Is Bush The Worst President...In The Last 50 Years?

mc mark · Apr 7, 2006

halfbreed said:

If Bush is the source of the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.

A leak is an unsanctioned release of information. When that information has been authorized by the President it is no longer classified and free for release.

It does make him a hypocrite but the release wasn't a "leak."
Click to expand...

Well if this has been legal all along why hide and deny it for 3 years?

rimrocker · Apr 7, 2006

When Gonzales says that something is possible, it means they're already doing it... I'll bet the house we eventually find out it relates more to domestic politics than national security... Some of the quotes in here should make honest Republicans cringe as much as angry Dems...

Warrantless Wiretaps Possible in U.S.

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 7, 2006; A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600764_pf.html

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales left open the possibility yesterday that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States -- a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.

In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales suggested that the administration could decide it was legal to listen in on a domestic call without supervision if it were related to al-Qaeda.

"I'm not going to rule it out," Gonzales said.

In the past, Gonzales and other officials refused to say whether they had the legal authority to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on domestic calls, and have stressed that the NSA eavesdropping program is focused only on international communications.

Gonzales previously testified in the Senate that Bush had considered including purely domestic communications in the NSA spying program, but he said the idea was rejected in part because of fears of a public outcry. He also testified at the time that the Justice Department had not fully analyzed the legal issues of such a move.

In yesterday's testimony, Gonzales reiterated earlier hints that there may be another facet to the NSA program that has not been revealed publicly, or even another program that has prompted dissension within the government. While acknowledging disagreements among officials over the monitoring efforts, Gonzales disputed published reports that have detailed the arguments.

"They did not relate to the program the president disclosed," Gonzales testified. "They related to something else, and I can't get into that."

Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos played down Gonzales's remarks, saying he "did not say anything new" about the NSA program.

"The Attorney General's comments today should not be interpreted to suggest the existence or non-existence of a domestic program or whether any such program would be lawful under the existing legal analysis," Scolinos said in a statement.

The NSA program, which was first revealed publicly in media reports in December, has been the focus of sharp criticism from lawmakers of both parties and prompted a recent call by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) to formally censure Bush for violation of federal surveillance laws.

The criticism from both parties continued yesterday. At one point during Gonzales's testimony, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.), the committee's Republican chairman, accused the attorney general of "stonewalling" for refusing to discuss how the NSA program was authorized.

"I think that saying that how the review was done and who did the review is classified is stonewalling," Sensenbrenner said. "And if we're properly to determine whether or not the program was legal and funded -- because that's Congress's responsibility -- we need to have answers, and we're not getting them."

Administration officials have acknowledged that Bush issued an order in October 2001 authorizing the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas in which one of the parties was suspected of some link to al-Qaeda. Gonzales and the Justice Department have argued that the program is constitutional and was effectively authorized by Congress when it approved the use of force against al-Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Many Democrats and some Republicans say that Congress did not intend any such authorization, and that the program violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which created a special court to oversee clandestine surveillance within the United States. Lawmakers are considering several proposals to legalize the program in some way, whether by incorporating it within FISA or authorizing it separately.

In a news release, Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, called Gonzales's testimony about intercepting domestic calls "disturbing." He said it "represents a wholly unprecedented assertion of executive power."

"No one in Congress would deny the need to tap certain calls under court order, but if the administration believes it can tap purely domestic phone calls between Americans without court approval, there is no limit to executive power," he said.

During his testimony, Gonzales said he was constrained in what he could disclose about the highly classified program. "I do not think we are thumbing our nose at the Congress or the courts," he said.
Click to expand...

mc mark · Apr 7, 2006

From josh --

It's not too soon to start calling this for what it is: the Bush administration's creeping monarchism.

The Times has a piece today on some critical testimony Attorney General Al Gonzales delivered yesterday on Capitol Hill. The president, he suggested, probably does have the authority to conduct warrantless domestic wiretaps.

This comes on the heels of the president's view, summarized in today's Post by an unnamed senior administration official, that "Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny."

We've already discussed the fact that the president has the authority to declassify anything, albeit through certain guidelines and procedures he appears not to have followed in this case. The fact that he seems to have done so with the Libby leaks for clearly political and thus inappropriate reasons doesn't make it illegal in itself. And I think the claim that the president didn't follow the appropriate procedures in 'declassifying' in this case would be too fine a distinction for a court to want to touch. (For an alternative view, see Juliette Kayyem's discussion of this. She says it may well be illegal.)

Setting all that aside, what is most revealing is the attitude suggested by the White House official rather than just the net outcome. Beyond the legal particulars, the president's attitude seems to be that the law just doesn't apply to him -- and that's not surprising since we see so many other instances of that perspective in practice.

Peal back all the individual arguments from Al Gonzales and the president and whomever else they put forward, the underlying idea is not so much that the president is above the law as that he is the law. He embodies it, you might say, even embodies the state itself. And thus what he does can't be illegal. What he does is simply the state cogitating and defending itself.

This is a vision that simply incompatible with any idea of separation of powers because in this view the president's prerogative always trumps the other two branches. And that makes it a grave danger to our constitutional system itself.

-- Josh Marshall

rimrocker · Apr 7, 2006

mc mark said:

It's not too soon to start calling this for what it is: the Bush administration's creeping monarchism.

...

Peal back all the individual arguments from Al Gonzales and the president and whomever else they put forward, the underlying idea is not so much that the president is above the law as that he is the law. He embodies it, you might say, even embodies the state itself. And thus what he does can't be illegal. What he does is simply the state cogitating and defending itself.

This is a vision that simply incompatible with any idea of separation of powers because in this view the president's prerogative always trumps the other two branches. And that makes it a grave danger to our constitutional system itself.

-- Josh Marshall
Click to expand...

An opportunity to quote my sig...

"The Constitution to which we are all attached was meant to be republican, and we believe to be republican according to every candid interpretation. Yet we have seen it so interpreted and administered, as to be truly what the French have called, a monarchie masque." --Thomas Jefferson

Notice how we don't hear much about Original Intent lately?

Saint Louis · Apr 7, 2006

mc mark said:

From josh --

It's not too soon to start calling this for what it is: the Bush administration's creeping monarchism.

The Times has a piece today on some critical testimony Attorney General Al Gonzales delivered yesterday on Capitol Hill. The president, he suggested, probably does have the authority to conduct warrantless domestic wiretaps.

This comes on the heels of the president's view, summarized in today's Post by an unnamed senior administration official, that "Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny."

We've already discussed the fact that the president has the authority to declassify anything, albeit through certain guidelines and procedures he appears not to have followed in this case. The fact that he seems to have done so with the Libby leaks for clearly political and thus inappropriate reasons doesn't make it illegal in itself. And I think the claim that the president didn't follow the appropriate procedures in 'declassifying' in this case would be too fine a distinction for a court to want to touch. (For an alternative view, see Juliette Kayyem's discussion of this. She says it may well be illegal.)

Setting all that aside, what is most revealing is the attitude suggested by the White House official rather than just the net outcome. Beyond the legal particulars, the president's attitude seems to be that the law just doesn't apply to him -- and that's not surprising since we see so many other instances of that perspective in practice.

Peal back all the individual arguments from Al Gonzales and the president and whomever else they put forward, the underlying idea is not so much that the president is above the law as that he is the law. He embodies it, you might say, even embodies the state itself. And thus what he does can't be illegal. What he does is simply the state cogitating and defending itself.

This is a vision that simply incompatible with any idea of separation of powers because in this view the president's prerogative always trumps the other two branches. And that makes it a grave danger to our constitutional system itself.

-- Josh Marshall
Click to expand...

All rise for his royal honor King George W. Bush

Almu · Apr 7, 2006

LOL!

What else can you say? Can't lie NO MO!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/

White House won't challenge leak story

WASHINGTON - The White House on Friday declined to challenge assertions that President Bush authorized the leaks of intelligence information to counter administration critics on Iraq.

But Bush’s spokesman, Scott McClellan, appeared to draw a distinction about Bush’s oft-stated opposition to leaks. “The president would never authorize disclosure of information that could compromise our nation’s security,” Bush’s spokesman said.

Court papers filed by the prosecutor in the CIA leak case against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby said Bush authorized Libby to disclose information from a classified prewar intelligence report. The court papers say Libby’s boss, advised him that the president had authorized Libby to leak the information to the press in striking back at administration critic Joseph Wilson.

McClellan volunteered that the administration declassified information from the intelligence report — the National Intelligence Estimate — and released it to the public on July 18, 2003. But he refused to say when the information was actually declassified. The date could be significant because Libby discussed the information with a reporter on July 8 of that year.

On Thursday, disclosure of official authorization for Libby’s leaks to reporters brought strong criticism from administration political foes, but little likelihood that their demands for explanations will be met.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., citing Bush’s call two years ago to find the person who leaked the CIA identity of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, said the latest disclosures means the president needs to go no further than a mirror.

Prosecutor's court filing
In his court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald asserted that “the president was unaware of the role” that Libby “had in fact played in disclosing” Plame’s CIA status. The prosecutor gave no such assurance, though, regarding Cheney.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that “in light of today’s shocking revelation, President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information. The American people must know the truth.”

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the “inherent authority to decide who should have classified information.” The White House declined to comment, citing the ongoing criminal probe into the leak of Plame’s identity.

In July 2003, Wilson’s accusation that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat “was viewed in the office of vice president as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president, and the president,” Fitzgerald’s court papers stated.

Part of the counterattack was a July 8, 2003, meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller at which Libby discussed the contents of a then-classified CIA report that seemed to undercut what Wilson was saying in public.

Separately, Libby said he understood he also was to tell Miller that prewar intelligence assessments had been that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium, the prosecutor stated. In the run-up to the war, Cheney had insisted Iraq was trying to build a nuclear bomb.

The conclusion on uranium was contained in a National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus document of the U.S. intelligence community. Libby’s statements came in grand jury testimony before he was charged with five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame probe.

Libby at first told the vice president that he could not have the July 8, 2003, conversation with Miller because of the classified nature of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, Fitzgerald said. Libby testified to the grand jury “that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions” of the NIE.

Libby testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then counsel to the vice president, “whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.”

Libby testified that he was specifically authorized to disclose the key judgments of the classified intelligence document because it was thought that its conclusions were “fairly definitive” against what Wilson had said and the vice president thought that it was “very important” for those key judgments to come out, the court papers stated.

'A junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife'
After Wilson began attacking the administration, Cheney had a conversation with Libby, expressing concerns on whether a CIA-sponsored trip to the African nation of Niger by Wilson “was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife,” Fitzgerald wrote. The suggestion that Plame sent her husband on the Africa trip has gotten widespread circulation among White House loyalists.

Wilson said he had concluded on his trip that it was highly doubtful Niger had sold uranium yellowcake to Iraq.

The prosecutor’s court papers offer a glimpse inside the White House when the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation of the Plame leak in September 2003. Libby “implored White House officials” to issue a statement saying he had not been involved in revealing Plame’s identity, and that when his initial efforts met with no success, he “sought the assistance of the vice president in having his name cleared,” the prosecutor stated.

The White House eventually said neither Libby nor Karl Rove had been involved in the leak. Rove remains under criminal investigation.

KaiSeR SoZe · Apr 7, 2006

Hoover>Bush

CreepyFloyd · Apr 7, 2006

yes...ever

Deckard · Apr 7, 2006

The public has no faith in the Administration or the Republican Party.

From the Houston Chronicle:

April 7, 2006, 4:57PM

Poll: Bush, GOP hit new lows with public

By RON FOURNIER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval ratings hit a series of new lows in an AP-Ipsos poll that also shows Republicans surrendering their advantage on national security — grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power.

Democratic leaders predicted they will seize control of one or both chambers of Congress in November. Republicans said they feared the worst unless the political landscape quickly changes.

"These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one."

There is more at stake than the careers of GOP lawmakers. A Democratic-led Congress could bury the last vestiges of Bush's legislative agenda and subject the administration to high-profile investigations of the Iraq war, the CIA leak case, warrantless eavesdropping and other matters.

In the past two congressional elections, Republicans gained seats on the strength of Bush's popularity and a perception among voters that the GOP was stronger on national security than Democrats.

Those advantages are gone, according to a survey of 1,003 adults conducted this week for The Associated Press by Ipsos, an international polling firm.

— Just 36 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, his lowest-ever rating in AP-Ipsos polling. By contrast, the president's job approval rating was 47 percent among likely voters just before Election Day 2004 and a whopping 64 percent among registered voters in October 2002.

— Only 40 percent of the public approves of Bush's performance on foreign policy and the war on terror, another low-water mark for his presidency. That's down 9 points from a year ago. Just before the 2002 election, 64 percent of registered voters backed Bush on terror and foreign policy.

— Just 35 percent of the public approves of Bush's handling of Iraq, his lowest in AP-Ipsos polling.

"He's in over his head," said Diane Heller, 65, a Pleasant Valley, N.Y., real estate broker and independent voter.

By comparison, Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Dwight Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Richard Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

As bad as Bush's numbers may be, Congress' are worse.

Just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance, and Republicans seem to be shouldering the blame.

By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress.

That 16-point Democratic advantage is the largest the party has enjoyed in AP-Ipsos polling.

On an issue the GOP has dominated for decades, Republicans are now locked in a tie with Democrats — 41 percent each — on the question of which party people trust to protect the country. Democrats made their biggest national security gains among young men, according to the AP-Ipsos poll, which had a 3 percentage point margin of error.

The public gives Democrats a slight edge on what party would best handle Iraq, a reversal from Election Day 2004.

"We're in an exceptionally challenging electoral environment," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a former GOP strategist. "We start off on a battlefield today that is tilted in their direction, and that's when you have to use the advantages you have."

Those include the presidential "bully pulpit" and the "structural, tactical advantages" built into the system, Cole said.

One of those advantages is a political map that is gerrymandered to put House incumbents in relatively safe districts, meaning Democrats have relatively few opportunities to pick up the 15 seats they need to gain control.

In the Senate, the Democrats need to pick up six seats.

"I think we will win the Congress," Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said, breaking the unwritten rule against raising expectations.

"Everything is moving in our direction. If it keeps moving in our direction, it's very reasonable to say there will be a Democratic Senate and House," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Strategists in both parties say it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances for Democrats to seize control of Congress.

First, the elections would need to be nationalized. Democrats hope to do that with a burgeoning ethics scandal focused on relationships between GOP lobbyists and lawmakers.

Secondly, the public would need to be in a throw-the-bums-out mood. It's unclear whether that is the case, but 69 percent of Americans believes the nation is headed in the wrong direction — the largest percentage during the Bush presidency and up 13 points from a year ago.

Third, staunch GOP voters would need to stay home. Nobody can predict whether that will happen, but a growing number of Republicans disagree with their leaders in Washington about immigration, federal spending and other issues.

Bush's approval rating is down 12 points among Republicans since a year ago. Six-in-10 Republicans said they disapproved of the GOP-led Congress.

"I'd just as soon they shut (Congress) down for a few years," said Robert Hirsch, 72, a Republican-leaning voter in Chicago. "All they do is keep passing laws and figuring out ways to spend our money."
———

Trevor Tompson, manager of news surveys for The Associated Press, and AP writer Will Lester contributed to this report.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3778720.html

Invisible Fan · Apr 7, 2006

After the Alito confirmation, the Bush admin has no more use to moderate Republicans. Looks like they can oppose him openly now.

Lil Pun · Apr 8, 2006

I don't know, I have only been alive for half that time.

Almu · Apr 8, 2006

And let me just say it if I haven't said it. Here is my voting record:

1992-Clinton
1996-Clinton
2000-Didn't vote. Why bother when I couldn't stand either one at the time.
2004-Bush

I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I really don't care for partisanship. Make my country better, I will vote for you and pull for you.

Which is why seeing what this guy is doing after so blindly following him after 9/11 hurts so freakin much. We are the laughing stock of the world right now. Instead of being like Superman, we are like Bizarro. Strong, powerful but stupid and backwards as HELL!

tigermission1 · Apr 8, 2006

Did anyoone watch the "Best Damn Sports Show Period" last night? They had Charles Barkely on, and whe he was asked to relay his opinion about the possibility of Bill Clinton becoming the next NFL commish, Sir Charles went on a tangent blasting Bush and the Republicans in Congress...all to the surprise of the BSSSP crew (Salley and Chris Rose were conducting the interview), because everyone thought that he was a Republican (I remember him at one time saying that he considered running for governor of Alabama as a Republican, but I might be wrong).

CreepyFloyd · Apr 8, 2006

Almu said:

Which is why seeing what this guy is doing after so blindly following him after 9/11 hurts so freakin much. We are the laughing stock of the world right now.
Click to expand...

that's why you should never blindly follow or support anyone

Deckard · Apr 8, 2006

tigermission1 said:

Did anyoone watch the "Best Damn Sports Show Period" last night? They had Charles Barkely on, and whe he was asked to relay his opinion about the possibility of Bill Clinton becoming the next NFL commish, Sir Charles went on a tangent blasting Bush and the Republicans in Congress...all to the surprise of the BSSSP crew (Salley and Chris Rose were conducting the interview), because everyone thought that he was a Republican (I remember him at one time saying that he considered running for governor of Alabama as a Republican, but I might be wrong).
Click to expand...

He's one of millions of Republicans that have had their faith in their party shaken, and are looking for change.

Keep D&D Civil.

rimrocker · Apr 10, 2006

Another poll, another low. Check out the numbers on the "Strongly Disapprove" side... 47%. An amazing number... Clinton's high was 33%, which, not coincidentally, is probably the bottom number for Bush approval.

Bush's Job Approval Rating Hits New Low
Forty-Seven Percent of Americans 'Strongly' Disapprove of Handling of the Presidency
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/10/AR2006041000259_pf.html
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 10, 2006; 5:54 PM

Political reversals at home and continued bad news from Iraq have dragged President Bush's standing with the public to a new low, at the same time Republican fortunes on Capitol Hill are also deteriorating, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 38 percent of the public approved of the job Bush is doing as president, down 3 percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling since he became president. Sixty percent disapproved of his performance.

With less than seven months remaining before voters go to the polls, Bush's political troubles already appear to be casting a long shadow on the mid-term elections. Barely a third of registered voters, 35 percent, approves of the way the Republican-held Congress is doing its job -- the lowest level of support in nine years.

A majority of registered voters, 55 percent, say they currently plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in their House district while 40 percent support the Republican candidate. That is the largest share of the electorate favoring Democrats in Post-ABC polls since the mid-1980s.

These grim findings for the GOP are offset somewhat by the finding that 59 percent of voters still say they approve of their own representative. But even these numbers are weaker than in recent off-year election cycles and identical to support of congressional incumbents in June of 1994 -- five months before Democrats lost control of Congress to Republicans.

As Bush and the Republicans falter, Democrats have emerged as the party most Americans trust to deal with issues ranging from Iraq to the economy to health care. By 49 to 42 percent, Americans trust Democrats more than the GOP to do a better job dealing with Iraq.

Democrats also currently hold a 6-percentage point advantage over Republicans (49 percent to 43 percent) as the party currently most trusted to handle the economy. Their lead swells to double-digits on such as issues as immigration (12 points), prescription drug benefits for the elderly (28 points), health care (32 points) and dealing with corruption in Washington (25 points).

The public divides evenly on only one issue: terrorism, with 46 percent expressing more confidence in the Democrats and 45 percent trusting Republicans on a top voting concern that the GOP counts on dominating.

But there is plenty of time left before election day for Republicans to take back ground they have lost to Democrats -- or for Democrats to solidify their recent gains. In the past year, public attitudes toward Bush and the Republicans have been driven by the news: Bush's popularity rebounded at the end of last year in response to the democratic elections in Iraq and renewed optimism about the economy at home -- only to stumble as the deadly insurgency continued and scandals in Congress and the White House drove down perceptions of the president and his party.

A total of 1,027 randomly selected adults were interviewed April 6-9 for this survey. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall results.

Bush's overall job approval rating has remained below 50 percent for nearly a year. Perhaps more ominously for the president, 47 percent in the latest poll said they "strongly" disapproved of Bush's handling of the presidency -- more than double the percentage who strongly approved (20 percent). It marked the second straight month that the proportion of Americans intensely critical of the president was larger than his overall job approval rating. In comparison, the percentage who strongly disapproved of President Bill Clinton never exceeded 33 percent in Post-ABC News polls.

The public is even more critical of Bush's performance in specific areas. On six of seven key issues, fewer than half of the public approved of the job Bush is doing while majorities expressed dissatisfaction with the president on Iraq (62 percent), health care (62 percent) and immigration (61 percent).

Four in 10 -- 40 percent -- say Bush is doing a good job dealing with the economy, down 8 points in a month. One reason for the drop in Bush's rating on the economy may be the recent sharp increase in fuel costs. Fewer than one in four approve of his performance dealing with gas prices, virtually the same as last summer when gas prices topped $3 a gallon. Overall, 44 percent said that the price hikes were causing "serious hardship" in their family, up significantly from August.

Half of the public currently disapproves of the way Bush is handling the war on terrorism, an issue where majorities of Americans had typically given him high marks until last year.

The depth of public dissatisfaction with the president and its highly partisan cast are underscored by public attitudes toward efforts by some in Congress to censure Bush or impeach him for his actions as president.

Both actions are viewed as remote possibilities by Democratic and Republican congressional leaders. Still, more than four in 10 Americans -- 45 percent -- favors censuring or formally reprimanding Bush for authorizing wiretaps of telephone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists without first getting court permission. Two-thirds of Democrats and half of all independents, but only one in six Republicans, currently support censuring Bush, the poll found.

Last month Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure Bush. A majority of Americans, 56 percent, said Feingold's call for censure was driven more by politics than by principle.

Calls to impeach Bush are not resonating beyond Democratic partisans. A third of the country, including a majority of all Democrats (55 percent), favor impeaching Bush and removing him from office. But more than nine in 10 Republicans and two-thirds of all independents oppose impeachment.

The bloodshed and political chaos in Iraq continues to drag down support for the war, the new survey found. Barely four in 10 -- 41 percent -- currently say the war was worth fighting, down five percentage points since December. While more than half of Americans think the troop levels in Iraq should be decreased, only 15 percent are calling for an immediate withdrawal, a figure that has not varied much during the past year.
Click to expand...

zoids · Apr 10, 2006

Yawn......zzzzZZZZZZZ

When will you proud Americans stop talk the talk and start walk the walk? The previous good president got impeached for a bj, while this chimp get away with happy triggering and corruptions and exposing your own secret agent.....

Dairy Ashford · Apr 11, 2006

Reagan - 70% income tax rate, for goodness sakes? Regardless of the debated economic benefit, somebody had to fix this. Doesn't more personal income equal more personal consumption and/or investment? I also support the increase in defense spending: more money = better weapons = less casualties. Also, what were state deficits like at the time? How much of federal deficits were/are just state govts not ponying up on health, welfare and social security? And not turning down pork? C+

Carter - Lucked into power against the apologist of a controversial predecessor. Policies driven by principles and ideals, rather than expertise or good strategy. See also: Bush, George W. I would hate to see either one of these guys handling a Depression or a World War, but I bet BOTH of them end up heroes to their ideologies: watch for Bush on either the clean energy, promoting mideast democracy or televangelist game. C-

LBJ - One thing I love about this guy, not afraid to piss off anyone: Hippies, Racists. One of three caucasians (along with Abe Lincoln and Earl Warren) whom I would probably allow to call me the n-word (okay, Col. Sanders is the fourth). Every once in a while, we need a hard-nosed back-room legislator in the White House to get things done. Anyone who leaves Congress to fight in a war (WWII) should be able to run unopposed for anything he wants, ever. And, yet, he seemed to have learned nothing from it. Either that, or having his boss killed by a Commie messed him up bad. 58,000 is a hell of a lot more than 2,500, no matter what decade, and Gulf of Tonkin was some heinous s***. C+

Nixon - You know why Washington is the greatest President ever? The one reason? Because he stepped down. How many revolutionary heroes have been able to do that, over the last 217 years? He preserved the governmental process, and in so doing set an example for all of the ambitious, (relatively) talented and powerful people who would run the country after him. Probably helped guarantee the stability and structure of the government. Nixon, by his actions, almost destroyed the process, I think. Ordering a break-in into the opposing party's headquarters, in the midst of the campaign, is a staggering abuse of power that, taken to its extremes, would ultimately undo the system. Would have been a scary precent for both parties. D (for "detente"). Ford could've cured cancer, paid off the federal debt and ended poverty, but he shares the D for the pardon.

Clinton - Former law professors shouldn't perjure themselves in Federal depositions, and Rhodes Scholars should be more risk-averse vis-a-vis infidelity. B- for "don't ask, don't tell," ballsy budget decisions and co-opting welfare reform.

Bush Sr. - model of military, fiscal and personal restraint, but you still gotta win. C+

pgabriel · Apr 11, 2006

my parents were paying that 70% tax rate under carter. my mother who never votes republican voted for reagan twice I believe.

but you're right, I would never want to see george jr. handling a situation like a cold war. he has no international diplomatic skill.

No Worries · Apr 11, 2006

pgabriel said:

but you're right, I would never want to see george jr. handling a situation like a cold war. he has no international diplomatic skill.
Click to expand...

W has 5 years of international diplomatic experience.

Forums

Is Bush The Worst President...In The Last 50 Years?

mc mark Member

rimrocker Member

mc mark Member

rimrocker Member

Saint Louis Member

Almu Member

KaiSeR SoZe Member

CreepyFloyd Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Invisible Fan Member

Lil Pun Member

Almu Member

tigermission1 Member

CreepyFloyd Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

rimrocker Member

zoids Member

Dairy Ashford Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

No Worries Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Is Bush The Worst President...In The Last 50 Years?

mc mark Member

rimrocker Member

mc mark Member

rimrocker Member

Saint Louis Member

Almu Member

KaiSeR SoZe Member

CreepyFloyd Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

Invisible Fan Member

Lil Pun Member

Almu Member

tigermission1 Member

CreepyFloyd Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

rimrocker Member

zoids Member

Dairy Ashford Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

No Worries Member

Share This Page

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member