Print

Clinton

Bush

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[RicePlateReddy]

Politicians are politicians but I never could understand the rationale of Indians supporting Republicans. 

Simple - these Indians have started making money and are now paying not only their own bills but their kids' too. I don't know of a single person in such situation ...who would not like to pay lower taxes

My bleeding-heart-liberal business partner (of Indian origin) after writing his tax check on April 15 and foreseeing huge bills that are coming with 2 kids going to college in a few years, said.. that is it, I am voting Republican this year

I may have quoted Churchill earlier - "At 20, you are a liberal and at 40, you become a conservative".. because at 20 someone else is paying your bills and at 40 you are paying someone else's bills

Not saying that they are for waging silly wars, not balancing budget, not investing in education etc.

One thing that I first dismissed as complete nonsense but now see as somewhat interesting -- how many Indians are very right wing (BJP) at home but very left wing (MoveOn etc.) when it comes to the US.

There are several obvious and strong counterpoints that help justify this, but the point is it could help Indians better understand why the Republicans support is widespread and spans both the poor and the rich.

[openforum]

The years 1992 thorugh 2000 were great years not because of the end of the Cold war (which incidentally happened at the end of Reagan's term -- in case you forgot, there were 4 years of GB-I in there between 1988 to 1992, at which time we were in a recessaion --which really was the effect of Reagan's so called policies. Pity, his successor bore the brunt of it) but because the US had a fiscally responsible President in power (during 1992-2000) who leveraged the effects of a booming economy with prudent policies.

You really need a primer on economics if you think Reagan's policies put the US economy in a good place. Its a widely spread myth which people continue to believe despite data to the contrary.

Kban, I think it is also because a fiscally responsible congress (republican controlled) was in place. I also read that balanced budgets became a reality due to the surplus in social security which was counted as revenue.

The federal budget is about 40% defense and 50% (medicare + social security) etc.  so there is no way a balance budget can come about while meeting the entitlement obligations. (People might say why 40% on defense but that is never going to change). The only way is to tax everybody (which is actually a good thing because people will revolt against excessive spending (read defense) if it comes out of their pocket. Now it is being passed on to later generations). And may be excessive taxation will also bring about social security and medicare reform whose abligations are about 50trillion on last count (all change if it comes will come at a great economic hardship for the middle class and poor).

[feverpitch]

people with their children on their shoulders were protesting in broad daylight. leaders including Blair and Bush should have noted that.

They both did. And had a quiet laugh!

Bush/Blair presided over a war which has been proven to be unnecessary (in retrospect)

Nope. It was proven to be unnecessary even before the war. However a significant section of the cowering US population was happy allowing Bush to play macho man Kapitan Amrika and bask in his reflected glory on their way to the SUV shop.

and unpopular (as ignored by them)

Nothing is ever ignored. Guess the time frame for the appearance of Paris Hilton with her poodle, shaven <edited by mods> and sex video?

and unwinnable as we see it now.

Unwinnable is 'mission accomplished' in the Orwell-speak of the 21st century. The long term objectives — opening up the Iraq market, establishing a base in the ME, removing an enemy of Eretz Ysrael, stealing US taxpayer dollars to fund a privatized war outsourced to Halliburton, Blackwater, C2HM Hill and Bechtel, stealing Iraqi taxpayers money to fund reconstruction of the country by the same contractors who were responsible for destroying it in the first place, establishing a Chicago School textbook radical free market in the heart of the ME by fire-selling all nationalized Iraqi assets to US companies — not just as an experiment in 'democracy creation', but also as a launchpad for 'Further Adventures in Camel Jockey Land', stealing Iraq's oil, using 'shock and awe' to send a message to the world at large as to who is the boss — you mean the above objectives were not met?

similarly Bush went against the 'jury', the people of this world and thereby he is a killer in contrast to the killer judge who pronounced his judgment according to the jury.

Bush is not just another friendly neighborhood killer. He has willfully started and presided over a genocide that is underpinned by deep underlying racist principles — that makes him at par with Hitler. Incidentally, what does that make his cheerleaders, supporters, voters etc as? His willing assassins?

I guess, Chavez's description of Bush smelling of sulphur is rather apt!

[vijay]

One thing about Bush though. He stays true to his beliefs and doesn't waiver because the polls are against him. The democrats by comparison are a bunch of spineless chickens. They were for the war when the public sentiment was in favor of that, and now they are all a bunch of "give peace a chance" people. Hillary Clinton falls in that category, and for that reason, she deserved to lose in the primary. Too many decisions are made from political calculation, as opposed to core beliefs.  Bill Clinton might have been intelligent/competent, but he was a chicken too. He worried a lot about polls and that is why a no good pollster like Dick Morris was part of the Clinton inner circle. I think the execution of the Iraq war could've been better, but conceptually I see where GW was coming from. He figured on solving the terrorism/extremist problem by having the US become a power player in the heart of the middle east. Iraq was theoretically the easiest target, because they had the place shut down with the no fly zone, they thought that their intelligence in the place was pretty good and until then the Iraqis had shown little resistance to US firepower. Obviously, GW couldn't say that, because he couldn't justify conquering a country for that reason. So, he had to come up with the loose 9-11 connection. And don't let the democrats fool you, they had access to more or less the same info GW did, but they wanted to jump on the bandwagon to support what they thought was a quick and easy war.  However, regardless of the mess- I think the US focus on the region- Iraq and Afghanistan has been of some use. India has been a beneficiary. India would've been bleeding a lot more in J and K, had it not been for US pressure and its presence at the Afghan border. Also, because it considers India as a useful player in the region, trade etc. has bumped up a lot during the Bush administration and the Indian economy benefited from it. Not saying that what Bush did was right or not messy- but he had a belief and stuck with it. And, overall now that the US is involved and can't just withdraw tomorrow, there may be a long term benefit if countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe even Pakistan- get governments with a more moderate/democratic mindset. Clinton was incapable of going after problems on a big scale. The fact that his administration is viewed as successful, is in part due to luck. Bush Sr. concluded the cold war, and so less money was spent on defense- and Clinton was the beneficiary of that with the so called "surplus" budgets. Also, the "dot com" boom coincided with the Clinton era- and again, Clinton was the beneficiary of that. But in reality, all of his big time initiatives failed too, whether it was health care or trying to get peace in the Middle East. There were some good things he did e.g. welfare reform, peace in Ireland etc. But for the most part he takes credit for the economic good times, with respect to which his contribution was not all that great. So, I don't know if Clinton has much of an edge over Bush. He might have been more intelligent, but he really didn't use his talents to achieve anything of long term value. A wasted talent in my opinion. Bush is not that bright- but he has bumbled his way into taking an initiative in the Middle East, that over time, could actually have a positive impact world wide. I don't fault him as much for the Iraq war, as I do for his horrible handling of Hurricane Katrina. That disaster in Clinton's hands would have been managed better. Because of that maybe slight edge to Billy.     

[LosingNow]

One thing about Bush though. He stays true to his beliefs and doesn't waiver because the polls are against him. The democrats by comparison are a bunch of spineless chickens. They were for the war when the public sentiment was in favor of that, and now they are all a bunch of "give peace a chance" people. Hillary Clinton falls in that category, and for that reason, she deserved to lose in the primary. Too many decisions are made from political calculation, as opposed to core beliefs.  Bill Clinton might have been intelligent/competent, but he was a chicken too. He worried a lot about polls and that is why a no good pollster like Dick Morris was part of the Clinton inner circle. I think the execution of the Iraq war could've been better, but conceptually I see where GW was coming from. He figured on solving the terrorism/extremist problem by having the US become a power player in the heart of the middle east. Iraq was theoretically the easiest target, because they had the place shut down with the no fly zone, they thought that their intelligence in the place was pretty good and until then the Iraqis had shown little resistance to US firepower. Obviously, GW couldn't say that, because he couldn't justify conquering a country for that reason. So, he had to come up with the loose 9-11 connection. And don't let the democrats fool you, they had access to more or less the same info GW did, but they wanted to jump on the bandwagon to support what they thought was a quick and easy war.  However, regardless of the mess- I think the US focus on the region- Iraq and Afghanistan has been of some use. India has been a beneficiary. India would've been bleeding a lot more in J and K, had it not been for US pressure and its presence at the Afghan border. Also, because it considers India as a useful player in the region, trade etc. has bumped up a lot during the Bush administration and the Indian economy benefited from it. Not saying that what Bush did was right or not messy- but he had a belief and stuck with it. And, overall now that the US is involved and can't just withdraw tomorrow, there may be a long term benefit if countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe even Pakistan- get governments with a more moderate/democratic mindset. Clinton was incapable of going after problems on a big scale. The fact that his administration is viewed as successful, is in part due to luck. Bush Sr. concluded the cold war, and so less money was spent on defense- and Clinton was the beneficiary of that with the so called "surplus" budgets. Also, the "dot com" boom coincided with the Clinton era- and again, Clinton was the beneficiary of that. But in reality, all of his big time initiatives failed too, whether it was health care or trying to get peace in the Middle East. There were some good things he did e.g. welfare reform, peace in Ireland etc. But for the most part he takes credit for the economic good times, with respect to which his contribution was not all that great. So, I don't know if Clinton has much of an edge over Bush. He might have been more intelligent, but he really didn't use his talents to achieve anything of long term value. A wasted talent in my opinion. Bush is not that bright- but he has bumbled his way into taking an initiative in the Middle East, that over time, could actually have a positive impact world wide. I don't fault him as much for the Iraq war, as I do for his horrible handling of Hurricane Katrina. That disaster in Clinton's hands would have been managed better. Because of that maybe slight edge to Billy.    

Vijay: you should post more often!!

[vijay]

Thanks winningnow. It is not that often, though, that I have anything unique to offer. Usually, by the time I read a thread like this- the stuff I thought about has been covered, plus there is some stuff that I hadn't thought about. 

[RicePlateReddy]

Craig Ferguson: "You know what happened today? Barack Obama put his birth certificate online to fight rumors he wasn't born in the US. John McCain will put his birth certificate online too .... as soon as he figures out how to upload a stone tablet."

[feverpitch]

One thing about Bush though. He stays true to his beliefs and doesn't waiver because the polls are against him.

That makes him great? I mean, even mules are known to be stubborn.

The democrats by comparison are a bunch of spineless chickens. They were for the war when the public sentiment was in favor of that, and now they are all a bunch of "give peace a chance" people. Hillary Clinton falls in that category, and for that reason, she deserved to lose in the primary. Too many decisions are made from political calculation, as opposed to core beliefs. 

Couldn't agree more. USA is a circumscribed travesty of democracy at the upper levels, what with lobbies, interest groups, 2-party system, CIA spooks, dynastic ambitions and all...

Bill Clinton might have been intelligent/competent, but he was a chicken too. He worried a lot about polls and that is why a no good pollster like Dick Morris was part of the Clinton inner circle. I think the execution of the Iraq war could've been better, but conceptually I see where GW was coming from. He figured on solving the terrorism/ extremist problem by having the US become a power player in the heart of the middle east.

You mean : —

a. the US wasn't already the biggest player in the Mid East (esp after the demise of USSR), creating more problems than solving them?

b. The 9/11 terrorism problem has its origins in the Mid East?

Iraq was theoretically the easiest target, because they had the place shut down with the no fly zone, they thought that their intelligence in the place was pretty good and until then the Iraqis had shown little resistance to US firepower. Obviously, GW couldn't say that, because he couldn't justify conquering a country for that reason. So, he had to come up with the loose 9-11 connection. And don't let the democrats fool you, they had access to more or less the same info GW did, but they wanted to jump on the bandwagon to support what they thought was a quick and easy war. 

That certainly paints the Bushman, his unelected (and elected) mafia shadow advisers and his supporters in US of A as greedy and cowardly, and rightfully so. At the same time, by trying to project him as a bumbling Forrest Gump, you are not giving credit where it's due. I believe that with the Bushies, we've had a group of highly motivated, ideologically driven extremists running the most powerful government on earth, who have made such significant changes with their cold calculative moves, widespread confusion and destruction, and bullish antidemocratic policies all hidden under various ruses — that they have managed to tilt world polity all over the globe significantly to the right, and done untold and possibly permanent damage to many institutions and the world itself!

However, regardless of the mess- I think the US focus on the region- Iraq and Afghanistan has been of some use.

It's of course the most convenient time to forget that the problem itself is one of the USA's making [Taliban 'freedom fighters'], not to mention their intransigence wrt labeling the jihadis in JK as terrorists before 9/11.

India has been a beneficiary. India would've been bleeding a lot more in J and K, had it not been for US pressure and its presence at the Afghan border. Also, because it considers India as a useful player in the region, trade etc. has bumped up a lot during the Bush administration and the Indian economy benefited from it.

You mean govt interference is indeed the 'secret hand' that drives the 'free market'?

Not saying that what Bush did was right or not messy- but he had a belief and stuck with it. And, overall now that the US is involved and can't just withdraw tomorrow, there may be a long term benefit if countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe even Pakistan- get governments with a more moderate/democratic mindset.

Isn't it time to import some democracy to the USA for instance. I mean, considering the hanging chads of 2000 and the voter ids of 2004... ... ... Now, who could bell the cat?

Clinton was incapable of going after problems on a big scale. The fact that his administration is viewed as successful, is in part due to luck. Bush Sr. concluded the cold war,

I thought the urban myth was related to Rea-Gun-Smoke? Or is that the rabbit out of a hat trick? In which case, I must say, this time is one time too many.

and so less money was spent on defense- and Clinton was the beneficiary of that with the so called "surplus" budgets. Also, the "dot com" boom coincided with the Clinton era- and again, Clinton was the beneficiary of that. But in reality, all of his big time initiatives failed too, whether it was health care

Yeah! With bigtime help from the Republican senators and Congressmen.

or trying to get peace in the Middle East.

No president of the USA can solve this particular problem so long as AIPAC type institutions exist.

There were some good things he did e.g. welfare reform, peace in Ireland etc. But for the most part he takes credit for the economic good times, with respect to which his contribution was not all that great. So, I don't know if Clinton has much of an edge over Bush. He might have been more intelligent, but he really didn't use his talents to achieve anything of long term value. A wasted talent in my opinion. Bush is not that bright- but he has bumbled his way into taking an initiative in the Middle East, that over time, could actually have a positive impact world wide.

In that I agree. The naked ambition and greed of US and its embedded multinationals, the brazen disregard for world opinion and democratic forms, and the lies, depravity and cruelty that has been on display over the last eight years, has, hopefully, created enough negativity about the US, its leaders and its countrymen across the seven seas, that  the world should rightfully hope for an end to this nightmare... ...

I don't fault him as much for the Iraq war, as I do for his horrible handling of Hurricane Katrina. That disaster in Clinton's hands would have been managed better. Because of that maybe slight edge to Billy.     

I thought the Bushies were magnificent in their cannibalistic dismantling of the state of New Orleans in the aftermath of the storm, something they have previously done only to alien nations. Now that their experiment in implementing Washington Consensus style structural adjustments have taken off in one state, expect more of the same elsewhere — in the US. Disaster Capitalism is here to stay in the heartland. It has affected the poor blacks now, but pretty soon it should start affecting others following the logic of this particular brand of capitalism. Right from getting Milton Friedman to deliver his gleeful advice in the WSJ to kickstart the land grab and institution dismantling even as graves were being dug and covered, to the encouragement towards import of foreign workers to stave off homegrown demand for reconstruction jobs [and thus winking at illegal immigration], to handing out contracts to buddy corps that had just failed spectacularly in the Eyeraki reconstruction while doing brisk business in the stock market, flush from US taxpayers dollars received due to over billing — the plan has been a spectacular success!

[ramshorns]

Do anyone remember Bush's mother and a former first lady pass a comment on Katrina victims saying that they were better off in the Super dome in New orleans and being treated well than their homes which were washed away by the hurricane.  What a disgraceful bunch of people this Bush family is.  Killer son, a racist mother.  Utterly classless people.  And remember McCain is contesting for the same party taking the killers help in fundraisers and begging him for help.  I wish McCain has little bit more of a self respect than that.  Win at all costs even it means asking a person who is instrumental in butchering hundereds of thousands of people abroad and killed soldiers at home because of the lies and waging a war at any cost.

[ramshorns]

Watch the Video so moving

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/T0FT3OtmbZc&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/T0FT3OtmbZc&rel=0</a>

[ramshorns]

Barbara Bush makes hurricane gaff
Sep 7, 2005 1:49 PM

Hurricane Katrina victims in Houston, Texas were "underprivileged anyway" and life in the Astrodome sports arena is "working very well for them," former first lady Barbara Bush says.

The comments by the mother of President George W Bush have fueled the ire of some Americans, who see the Bush family as out-of-touch patricians.

"Almost everyone I've talked to says 'we're going to move to Houston,'" Bush said in a radio interview after visiting evacuees at the Astrodome with her husband, former president George Bush.

"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality," she said.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this - this is working very well for them."

Her comments aired late on Tuesday on Marketplace, an American Public Radio show broadcast nationwide.

They triggered a flood of negative messages on the Huffington Post, a popular left-leaning blog.

"Cold hearted witch," read one of the more polite comments, signed by IowaDem.

"No wonder her son remained on vacation, playing guitar and eating cake instead of seeing that aid and rescue operations were well-managed."

Another writer found the comments hard to believe. "Did she really say that?" wrote 'Stephen.' "My God! What or who have we become?"


Source: Reuters

[ruchir]

ruchir

not qualified to comment on the American political conundrums but adding my perspective to this discussion of a 'killer'

Sir, everyone is qualified to comment, on this DG. 

1. CLINTON:

He was a reluctant participant in the NATO led Kosovo incident. there was a huge support for Tony Blair and NATO to go in and 'do something' in Kosovo in UK and in Europe. the two countries opposing such a strike were russia and china for well known reasons. it is estimated that there were around 100,000 deaths due to the genocide, as opposed to the estimated maximum deaths related to the bombing - 6000, conservative estimates, 1200. other than sporadic extreme left wing and libertanian right wingers the world population as a whole, atleast in europe, and particularly in england, were supportive of such a role.

the way they conducted the bombing has been highly criticized and rightfully so for using cluster bombs/depleted uranium bombs . they are however similar to the bombing tactics in Iraq.

Even Iraq invasion had forces from 40 countries to begin with. USA, UK, Georgia, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, Czech, Azerbiajan, Tonga, Denmark, Armenia, Macedonia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Latvia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Lithuania, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, Thailand, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Nicaragua, Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, Philippines, Iceland. Only 16 countries have withdrawn forces yet. What do you call that? Some countries may have sent less soldiers, some may have sent more. But 40 countries sent soldiers in Iraq. What do you call that for a support? That's probably more international support than NATO action in Kosovo. So don't compare international support for Kosovo and international support for Iraq war. The fact that 40 nations sent their soldiers should tell you what support it had.

As for number of deaths, morally speaking even one death of an innocent is deplorable.

2. TRUMAN:

he really didnt have a choice. US was at war with Japan. a war which would have probably lasted for some time considering the widespread nature of their accessions. the whole of the south east asia upto burma. the debate on the use of nuclear weapons has been ongoing since then and there are sufficient arguments for and against. Truman was trying to win a war already in existence, his use of WMD is still debatable but not comparable to starting a war. dont you think so?

NB: I dont agree to the use of nuclear bombs from a medical point of view and am against the arguments for such a deployment.

I'm sorry, but are you giving a rationalization of using Atom Bomb? It does not matter whether US was already in a war or not. It does not matter what was happening in south east asian region. It does not matter if Truman was trying to win a war already in existence. What matter is what was the thinking behind dropping the bomb. In a military conflict collateral damage is expected, but the deaths from the Bomb was not even collateral damage!! No one deliberately targets civilian population in a military conflict. It was a cold blooded murder of civilians at the hand of a US president so that his military deaths could be reduced.

Don't talk about starting a war (Bush). I never defended Iraq war, I am saying that yet again. I have been commenting on Bush being called a Killer. When Bush started the Iraq war did he know how many death would there be? Truman knew approximately how many civilian deaths there would be. Don't look at the issue from the perspective of whether the war is legit or not. Look at it from the perspective of what the president knew about the possible causalities before taking the action. IMO that's what makes a president a Killer or not a killer. Truman knew exactly what the result would be of dropping the bomb. Short term and long term effects. Yet he went ahead with it. What does that make him?

3. BUSH:

he had no opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. it was the correct thing to do (despite me and hopefully others being against wars per se) since that was the place where the AQ leaders were supposed to be hiding.

now everybody knows that the AQ leaders are hiding in Pakistan, what is the 'war on terror' doing about it? Pakistan is an US ally just like Saddam was 10 years ago - so we have to withdraw our guns now! do we? if you can justify the war in Iraq you must be egging on the war against Pakistan, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

I did not justify war in Iraq (saying that yet again). I do want US to take care of Pakistan. Now I can use this same argument on Clinton. When he took so-called reluctant action on Yugoslavia, there was unopposed genocide going on at other places too. Did Clinton do anything about that? So what does it make those who rationalize Kosovo invasion? Hypocrites or what?

However, the IRAQ war was totally incomprehensible.

the world opinion was against it.

Yes it was, when it started.

the unprecedented apolitical demonstrations the world over should have been a deterent to such a move. never in the history of the world and uk alone had there been millions marching against the war.
people with their children on their shoulders were protesting in broad daylight. leaders including Blair and Bush should have noted that.

Again, wrong examples. A president or a nation does not decide it's policies by the amount of demonstrations for or against it. That is foolhardy. You must have seen the demonstrations against Olympics in China. Still not a single nation has withdrawn from Olympics. So much for a nation tweaking it's policies under pressure from demonstrations. Demonstrations mean that those people oppose the event/action they are demonstrating against. It does not mean that a nation has to do what those people are demanding. I mean Pakistanis demonstrate that India should free J&K. So what should India do? Give it to PAK? India doesn't give two hoots about demonstrations in PAK or anywhere else, and that's exactly what it should do.

Bush/Blair presided over a war which has been pro ven to be unnecessary (in retrospect) and unpopular (as ignored by them) and unwinnable as we see it now.

Yes, retrospect is always 20-20. I was opposed to it when it started. Yes it is very unpopular, but being a president is not a popularity contest. A president can and will make mistakes, but he will be a damn fool if he makes his policies based on popularity polls. What is your definition of victory? Military victory over terrorists in Iraq? Peace in Iraq? Less deaths in Iraq? Democracy in Iraq, that can take care of itself and defend itself? Any other definition?

anybody who orders the killing of people is a killer. that includes the judges who preside over death sentences.

the main argument here is would you club the judge, who followed legal principles, to order a killing, a killer?

Technically... yes. Logically... No. Usually those people are considered killers who kill innocent people, not a judge giving death sentences to murderers. A soldier shooting another soldier is not a killer because both are fighting each other for their countries.

the main argument here is would you club the judge, who followed legal principles, to order a killing, a killer?
no is my answer.

why?

similarly Bush went against the 'jury', the people of this world and thereby he is a killer in contrast to the killer judge who pronounced his judgement according to the jury.

  See, that's where you are wrong. Terribly wrong. As I said before, no president makes his policies based on world opinion and jury that is made up of people of the world. That is for John Kerrys of the world. When a President or a Prime Minister feels he should do something then he acts according to the powers given to him. If Indian Prime Minister has power to start a war with PAK to end the terrorism menace in India, and he does that despite the jury of the people of the world being against him, all the power to PM for doing what he thinks is correct. Those people in the jury don't live in India. Those people in the jury don't have the bear the brunt of the terrorism. It is India who does that, and since PM is responsible for safety of India, he does what he feels is necessary. Same goes for President of USA.

[feverpitch]

Even Iraq invasion had forces from 40 countries to begin with. USA, UK, Georgia, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, Czech, Azerbiajan, Tonga, Denmark, Armenia, Macedonia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Latvia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Lithuania, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, Thailand, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Nicaragua, Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, Philippines, Iceland. Only 16 countries have withdrawn forces yet. What do you call that? Some countries may have sent less soldiers, some may have sent more. But 40 countries sent soldiers in Iraq. What do you call that for a support? That's probably more international support than NATO action in Kosovo. So don't compare international support for Kosovo and international support for Iraq war. The fact that 40 nations sent their soldiers should tell you what support it had.

Is RJo actually David Frum in disguise?

[ramshorns]

US President's job rating hits all-time low since 1938

Washington (PTI): Approval rating of US President George W Bush, now on the last leg of his second term, has reached an all-time low in modern opinion polls since 1938, with a record number of Americans saying the country is on the "wrong track".

Given the growing economic discontent, rising cost of fuel, atop the unpopular Iraq war, Bush's job approval rating has sunk to a new low in latest ABC/Post polls, 29 per cent.

Sixty-eight per cent of Americans now disapprove, the highest in any presidential approval poll dating to Gallup's first in 1938 (surpassing Harry Truman's 67 per cent disapproval and Richard Nixon's 66 per cent), the poll said.

Fifty-four per cent "strongly" disapprove, a new high, dwarfing the 10 per cent who strongly approve. Among other groups, Bush is at record lows in his own party and among conservatives.

Separately, and for the same reasons, a remarkable 84 per cent of Americans who took part in the polls say the country is seriously off on the wrong track, a record high in polls since the early 1970s.

The previous high was 83 per cent in June 1992, the summer before Bush's father lost re-election amid broad economic discontent. It was 82 per cent in May.

Bush is expected to end his two terms as US President on January 20, 2009 when the winner of the November 4 general election- either Republican nominee John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama - will succeed him.

The poll found that 77 per cent of Americans say their president should meet with leaders of hostile foreign nations, rejecting the argument that this could reward their behaviour and make the US look weak. And 63 per cent continue to say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, with just 38 per cent saying the US is winning there.

[RicePlateReddy]

"Japan was already defeated ... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer necessary to save American lives."

President Dwight D.Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate for Change 1953-1956: A Personal Account (1963) p.312-313