At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.
It's sad to see someone who rid the world of a dictator who slaughtered over 500,000 people, who forced people to watch their children get raped right in front of them, who tested explosives on children, and one who should have been eliminated over a decade ago, yet be abused by his own people because of this righteous movement. History will smile upon Bush's efforts.
Xeno, I'm sorry to say, but America ISN'T the world's police even though they do believe that and act like it at times.
Bush ordered troops into a Sovereign nation without proper authorisation and flawed intelligence.
If this action had been carried out correctly then yes he would be well regarded in history, but as he didn't he wont.
The same goes for his lacky, Tony Blair.
As I recall one of my heros Harry Truman left office at 23% approval rating but history has been much kinder to him. That I suspect will be the same with President Bush .
The chart on this link is the daily approval rating of the President as compiled by Real CLear Politics web site RealClearPolitics - Polls - Archives
The composite average yesterday was 32.8% approve and 62 .2% disapprove. Not great but a far cry from
Quote:
most unpopular president in the history of modern polling
Jimmy Carter was around 28% when he left office and of course Nixon had sunk to about 24 % and as I mentioned a pretty damn good President Truman's low was 23 % .
BTW
Congress run by Speaker mimi Pelosi and Harry Reid is running today about 28.5 % RealClearPolitics - Polls - Archives . THAT IS AN HISTORCAL LOW !!!!
It's sad to see someone who rid the world of a dictator who slaughtered over 500,000 people, who forced people to watch their children get raped right in front of them, who tested explosives on children, and one who should have been eliminated over a decade ago, yet be abused by his own people because of this righteous movement. History will smile upon Bush's efforts.
indeed, at their meeting in 1983, Rumsfeld
warned that Saddam's use of chemical weapons might
"inhibit" American assistance. But top officials in the
Reagan administration saw Saddam as a useful surrogate. By
going to war with Iran, he could bleed the radical mullahs
who had seized control of Iran from the pro-American shah.
Some Reagan officials even saw Saddam as another Anwar Sadat,
capable of making Iraq into a modern secular state, just as
Sadat had tried to lift up Egypt before his assassination in
1981.
But Saddam had to be rescued first. The war against Iran
was going badly by 1982. Iran's "human wave attacks"
threatened to overrun Saddam's armies. Washington decided to
give Iraq a helping hand.
After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S.
intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with
satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official
documents suggest that America may also have secretly
arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped
to Iraq in a swap deal--American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian
tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics,
the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a
wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from
American suppliers.
CurlyBen, he did have permission; he had to fight like a dog to get it, but he DID get permission. Needkarma, Iran/Iraq forced Reagan to make a choice: At the time, Saddam was the lesser of the two evils, so he went after Iran.
It doesn't have to make sense. It's fact. Iran was far more brutal and more of a problem than Iraq at the time. I don't know why America wouldn't take both out, but I'm willing to bet it had something to do with the democrat congress; imagine that.
XenoSapien
Hey excon, Reagan gave the guns to free the captive U.S. soldiers. Far better than Bill Clinton, who gave the Chinese laser-guided missile technology because they called him a 'bully' and a 'push-over'.
It doesn't have to make sense. It's fact. Iran was far more brutal and more of a problem than Iraq at the time. I don't know why America wouldn't take both out, but I'm willing to bet it had something to do with the democrat congress; imagine that.
XenoSapien
Your hate for the democrats blinds you. It had to do with getting someone else to do your dirty work.
Reagan gave the guns to free the captive U.S. soldiers. Far better than Bill Clinton, who gave the Chinese laser-guided missile technology because they called him a 'bully' and a 'push-over'.
Iran-Contra was a mistake. There was no excuse to giving Iran weapons of the type they received . But you are correct about the Clintonoids although you neglected some of their more nefarious ,traitorous and cynical reasoning for doing so . The least of them being the obtaining of illegal campaign contributions ;and the worse the uncomfort that they had in the US being a lone super-power. Both were impeachable and the only reason I would have brought him up on charges.
Linear Mode
