionally, Congressional leaders had access to ALL the information on Iraq that the President did through foreign intelligence briefings”
Yes, which I pointed out has been cherry picked as was revealed by several different people inside the pentagon when discussing the office of special plans. This is in fact very old news. And while congress may have had access to all the same intel, they also had access to the entire PATRIOT Act, but none of them read it, because it was hundreds of pages long, and they had to vote the next day. In similar fashion, the hundreds of thousands of pages of intel on Iraq was available, yes, but since congress members don’t generally spend their lives reading thousands of pages on a single source, they rely on others whos job it is to condense that material down to a brief. That was the office of special plans, and now we are back to cherry picking intel. Again, this has all been widely reported and documented. Maybe you should try educating yourself.
“I notice that you have nothing to say about the “lies” told by the Clinton Administration prior to Bush taking over.”
Then your reading comprehension is poor enough to explain why you don’t understand the First comment. Go read it again. (tip, look for the phrase “The fact that the lines before 2001″ which applies to all the Clinton quotes)
“Also, when I use Bush’s tendency to spend like a mad man, it certainly is not the only issue that made conservatives feel abandoned”
And here we have the heart of the right wing bullshit story. Over and over we watch these neo-cons get elected, and over and over they do exactly what the right always does after elected, and their supporters when confronted with their abject failure cry out in the wilderness “but he wasn’t a REAL conservative!”
If only the true scottsman would stand up……
Congrats Rich, I have less patience for fools than Becky and Cliff it would seem and you have proven that. “You cannot use reason and facts to talk someone out of a position they didn’t use either reason or facts to get into.”
#40 by cav - January 18th, 2009 at 09:04
Not complex enough?
I’m ready to drop my BDS (bush derangement syndrome), but I’m quite sure that niche’ will be filled by a new virus…3D (’democracy’ Derangement disease). Maybe one of the big pharma’s will develop some propietary pill, give it to the entire world?
#41 by Becky - January 18th, 2009 at 09:04
RO,
RE: “the complex’ that fed misinformation to Bush”
That’s not quite the way it worked. The complex was a motivational force; there was a goal to wage a war in Iraq, and the misinformation fed that goal.
GWB was an idealogue and, I believe, a puppet in the play. Of course we already know Cheney’s fingerprints were all over Halliburton (or the other way around). But Carlyle Group is an interesting study, with its principles at the time including old government dogs like GHW Bush and James Baker (yes the same James Baker who led the legal team that went to Florida in 2000 to make sure Bush took that state). Carlyle is a private investment group with its focus on the military industrial complex. Would that we could know more about this shadowy group.
I may be jaded and cynical in my old age, but I no longer believe things in America happen for high idealistic reasons, but for someone’s profit. At least the actions of our government – and I mean that at every level, right down to cities and towns.
#42 by Obama the Paul [MEROvingians] - January 18th, 2009 at 16:29
ro:
What other good things do you have to say about Bill Clinton? You must have quite a list of favorites given your use of his statements as support for invading Iraq.
#43 by Rich Okelberry - January 18th, 2009 at 16:42
Shane,
Have you read the entire list of 935 lies that Becky referred to in her earlier post? I have… Every single one of them! I hope that is education enough for you on the subject. I have also read conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory on the subject from sites just like this one and have yet to find a shred of proof that Bush did knowingly tell a lie leading to the war.
Unlike some, I don’t come into such discussions unprepared. If you stick around you will find this to be painfully true. You will also find that I am not easily swayed by condescending rhetoric or emotionally charged dogmatic forms of persuasion.
When I spoke about you unwillingness to comment on the quotes from the Clinton Administration concerning WMDs, I was not saying that you refused to acknowledge them. By the way, perhaps your reading comprehension should be tested because the statement you did make is not accurate. The Clinton administration believed that WMDs had already been produced and did exist. Hence the December 1998 attack ordered by Bill Clinton was to destroy these already active facilities. Well at least he told us they were active at the time. Thanks to Bush we now know the TRUTH, don’t we?
So I will ask you in smaller words…. Did Bill Clinton ever lie about Iraq having WMDs? (Please use the same standard that you apply to Bush when answering.)
Now for an interesting statement that you made…
“In similar fashion, the hundreds of thousands of pages of intel on Iraq was available, yes, but since congress members don’t generally spend their lives reading thousands of pages on a single source, they rely on others whos job it is to condense that material down to a brief.”
It seems that you are beginning to make my upcoming argument for me. Is it your belief that Congress does not have time to peruse hundreds of thousands of pages of intelligence briefings but the President who is infinitely more busy does? I think I am going to have to use this quote in my essay. It’s so great when you can get the opposition to make your points for you. By the way, how should I refer to you when I make the reference? Should I just say some guy named Shane Smith? Or do you contribute anywhere? Maybe a school teacher or something?
Finally, you really should work on that whole patience thing… You sounded very put off.
Well, I really need to get to putting my essay together for Inauguration week. You know the whole unify the nation by putting away the past while looking forward to a brighter future thing. How do you all think we’re doing so far? GObama! before and think I am the first but would want to be called a liar for not knowing that it has already been popularized by someone else.
#44 by Richard Warnick - January 18th, 2009 at 16:58
Shorter Richard Okelberry:
I reality, Bush received a briefing from CIA Director George Tenet on Sept. 18, 2002 in which he learned that Saddam had no usable weapons of mass destruction– no nuclear weapons, chemical weapons or biological weapons of any kind. R.O. hasn’t even tried to deny this, he just says it’s one data point among many! The truth is, Saddam was keeping many of his generals (he had hundreds) in the dark– but the CIA knew.
#45 by Rich Okelberry - January 18th, 2009 at 17:04
Richard,
Glad you could join us! You seem like your finally starting to get it! Heck, why say in a few words what can be expelled in many. It makes me feel smarter that way. Say, while you are here why don’t you tell Becky the proof you came up with against Bush the last time we discussed this topic?
#46 by Rich Okelberry - January 18th, 2009 at 17:04
Becky,
Sorry your reply is taking so long. I will let you know when it is posted.
P.S. I know that last post may have put you to sleep again. I truly am sorry. If it helps, you are certainly my favorite author at OneUtah and are the first person I read when I stop by.
#47 by Obama the Paul [MEROvingians] - January 18th, 2009 at 17:09
ro:
Still waiting for the list of great things you think Bill Clinton did to give you such confidence in his words as support for invading Iraq …
#48 by Rich Okelberry - January 18th, 2009 at 17:13
Obama the Paul,
Is that you in there Cliff?
I must say, I LOVE BILL! I love Bill because it forces lefties to apply the same logic the use towards Bush towards him or end up sounding like a hypocrite. After all, if there were lies about WMDs in Iraq, it began with Bill, not Bush. I must say that I also didn’t oppose his 1998 bombing of Iraq or his War in Bosnia. Heck, I didn’t even have a problem with him bombing the civilian aspirin factory in Sudan. How about anyone else here? Did anyone else have a problem with those “acts of aggression?”
#49 by Obama the Paul [MEROvingians] - January 18th, 2009 at 17:18
ro:
Still waiting!
#50 by Richard Warnick - January 18th, 2009 at 17:30
R.O. — How is it that “lefties,” Democrats or even independents are supposed to adhere to unthinking support of Bill Clinton in all things? Only Republicans play follow the leader to that extent.
#51 by Becky - January 18th, 2009 at 17:52
RO, I managed to stay awake and alert all while catching up. Much better. Thanks for the compliment, too, though I’m the least of the writers here in substance and quality of content.
No rush, when you have your essay done, I’ll give it a read.
Richard W, thanks for the comment about unthinking support in all things. That was sort of what I was getting at with my “Heroes” post earlier here. I think we have to look at a president’s overall performance, and as that goes, Clinton enjoys popularity for a reason: those were the halcyon days before the national nightmare that has been the Bush presidency. But that’s not to say I agree with or approve of everything Clinton did. And I already know ahead of time that will be the case with Obama.
I do feel great hope at this time, though. And agree with another poll I was reading in which people expressed faith in Obama mixed with patience. Most people are realistic about what it’s going to take to solve the great problems awaiting our new president, and willing to give him time to turn things around.
#52 by cav - January 18th, 2009 at 18:16
RO, bush dead-ender or parody? Call 1 800 AWSHUCKS to cast your vote.
#53 by Obama the Paul [MEROvingians] - January 18th, 2009 at 19:49
cav:
You obviously misunderestimate ro!
#54 by Rich Okelberry - January 18th, 2009 at 19:57
Becky,
Just a few quick questions before I write my essay.
You do realize that the statement you used about mobile weapons labs was made after the war had started and can’t be used as an example of Bush lying to get us into Iraq, right? Still I am willing to discredit it but would like to give you a chance to choose another pre war statement. After all, the run up to the war is what is truly important right? If you like I can use statements about the mobile weapons labs prior to the war as a pre-war example.
#55 by Becky - January 18th, 2009 at 21:52
Hey RO,
Sorry, I’m not willing to keep on playing “yes, but”. No more assignments please. Even though the war had begun, Bush continued to lie to defend our presence there and to scare Americans into thinking Saddam Hussein was part of a terrorism plot again the U.S. The run up to the war was not the only time Bush lied. We’re simply talking about lies – any and all lies. Go ahead and write the essay with whatever statements you want to use. I have no delusions you’ll become convinced along the way that Bush lied after all. And having read considerably on the subject myself, it’s going to be hard for you to change my mind.
#56 by Richard Warnick - January 18th, 2009 at 22:32
R.O.–
In our discussions, you’ve never addressed the White House Iraq Group or the Pentagon Office of Special Plans. These were government entities with the mission of “selling” the invasion of Iraq. That is, they invented and spread Bush administration lies. But you continue to ignore this fact.
Also, you never responded to my challenge to find a pre-Iraq-invasion quote from President Bush about the supposed threat from Iraq that was actually the truth.
Here’s just some of what we were told in 2002-2003:
#57 by cav - January 19th, 2009 at 00:35
Obama the pal,…I left something out…’dire wing-nut’ !
‘The write-in option is landsliding over here at the polls!
#58 by Becky - January 19th, 2009 at 08:18
Cav, I want to write in, but my vote is just bleep bleep as I’m too polite to say it here.
#59 by cav - January 19th, 2009 at 08:28
Becky! Did you see bushes last official act:…declare today, January 18, National Sanctity of Human Life Day?
It’s in the realm of ‘actions speaking louder than words’, that my beef with RO seems to really have its foothold. Omission, Commision, and simply over-the-top BIG, do not make the things bushie and Dick have said, anything less lie-like. (I too, love alliteration).
“Free at last.”
#60 by Becky - January 19th, 2009 at 08:29
Also, regarding the claim about Niger uranium, the White House had been told that this information was false, and in October of 2002 George Tenet instructed that it should be removed from a presidential speech. Yet in January 2003 the administration was using it again it multiple speeches, including the president’s state of the union, against the advice of the CIA. The nuclear threat was very important in this deception, and the Bushies badly need something like this, and continued to use the false information when nothing else was available.
Also read this recent Huffington Post article
#61 by Becky - January 19th, 2009 at 08:34
Cav, I did not yet see that news. Of course he needed one more “in your face” act, didn’t he? Has he pardoned Sen. Stephens yet? This offer expires in a few hours. The more I remind myself of all the lies, the less polite I become.
#62 by cav - January 19th, 2009 at 08:57
Gonzo was another one. I keep wondering where and why they came up with these people. Was it just to make GW look GOOD? Scraping the barrel-bottom was the only way.
#63 by Becky - January 19th, 2009 at 08:59
I’m sure unfaltering loyalty to the cause was essential. Gonzo, Rice, Powell, others all willing to sell their souls.
#64 by cav - January 19th, 2009 at 09:03
And for RO. The ‘Complex’, if you hadn’t figured it out already, is a TOTALLY ficticious construct. I live in a dream. ’scuse me please.
#65 by cav - January 19th, 2009 at 09:04
Make that ‘fictitious’.
#66 by Becky - January 19th, 2009 at 09:11
I’ve made a new top post on Bush lies. The Google machine and YouTube make it impossible for the criminals to hide from their own words.
#67 by Moribund Republic - January 19th, 2009 at 10:45
Not true Becky, Google is regularly scrubbing content that exposes events in a negative light, say for example in Gaza.
Check it out.
#68 by Cilff - January 19th, 2009 at 22:35
Glenn is actually right this time.
We are the evidence proof.
Welcome to the revolution…
#69 by Shane Smith - January 20th, 2009 at 22:43
“Shane,
Unlike some, I don’t come into such discussions unprepared. If you stick around you will find this to be painfully true. You will also find that I am not easily swayed by condescending rhetoric or emotionally charged dogmatic forms of persuasion.”
Unfortunately for you, I don’t have to stick around, as several other people dismantled your argument before I even had free time to return to this thread.
Maybe you can answer them first, and if you are coherent I will bother adding my two cents….
#70 by Rich Okelberry - January 21st, 2009 at 10:24
Shane,
I’m sorry you had to wait so long. Here’s the link to my essay rebuttal.
Bush Lied and People Died, Right?
It is rather lengthy as Becky will tell you. I plan to publish an abridged version at KVNU’s For the People ( http://www.kvnuftp.com ). It will likely be published later today or tomorrow. It all depends on whether it becomes a show topic or not. I will also make another post if it does become a show topic. Maybe you can call in and we can discuss it in person.I will certainly place another link here once the abridged version is available, but please feel free to read the entire essay at Utah Free Press.
Maybe you will find something to add your two cents about. Then again, silence can often speak louder than words.