From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Bush's approval rating
October 4, 2004 4:53 PM
jumps an average of 2.75% after each terror warning.
Bush's approval rating
Next Entry: You Must Comply. (10.04.2004)
Previous Entry: 4 weeks to go (10.04.2004)
Read the 17 comments.
Aaron Van Der Veen:
That's because American's trust President Bush more to keep them safe than John Kerry. You must know that....
That fact alone is what is going to keep John Kerry from ever becoming President of the USA
Mon Oct 4 2004 6:12 PM
So the administration has an incentive to scare us. Interesting.
It's hard to believe that people are this easy to manipulate, but then again, maybe it's a co-dependent relationship. Why does an abused wife stay with her husband? I guess it's the same dynamic at work.
Mon Oct 4 2004 8:28 PM
There is something about 3000 dead Americans which tends to get to people. Well, most people except for Paul who cant see past his own ideology.
Mon Oct 4 2004 9:16 PM
You are absolutely right anonymous.
Shoot, 1189 are all the "dead Americans" it takes to get to me...
Mon Oct 4 2004 10:09 PM
I thought there was no connection between Iraq and terror? I guess there is when it suits you.
Tue Oct 5 2004 6:40 AM
Right Wing Robby:
I dont know how you can quantify human life. One death is tragic. But one must recognize the difference between soldiers fighting a war on foreign soil and innocent civilians simply going to work.
Tue Oct 5 2004 8:54 AM
Tom from Madison:
Americans trusted the president to keep us safer before 9/11 too. He didn't. The actions in Afghanistan helped. Unfortunately Bush outsourced the end-game to Afghai war-lords. Studip move!
The Iraq war has not made us safer. Any attacks planned on the US would not come from Iraq. People willing to die like the 9/11 hijackers are not going to be deterred by a prolonged occupation of Iraq.
One thing we have done is compromise the ability of the US military to act elsewhere. Tactically & strategically Bush has made blunder after blunder. We can do better!
Tue Oct 5 2004 10:05 AM
I have to agree Tom on here. I think Bush got us into some seriously illadvised shit with Iraq. But we're here now, so we have to make the best of it. The question is are we willing to give Bush another shot at it, or let someone else give it a try.
It's not that I'm so pro-Kerry, I'm just really friggin' anti-Bush.
Tue Oct 5 2004 10:21 AM
"It's not that I'm so pro-Kerry, I'm just really friggin' anti-Bush."
I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but ultimately I think he could be a good president. He is surrounding himself with highly qualified people. He knows the way Washington works. When he screws up, his wife will give him hell over it.
I'm prepared to be surprised to the upside by Kerry, and conversely, if Bush is elected, I'm fully prepared to be surprised to the downside. There's no limit to the depth to which Bush could probably take this country, if he has four more years to mismanage things.
Tue Oct 5 2004 11:33 AM
Right Wing Robby:
How is it that the democrats who voted in favor and whose pro war quotes can produced in massive amounts, can just disown any responsibility. We all know the world believed he had WMDs. Even the countries that were against the war agreed he did. Clinton believed it. The UN believed it. The whole world believed it.
Since the congress VOTED IN FAVOR OR IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN, how is it that they walk away from any responsibility. Its easy to Monday morning quarterbacks it. But when you look at the facts, pointing your finger at the President and not at everyone else is wrong.
Post WW2 Germany is not unlike post Iraq war.
The NY Times ran several front page articles about insurgents killing Americans and how we needed to leave. Perhaps WW2 was a more justified war in your opinion, but the list of Dead American soldiers was far longer as well.
In every single war we have ever been involved in chaos has ruled the day. The country who wins the war isnt the one who planned everything perfectly, that is impossible to do. Its the country that toughed it out, its the country that had the resolve to see it through till the end.
I dont see that resolve in liberals. I think if todays liberal mindset was followed throughout American history, the world we be a much more dangerous place today.
I also believe that 30 or 40 years from now, when history is the judge of these events, it will be known as the beginning of democracy in a part of the world which was ruled be tyranny and evil. George Bush will be remembered as being very polarizing, but steadfast and unwavering in his belief in freedom.
3 years ago Afghanistan and Iraq were both ruled by tyranny and evil. Death and torture were the order of the day. Public executions were carried out before sporting events as a normal occurrence.
3 years later elections are in sight. This is truly a wonderful and amazing thing. And in such short a time! To bring freedom to millions and millions of people is a truly worthy undertaking.
In Iraq, the cost has been 1189 American lives. I cant quantify life, but if you ask me if it was worth it, I say without a doubt.
Tue Oct 5 2004 11:44 AM
Tom from Madison:
First of all we need more precision in talking about the vote "for the war". There was a period of before we invaded when we had all our options open to us. Unfortunately, Bush had already decided he was going to invade. He wasn't going to let facts get in his way.
Authorizing the use of force is not the same as voting for the war. In the right hands, the threat of using force can be a powerful force for change, even if not used.
Bush was authorized to use force if necessary. It was up to him to use it wisely. Once again, he blew it. He didn't plan adequately he didn't have enought troops, and he didn't involve enough allies. It was obvious all along that TIME WAS NOT OF THE ESSENCE. We didn't need to be in a hurry as most of Iraq was a no-fly zone and there were inspectors on the ground.
Now we are in a ridiculously difficult situation. 90% of the troops there are American--and America is hated as an occupying power. Contrast that with the Gulf war where there was a much more diverse coalition. We have given Osama Bin Laden the Jihad he was looking for. This is a powerful recruiting tool for his side.
As far as public beheadings are concerned, Saudi Arabia has been doing that for years. When are we going to invade that country?
The question of sacrificing lives needs to be re-framed. There are other important questions that could have been asked:
Could the sacrifice have been shared among other allies?
Could we have saved American lives by preparing better?
What if we had listened to top Generals who warned of the dangers of this war instead of retiring them early?
Bottom line: This president ignored the facts. Better, smarter planning would have saved US lives.
Tue Oct 5 2004 12:20 PM
I think the demos voted for the war, but were taken back by the execution. Congress doesn't plan wars, democrats or republicans. It's their job to say yay or nay and it's up to the administration to make the plan. I think a lot of people underestimated the situation and jumped the gun on a lot of things. It appears as though the Bush administration thought it was going to be a slam dunk cake walk and planned accordingly, it doesn't matter what anyone else thought, these were the planners, they are responsible. Now the government is spending billions and billions on Iraq, while cutting taxes at home. You know, an extra few bucks in my pocket might sound all right, but it doesn't much matter if the country is bankrupt. So while Bush is cutting another tax, we're being told that vital intelligence overhauls will cost billions. Between you and me, I'm willing to part with a little dough if it improves our intelligence system, seeing as there seems to be some serious flaws (9/11, Iraq).
So it's not just the war, I think it's a wholesale difference in approach to the business of running our country.
It troubles me that Bush republicans paint themselves as conservatives, when there doesn't seem to be anything conservative with what they are doing.
Tue Oct 5 2004 12:24 PM
Tom says a lot of what I think better than me...so maybe I should just shut up.
Naw, Robby would miss me, and I couldn't do that to him.
Tue Oct 5 2004 12:30 PM
I would agree. I think Kerry would be a perfectly adequate president. I would prefer him over the current administration. That's the beauty of being able to vote. It sucks when you're in the minority and your guys loses and it also sucks when you are in the majority and your guy still loses.
I think Bush is being irresponsible in his two-way running of America. There is the let's-cut-all-the-taxes-and-all-programs-and-make-the-poor-poorer-and-stand-by-and-let-all-the-jobs-go president and then there is the let's-spend-ourselves-into-oblivion-in-Iraq-and-make-sure-we-award-plenty-of-no-bid-contracts president.
Tue Oct 5 2004 12:39 PM
Tom from Madison:
thanks for the kind words but don't go away!
The current madness must end. We need a president who leads and inspires. We've got one who rules like a South American dictator.
...just to bring this discussion back, why would anyone believe we are safer as a result of what Bush has done?
The "terror level" is one of the most useless devices anyone has ever come up with. I don't need the federal government telling me when to be scared. What if we'd had the current terror alert system on 9/11. Would that have prevented the hijackings?
Does anyone remember the duct tape and plastic sheeting we were supposed to get to protect us from chemical and biological weapons?
This stuff is crazy. Give me something practical like inspecting incoming cargo containers. Also, what's up with cutting money for police and fire-fighters? Finally, asking people to give up due process rights is un-American. It's bogus to claim we're fighting for freedom abroad while we're curtailing freedom at home.
Tue Oct 5 2004 2:07 PM
disgusted in Canada:
this may be a bit crammed as after reading this it made me mad. Americans who can't even support there own leader. and... disgusted.
pro human life across the ocean, but you are against it here? how about abortion you are probably for it. and i'm guessing you're all anti-family as well, pro-homosexual marriages. Pro the embryionic stem-cell research also?
you all have no moral dilema's with any of these?
as for the war, this is the vietnam war were US citizens were forced to fight, the soldiers today knew what they were getting into when they enlisted.. you can't join the military and not think you will go to war.
no weapons of mass destruction? Saddam! he was their weapon of mass destruction.. mass murder, torture, secret police taking fathers, mothers, families away in the middle of the night to never be seen again, and you know the list goes on...
"We have seen freedom firmly established in former enemies like Japan and Germany ," he explained. "We have seen freedom arrive, on waves of unstoppable progress, to nations in Latin America , and Asia , and Africa, and Eastern Europe. Now freedom is stirring in the Middle East , and no one should bet against it." -BUSH
Mon Nov 29 2004 10:53 AM
Disgusted In Wisconsin:
I morn the deaths of U.S. soldiers. I really do. I have friends who are in the Marines and the seals over in Iraq. I believe war often is fought for the wrong reasons, such as the crusades (hypocrisy in religion). In often cases though, I believe war is a necessary evil. I believe the war in Iraq is a necessary evil; it ended the genocide of 20% of Iraqs population (the Kurds). Saddam hussein is responsible for a tyranny that killed over 400,000 Kurds. Now a days... people don't have the power to overthrow governments... maybe not in 3rd world countries, but in Iraq... No way would the people have the power and resources to overthrow a tyrant who is supplied with tanks, scud-missles, and automatic guns by countries such as Russia, Germany, and France. Also... the U.S. itself, a big mistake-- funding Saddam to fight the Iranians... With all those resources, how is the average Iraqi civilian supposed to uprise against the government... you cannot. Saddam controlled everything... A sunni.. a minority that makes only 15 percent of the population... The majority, the Shiites, did not even have the power... and the Kurds, well they got the short end of the stick and they make up around 20 -25% of Iraq's population. Power in such a small minority with different ideas of governing... makes the rest of Iraq want their voices being heard, but without the resources and power to have your voice being heard why try?... With giving them freedom, finally the majorities mind set will be heard. The Baathists took over Iraq in the early 70's, institutionalizing a leader (Saddam Hussein) against Iraq's will or want. Now Iraq can choose who can be their leader... How beautiful is that? Look how successful their elections were... a country waiting to breath freedom... People who do not believe in war doing any good... just look at WWII "ENDED GENOCIDE OF THE JEWS"... much like the genocide that went on in Iraq... Just a few weeks ago, US soldiers found mass graves of women and children shot in the back of the head execution style.
:) Your secret Admirer
Thu May 26 2005 12:02 PM