Going Out On Top . . .

. . . of the list of worst Presidential approval ratings ever for an outgoing President:

President Bush prepares to leave office with no evidence that public opinion toward him is softening during his final days in power, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. When asked about Mr. Bush’s performance over the last eight years, 22 percent of respondents said they approved. That matched Mr. Bush’s job-approval rating for much of last fall, the lowest of his presidency. In the current poll, 73 percent disapproved of his performance over the course of his two terms.

In contrast, Mr. Bush’s most recent predecessors left office with approval ratings ranging from 68 percent, for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, to 44 percent, for Jimmy Carter. Mr. Bush’s father left with 54 percent.

You did a heck of a job Bushie.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Open Thread | Two Queens Officers Accused of Deliberately Arresting Four Innocent Men >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think at least a few percent of those (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 08:52:32 PM EST
    just approved that he was leaving.

    This is the first (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 08:53:07 PM EST
    change in presidency that actually has me anticipating the day.

    We do have to give Bush his due though. Before he took office he had a nearly spotless record of bankrupting anything he laid his hands on...he is still damn near perfect.

    LOL - he does have that reverse midas touch (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 08:56:46 PM EST
    I was nearly as happy in 1993 right before Clinton took office. The Reagan-Bush years were their own brand of miserable.

    I think you speak for all of us BTD, not (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:09:33 PM EST
    just you.

    Is Eric Holder tap dancing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Saul on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    when asked if Bush should be investigated for allege war crimes.   I heard professor Turley on MSNBC saying it would be a grave mistake not to hold Bush accountable in the Obama administration.  As Turley said for Holder to just let it go will make this injustice  become our crime and I have to assume it would spill over and become associated with the Obama administration  for failure to investigate or prosecute those involved.

    Brue Fein several years ago argued the consequences for not impeaching Bush.  The legitimation of past crime move forward  and the next administration feels it also can violate the law.

    No prosecutions. (none / 0) (#10)
    by daryl herbert on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 10:24:38 PM EST
    I can tell you this much: as long as Obama keeps Guantanamo Bay open, Bush administration officials won't be prosecuted.

    Paul Krugman has a very good article on this (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Saul on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:10:58 AM EST
    Here is the link

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:31:32 AM EST
    Obama has said as much. He never bought into impeaching Bush in the first place:

    "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

    "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."


    And here's a discussion on Gitmo



    "Tit for Tat" was probably pre-planning (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 03:06:37 PM EST
    If he was intending to win the next election, he wouldn't have wanted to be third in succession for this embarrassing form of presidential punishment, perhaps.

    "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

    So, this further confirms that the numerous recorded statements Obama made in support of the war once he got into the Senate were far more representative of his feelings than his claim to have aggressively opposed the war in that unrecorded speech in 2002.  What he does from Tuesday onward will be what confirms his view on all these topics.

    I sincerely hope he shows us that he understood the constitution well enough to lecture on it to law students, and well enough to enforce it for the country over the next four years.  


    Been down so long (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:58:53 PM EST
    it's beginning to look like up to him.

    Don't you just imagine that Bush - (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:03:58 PM EST
    and probably more than a few members of his family - had to be thinking that maybe the success he never seemed able to attain in anything else he had done, would somehow magically find him if he could just get that one really, really important job - like POTUS?

    And that forevermore, he will console himself with the belief that, just by virtue of being elected twice (you know he doesn't believe that first election was stolen), he is a success - and all the evidence that suggests that he was just as much a failure at being POTUS as he was in every other job he ever had is just irrelevant?

    I know one thing - no one will be asking him to be any kind of global ambassador, or seek his advice on brokering peace or solving some thorny international problem.

    I would feel sorrier for him and for what lies ahead for him if he hadn't made the lives of so many others measurably worse, and if the consequences of his actions would not be lingering for years to come.  But he did, and they will, and so the best I can muster for him is a simmering pity and a hope that karma pays him a long and lingering visit.

    R U kidding? (none / 0) (#20)
    by weltec2 on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 07:37:00 AM EST
    Fox will turn him into an elder statesman. You just watch. No one goes to Jimmy, Bill, or Gore, but Fox News will be forever genuflecting at his door. In five years all of his crimes will be forgotten and the electorate, especially those who voted for him in 04 will be vindicated by the praise that is heaped upon this man. Most people seem to have very short memories.

    If polls mean anything... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by diogenes on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:23:36 PM EST
    Does that mean that you think that Reagan was a great president?

    The point is... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Thanin on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:28:27 PM EST
    people on all sides know bush sucks.

    polls (none / 0) (#17)
    by diogenes on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 12:21:28 AM EST
    Didn't the 2006-2008 Democratic congress have even lower poll ratings?

    Congress (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 12:36:29 AM EST
    isn't a person. They always have low ratings because half the country doesn't care too much for one side of the aisle, while the other half of the country doesn't see much good in the other.

    They almost always give good marks to their own representative though. By comparison, there isn't a Senator or Congressman in the entire country with ratings as low from their constituents as Molly Ivins' favorite Shrub.


    They always have low ratings (2.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:00:20 AM EST
    Could you provide some proof??

    Congress Always Polls Lower Than the Sitting POTUS (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:45:08 AM EST
    According to Gallup.

    And if you look at the last 34 years Gallup has numbers for Congress, even their highs are not all that impressive generally.

    What I find intriguing is what's with the 84% (!) in 2002?


    Whether theres proof or not... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:06:30 AM EST
    whats the point youre trying to make?

    That Congress has not (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:08:28 AM EST
    always had low ratings.

    I thought that was obvious.


    That is obvious... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    what isnt obvious is how that matters.

    It was a claim. (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:20:42 AM EST
    I asked for proof.

    That is one of The Laws of the Internet.

    You claim. You prove.


    So you cant explain how it matters either way? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:30:47 AM EST
    Being factual (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    doesn't matter to you?

    Hey, that's your position, not mine.


    You have no position. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 01:09:01 PM EST
    The fact is it actually doesnt matter whether congress has a high approval rating or not.  Trying to make a case off of it is pointless.

    No (1.00 / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    The point is that a claim was made, I asked for proof, none was provided and you say it doesn't matter.

    Now. The moon is made of cheese!

    And don't you dare argue about it.


    Wrong... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 04:17:47 PM EST
    darling grace provided proof.

    You seem unable to graso things. (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:12:55 PM EST
    I asked for proof. You provided none and complained bitterly.

    That was, is and will be my point regarding you.


    I never made the assertion... (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:53:34 PM EST
    so the onus was never on me.  Moreover the proof was provided.

    The incantation of the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    administration that we need to look forward and not backward is perplexing. The unavoidable work of the next four years, in large measure,  will be to  deal with the past so as to enable our future.  Indeed, the key evaluative measure of Mr. Obama's success will be how effective he has been in remediating the past eight year's  malfeasance,  

    Ding-dong Bush Is Gone (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by john horse on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:53:15 AM EST
    Bush was not merely one
    of the worst Presidents ever,
    but we have verified it legally
    and now poll-itically
    that Bush
    is morally, ethically,
    spiritually, intellectually,
    positively, absolutely,
    undeniably and most reliably

    Soon this will be a day of independence
    for all Americans
    and their descendants.
    Ding-dong Bush is gone.

    It is gonna be fun (2.00 / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:26:03 PM EST
    watching you folks enjoy getting what you want.

    "You folks"? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:42:36 PM EST
    Hmm, seems it's more than just the left that wants him gone. 73% of Americans seem to want it.

    You must be part of the 22%??


    My feelings towards Bush have been (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:29:54 PM EST
    mixed and remain mixed. But in life you have to be able to say, "This is what it is," and go forward.

    When I think of an Al Gore or John Kerry as President I shudder. When I view Bush's position on Gay Marriage I shudder, yet he did get Medicare RX passed..And his position on Amnesty for Cultural Sojourners... aka Illegal aliens... gave the Democrats a huge boost by keeping many Repubs home.

    The Left hates him because of the war, and the constant banging on him from the Lame Stream Media has had its toll. But the truth is that Obama will leave a much sourer taste in your mouth than Bush and the public has no love for the Congress controlled by the Democrats. Indeed, last I checked Congress is in worse shape than Bush.

    As for being "white" and "southern" yes I am. If that be my only sin I expect the gates of Heaven to be open.

    And being a ROF I am old enough to know that this season is over and the other side has a new manager. I wish him well while laughing at you who mouth cries about "Bush's War Crimes" and "GITMO will close." There will be no investigation as Obama is too smart to tear the country apart to satisfy your desire to feel just ohhhh so good and he already is in full reverse over GITMO. He will probably issue an EO and you can watch it float in the backwaters.

    So yes, I say you folks enjoy. It has been a long path up the mountain for you. Enjoy the view. The way down is quicker and more sure. And the timing is purely dependent on when al-Qaeda wants to hit us again. You may remember that Biden forewarned us.


    You seem to forget (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 12:12:36 AM EST
    not all are enamored with Obama nor did we buy into all his claims of what he would do (when we could make them out) so you may not get as many laughs as you think . . . and if you look around, the country is already torn apart thanks to Bush.

    Yes, but you voted for him (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:58:06 AM EST
    Look, be happy. You now have the girl, the gold watch and everything.

    So no excuses. It is the Left's recession, the Left's housing mess, the Left's terrorist attacks, the Left's problems with Russia.......


    No, I didn't. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:27:58 AM EST
    ahhh, nothing like an assumption to help define a character  ;)

    I honor your good judgement (2.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:41:47 AM EST
    and humbly apologize for my assumption....

    Youre going to have to define "the left" (none / 0) (#31)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:10:43 AM EST
    It is like art (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:17:35 AM EST
    You know them when you see them

    So youre unable to give a definition... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:29:21 AM EST
    to a term youre using... interesting.

    If you have to have (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 10:51:38 AM EST
    someone define the Left, or the Right, in the context of today's politics then you obviously can't engage in a debate.

    Let me give you just a small bit of help by using examples.

    Obama - Left

    Coulter - Right

    Now, go study them.


    Nice deflection... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    now can you try using actual issues to define political terms?

    Personally Im wondering just how many people here had a good laugh at Obama being labeled as "left".


    Really? (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    You actually believe that an answer is to demand that I define "Left?"

    Good lord. Things are worse that I thought.

    BTW - It is 1/17/2009.


    You keep saying... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    this is now "the lefts" recession, etc. yet youre unable to explain to me what "the left" exactly means.  My point is that if youre going to place all this on "the left" you should be able to define it, so no matter how much you try to distract from that question you've yet to answer it...

    So let me explain the problem for you, since youre unable to understand it on your own.  Youre trying to work in absolutes, assuming that "the left" is this unified set if ideals that you can pigeonhole, but the world isnt so black and white, unfortunately for you.  See the term left and right, when applied to politics, means very little when scrutinized.  I know taking away your scapegoats can be painful, but thats how things actually are.


    I gave you (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 10:52:17 PM EST
    two examples and suggested that you study them.

    Evidently that ability is beyond you.

    And yes, it is now the Left's recession, their war, their everything because they have the Congress and the President.

    You can blather on about defining, but you know exactly about which I write, but are most likely terrified over actually having to be responsible for something.

    But be of good cheer. The adults will be recalled in 4 years and you can go back to what you do best, criticizing without having to do anything.

    In the meantime, Cheers!


    Haha... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 10:58:23 PM EST
    yeah, good luck with palin in 2012.  By the way, word of warning, I hear Couric interviews are serious business.

    Couric? haha (2.00 / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 09:30:18 AM EST
    Perky Katie Couric interviewed Biden. Joe the VP candidate opined that FDR had spoken to the country in his fireside chats over TV.

    When she didn't correct him I at first thought she was biased. But I have come to understand that she was so dumb that she didn't know he had made a mistake.

    Do you know what mistake he made??

    Your turn.


    You do realize... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Thanin on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 12:58:27 PM EST
    that pointing out how stupid Couric is just makes the palin interviews even more disastrous... I mean you have to know that, right?

    And by the way... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Thanin on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    another word for you: sarcasm.  And thats a good word to know because it will help you understand why people laugh when youre referred to as savvy or interesting.

    Scary terrorists? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Fabian on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 04:41:06 AM EST
    There have always been scary terrorists.  Quite a few of our scary terrorists have good old white men.  Every president has dealt with the scary terrorists.  Bush stands out not because he dealt with the scary terrorists, but he did a terrible job of dealing with the scary terrorists compared to every other president.

    Fabian (2.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:54:46 AM EST
    Once upon a time is a nice start to a Fairy Tale, but the "white terrorist" story has whiskers. The current problem is radical Muslims who want to impose their view of Islam on the world.

    And other Presidents did a better job of dealing with them?

    Good grief. Clinton did zip. He even refused to take bin Ladin when he was offered to him. (And don't argue about that, Bubba admitted it on tape!)

    How many attacks against the US have happened since 9/11?


    Fabian never said "once upon a time"... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:24:24 AM EST
    in fact youre the one that started a post with it, which is both appropriate and ironic.

    And the most important question about 9/11 is who was the president when it happened?


    heh (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:15:50 AM EST
    Fabian said:

    There have always been scary terrorists.

    That is "Once upon a time."

    Who was President when Iran seized our Embassy?

    Attacked the WTC in '93? Blew up two embassies?

    Attacked the USS Cole?

    Turned down the hand over of bin Ladin?

    Ignored this from bin Ladin?

    (Peter Arnett)REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: ..... the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.


    And guess who was President here:

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February (2001), uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.


    And guess what President's National Security Adviser said this?

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language.
    "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."


    Do you want to give up now or after you have read and learned some more facts?


    Come up with all the BS you want... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 01:07:19 PM EST
    ultimately a republican, bush, was the president for almost a year when America suffered the worst terrorist attack in our history.  So you see a republican failed to protect America.  Also, who was responsible for Bin Ladens CIA training?  Can you say reagan?

    "Do you want to give up now or after you have read and learned some more facts?"  Rhetorical asides to yourself, while amusing, have little to do with this discussion... but thanks for sharing.


    And none of the other (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 01:48:41 PM EST
    things happened?

    Hmmm. Who knew?

    And I don't think the CIA trained bin  Ladin... They gave him weapons...

    The same way we gave the Soviets weapons during WWII.... An enemy of my enemy is my friend kinda stuff... but then I don't think you are into geo politics and/or history......

    BTW ... Did you read the link to Clarke's interview? Did you note how he said that Clinton had no strategy to pass to Bush and that things needing resolution had been that way for two years?

    I mean your lack of information is remarkable.


    So under reagan... (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 04:34:51 PM EST
    the CIA gave bin ladin weapons?  At least you can acknowledge reagan supported terrorists...

    As far as this Clinton stuff goes, youre best defense is that bush was so incompetent that he wasnt able to fix - what you claim - Clinton left broken after 9 months in office?  Really?  Thats all you got?


    The US as part of a (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:02:41 PM EST
    foreign policy also supported communists that had killed millions.... Or do you know nothing before 1968?

    Defense? I offered only facts. Perhaps you can also not read. Here, I will quote you what Clarke, Clinton's NSA said.

    RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    Now, what did the Bush administration do? Again from Clarke.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.


    Now you have no response to that but please keep blathering. I enjoy teaching.


    So all you can do... (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:50:22 PM EST
    is blame others?  republicans need to take some responsibility for their actions and stop crying about how it was everyone elses fault.  Thousands of Americans died.  bush was in charge.  

    Quit whining... and your frumunda is sitting by your glass.  Its from you so Im guessing its well aged.


    Now you have to go back to (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 07:34:09 AM EST
    before 1968 to have something to hang onto?  As if our society and culture and politics have not evolved during all those marches and all that activism?  Women have rights now too and I was raised with a lot of those so don't sell me snake oil, I don't have to wait for my husband to get home to tell ya to shove off.  Like LBJ didn't step out of the race due to what he had done with Vietnam as CIC?  Can you imagine George Bush being man enough to have stepped back for the sake of his party and for the sake of what was best for the country?  Hell no, he was taking all of us with him and he did.  That man does live in a thicker bubble than you do, but I'm thinking the public hostility he's going to have to deal with without the protection of the building called White House is finally going to blow that.  He thinks he's going to spend his free time traveling around to speaking engagements getting paid big dollars like Clinton does and even his own father to a lesser extent and boy does he have an extremely rude awakening coming his way.  I have a livingroom full of nine year old boys this morning that didn't sleep last night and they have more cognitive information and creativity to share than Bush could ever hope to have on his best day.

    Facts (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 05:48:25 PM EST
    241 American troops were killed by terrorist bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon under Reagan's watch.

    A car bomb attack on the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983 killed 63 people. Happened under Reagan's watch.

    The 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing that killed 2 US servicemen and injured 50 others happened during Reagan's wash.

    Pan Am Flight 103 bombing where 189 American civilians were killed happened dring Reagan/Bush watch.

    The most damaging attack on US soil, i.e. the WTC attack in Sept 2001 occured under GWB's watch.

    Republican administrations have indulged in arms dealing with Iran (remember Iran-Contra), provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons, supported the Islamic dictatorship of Zia-Ul-Haque in Pakistan and providing Bin Laden and other Afghan Islamists with weapons. They also sold people like JimakaPPJ the fairy tale that only Republicans can keep America safe :-).


    The question is (2.00 / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:06:56 PM EST
    what did we do to combat these.

    Regan bombed Libya and put them on a short lease.

    Bush went straight at al-Qaeda and has them defeated.

    I wonder how long it will take Obama to let them regain enough strength to attack us again.


    Republican Fantasyland (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 09:53:37 AM EST
    Whether Reagan could put Libya on a "short lease" is debatable. After all, the Pan Am 103 flight bombing that killed 189 American civilians occured after Reagan bombed Libya and killed some Libyan military and government personnel, civilians and Gaddafi's adopted daughter! A decade and half later, another Republican President, GWB, made peace with Gadaffi by signing a bombing compensation [deal]. Among other things, the deal would end the legal liability to Libya stemming from multiple lawsuits by families of the U.S. victims of the Pan Am 103 flight bombing.
    Reagan also ordered US troop withdrawal out of Lebanon within 3 months of the Beirut barracks bombing. If a Democrat President had ordered withdrawal of troops after a US military base got bombed, Republicans would have screamed that it was a "cut and run" policy. However, this is exactly what Reagan did after foolishly getting the United States involved in the Lebanese Civil war!
    Only someone who lives in fantasy land can say that GWB "went straight to Al Qaeda and has them defeated". Osama Bin Laden and Al-Jawahari still seem to be alive (didn't OBL release a new video a week ago?)despite GWB promising us that he would get OBL "dead or alive" and would "smoke him out". The misguided war in Iraq was also a strategic blunder, it delivered the country straight into the sphere of influence of Iran in a big way while causing a distraction to military efforts in Afghanistan. At the end of GWB's presidency, Al-Qaeda and Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan, more than any time since 2001.
    Successive Republican administrations have however done very well in increasing US dependence on Saudi oil and cosying up to the royal family in that country. The Saudi regime is one of the most [regressive] regimes in the world. It is one of the most restrictive states in the world when it comes to issues such as women's rights and allowing freedom to people of non-Muslim faiths to practise their religion. It is also a state where the barbaric, medieval practise of public executions by beheading is followed by the government. 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked the WTC also came from that country.
    It is amusing to see how Republican bluster has people like JimakaPPJ suckered into believing that only Republican administrations can keep America safe and Republican Presidents have "spread freedom" in the middle east and south asia by supporting autocracies in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We all have a responsibility to educate people like him, the work is cut out for us :-).

    George Bush and his minions (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 12:11:36 PM EST
    inflicted more damage on the democracy - the concept of what America is - in his eight years, than any terrorist with a plane was able to inflict on people and buildings on 9/11.

    You mock Clinton for not doing "anything," but there were no attacks here between 1993 and 2001.  Makes me wonder if bin Laden sent the hijackers on 9/11 precisely to inspire the kind of internal destruction Bush embarked on, and which bin Laden has been able to sit back and enjoy for lo, these many years.  

    I'm inclined to think we are more vulnerable to attack if Obama does not continue the Bush policies, not because the Bush policies have been keeping us safe, but because they have been moving us closer to the dissolution that bin Laden wants to bring about.  The more we lose of our democracy by our own hands, the weaker we are - which is just where bin Laden wants us to be.  If Obama puts the brakes on that, bin Laden will have to make a move.


    Huh? (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    No attacks HERE?

    Makes me wonder if bin Laden sent the hijackers on 9/11 precisely to inspire the kind of internal destruction

    I'm sorry, but I can't argue with such logic.

    Now, can you tell me what studio in Gollywood they shot the lunar landing in??


    Bitter trolls are always humorous. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:13:55 AM EST
    You wanted me to define the Left (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:19:13 AM EST
    Let me see, I wish you well, offer a bit of caution, not a few facts...

    And you call me bitter and a Troll.

    Look in the mirror.


    Get real... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:27:19 AM EST
    youve obviously come here with an agenda.  So if being called a troll hurts your feelings why dont you go to some Faux news sites or Stormfront where they'd be more welcoming one of their own.

    I care not (2.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    what these people "think." Why in your case I first have to be convinced that you do...


    As for:

    I think PPJ's greatest fear

    I refer you to my lack of conviction regarding you.


    You will depart? (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:09:32 PM EST
    Well since you have nothing to say, why not?

    You will depart? (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 09:19:24 AM EST
    Catch a clue (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    I have been commenting on TalkLeft for six years.

    Agenda? Nope Point of view? And you don't have one?

    And if you want an echo chamber my advice is to stick your head in barrel and yell away..

    And if being called a troll by you is the worst that I am ever called..... wow.


    Ahh... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 12:56:44 PM EST
    Its sad that youve been coming here 6 years and still havent learned anything.  Guess there was at least one child left behind.

    Intelligence would become you. (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 03:28:43 PM EST
    Your insults, sir... (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    have all the bite of a fruitless Gallagher.  

    That doesnt necessarily mean anything, but at this point in the "discussion" I might as well have a chuckle.


    You brought the subject up, (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:08:25 PM EST
    Want some cheese with that whine?

    Hey while youre looking up... (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Thanin on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:42:27 PM EST
    the definition for the term "the left", you might also try "originality" and "Significance".  They might give your insults, what we like to call relevance or even not boring.  Just sayin.

    The use of (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 09:25:49 AM EST
    commonly known and used descriptive words in writing about anything is established beyond doubt.

    If we followed you then a baseball player would be described as an "athlete that has certain skills that allows him to hit a smallish ball  object with a piece of carved wood onto or out of a patch of grass after the ball has been thrown towards the athlete.....etc., and etc.

    Give it up. Anyone can see that you have no argument.

    A Leftie is a Leftie is a Leftie.


    What everyone can see... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Thanin on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 12:47:13 PM EST
    is that youre evading the question because either a). you realize the trap youve gotten yourself in and dont want to admit it or b). you dont actually know since everything you say is just regurgitated from rush/hannity and have never actually thought about any of it.  

    Anyway this is quite humorous and conservatives are always a great punching bag cause they never let reality or bad ideas/arguments get in their way (see the Iraq war).


    A fruitless Gallagher :)? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 07:37:08 AM EST
    Is this one of your own?  

    Yeah it is... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Thanin on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    Something about jimakaPPJ made me think of Gallagher during this little trainwreck, so I used it.  :O)

    It's true many of us are ready - more than (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    ready - for Bush to hit the trail back to the land of mesquite brush and chain saws, but it doesn't necessarily mean we are happy - in that giddy, tingly-all-over, way you seem to think we are, about what's next; I think you've been here long enough to understand that here, in the comments, there has been far more skepticism, criticism, distrust and dislike for Obama than there has been blind, fawning adoration that won't allow for the possibility of Obama ever doing anything wrong.  

    Forward is a great direction in which to go, but those who look forward and move forward without being aware of what is behind them or resolving what it is they are leaving behind sometimes end up meeting and having to confront those things when, somehow, that old ugliness ends up taking a back road and being in front of them at a critical intersection.  And, if you never stop to remove the dog cr@p from the bottoms of your shoes, you carry the stink with you on your journey.

    "The Left," as you so nicely generalize, never believed that waging war on a country that had no involvement in the attacks on America was the right thng to do.  We have this crazy belief that there's a sort of compact between the Commander-in-Chief and the men and women he commands, and that compact says that they will obey without question, serve to the best of their abilities, put their lives on the line - but - the CIC has a duty not to order them into an unnecessary and illegal war.

    And, I'm sorry - but the media never beat on Bush; they were standing right behind him with their pom-poms, cheering him on, helping him make his case, not questioning the intelligence, holding onto information at critical moments. The media were complicit in the march to war, and in the aftermath.

    We didn't enjoy the fact that Bush was wrong, that Cheney was wrong, that there is no area of the government where their decisions and actions did not eat at the very foundation of the democracy like ravenous termites; yes, we want them out, but we know that the damage has been done, the foundation is riddled with holes, and we're not entirely sure that the new kids in town will be repairing it or picking and choosing which areas they kind of don't mind the damage to - you know, there might be more room to move around.

    The mountain is very high, but we are nowhere near the top, not yet; I'm not sure it is a top that can ever be attained.  Obama is merely standing on a promontory, and we simply don't know if he has what it takes to go higher or if he knows how to get us there safely; some of us, who saw how he got where he is, have some doubts about the journey ahead.

    As for al-Qaeda, after seeing what the leaders of this country were willing to do to its own citizens in the name of "security," how much they have weakened the integrity of the framework, the abuses of power they were willing to inflict, I'm not so sure that the attack by planes or bombs by al-Qaeda or the terrorist-of-the-month is more frightening than what the Bush administration wrought over the last 8 years.


    I'm not crazy about Obama (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    but he can't be the Antichrist because the Bible says there is only one and I know who that is :)

    As you use to tell me.... (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:59:19 AM EST
    He is your main man. No way out.

    I mean, tell me you didn't vote for him.


    Can't speak for MT (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    But I didn't vote for Obama and I am giddy and tingling with joy that Bush is leaving.

    I didn't. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Fabian on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    Vote for Obama that is.

    I know, I'm soooooo bad.  I blame BTD and andgarden.  They taught me about polls and when my state was safely Obama, I decided to vote for who I wanted to, not for who I thought I needed to.

    Beside that, there has been plenty of criticism about Obama especially his notorious from-filibuster-to-support WRT the FISA bill.

    We have a fair idea of who Obama is.  He's not our hero.  He's not our knight in shining armor.  He's just some pol who we thought was better than McCain.


    Ah, so you don't have the courage (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    to vote for your convictions...

    Let's go back (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Fabian on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 06:01:07 PM EST
    to your assumption that we are all rah-rah starry-eyed Obama fan boys and fan girls.

    There are blogs you can find those in abundance, but I don't see this blog as one of those places.


    It was your statement (2.00 / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:10:53 PM EST
    Do you want to change it?

    It can't possibly be less fun than it was ... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by cymro on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    ... watching you folks get what you wanted for the past 8 years.

    Every once in a while, you can look (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:40:47 PM EST
    at crosstabs on this kind of poll from the deep south. George Bush still has positive approval ratings from white southerners.

    Not all of us (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Amiss on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:19:33 PM EST
    Nope, not all of us (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:49:11 AM EST
    And the rest of them have to live with me so perhaps there is still hope for them.