Tag: George Bush

Other

Can Somebody Tell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad That George Bush Isn’t Running For President Again In 2008?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the darndest things.

If you judge Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by appearance alone, you would think he descended from monkeys but when he opens his mouth that confirms it. He may be as dumb as a box of rocks. Apparently he thinks George Bush is running for President again in 2008.

Ahmadinejad offers to be an observer at US presidential election

He denounces it as the “Great Satan” and frequently dismisses its power, but the overtures of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the US seem to grow ever more extravagant.
Having failed to win a response with an 18-page letter to President George Bush or to a request to visit the site of the September 11 2001 attack on New York, Ahmadinejad has offered himself as an observer in next year’s presidential election.

The proposal came in a speech to volunteers with the Basij, a pro-regime militia. He said he was prompted by a belief that Americans would vote against the current administration in a truly free poll.
However, the terms of Ahmadinejad’s offer appeared to betray some confusion about the potential candidates.

“If the White House officials allow us to be present as an observer in their presidential election we will see whether people in their country are going to vote for them again or not,” he said. The US constitution prevents Bush from seeking a third consecutive term, while no member of his administration is expected to be in the running in next November’s poll.

Bush and international human rights groups voiced doubts about the legitimacy of Iran’s 2005 presidential election, which brought Ahmadinejad to power. More than 1,000 potential candidates were disqualified by the guardian council, a powerful body of clerics and judges.

Some domestic critics pointed out yesterday that Ahmadinejad’s idea clashed with his government’s opposition to allowing independent observers at Iranian elections. The interior ministry, controlled by one of the president’s most hard-line allies, has rejected pressure for party representatives to be allowed to oversee proceedings at polling stations for next March’s parliamentary poll.

The election is expected to provide a major test of Ahmadinejad’s popularity. Leading regime figures, including two former presidents, Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, have warned against possible attempts to rig it through mass candidate disqualifications and other measures.

Amusing

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck!

President Bush finally called them what they are “The Party of Cut and Run“.

The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut-and-run.

Other

Bush has 64% Approval on the war.

Contrary to the media’s coverage of the “War on Terror”, just 23% belong to Anti-War Movement This is from the Rasmussen Reports.

23% Belong to Anti-War Movement

September 28, 2005–Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans consider themselves part of the anti-War movement. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 61% say they are not part of that movement. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of Democrats say they’re part of the anti-War movement while 40% are not.
Just 7% of Republicans identify themselves as part of that movement along with 26% of those not affiliated with either major party. Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans and 55% of unaffiliateds say they are not part of the movement.
Earlier surveys have found that 38% of Americans favor bringing home U.S. troops from Iraq at this time. The gap between this number and the 23% who are part of the anti-War movement may have to do with perceptions of the movement on other issues.

Overall, 57% of Americans believe most members of the anti-War movement are politically liberal. Among those who are not part of that movement, 68% see its members as liberal. This includes 44% who believe most members of the anti-War movement are very liberal.

In a nation where only only one-out-of-every-five people see themselves as politically liberal, this perception of the movement limits its appeal
The single most distinguishing characteristic of the anti-War movement is a dislike of President Bush. Ninety-one percent (91%) of those in the movement disapprove of the way the President is doing his job. That figure includes 83% who strongly disapprove of the President.
Among those who are not part of the anti-War movement, 64% give the President their Approval.
Just 9% of those in the anti-War movement say the U.S. economy is in good or excellent shape. Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s in poor shape.
Among those who are not part of the movement, 42% rate the economy as good or excellent and 24% say poor. (Rasmussen Reports measures perceptions of the economy on a daily basis.)

Fifty-two percent (52%) of those in the anti-War movement have a favorable opinion of the United States. Thirty percent (30%) have an unfavorable opinion.
Among those who are not part of the movement, 84% have a favorable opinion of the United States and 10% have an unfavorable view.
Related surveys have found that Americans are divided as to whether the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror or a distraction from it. Just 40% of Americans now believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
Rasmussen Reports was the nation’s most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry’s vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
Other

Bush approval at 39 percent! What’s wrong with this picture?

Something is wrong! I just can’t believe all the negative numbers that I am seeing and hearing on President Bush’s job performance. Outside of the media, I see a different picture.

Here is one example. Kanye West used a network hurricane fundraiser to charge “George Bush doesn’t care about black people“. Of course this was reported all over the “stuck on stupid” media. Less than a week later, during the NFL pre-game kickoff show featuring the Raiders and the Patriots, West performed for the Patriots crowd at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough via remote from Los Angeles. He was greeted by the crowd with thunderous boos that lasted much of his performance.

What’s wrong with this picture? Why would West receive a response like this in liberal Massachusetts? Was everyone in the crowd a racist? Did George Bush pack the stadium with all the people that voted for him in Massachusetts? Inquiring minds want to know!

I bet that if you took a poll on President Bush’s job performance at Gillette Stadium that night, his rating would have been through the roof! Are we being misled by the “stuck on stupid” media?

Other

Justification for attacking Iraq and removing Sadaam.

This is how George W. Bush announced his doctrine in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People on September 20, 2001:

“Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

In that speech, President Bush had the political courage to present the truth, however unpleasant, to the American people. He was prepared to make difficult decisions, to take measures that would involve great risks and subject him to public criticism.

To clear thinking Americans, September 11th was the single day of horror that alerted us to the grave dangers that are now facing our world. Those Americans understand that had Al Qaeda possessed an atomic device on September 11th, the city of New York would not exist today. They realize that we could have been grieving not for thousands of dead, but for millions.

But for others, in our own country and around the world, the power of imagination is apparently not so acute. It appears that these people will have to once again see the unimaginable materialize in front of their eyes before they are willing to do what must be done. For how else can one explain opposition to President Bush’s plan to dismantle Sadaam Hussein’s regime?

If you intend to defeat the Mafia, you don’t just go after the foot-solder who carried out the last attack, or even stop with the apprehension of the particular don who sent him. You go after the entire network of organized crime. All the families, all the organizations – all of them.

Likewise, if you intend to defeat terror, you do not just go after the terrorists who carried out the last attack, or even the particular regime that sent them. You go after the entire network of terror. All the regimes that support terror, all the organizations that they harbor – all of them.

Doing this always entails the need to act before additional attacks are carried out. When the security of a nation is endangered, a responsible government has to take the actions that are necessary to protect its citizens and eliminate the threat that confronts them. Sometimes this requires preemption.

In the history of democracies, preemption has always been the most difficult choice. Because at the time of decision, you can never prove the naysayers wrong. You can never show them the great catastrophe that was avoided by preemptive action.

Yet we now know that had the democracies taken preemptive action to bring down Hitler’s regime in the 1930s, the worst horrors in history could have been avoided.

But the most compelling case for preemption against Sadaam’s regime was not made by the powerful words of President Bush but by the savage actions of the terrorists on September 11th. Their wake up call from hell has opened our eyes to the horrors that await us tomorrow if we fail to act today.

To defeat the terroists, people will have to show civic courage. The citizens of a democracy threatened by terrorism must see themselves, in a certain sense, as soldiers in a common battle. They must not pressure their government to surrender to terrorism. If we seriously want to win the war against terrorism, people must be prepared to endure sacrifice and even, should there be the loss of loved ones, immeasurable pain.

Load More