Obama's Disapproval Numbers Double Since Inauguration!

Wrong again, per usual. The last poll (NYT/CBS, I believe it was) showed that 84% of the public say that all of these economic problems were inherited. Basically only the extreme right blames anything on the President this early into his first term.

Go figure.

Gallup on 2 MAR had the following to say about the republican support:

"After dipping to 59% immediately before the president addressed a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, Barack Obama’s approval rating has rebounded and now stands at 67%, just two points below his high.

Obama's approval rebound is due to increased support from all political groups, but especially from independents and Republicans, whose support had been waning. Over the past week, independents' approval of Obama dropped from 62% to 54%, but is now back to 62%. There has been a sharp increase in support among Republicans, from 27% to 42%. Democrats' support for Obama was already extremely high at 86%, but even this has climbed slightly, to 90% in the latest polling."

When are you going to hold him accountable for his actions?

Same as I did Bush: When it's demonstrated his actions are a detriment to the country as a whole.

Not hardly, it was being lead to bankruptcy by Bush and his clowns.

Cap,

Is there a correlation between the current recession and the democrats taking control of the Congress 2+ years ago?

Is there a correlation between the current recession and the democrats taking control of the Congress 2+ years ago?

No, but there is a direct correlation between this recession and the end of the housing boom, a boom enabled and driven by Republican deregulation of mortgage-backed securities derivative trading. Same thing that caused the Enron fraud and collapse (Republican deregulation of energy trading), same thing that caused the price of oil to skyrocket (Republican deregulation of futures contracts for oil prices).

Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton -- the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- was partly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis. The Act is most widely known for repealing portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had regulated the financial services industry.

The Washington Post in 2008 named Gramm one of seven "key players" responsible for winning a 1998-1999 fight against regulation of derivatives trading.Gramm's support was later critical in the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which kept derivatives transactions, including those involving credit default swaps, free of government regulation.

In one way or another, John McCain's friend and campaign adviser Phil Gramm was tied to the deregulation of all of these markets.

Gramm explained the nation was not in a recession, stating, "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession." He added, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

This is the man that would have largely been in charge of future economic policy, had McCain won the election. America is lucky that McCain lost, and much safer as a result. We should all be very thankful that vermin like Gramm and McCain were not given the power to finish what they had begun.

This video clearly shows that George Bush, McCain and the head of the Fed tried to warn Congress starting in 2001, that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. But congress refused to listen, along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank.

This video says it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

I would add that there were and are plenty of complicit Republicans for not being at the front to push for more oversight. but the weight of this problems stays on the lefts side of the scale.

"Backdoor" Barney Frank is quit a piece of work and Massachusetts must be so proud!

Don't blame all of us, I didn't vote for the piece of shlt.

Cap

I wrote an article about limiting vulgar language on Newsvine. I applaud your comment here.

I understand your sentiments, believe me, but keep it clean, Dave. This is a family thread.

Yes, you did a wonderful job of saying what you wanted to and not what is really in the story. Typical GOP smoke and mirrors.

The petals are falling from the steaming lying pile of sh*t; if you were best friends with a man and attended his church for 20 plus years and didn't know how he felt politically you are a liar. I knew back then and now he is just reinforcing my views of him.

Whats really my story. My story is I don't believe GOP because they have proven to me to be liars and thieves, only help the rich and themselves. They would eat their own young.

So Timothy you don't thing BO and his cronies are rich? What rock have you been hiding under? Better wake up and smell the coffee and quit drinking the Kool Aid. BO and his cronies are in the top 10% if not the top 5% of the wealthy in this country. The speaker of the house Porklosi makes $223,500.00 per year! That doesn't take into consideration her and her husbands investments, one of which is $17 million in Starkist stock. When you start talking about the rich you better look at your so called saviors to start out.

Evil: Try a fact check site: Neither Pelosi or her husband own any stock in Starkist or Del Monte or Heinz. snopes and factcheck both have articles on it or google it, there are many others.

Evil, I've haven't been in hiding or under any rock, as you say. You know for a fact that is a GOP trick to come slithering out from under a rock or what ever, as you may have yourself.

Cap

Touche! To those in Rio Linda; witty!

To the contrary, it'll be a long time when you're approval rating is actually 63-26.

I wish it were true Ellie. Then my kids will have more to fight over when I'm gone!

Me? I could give a @!$%# less, because polling Americans (especially at this point in time) is going to produce fickle results, results which will change depending on which way the wind is blowing from day to day.

I actually agree with you here, Brian. These are sentiment snapshots at this point. Their only value (as the loyal opposition) is that, as Obama's lines cross, it will be easier for representatives to stand against him on what I view to be harmful policies.

I suppose that's why new POTUSes try to cram so much through in their first 100 days. Their favorables are rarely higher, their unfavorables rarely lower. Political cover to oppose is nil.

As for your first point, I would disagree. It's not only repubs who are opposing at this point. The spending and tax plans have been shock and awe to the fiscally sensible.

It's not only repubs who are opposing at this point.

Sure, not in an absolute sense. But I would wager it's "only" in a statistically significant sense. You can bet that the falling numbers are driven by Republicans/Conservatives and, honestly, that's not all that surprising, given that much of what he's doing are things he said he'd do, and which Republicans/Conservatives voted against when they went for McCain.

Unsurprisingly, if he weren't doing many of those things (GITMO, Withdrawing Troops, Stem Cell, etc.) The Capitalist's list would simply be longer, and instead of complaining about why he shouldn't do those things, he'd be gloating that Obama broke those promises.

So, criticism from this column, as predictable and derivative as it is, in the first couple months of his 4 year term, means about as much to me as those poll results. I'll weigh it against the other extreme, they'll cancel each other out, and I'll go somewhere else to actually learn something.

Yeah, sounds like you're frustrated with vine of late. Have you thought of having an affair with another blog? Spice it up a little bit? You could start slumming in some conservative groups for a change of pace. I know somebody who could hook you up. ;-)

Brian,

You are right; but, the market is unbiased!

I wouldn't give you $.02 cents for all those polls.

Yeah, sounds like you're frustrated with vine of late. Have you thought of having an affair with another blog?

Heheh. I think it's kind of cute that you think I have a monogamous relationship with Newsvine. I am what you might call a social-internet whore. Name a social-site, I've probably dabbled, at the very least.

He hasn't closed GITMO, nor has he withdrawn troops. He's only "said" that he would and that's two different things entirely.

True. But, he never promised he'd do those things on day one. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do on both of those fronts. Though, I suppose if you want to consider a 3-month delay in troop withdrawal a broken promise, I guess I'll give you a hollow victory.

Well Said Charlie. I agree with your statement.

He's doing exactly what he said he'd do on both of those fronts.

Did he say he was going to adopt the Bush surge policy for Afghanistan?

Heheh. I think it's kind of cute that you think I have a monogamous relationship with Newsvine.

(whispers under her breath) You b*%^@*d.

I wasn't being snarky there. Read some of your other comments was was commiserating, actually. =)

Charlie is correct. The market is six months or so forward looking and it's down 20% since Obummer took office, even more since he was elected.

Uh, no, the market is extremely reactionary. Unemployment reports, GDP reports, earnings reports, even what happened in overseas markets (especially the latter in this recession.) The two-day rally we've been on are a direct result of up market activity overseas.

Also, please stop with the name games, you really do look like a impudent child when you do that. It's downright embarrassing to see that kind of adolescent behavior on Newsvine, it makes all of us look bad and we really do not appreciate it. There are a great many people on this site that want mature discussions and your immature behavior is making that exceedingly difficult.

Grow up.

Amazing what can happen when legislation is forced through Congress without taking the time to consider the consequences!!

John Maynard Keynes, the current hero of the Obama administration and Paul Krugman, had this to say about the Federal Reserve in 1920.

“Should government refrain from regulation (taxation), the worthlessness of the money become apparent and the fraud can no longer be concealed. By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people and not one man in a million will detect the theft."

Of course it does. Why would the author of this article say 60+ percent approval when he can say something about disapproval numbers, instead?

It's all about spin.

When will it start being about the policies and not about the man? What will change with Obama has president? Not one thing because like many President's before him he is just a puppet of corruption.

To be fair, it's a media thing. How many headlines read "92% of all Americans Going to Work Everyday!"

It is still to early to tell and I dont take much credence in polls. Its like a popularity contest in junior high.

According to Gallup, he's lower than Carter at the same point. I'm surprised by that, actually.

Again with leaving out the whole truth.

Carter has the second best approval rating of any president after 50 days, second only to JFK. Carter was 70-8, JFK was 73-7. Even Nixon, the second worst criminal ever to hold the office, was 66-8 after his first 50 days (good for 4th all-time.)

President Obama is lower than GWB in 2001 (62-22) and W's father (56-16) in 1989, but higher than both of Clinton's terms, both of Regan's terms, and obviously higher than W's second term (52-44).

Nate Sliver: Obama's standing with the public -- 62 percent approve of his performance and 22 percent disapprove, according to Gallup, is objectively quite good. But presidential approval scores are usually quite good at this early point in their terms. Since World War II, the average of all presidential approval ratings through about 50 days in their terms is 61 percent approve and 23 percent disapprove.

As I noted above, the only people surprised by what is going on right now are people that don't know anything about what is going on right now.

(#8)

I think its more than that Jbird- His budget is the killer!

That shows the true colors; the rest is so much bunk.

I think you may be a bit confused. I caught something on CNN around 10:30. Obama is having to deal with the second lowest economic figures of the incoming Presidents. True! No further info. I think the above author was just trying to spin that more negatively to the point of being out of bounds on the issue.

The latest budget looks like a Christmas Tree with so many bright lights that they are blinding the cheerleaders. Look again at the give-a-ways. They are almost incalculable!

He promised to get rid of earmarks.

If he had vetoed it and said send it back without the republican earmarks it would have been better than this bloated piece of cr@p spending bill.

And at the least the republicans should of asked to have all their pork eliminated from the bill if only to make the democrats look bad.

DARKESTDONNIE-This is my favorite issue of the moment. The Repubs are trying to make it look as though Obama is slacking off on the earmark issue by not vetoing the entire thing, when the reality is the bill was a leftover from the Bush administration. It was probably devised in some devious way as to hold up the Obama administration. Any vetoing would have held up the countries goals and therefore hurt it. It would have been one more traitorous, and somewhat economic espionage flavored Bushian slight at the country.

jbird...

That sounds like an old Far Side cartoon of a dog listening to it's master... only in this case it's you listening to reason..

"Blah Blah Blah Blah... Bush doings... Blah Blah Blah... Bush doings... Blah Blah Blah....

Charlie

The latest budget looks like a Christmas Tree with so many bright lights that they are blinding the cheerleaders. Look again at the give-a-ways.

Majority of them from Republicans. Go Figure.

The Repubs are trying to make it look as though Obama is slacking off

1. Yes to tax cheats (Who cares, it only matters that he cares.)

2. Yes to big government (Biggest in History......deficit that is)

3. Not getting us out of Iraq immediately he "lied troops will die"

4. Discounts the bush surge policy then adopts it for Afghanistan.

5. Yes to pork (Its Bushes spending bill, right.... when is he going to sign it?)

6. No transparency (Except of course I "saw through" his lies last year)

7. Lobbyists in his administration.

That much "slacking off" in just 50 days ("We the people" are screwed)

Charlie, You're correct about his budget. He promised to get rid of earmarks. He lied.

This isn't the President's budget, it's last year's business. Maybe you are the one that needs to stop lying.

This isn't the President's budget, it's last year's business.

Whose name is on the bottom line? If he signed it, he owns it.

This isn't the President's budget, it's last year's business. Maybe you are the one that needs to stop lying.

Whose name is on the dotted line? I think it must be Obama's. He signed it, he now owns it. If Obama were to stick to his word about earmarks, he would have vetoed this bill and told congress to send it to him w/o the earmarks. Then he and your arguments would have credibility.

However, this administration has already used up what little credibility they had and no foreseeable hopes of them regaining any of it.

Well lets see--add all the $$$ up and it now is about $8 TRILLION --just from 1 January 2009---And WE didn't even get KISSED!!

BO(ZO) spends OUR money Faster than a whore in Paris can make it!!

Cap

Are you going to blame Bush for the ink in his pen too?

Of course we are, what do you think!. Bush is the blame for all evil, semi-evil, and all evil yet to come.

RCP is pretty spot on, the problem with what TC is doing is that he's cherry picking a breakout number (strong approval/strong disapproval) rather than the overall rating, something that basically nobody does. If you look at the overall ratings (like RCP) did, then you see quite clearly that the President's approval ratings are right in line with historical averages and still quite good.

NYT/CBS, Gallup, and Fox all have the President in the (62-63)-(23-26) range.

They were accurate, but not as accurate as RCP. Simple statistics; the larger the sample size, the more percise the results. For example, Rasmussen's final presidential poll showed Obama winning by 6 points, but RCP showed Obama winning by 7.6.

The results were 7.3.

All Presidential negative numbers climb over time. Thats quite different from saying the disapproval rating doubled!

Cap

Again I would like to see how the questions were formed. With The Rass that is a problem sometimes.

Carter has the second best numbers of any president after 50 days, so what you're saying is that it's surprising that President Obama isn't #2 all time for highest approval rating. As if the self evident absurdity isn't enough, you show blatant, adolescent disrespect for the office at the same time.

It really looks like the Republican party is overflowing with impudent children these days.

PWT's hypocrisy enters the room...

As if the self evident absurdity isn't enough, you show blatant, adolescent disrespect for the office at the same time.

yet his own articles disrespected the office under Bush at every given chance...

The truth is, President Bush has been riding an artificial high of caffeine and sugar induced haze for most of his failed presidency. He never earned his high approval numbers, he just inherited them.

A lot of people I know support impeaching President Bush, and lord knows the man deserves to pay. But I won't waste your time repeating the accusations or self indulgent excuses. His crimes are well known to the world and will never be forgotten.

(on impeaching Bush) I believe as I hope my fellow citizens do, regardless of their political ideology, that a person accused of a crime ought to be held accountable

Read that again... PWT believes "accusations" are enough for impeachment. Never mind guilt.

And one of my favorites is PWT writes an article beating up "Joe the Plumber" for not paying his taxes, but PWT is strangely muted when Obama appoints Democrats who didn't pay their taxes. Why haven't you written articles scrutinizing Geithner, Kirk, Daschle, Killefer?

(PWT article) Slant Political Report: "Joe the Plumber" is a registered Republican that doesn't pay his taxes

Take your hypocrisy and peddle it elsewhere PWT. Everyone knows what a slant you are.

yet his own articles disrespected the office under Bush at every given chance...

You're confusing criticism with disrespect. Saying that President Bush didn't earn his post September 11th approval ratings is an observation, and a perfectly reasonable one at that. Bush's approval rating skyrocketed immediately after the attacks even though he wouldn't take any responsive actions for months. It's actually somewhat bizarre, you'd think that a President who allowed the worst terrorist attack in history to happen on his watch would actually see his approval rating plummet as a result, but I guess there is something to be said for American patriotism trying to make up for an inept, failed leader.

Contrast this with inventing insulting alternative's for a persons name -- our sitting President no less -- and things couldn't be more clear. You're literally comparing well founded criticism of a President's actions in office with adolescent, playground style name calling.

If you ever catch me calling Bush "George 'Hitler' Bush", or maybe "George @!$%#", then you can call me for hypocrisy. Until then, you haven't got a leg to stand on Bill.

Read that again... PWT believes "accusations" are enough for impeachment. Never mind guilt.

Of course accusations are enough, that's why it's called an impeachment trial. All trials are based on unproven accusations, that's what the trial is for -- to prove those accusations to a jury (in that case the United States Senate) so that guilt may reasonably be determined.

If guilt were already a foregone conclusion then a trial would be moot.

And one of my favorites is PWT writes an article beating up "Joe the Plumber" for not paying his taxes, but PWT is strangely muted when Obama appoints Democrats who didn't pay their taxes. Why haven't you written articles scrutinizing Geithner, Kirk, Daschle, Killefer?

Geithner's tax problem was due to obscure tax law related to self employment that many tax experts agreed was extremely easy to screw up on, and, as far as examples go, is one of many reasons cited in support of reforming said tax law by said experts. Once he found out about the error, he paid his debt in full.

I have no idea who "Kirk" or "Killefer" is, and Daschle has problems far more significant than taxes.

During Geithner's confirmation and the period before Daschle's, I wasn't active on Newsvine at all.

Compare this to Joe the plumber, a man complaining about legislation that we would later find would actually lower his taxes, in spite of the fact that the man actually owes back taxes and was working illegally without a license.

Moreover it's ridiculous to suggest that a person can't write a story about one hypocrites tax problems without writing a story about every other hypocrite's tax problems. Where does such forced false equivalency end, Bill? Do I have to write a story about every person in the country that has back taxes just to earn the right from Republicans to write about Joe?

I reject that notion on its face.

Take your hypocrisy and peddle it elsewhere PWT. Everyone knows what a slant you are.

For those that don't know, Bill cherry-picked the title from a political report I wrote during the last month of the general election. It consisted almost entirely of polling data following one of the presidential debates. The final paragraph of my report consisted of breaking news that "Joe the Plumber" had more than a political aversion to having his taxes raised (before anyone figured out that Joe would actually receive a tax cut under a President Obama), he actually owed back taxes to the state of Ohio.

It was a throw-away news blurb at the bottom of a political report featuring almost nothing but polling data.

So much for that "PWT writes an article beating up 'Joe the Plumber' for not paying his taxes" theory.

Paul, Did you want Bush to fail? Sounds like it! Attacking a president like this in a time of war? Unpatriotic.

Criticizing a president who lied to his people, spied on them, started a war we couldn't win that we didn't need to fight, and violated the constitution repeatedly "during a time of war" is perhaps the most courageous and patriotic thing a citizen could possibly do.

Standing up and speaking truth to power is because that power is hurting your country instead of helping it is what being a patriot means, TC, that's the hard fight and the good fight.

Being a patriot means loving your country, not loving your president. The president is elected to serve us, not the other way around. When our leaders fail us, it is our duty to criticize them regardless of whether or not we're in the middle of a war (or two, or three) and most especially when one of those wars was unnecessary and a devastating error in judgment at precisely the time we needed sound judgment the most.

The difference between what I do, and what you guys do, is that I criticize. I don't insult and mock like some errant and angsty little teenager. I don't crap all over the office just because I don't like who is occupying it.

Your trite throw-away smears are a big part of why your party are siding on the sidelines, warming the bench while my party is stuck cleaning up this horrible mess.

Since when does supporting a war based on lies against a country that couldn't possibly threaten us or anyone else in its region make you a patriot? How does supporting a president that claimed the absolute right to ignore the first amendment make you a patriot? What about the 4th amendment, what about habeas corpus? What about the 5th amendment right to due process denied to American citizens under president Bush?

Republicans gleefully supported all of these acts and you guys have the guts to lecture me about what it means to be a patriot?

You've got some nerve, I'll give you that.

Logikal1-It does seem that some people have a real aversion to the truth. I think the author of this article is seriously out-matched by Mr. Tenny.

"Don't you feel lied to by him? "

Not at all.

Thank you, Dave in Ma... I'm beginning to think that some people really deserve another 8 years of Bush... Obama is too good for some of the whack jobs I'm seeing...

50 days in office and already they call Obama a failure, never mind the huge pile of dung left by Bush for Obama to clean up...

Ohhhh, I am SO DAM*ED PI**ED!!!!!

Sowwy 'bout the rant....

Sigh...

No need too apologize, it's the only way they know how to attack is to use lies and deception. Of course that's the only way they can communicate. When was the last time you heard anything positive from any one of them?

#15.2: "When was the last time you heard anything positive from any one of them"

Hmmmm... I don't think I was born then (and I'm 65 now), so I guess it has been awhile...

:-)

No, he didn't, remember the Anthrax Attacks?

remember the Anthrax Attacks?

How ridiculous. Why aren't you blaming Obama for this Anthrax attack?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/anthrax-hoax-man-arrested-charged/

Because as the article says , it was a Hoax and the letters contained a harmless white powder. The Anthrax Attacks under Bush, in 2001, killed 5 people using military grade anthrax and Bush certainly treated them as possible terrorist attacks both in handling the investigation of them and in using them to sell the Patriot Act. You tell the families and friends of those 5 dead victims of the Anthrax Attacks that Bush kept them safe and tell me what they say

"Bushed" not a LIAR! COME-ON YOU'RE JOKING RIGHT... LOL!

I'm sorry you're right, he's not a liar...HE'S A RAT FACE BIG FAT JUICY LIAR!

As far as keeping someone safe...what about those over 3000 plus who lost their lives on 9-11-2001, I think that happened on "Bushed" watch. Ahhhhhhh...You know that attack that happen on our soil, that he was supposed to keep us and all those who lost their lives on that day................SAFE! NOT!

Don't even try to go there....if you want to fantasise in you're little make believe world as "Bushed" did, when he stood on a US Naval Carrier and "LIED" about winning the WAR...go right ahead.

But people out here in the real-world know what's going on and don't have our heads buried in the sand hoping everything will turn out OK!

Bushed lied about going to War, he lied about Saddam, he lied about torture, he lied about ease dropping on private conversations with US Citizens......get it...BIG LIAR who did not keep us safe....over 3000 dead during HIS WATCH!!!!!!

Because as the article says , it was a Hoax and the letters contained a harmless white powder.

Hoax or no hoax. They are both felonies.

Murder, rape, arson, aggravated assault, burglary, drug dealing, grand theft, embezzlement and kidnapping are felonies too. If you want to include all felonies Bush certainly didn't keep us safe.

Bush: An idiot maybe, but not a liar like Obummer. Bush kept us safe at least.

Tell that to the 2,974 people who died on September 11, 2001.

It's great that nothing happened after. It's not so great that the worst terrorist attack in our history also happened on president Bush's watch. That single day when president Bush failed us was costly beyond measure.

Gee, I wonder do you think that clinton's war on our own intelligence agencies by defunding them could have anything to do with us not foreseeing the muslim attack on September eleventh?

That single day when president Bush failed us was costly beyond measure.

I would agree a president failed us on that day, it just wasn't Bush!

Revisionist history much?

Darkdonnie

Whenever you can defeat a comment about Bush like you did, I feel compelled to support you.

What you have said is just common sense.

Here's political rhetoric.

That single day when president Bush failed us was costly beyond measure.

Gee, I wonder do you think that clinton's war on our own intelligence agencies by defunding them could have anything to do with us not foreseeing the muslim attack on September eleventh?

Terrorist attack, not Muslim attack, unless you're being intentionally racist here. I'd hope that is not the case.

I would agree a president failed us on that day, it just wasn't Bush!

He was Commander-in-Chief which makes it his responsibility. Running from it is just about as pathetic and cowardly as it gets.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, obviously, but it's factual that all of the 9/11 bombers were radical Muslims. This is truth.

It's not what they were, it's how it was framed. Would you approve of saying that Timothy McVeigh's attack was a "white attack" on America? Does that even make any kind of rational sense? McVeigh was a Republican, was it a "Republican attack"? He was a Catholic, was it a "Catholic attack" on Oklahoma that day?

Is it not enough to admit that these were simply terrorists, or more precisely people who were clearly insane regardless of what their faith or race was?

I'm making a point out of this because race and religion is too often used as an excuse to stoke fear and hatred of race and religion rather than the people themselves who clearly had problems far in excess of what god they pray to.

Bill Clinton did zero to stop terrorism, under his watch and was offered Osama bin Laden on a silver platter in 1998, but turned it down.

When Clinton launched cruise missile attacks against bin Laden he was accused by Republicans of using it to take the focus off the Monica Lewinsky scandal that they created. It is often cited that the Republican mob mentality was what stopped Clinton from taking more forceful action against bin Laden when he did have the opportunity, and in all fairness, you know darn well that 9/11 "changed everything". The kind of money and effort required to destroy al Qaeda and the collateral damage required to see it through were far more politically problematic in the 1990's than they were after 9/11.

You know that.

And it's not like former President Bush did any better. Did he get bin Laden? No, in fact there's direct evidence from former military intelligence units that Bush intentionally stopped looking for him. Has anyone attached to 9/11 ever been brought to justice? No.

Former President Clinton on the other hand located, arrested, tried and convicted all the key players in the WTC bombings (in civilian courts no less.) They are all serving life sentences, rotting in federal prison today, while the key players behind 9/11 walk free.

Mistakes were made, opportunities missed, and a good deal of that blame belongs to the GOP's disgusting obsession with a sitting President's sex life, but progress was made. There is simply no comparing the factual achievements of Clinton, and the failures of Bush.

The terrorists had been planning 9/11 for years, so to blame Bush from Clinton's gutting of the intelligence agencies is disingenuous.

Actually it was a Clinton holder-over at CIA that was the only person in that government, perhaps other than Richard Clarke, that was trying to save us from people like bin Laden, the only two people taking him seriously:

For months Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called findings that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. Perhaps a dramatic appearance—Black called it an "out of cycle" session, beyond Tenet's regular weekly meeting with Rice— would get her
attention.

Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he'd seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate
action.

Tenet, 48, the husky, gregarious son of Greek immigrants, had been head of the CIA for four years. He was the only Clinton administration holdover to serve on George W. Bush's National Security Council, and thus the only NSC member who had been serving in November and December 1999, just before the Millennium, when a series of worldwide al Qaeda plots had been disrupted. The current situation seemed reminiscent to Tenet.

Back in 1999, the National Security Agency had intercepted a phone call by a bin Laden ally saying, "The time for training is over." The intercept had led to the breakup of attacks in Jordan and Israel. A 32-year-old Algerian jihadist, Ahmed Ressam, had been caught trying to enter the United States from Canada before Christmas 1999 with explosives for an attack on Los Angeles International Airport. Tenet had called the CIA to battle stations. "The American people are counting on you and me to take every appropriate step to protect them during this period," he said in a cable before the turn of the Millennium. There could be 15 or 20 attacks, he warned President Clinton. He spoke with the chiefs of 20 key friendly foreign intelligence services, triggering anti-terrorist operations and arrests in eight countries.

Now, Tenet thought he was seeing something similar, possibly much worse. The NSA was intercepting ominous conversations among bin Laden's people—more than 34 in all—in which they made foreboding declarations about an approaching "Zero Hour," and a pronouncement that "Something spectacular is coming." Ten days earlier, on June 30, Tenet had ordered all his station chiefs to share al Qaeda intelligence with friendly local governments abroad and argue that their intelligence services should disrupt suspected terrorist cells in their countries. As he'd done in 1999, Tenet followed up on July 3 with personal calls or contacts with the chiefs of the same 20 friendly foreign intelligence services, asking them to detain named al Qaeda suspects in their countries and harass members of other terrorist cells affiliated with al Qaeda.

They did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the NSC counterterrorism director, "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one."

But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Rumsfeld had questioned all the NSA intercepts and other intelligence. Could all this be a grand deception? Rumsfeld had asked. Perhaps it was a plan to measure U.S. reactions and defenses. Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts. They concluded they were genuine al Qaeda communications. On June 30, a TOP SECRET senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined, "Bin Laden Threats Are Real."

Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, 52, a veteran covert operator with thinning hair and an improbably soft voice and manner who resembled a taller version of Karl Rove, had two main points when they met with her. First, al Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly within the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to act right now, that very moment, to undertake some action—covert, military, whatever—to thwart bin Laden.

The U.S. has human and technical sources, and all our intelligence is consistent, the two men told Rice. Black acknowledged that some of it was uncertain "voodoo," but said it was often this "voodoo" that was the best indicator.

They both felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brushoff. Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies. (Source: "State of Denial")

Imagine that, the Bush administration brushed off any idea that bin Laden was a threat and the only person doing their job was a Clinton-era CIA director. One way or another conservatives are going to learn the truth about what happened during the Bush administration, and they aren't going to like what they see.

nothing like a bunch of people resembling parasites and vultures waiting to feed.

Sure there is - an Obama rally. ;-)

nothing like a bunch of people resembling parasites and vultures waiting to feed.

You mean like Obama's inauguration?

orgasm....the first time ever.........

Not true. I had one in 1980 and one in 1994, for the record

Self inflicted I'm sure.

TheCapitalist

There probably won't be any more until 2012.

Obama is an incredibly polarizing figure. His claims of bipartisanship simply haven't materialized

He's leading from the left and he's leading sloppily. The more things change...

His claims of bipartisanship simply haven't materialized

So how did all the Republican amendments get in the stimulus package? How is it that the stimulus package was nearly 1/3rd tax cuts, even at the vehement opposition of expert economists that said they were a total waste of money?

If you want to see what an Obama administration looks like without bipartisianship, imagine a stimulus bill with no tax cuts at all. You guys are lucky that the president has bent over backwards to accommodate you even this long, but it won't last forever if you guys don't start working with us instead of against the country.

Paul

Are the tax cuts in the bill, exactly what Obama promised during his campaign, in fact less than he promised... OR NOT?

How did Bush take a Democratic surplus and turn it into a ten trillion dollar debt?

U

.

S

.

M

I

L

I

T

A

R

Y

and

T

A

X

C

U

T

S

for the

R

I

C

H

.

That was an awesome post dude. I bet your mom was so proud when she went into her spare bedroom and left your allowance on the dresser and saw it. Rock on dude fight the machine!

Jason,

Now that is just funny!

Cap just goes to show Money CAN buy anything EVEN a Government!!

What would Bush's deficit have been if he had included all of his expenditures in his budget as Obama has done? i.e. Iraq - prescription drug plan, etc., the programs Bush funded "off budget" you can't compare the two budgets because they are apples and oranges. Include all of Bush's expenditures in his and then compare it to Obama's and that would be interesting, otherwise it is just more bleating on your part. The left gave Obama the campaign funds, why would they be outraged? I know it would be so much easier on the conservatives if everybody would stop bringing up Bush but that's not going to happen as long as we are still suffering from the results of his incompetence.

It's the approval rating that counts, sir.

Nice try.

Obama 2012.

Double or triple the largest deficit in history and 4 years of recession, Not a chance, It would not be surprising if he doesn't make it 4 years. (can't handle it, he gives up and releases his birth certificate........oh sorry I fell asleep for a minute).