Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever - Fox News!

The AP conducted a poll recently that showed only a 30% approval rating for the Congress. Other polls have shown similar figures the past year.

Coming soon: The great Congress comeback?

.

 

I almost think you live in a cocoon..grow up.

 

If he does, he'll first get someone else to leak some 'intelligence' to try to justify it to the public. Maybe some limited strikes on their facilities.

Bush has been in a cocoon in his little Iraq world. That's all he ever talks about anymore. He was in my town a while back and talked a whole hour about Iraq and nothing else. The economy here isn't doing well and people expected him to spend at least a little time on that, but he didn't. His dad was the same way and let domestic issues slide. They have this obsession about Iraq.

.

 

Their is enough 'inteligence' in the public domain to justify it NOW...

What do you think should be done about Iran.. ?

What do you think IS being done about Iran.. ?

 

Nuclear Solution Within Reach


NEW YORK, April 7--Iran’s ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said on Thursday a solution to Iran’s peaceful nuclear issue “is possible and imminently within reach“.
In an article published in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune, Zarif regretted that the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program has obscured one particular point, i.e., “there need not be a crisis,“ IRNA reported.
Excerpts of his article are reprinted below:
“Iran’s reliance on the non-proliferation regime is based on legal commitments, sober strategic calculations and spiritual and ideological doctrine. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.
“Let me be very clear. Iran defines its national security within the framework of (its) regional and international cooperation and considers regional stability indispensable for its development. We are party to all international agreements on the control of weapons of mass destruction. We want regional stability. We have never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations. Although chemical weapons have been used against us, we have never used them in retaliation--as UN reports have made clear. We have not invaded another country in 250 years.
“Since October 2003, Iran has accepted a robust inspection regimen by the UN. We have allowed more than 1,700 man-hours of inspections and adopted measures to address past reporting failures.
“Most of the outstanding issues in connection with uranium conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and the heavy-water research reactor program have been resolved.“

http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2531/html/


I'll remember this..... if 'WAR' is 'declared'...

 

Enough of what intelligence to justify what?

.

 

'inteligence' might be the wrong word 'justification' might be better.

Anything you two guys think .. what could possibly be leaked to justify 'invading iran'...that is not in the public domain at the moment... maybe a touch of rewording will occur

"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” declared Vice President Dick Cheney recently.

"If the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll," replied Javad Vaeidi, Deputy Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Council.


http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-04-06-voa38.cfm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm etc etc

 

Matt, take some time to get your thoughts together and come back and talk later. You're talking in riddles.

.

 

Your question was a little odd.. apologies for being a little erm ???.

you said:

''If he does, he'll first get someone else to leak some 'intelligence' to try to justify it to the public.''

my response to that :

''what could possibly be leaked to justify 'invading iran'...that is not in the public domain at the moment... ''

As in the statement after statement stateting all partys positions..

UN
US
EU
Russia
China
Etc
Etc

What could be 'pulled out of the bag' in your opinion ?.


Skip.. i'm in a poor way defending reality..not some simplistic arguement about ''Bushie wanting to invade Iran''
Look within the vast spectrum of opinion and actual statements given by those involved...

e.g
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Iran+Nuclear+debate&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=11

Stay in this cocoon of not listening to reality if you wish... [though i suspect merely not aknowledging it]

 

The same sort of crap he pulled out of the bag for invading Iraq. They make it up as they go along.

.

 

i'd say this is pretty much reality.

"The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war. It is now trying to link Iran to the 9/11 attacks by repeatedly claiming that Iran is the main state sponsor of terrorism in the world (though this suggestion is highly questionable). It is also attempting to make the threat urgent by arguing that Iran might soon pass a “point of no return” if it can perfect the technology of enriching uranium, even though many other nations have gone far beyond Iran’s capabilities and stopped their programs short of weapons. And, of course, it is now publicly linking Iran to the Iraqi insurgency and the improvised explosive devices used to kill and maim U.S. troops in Iraq, though Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace admitted there is no evidence to support this claim."

http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_23477.shtml

 

What was that then ?

mmm nothing is perfect..not even your arguement.
Your so ''middle of the road''' and honest with no biases ..it's almost like i am getting a real education in even handed politics

Hahahahahahahahahaha ...mmm i appreciate you are a mere mortal and like me don't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.. but come on.. YOU LIE constantly .. to justify your position.. Like shaggies claim ''They make it up as they go along. '' YOU are guilty..

Ok enough with the personal remarks..

Scrounge around for TEN YEARS PLUS.. finding justifications .. invokeing a myriad of resolutions to move from one UN article to another.. Is that what you mean ?

In this world not EVERYBODY will agree.. the arguements you could make are as 'scrambling' as you see those having to resort to actions you disagree with..

Please for the first time that i have noticed..please tell me under what circumstances is 'war' acceptable to you..


What 'perfect' scenario would have made it all justified ?

Should Iraq have been left alone ?

Did you back the 'invasion' at any point in time.. ?

Are you a pascifist ?

Hindsight is the preserve of gods..i'm sure you have such gifts..

Do you admit that you are wrong ever ?

[if you could..could we have a civil and honest conversation-aplogies for a few low remarks-feel free to snipe back-with out banning my ass-then keep it ''grown up'' if you can ]

 

I have read a myriad of media analysis..argueing one way or the other..

This is NOT reality polymer..it is mere idle speculation adding or removing 'reality' from the arguement.. If i was to post the actual 'actors' in this polymer..then i would be a apologist.. right ?... welll thats the reality we should listen to and work with.. not some junk some writer writes to keep a job.

It is fair to say most commentary is biased in on way or another..

It is easier to read some thoughts and agree with them if the stike a chord to our prejudices..i appreciate that.. but come on.. that is NOT reality , is it ?.

 

[i'm trying hard not to be offensive and say ''you would say that'']. I am just trying to see it from your perspective, thats all.. I'm not trying to be atagonistic - please take this onboard as you read my responses - thankyou]
.
Why was the US a threat..?
Their are also over 30 other nation involved.. the usual 'lap dog' arguement is simplistic.. and is only good for satirical humour imho.

It's a slightly broader picture than that..

Have you heard about 'preseving peace and security' the UN has quite a few chapters on that particular subject.

Ofcourse each goverment will argue it is 'defending itself' and this is headline material..and what the media regurrgitates on a daily basis.

The boreing back room stuff hardly makes it onto the news.. you know endless sub commitees .. endless UN meetings with those involved.. that dull stuff.

Politicians full un-edited statements .. etc. You have to actively go look for that kind of material...

Not many people are even handed when disussing these issues.. hands up guilty as charged [sometimes].

Sometimes if i am within that particular thread.. i have a sense of your position.. i just wanted to be clear... with some direct questions sooorrrrry.

War for oil ?:
For Bush's personal enrichment..or to strenghen/protect the American economy ?.

Yes i do.. i obviously noticed you argue against this war.. i wondered if you were a pascifist why you did this ? .. It might be rude of me but ''no shit sherlock'' ofcourse ''No scenario would've justified invading Iraq'' .. that makes reasonable sense from that kind of perspective.. it just puzzles me why a pascifisct get themselves into this kind of debate ?.

I admire pascifists i really do.. except when they argue about a dicisions to go to war..

I'm not a warmonger.. just 'war' is in my reality.. i appreciate it occurs.. and unlike you don't actively protest it's use. If we lived in a perfect world i would like no wars to occur.. but we don't.

Please don't call me a 'warmonger' for merely not argueing a pacifist stance..
I'm on a site that has many pascifists who argue the toss about a war they would NEVER find justified.. i must be a pervert for arguements.. but sometimes my grasp of the 'other end of the spectrum' is hightened.. thats why i stick around.

If a peaceful scenario could have resolved this ... i would have been happy.
Thats what i wished .

Quite a few times.. i don't think we read every last post each erm post , do we ?.
So i think what each other [me and you] may thinks is not fully rounded.

Normaly i just say 'imho' and 'if i am wrong please let me know'.. i'm fairly humble like that.. as it happens.
I don't proclaim Bush has removed certain words from the govermental lexicon..or anything like that... that type of behaviour i stay away from.. i try and remain within reality if i can.

I'm not a liar Skip... please don't call me a liar..

Wave what flag ? the american flag ? Wave the british flag ? why on earth would i do that .. i'm not some uber patriot Skip.. i just don't agree with your POV on this.. [apart from eradicating war from the planet].

I'm not supporting BUSH.. or BLAIR for that matter.. I'M SUPPORTING MY OWN POV.. Prior to me comeing to this site i made up my mind about this [open to being changed or corrected if needed] from being apposed to all of this .. to actually comeing to the conclusion this was justified.. i could post the few websites i posted on and you can chart my arc in thinking if you like.. have you a few days spare ?.


After all that if you are a pacifisct .. IMHO i guess you would STILL see me as a apologist and a warmonger, right .. *sigh*.

I HAD hoped the stereotype was wrong..

 

ssooo...where's the proof that they're going to build a weapon? where's the proof that Saddam had weapons?

the reality is, Bushco has NO PROOF that Iran is building a bomb, just another crusade against an oil-producing country.

i don't care if you're an apologist or not; nobody with an ounce of sense is fooled by this admin's nonsense.

 

Their is no proof just assurances..[why is it so difficult for this state to follow NPT guidlines ?] ...

Their are two options 1. they are actively seeking weapons and renaging on their NPT commitments.. 2. they have none.. unlike other nations they talk with two tongues.

How do YOU know that they do not ?.. their word ?.. what if you are wrong ?.
You think every other nation is honest apart from America ?..

"I don't know quite how to answer that because we don't have perfect information or perfect understanding. But the Iranian record, plus what the Iranian leaders have said . . . lead us to conclude that we have to be highly skeptical."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html

I'ts not really about what ''Bushco'' thinks though [or his minions].. thats just the insipid Amercentric view that America is the only nation that is involved [aside from Iran].

It's about the IAEA being satisfied.. thats always been the case.. they conclude one way another .. the middleman in a war of words [imho].

I'm not by the way..

It's not just the ''admin's nonsense''

"I urge all parties to use this opportunity to create the necessary conditions to return to negotiations," Dr. ElBaradei said. "I call on Iran to demonstrate full transparency toward the IAEA to resolve important outstanding issues related to its nuclear programme. I also call on Iran to take all the necessary confidence building measures required to assure the international community of the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme," he said. "As the negotiations proceed, it will be essential for all parties to specifically address the security, political and economic issues that underlie any future comprehensive settlement."

"Only through these two tracks – full transparency on the part of Iran and negotiations with all concerned parties – can confidence be established regarding the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme and a durable solution be found," Dr. ElBaradei said.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2006/prn200606.html