"Why is George W. Bush's disapproval rating the lowest of any president in modern history ? ( 68 % )"

uneducated in reality??

Published on June 19, 2008 By ShadowWar In US Domestic

Because most people (hence the numbers) do not research things for themselves and believe anything they are fed by the media in general. They do not look at other news or sources of information to make up their own minds about things that the President has said or done. They have been brainwashed by the main stream media. Even when the main stream media says something that is against what they want to believe they will not except it...

They hear something that fits with what they want to believe and then fail to accept anything else no matter what proof or other information is presented to them. We live in an instant gratification society, we want things now and if we can't get it to go, we don't want it. We don't want to work hard or long for something, we want it now. We don't want our troops to be in a country for 5 years, we want them home now, and on an on..

We want our troops home now, even though they have been in Germany, Japan and Korean for decades and still are. Even after the "war" was won. Even though they faced active resistance for years and people at home protested "bring our troops home now". Good thing we stuck around to see the East German Wall come down...

People hear "there were no WMD's in Iraq" even though we have found over 500 of them. They don't want to hear that. They say they were "old" WMD's. Huh??? Old WMD's? If they were not dangerous can we store them in your garage? I don't think so. We even had soldiers exposed to GAS from a WMD shell, but no one wants to hear that, it would put a damper on what they believe. Plus they don't want to hear about all the UN resolutions, the genocide and other killings, they just know Bush was wrong to go in and it was an "illegal" war. When asked to show the law that was broken to make it "illegal" they can't, but they still know it as illegal.

People hear our troops are dying in Iraq!!! We have lost 4000 soldiers in Iraq!! When told that we lost more soldiers in three years of peace time than we have in the entire Iraq War they say..."I don't want to hear it!! nananananananawith their fingers in their ears.

They hear our troops are murdering people and being accused of being rapist. When you inform them the murders were found not guilty, and that 99% of our troops are working hard to make Iraq/ Afghanistan better, they don't want to hear it.

The economy, being what it is, is blamed on the President. Last time I checked he does not run the economy all by himself, in fact if anything, the Congress has more impact on the economy than the president does. But they don't want to hear that. Gas prices are Bush's fault!! I ask them to tell me what they think the president should do to make it better, and I get no answer, but its still his fault.????

I hear "Our rights are being taken away!!!". When I ask the person what right they have lost, they can't tell me, but they know they have lost their rights!!

I hear "we went into Iraq for the oil!!!!" WHAT>>> You can't be that stupid. But people are.

The one I love the most are the 911 people. "911 was an inside job!!" You have to be kidding me right? Our government can't keep a sexual encounter between two people in the whitehouse a secret, let alone something like 911. The hundreds/thousands of people that it would require, the timing (our government can't time a press conference right let alone a attack like 911) would be impossible for our government to keep quite. Look at all the "tell all" books about Bush that are coming out, what a killing that a 911 tell all book would make and no one has done it? No one on the inside has leaked it or made a billion dollar deal to tell all about it??? PLEASE...

So why is Bush's ratings so low? Because people need someone to blame for any problem that comes up. For anything that happens someone has to blamed and why not blame Bush? The media does, they say its his fault and we all know the media is never wrong. Because the American Public as a general rule are very uninformed and ignorant when it comes to what is really going on and only worry about themselves and their instant, internet, American Idol, world.... and really have no idea about whats going on in the rest of the world.

Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html , http://shadowwar.joeuser.com/article/79736/Casulty_Count_in_Iraq_Misleading_to_say_the_least,

Comments (Page 3)

Leauki

on Jun 23, 2008

1) The United States and Germany were in a formal state of war with each other (they had both issued declarations of war against the other on the international stage)

And the US and Iraq were also in a formal state of war, ever since (what many who ignore non-western history call) the "first gulf war".

The truth is that Germany didn't attack the US in World War 2 until the US attacked Germany and declared war only as a formality. Germany also wasn't a threat to the US, only to US interests.

2) Germany had invaded and occupied France and many other countries. Also, Germany was officially allies with Japan who had attacked the U.S and were actively waging an aggressive war against the U.S.

And you would prefer for Iraq to become powerful enough to do that sort of thing again?

Rather a big "legal" war that costs millions of lives than a small "illegal" war that is much cheaper?

And btw, yes, European countries also "harboured" terrorists. But the difference was that the European countries did NOT know that those individuals would become terrorists and that the European countries DID prosecute those terrorists and cooperate with UN demands to do so.

Saddam harboured known terrorists and supported their attacks.

And if you (anyone really) think he was not a "threat", you probably don't consider terror attacks against Jews in Israel and elsewhere, which Saddam funded.

I admit that the number of WMD agents found in Iraq after the invasion was minimal, barely enough to kill a few ten thousand Jews or Kuwaitis.

Leauki

on Jun 23, 2008

It's easy to simply disregard every argument put forth that you don't like. I'm finding a lot of that here. A good example is the figure of 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi civilian casualties. You have been told who came up with the figure, you've been told how the figure was arrived at, and if you've tried to find a source to dispute it or debunk it, you haven't said so. Rather, you've just said it's nonsense.

It's also easy to make up numbers and hope that nobody does the maths and notices. Plus you can act offended if people don't believe the bullshit.

I don't care who came up with the figure, because an appeal to authority is not a valid argument.

If some number doesn't work, it's wrong, no matter who came up with it.

Vanishing hundreds of bodies a day is not so simple. If it were, Saddam wouldn't have left us the mass graves as evidence for his murders. (I understand no such evidence is needed to condemn George Bush?)

Did you even do the maths? Did you know how many bodies per day you were talking about?

"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment."

I now understand that means that Saddam can legally shoot at American aircraft but that George Bush cannot hold him responsible and punish him for it?

I am pretty sure the US did not sign those principles thinking that they ALLOW an Arab dictator to shoot down American aircraft and break cease-fire agreements, while they FORBID the US to use violence in return.

I am sure there would have been an appendix ("except Saddam Hussein"), if that had been the intended meaning of the principles.

catguy

on Jun 23, 2008

After Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on us and started attacking American shipping.

Talking to you is like teaching seventh grade, with one difference. Seventh graders are twelve, and are expected to be ignorant. For adults, ignorance is usually a choice. However, ignorance can be fixed. Take a class, read some books. Make sure you find books that don't have a particular point of view, and read several about the same subject.

By the way, I doubt that the Iraqi doctors made up "the maths", as you call them. If they had, they would probably have been caught by the epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins, unless they, too, made up "the maths". But if they had, they probably would have been caught by the publishers of "The Lancet", which enjoys an iron-clad reputation for accuracy. But even if the publishers of "The Lancet" were in on the plot to make up "the maths", the final article was vetted by "The Washington Post". They are the weakest link in the chain, but they are also the last.

Oh, by the way, the possibility that Saddam had enough WMDs to kill 10,000 Jews or Kuwaitis was absolutely NOT a legal justification for this moronic invasion and its aftermath. If possession of WMDs was justification for invasion, guess who has more WMDs than all the rest of the world put together? The United States.

Leauki

on Jun 24, 2008

Talking to you is like teaching seventh grade, with one difference. Seventh graders are twelve, and are expected to be ignorant. For adults, ignorance is usually a choice. However, ignorance can be fixed. Take a class, read some books. Make sure you find books that don't have a particular point of view, and read several about the same subject.

Same to you, you ignorant idiot. (Wow. That is fun! Why do I always wait for the other party to admit they ran out of arguments first?)

By the way, I doubt that the Iraqi doctors made up "the maths", as you call them. If they had, they would probably have been caught by the epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins, unless they, too, made up "the maths". But if they had, they probably would have been caught by the publishers of "The Lancet", which enjoys an iron-clad reputation for accuracy.

Still using appeal to authority as your "argument"?

As for the accuracy of the Lancet and your idea that since I disagree with you, I obviously haven't read enough, let me point you to this little gem:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/

Problem is, I read more than you. You heard "Lancet" and decided that was good enough for an appeal to authority argument (which is a fallacy as you should know). I, like the Iraqi Body Count people (whom I disagree with politically), showed a bit more interest in the truth.

And it's not like nobody but me ever doubted the numbers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm

It seems to me like you simply read a number you liked, never did the maths do run the number through your bullshit detector (if you have one), never did any further research to see how the number was created and who disagrees, and then decided that anybody who doesn't believe the number is obviously stupid and/or ignorant.

I can imagine that you would rather talk to a seventh-grader.

Caught by the epidemiologists from John Hopkins? Year, right. And Lancet didn't even notice that theyr own two studies gave different results (they just kept the one with the higher number, apparently; how is that for fact-checking).

Maybe it's time for you to acknowledge that scientists, when it comes to politics, have an agenda just like we all do.

The Iraqi Body Count Web site have an agenda too. But they also have a bullshit detector.

So, take a class, read some books, and come back when you did at least learn how to question perceived authority. Don't just let them tell you things. It creates hatred.

A number that doesn't work is WRONG, regardless of the wonderfulness of the people who promote it.

Leauki

on Jun 24, 2008

Oh, by the way, the possibility that Saddam had enough WMDs to kill 10,000 Jews or Kuwaitis was absolutely NOT a legal justification for this moronic invasion and its aftermath. If possession of WMDs was justification for invasion, guess who has more WMDs than all the rest of the world put together? The United States.

a) I don't have reason to believe that the United States are going to attack me or my country or anybody for no good reason. (Note that that means that _I_ don't have reason to believe [...]. It doesn't mean that _YOU_ don't have such a reason.)

I still don't care about "legal" or "illegal". If I am ever handed a gas mask because of something that YOU don't consider a "legal justification" for an invasion, I will inform you as soon as I can via JoeUser. It's not "legal" or "illegal" because that is a romantic fairy tale. It's "gas mask" or "no gas mask".

c) There are enough countries in the world that would gladly invade the US if they could and enough countries that did try to invade Israel. So do tell me how valuable your differentiation between "legal" and "illegal" really is. The fact that you consider the invasion "illegal" is of no relevance to the terrorists (because it happened anyway) or the Kurds and Shiites (who had waited for it for decades).

If you can make your point against the invasion without using bogus numbers, insults, or your own (or anybody else's) definitions of "legal" and "illegal", you are welcome.

But if your discussion depends on bogus numbers and accusations that say that disagreement with you is ignorance, and you feel the need to point out that the invasion is "illegal", I cannot see what real argument you might be able to make.

Incidentally, the resistance against the Nazis within Germany and France as "illegal" too. And I have met people (on the net and in Germany) who actually believed that that was a good argument against the morality of the resistance (or "traitors", as they call them).

And the invasion of Normandy was certainly "illegal" too, namely according to Nazi law.

The "legal"/"illegal" system of morality doesn't work; but the "gas mask" system does.

I always use the "gas mask" system: those whose civilians need gas masks are right.

Please do tell me why your system is better!

Dr Guy

on Jun 24, 2008

For someone who is always thumping the civilty book, you sure dont walk the walk. I cannot understand why, if you feel that your arguments are just and correct, you cannot then debate them on the merits with facts, instead of wallowing in childish mudslinging. You are guilty of what you just attempted (badly) to accuse your opposition of.

catguy

on Jun 24, 2008

Hi, Dr. Guy -

It is not uncivil to point out that someone is ignorant. I'm frequently ignorant myself, and freely admit it. Case in point - I was defending FDR's policies and gave him credit for ending the Great Depression. One of your compatriots, I think it was ParaTed2k, told me that FDR's policies had actually lengthened the Great Depression. While I don't agree, less than five minutes' research showed me that a number of reputable economists and historians in a certain study shared his opinion. I gave him credit for having made me aware of this, pointed out that a majority of both the economists and historians in the study shared my opinion, and suggested that we call it an unresolvable point. Oh, I also told him that macroeconomics mystified me and that I was not competent to argue the point thoroughly.

In another discussion, I acknowledged to "KFC" that I can't match her knowledge of, and degree of immersion in, the Bible. We're now having a civil and, to me, interesting, discussion.

This is a political website, and if people are going to enter this discussion, then they should have a passing knowledge and familiarity with certain things - the Constitution in general, the Nuremberg Principles, "habeas corpus", the Geneva Convention, the price of gasoline when Bush took office, the amount of the budget surplus when Bush took office, and quite a bit more. If you're going to come to the table without knowing what you are talking about, then it's fair game to tell you.

As for Leauki, he makes some interesting points, including some that are provocative and which I'd be happy to discuss, but does so in such an emotional way that rational discussion is not possible. For instance, he states that he doesn't care about legal or illegal. That, IN MY OPINION, is the antithesis of what the United States has always claimed to stand for. Israel, too, for that matter - hence the trial of Eichmann. Unlike Leauki, whose response I reported, I don't call people names. I don't apply insulting adjectives to those arguing the other side. I also don't simply discount information that I am given (see my example in paragraph one).

Paladin77

on Jun 24, 2008

If any one of you really thinks that a third-world country with a fourth-world army (one that in eight years could not even beat Iran, for heaven's sake) was a military threat to the United States, please explain it to me. Saddam was a secular Arab who had no truck with Al Qaeda - he loathed them, and they loathed him. Yes he supported terrorist organizations - who attacked Israel. He had nothing to do with 9/11. Was his army going to board cruise ships and invade New Jersey?

It is funny that you say that Iraq had a fourth world army. Up until the Gulf war it was the fourth largest army in the world, as well as the most battle tested army in the world. Everyone in the world of media stated their doubts that America had the ability to do anything other than lose ten thousand troops the first day of battle. We were going to lose and lose big! After the mother of all battles was over they still have not counted all the dead on the Iraqi side. We lost less than 500.

When we went in the second time because of clear violations of the armistice the whole world of media said that we were going to war for no reason. We went in and it was called going it alone. Even though there were many countries that were with us. Those countries did not matter to the media. The war was won in two weeks. The peace is still being worked on. And Iran jumped in because they know that if there is a working democracy in Iraq their days are numbered.

It was called a civil war even though it was started and financed by Iran. Now even that is winding down. They are losing and we are winning. The Iraqi government is starting to stand on its own and we no longer hear the crap about a civil war. Just like we no longer hear the crap about an illegal war except from diehards that refuse to accept the truth.

Here is my explanation to you that you asked for. When a nation is attacked by anyone fear grips the nations people. The only thing that can restore the nation is swift decisive action. The minute we hear of a malcontent he has to be jumped upon or we doom ourselves. We were fighting in Afghanistan and heard rumblings in Iraq. Instead of waiting for the damage we did something. Keep in mind that Saddam publicly stated more than once that he would sell or give his WMD to any group or organization that would use them against Israel and or America. Now given that those statements were made and the fact that Al Qaeda people wounded in Afghanistan were getting medical attention and protection from Iraq is more than enough justification for any rational person to say not again.
It does not matter that we did not find the WMD or if he had them. He made the threat and we had no way of knowing how serious he was. After the attacks on 9/11 do you want to roll those dice and say he is probably bluffing? Keep in mind that there were tons of WMD unaccounted for at the time and a little anthrax can go a long way.

In that case, you are justified to invade all of Europe. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were at one point living out of Europe. You are also justified to invade all of north Africa and the middleast. Stop number 1 should be Saudi Arabia as most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis!

This is good you changed your position to pro-war! You finally get it, I am proud of you.

Oh, and while Saddam may have been aiding terrorists, by giving money to the families of suicide bombers in the Israeli theatre, he has never been proven to have aided Al Qaeda. He was a secular Arab, and was loathed by Bin Laden, according to what I've read. And you can read it, too.

Up to this point you were doing well, you brought up stuff I had not considered so I let it slide without comment because I really did not care one way or the other. But this statement is not only incorrect it is a falsehood. Saddam had in his country members of AQ, it was widely reported on CNN, Washington Post, and the New York Times. These terrorist were recovering in Iraqi hospitals from wounds suffered Afghanistan. The Nation of Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda during a time of war. The one terrorist too hurt to be moved was taken out into the streets and shot dead by the Iraqi army when the news broke. One of the reporters that made the initial report of AQ in Iraq was taken to that street so he could see the execution and report on it so America would not have the excuse to invade.

Saddam was doing what he could to help anyone that opposed America and in this instance he was caught going over the line.

Have to disagree with you here. The armistice between Iraq and the allied nations was clear. They agreed to get rid of all WMD and allow UN inspectors free access to the nations to verify this. So if he had ANY WMD he was in violation of the agreement and any allied nation would be free to resume the war. Because he was harboring known terrorist and protecting them from the war that, according to the Geneva Conventions, strips a nation of its neutrality and brings them into the war. Funny how people like to use the Conventions to help people not covered by them and ignore the ones that make their argument weak. Russia has the worlds largest stockpile of WMD.

catguy

on Jun 24, 2008

I'm on vacation.

So many inaccuracies to your piece, I'm not even going to bother. It would be too much like work.

Have a nice day.

Paladin77

on Jun 24, 2008

So many inaccuracies to your piece, I'm not even going to bother. It would be too much like work.

You are such a tease! Feel free to stop by when you get home and point out the parts you have a problem with.

enjoy your vacation.

catguy

on Jun 25, 2008

I'm on vacation for the summer, and travel in late July.

Okay, Paladin. Please provide documentary evidence of Saddam saying publicly that he would sell of give chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to any terrorist group who would use them to attack the United States or Israel. Also, I don't, just because you say so, believe that Al Qaeda fighters were receiving medical treatment in Iraq. Evidence, please.

As to the first Gulf War, yes, I remember the hype about the mother of all battles, and we'd better go over with 20,000 body bags, and all that other horse manure. I thought it was nonsense at the time, and so did my military friends because Iraq had no air power. In a desert war, who controls the air wins. The size of the Iraqi army was irrelevant. Its battle experience was against Iran, not against a first-world army. To those who study military history in my acquaintance, the outcome was completely predictable and as one-sided as the Battle of Omdurman.

Russian nuclear stockpiles may be bigger than ours, true, but I believe our chemical and bioweapons stockpiles are bigger. This info is classified, so point to you since I can't prove it.

Iraq did have weapons inspectors crawling all over it before this war, and they left because the Bush Administration told them that an attack was imminent. They left more or less kicking and screaming, and one of them, Scott Ritter, is still on the scene, talking about how all intelligence indicating that Saddam was harmless was simply ignored. The Downing Street Memo confirmed this, stating that Bush was "fixing the intelligence to fit the policy" (probably not a perfect quote, but close).

No WMD were found in Iraq. And, if we are going to war with countries because they have threatened us in the past, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia. After all, 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, and the House of Saud supports hundreds of madrasas, or religious schools, that preach anti-American hatred and promote jihad (holy war) against us. As a matter of fact, before our invasion of Iraq, RAND generated a report saying that Iraq was not a threat to us, but Saudi Arabia was.

Remember, please, that Iraq was an artificial construct, created after World War I. I think it is most likely that when we leave, it will devolve into three separate entities, with the Kurds in the North, and the Sunni and Shi'a splitting what's left. Are you familiar with the difference between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims (not being snide, honest - it's just that many people aren't) and their long history of violent antipathy to one another?

I make no bones about it. I think Iraq was/is a bad and wrong war, that it has taken our eye off the important ball, who is bin Laden, and that it has been incredibly badly managed. I think the prosecution of the Iraq War has weakened the United States military and diplomatically. I think that the torture committed under our flag and in our country's name is a literal shame, and I will not be surprised if a court elsewhere in the world (perhaps the Hague), charges Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and others as war criminals.

On the lighter side, I read at Buzzflash.com that in June of 2000 (as reported by Drudge), candidate Bush stated that the outrageous price of oil (at that time between $20 and $30 a barrel) was all the fault of Clinton and Gore. Check it out if you have a doubt.

Leauki

on Jun 25, 2008

For instance, he states that he doesn't care about legal or illegal. That, IN MY OPINION, is the antithesis of what the United States has always claimed to stand for.

Actually, I think your definitions of "legal" and "illegal" is the antithesis of what the United States has always stood for.

You seem to think that "legal" and "illegal" exist objectively without an authority. It's not true.

Israel, too, for that matter - hence the trial of Eichmann.

Which many considered illegal. But guess what? I don't care about their opinions.

Unlike Leauki, whose response I reported, I don't call people names.

"Talking to you is like teaching seventh grade, with one difference. Seventh graders are twelve, and are expected to be ignorant. For adults, ignorance is usually a choice. However, ignorance can be fixed. Take a class, read some books. Make sure you find books that don't have a particular point of view, and read several about the same subject."

I don't apply insulting adjectives to those arguing the other side.

"ignorant"

I also don't simply discount information that I am given (see my example in paragraph one).

Perhaps you should discount information occasionally. Believing whatever you are told and dismissing questions as "ignorant" doesn't make you seem that clever.

Leauki

on Jun 25, 2008

So if he had ANY WMD he was in violation of the agreement and any allied nation would be free to resume the war.

But... but... but... resuming war against a party in violation of a cease-fire agreement is "illegal", isn't it?

No WMD were found in Iraq.

I suppose we will just to have accept that lie.

Dr Guy

on Jun 25, 2008

It is not uncivil to point out that someone is ignorant.

First, you went beyond ignorant. You equated the writer to a pre-teen, hardly a debating point. Second, the only cause for your rant was that the writer refused to agree with you, and had his own set of circumstances that caused him to come to different conclusions. WHile you are entitled to your opinion that he is ignorant, by so doing, you basically conceded you did not have a rebuttal to his stance.

Admitting ignorance of facts is one thing. We all do that as none of us know everything. Labeling someone ignorant because they dont agree with you is different. It ends the debate.

Finally, dont get me wrong. This is not a High school English class, and primarily a forum to express opinions. This thread was started by an opinion - ShadowWar's view of Bush. So at times, we do tell each other that we are stupid, idiots, morons, ignorant, or . However most of us then dont go around whining about civility either.

Dr Guy

on Jun 25, 2008

Saddam was a secular Arab who had no truck with Al Qaeda - he loathed them, and they loathed him. Yes he supported terrorist organizations - who attacked Israel. He had nothing to do with 9/11. Was his army going to board cruise ships and invade New Jersey?

Does it matter? A common myth is that we deposed Saddam because he was somehow either a: Respsonsible for 9-11, or b: was in league with Al Qaeda. Both are false myths. Bush declared war on Terrorism! YOu admit Saddam was involved with it (and heavily so). It matters not that his brand was not flying planes (just teaching others to do that). The war is an attempt to minimize terrorism. many here have argued that is a stupid and senseless goal - akin to chasing ghosts since Terrorism is a concept not a nation state. But no one is arguing that Saddam was not involved in it. And only the dishonest continually bring up the lie that Saddam was part of 9-11 or Al Qaeda and the reason the Coalition went in to begin with.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!