Bush's Approval Rating Shows America is Waking Up...

Guess you missed Parated2k's poll numbers.  Kind of blows your histrionics out of the water.

Bush and Blair are both seeing their domestic authority waning. We are seeing this era of politics coming to an end.

Bush and Blair are both seeing their domestic authority waning. We are seeing this era of politics coming to an end.

How soon can we expect to be back to supporting fascist regimes and allowing them to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

Job approval ratings are meaningless because they are rarely based on facts. If you just heard a report about the rapes and murders in the Superdome, then you filled out a survey about Prs. Bush, even if you like Prs. Bush your answers would be affected by that news. But then we learned that none of those attrocities actually happened. If you sat down with your supervisor, and they gave you a job approval rating based on what they heard people saying about you, would you consider that a valid assessment?

"How soon can we expect to be back to supporting fascist regimes and allowing them to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people?"

Oh how will the world cope without our very own benevolent dictators?

The world moves on and the old rhetoric is now tired.

I think most Joeusers will have a heart attack when Bush finally goes, and the White House's number one official in Britain Tony Blair is consigned as a footnote in British political history. These two men have destroyed US and UK reputatons for democracy around the world.

The world moves on and the old rhetoric is now tired.

Tell that to the Kosovoans, Sudanese, Rwandans, and the people in the mass graves in Iraq.

Oh wait!  Dead men tell no tales!  Guess you are safe in your cocoon.

No, it actually doesn't blow it out of the water.
Close to ten thousand are protesting Bush right now.


Everything is relative.
So does that mean that Bush is doing a bad job right now?

And by the way, some people were very quick to believe there were rapes and murders at the superdome, but I think many saw what the reality was.

" Rwandans"

This was before Bush and Blair even took office, Kosovo was permissable and that is soley Blair's achievement (also Clinton's but any mention of Clinton in a positive way will raise JU blood pressure).

"Guess you are safe in your cocoon."

You are one claiming that Bush is not in hot water and everything is going fine, who is in a cocoon?

The world moves on and the old rhetoric is now tired.

" Rwandans" This was before Bush and Blair even took office, Kosovo was permissable and that is soley Blair's achievement (also Clinton's but any mention of Clinton in a positive way will raise JU blood pressure). "Guess you are safe in your cocoon." You are one claiming that Bush is not in hot water and everything is going fine, who is in a cocoon?

You are based upon your previous statement (requoted for the slow of learning).  I never said that Rwanda and Kosovo was Bush.  You are the ones calling us dictators.  Guess you have to crawl back into your cocoon until the next poll.

And by the way, some people were very quick to believe there were rapes and murders at the superdome, but I think many saw what the reality was.

It sure as hell was not he MSM.

" until the next poll."

Or the next resignation!

" calling us dictators. "

I called Bush and Blair autocrats because they are corrupt and deceitful, I never called you a dictator, that would be pointless since you have no power.

Oh how will the world cope without our very own benevolent dictators?

I called Bush and Blair autocrats because they are corrupt and deceitful, I never called you a dictator, that would be pointless since you have no power.

And you are a liar as the printed word aptly demonstrates.

Oh how will the world cope without our very own benevolent dictators?

Which ones would they be?

The world moves on and the old rhetoric is now tired.

That's what we have been telling the left for many years now. We will beat the Islamist and Arab nationalist regimes. And the Arab world will be democratic. And there is nothing the left can do about it.

Blair is consigned as a footnote in British political history. These two men have destroyed US and UK reputatons for democracy around the world.

Kurdish parents are naming their kids Tony and George as a reminder of who liberated them from Arab fascist rule. I wonder how many anti-war protestors and Saddamites would deserve such an honour? Perhaps a few mass grave installations could be named after famous anti-war leaders?

The US and UK have not lost their reputation for democracy by allowing Iraqis to vote. That is nonsense. The US and UK have lost their reputation as countries who allow fascist regimes to bloom. They unfortunately deserved that reputation after they failed to help Iraqi Shi'ites against Saddam in the 1990s.

But now that we know who supports the regimes (France and Russia) and who supplied them with arms (France and Russia) and who the fascists hate (UK and US) and who the fascists' western supporters hate (Blair and Bush), I don't think we need to worry about our reputation among the scum of the earth that much.

I wonder what exactly it is that qualifies a leader for the left-wing title "protector of the reputation"?

Is it enough to protect a fascist dictator in the UNSC or does one have to actively support him by selling arms to him?

PCS,

why was it better then, when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, than now, when his terrorists managed to kill a mere few thousand in two years?

Do you hate Iraqis?

And how exactly did Bush and Blair destroy US and UK reputation for democracy by replacing a mass murderer the vast majority in Iraq hated with a constitution the vast majority in Iraq approves of?

Please answer all three questions. Thank you.

"why was it better then, when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis"

You cannot justify a unilateral war on those terms. If you do, then I could condenm Bush and Blair for not attacking Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, North Korea etc. because by your reasoning you cannot support democracy unless you attack all dictators. Blair must be gutless because he has not removed Mugabe who is one of the worst despots of recent times.

"Do you hate Iraqis?"

No, I feel sorry that the great battle between secularism and radical Islam is being fought with their blood.

"And how exactly did Bush and Blair destroy US and UK reputation for democracy..."

Firtsly, by acting unilaterally, secondly by allowing coalition troops to rampage throughout Iraq and now charaterizing abuses as isolated incidents when they are clearly widespread. Another exapmle would be Guantanemo, this goes against all of the democratic values we claim to be fighting for.

"Kurdish parents are naming their kids Tony and George"

Evidence please.

Firtsly, by acting unilaterally,

I gather you are talking about the US and UK, which by definition would make your statement completely moronic.  Plus since there were 49 nations involved, it is hard to see 49 armies marching on Bagdad with no coordination not killing each other, which doubly makes your statement moronic.

And in case you failed to understand, did we give all those German and Japanese Prisoners in WWII?  That is against the Geneva Convention, which I am sure you are unfamiliar with.

Why do Bush and Blair supporters think the only way to get democracy is by warfare? The long lasting democracies come about from within i.e. free peoples movements from within dictatorships. I am sick and tired of the armchair generals who love to spill the blood of others.

Why do Bush and Blair supporters think the only way to get democracy is by warfare? The long lasting democracies come about from within i.e. free peoples movements from within dictatorships. I am sick and tired of the armchair generals who love to spill the blood of others.

if we wait for your non-solution, there would be no people left to establish one.  And even tho the butchering has stopped in Rwanda, there is no democracy there.  Kosovo is struggling, but at least they are closer.  And gee, that was a war too!

I am sick and tired of faux peace activist that think non-american blood is somehow not as red as american blood.  They are the true leeches on society.  Producing nothing but hate and hypocrisy.

"I gather you are talking about the US and UK"

The war in Iraq was not the decision of the UK, it was the decision of Bush. Blair was part of his gang but the UK did not want this war which is why I say unilaterally. I.e. Blair simply joined the neo-con clique.

"why was it better then, when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis" You cannot justify a unilateral war on those terms.

Of course you can. OTOH there is no such thing as a "unilateral war". There are always at least two parties involved in a war. Even if one party runs away.

If you do, then I could condenm Bush and Blair for not attacking Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, North Korea etc. because by your reasoning you cannot support democracy unless you attack all dictators.

Wrong. I did not say that. And it doesn't follow either. It is a fallacy to assume that since one cannot do everything one must not do anything. I walk a thousand foot, and I argue that it helps me, but I cannot walk a million foot. Following your logic, I would have to stay at home.

Blair must be gutless because he has not removed Mugabe who is one of the worst despots of recent times.

I do not advocate war against as many bad guys as possible. I merely advocate war against the worst and strategically most important. Mugabe is a pocket Hitler without much relevance. But a country right between Syria and Iran, now that is a lot more important.

"Do you hate Iraqis?" No, I feel sorry that the great battle between secularism and radical Islam is being fought with their blood.

Yet you have no moral problem with condemning those who saved the Iraqis for the act of saving them.

"And how exactly did Bush and Blair destroy US and UK reputation for democracy..." Firtsly, by acting unilaterally, secondly by allowing coalition troops to rampage throughout Iraq and now charaterizing abuses as isolated incidents when they are clearly widespread. Another exapmle would be Guantanemo, this goes against all of the democratic values we claim to be fighting for.

Firstly, the UN is not democratic. Ignoring the UN has nothing to do with being undemocratic. Secondly, the US did not "allow" coalition troops to rampage throughout Iraq. You have clearly fallen for the information-vs-facts fallacy and now assume that because the news focus on Iraq, Iraq must be worse than other places. It's not true.

And if your "democratic values" have a problem with Guantanamo, then I cannot help you. I believe everyone has a choice. And the terrorists chose to ignore the Geneva Convention. We owe it to them to treat them like they have chosen to be treated.

They could have quit any time. The US and UK did announce their attack, the terrorists could simply have left Afghanistan. It was THEIR CHOICE. They do not deserve anybody's help. Not even yours.

Read 'Tony Blair: Accidental American' to learn about this.