3%.
By on Mar 14th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Even the Flat Earthers aren't fooled on this one??? Now, that's really bad for Georgie. You know, as much time as he spends repeating the propaganda to make it sink it and all...
March 14th, 2006 at 1:24 pm3%? What, is that the total workforce of Halliburton and the oil companies?
March 14th, 2006 at 1:30 pmAmerica is getting a serious wake-up call. About time!
Bush invaded Iraq for oil. How hard is that to understand? Apparently not hard at all.
That Bush hoped to be the King of Iraq is just an aristocratic tendency of his.
I wonder if this 3% are also followers of Jerry Falwell? Or maybe Pat Robertson? Or, better yet, that must be the margin of error! Yep. That's it.
Nobody believes we invaded Iraq to spread democracy (unless democracy is bloody messy and looks/smells/tastes a whole lot like civil war or a newly created massive terrorist training ground). Or something.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:31 pmOMFG!!!!
3%
Good lord!
Is America waking up to Bush's bullshit finally?
I sure hope that something is done before we attack Iran. I don't feel like having World War III happen anytime soon.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:31 pmOh, SNAP!!
March 14th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#4 - You and me both, Spudge. If anyone is going to get us into WW3, it will be GWB, of the IQ of 91.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:34 pm"Homina homina homina..."
-- Scott McClellan
March 14th, 2006 at 1:34 pm#3 You are totally right that Old Bushie went into Iraq for oil and to make his buddys richer.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:35 pmThe problem with being an American populist is that nothing is popular for very long in the USA - that's the democratic heart of American culture. If your power base is built on the cult of personality and you wish to reach the apex, you must completely reinvent yourself to survive. Just ask Madonna. Donald Trump. John Travolta. Jimmy Carter.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:35 pmI just heard a lot of alarm clocks going off. People are finally waking up....maybe?
#9
March 14th, 2006 at 1:44 pmAgree with you but Jimmy Carter?
Too bad the same poll shows 21% still think we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:49 pmWell that's the wrong end of the bell-curve. Perhaps someone could do a study on these people to find out at what point in their family tree they started producing anencephalic freaks?
March 14th, 2006 at 1:51 pm.
#10. He's not going to win any elections, but he doesn't need to. He can meet with any foreign head of state he wants, and make it pressworthy when he chooses. Can Bush say that? ;)
March 14th, 2006 at 1:53 pm#11
March 14th, 2006 at 1:54 pmIn a way it's true. This administration had to put our troops in harm's way in order to bring them the terrorists to fight. A little self-fulling target strategy. They hatched that one in their Think Stank.
#13
March 14th, 2006 at 1:58 pmI meant I didn't understand why Jimmy Carter would be considered to be "reinventing" himself. I don't think he sways from his own set of principles to survive in the public eye. That's all.
bushie will be very ,very disapointed a the end of his serie of speeches.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:59 pmReality will sink in ,better sooner than later . The country cannot afford it
Censure , impeach , resign any thing to get this mob in the clinker or oblivion.
#15 Yeah, true... maybe he's more like bellbottoms or a broken clock - popular when the mood suits us, not him.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#17
March 14th, 2006 at 2:03 pmNice visual of Jimmy Carter in bellbottoms.
#3 (and others).
Correction: Bush did not go to Iraq for oil. Bush went to Iraq to guarantee his re-election. No sitting US president has NOT been re-elected during times of war. Put the American people on shakey ground, lots of FUD, lots of talk of terrorism (soccer moms turning into security moms), launch the country into a war against a stateless enemy (terrorism, terrorism, terrorism), and even after fumbling 2 out of 3 debates against kerry, the guy still managest to get re-elected. Maybe he is a genius after all.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:06 pmI am just a lay person with a strong interest in foreign affairs. From the beginning I concluded that this push for an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had to do with just one thing: the creation of an environment more friendly to Isreal and the United States in the Arab world . Personally, I didn't believe that we should be sending our young men and woment to fight for the Israeli agenda in the Middle East. After all, we've been more than generous in providing the Jewish state with money and arms.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:07 pmI take little satisfaction is saying that I knew this fraudulant war based on a pack of lies would fail. Bluntly stated, the United States is hated because of our support of Isreal's cruel occupation of Palestinian territories. I hope these views do not make me an anti-Semite.
#20
March 14th, 2006 at 2:12 pmDislikin the foreign policy Israel does not make someone an anti-Semite. THere are in Israel and around the world that don't believe their government should be doing what they are doing. I just hope people around the world realize that there is a great divide in the US about our foreign policy too. Problem is the rest of the world sees the actions being done not the debate within the countries themselves.
Sadly, an I.Q. score of 91 is considered the low end of average.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:29 pmThis correlates well with the latest MSNBC poll where 85% of close to 250,000 people think he should be impeached. The man's a liar and he has no moral authority to lead this country.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:35 pmThere will always be a fringe group who will believe the lies rather than what is before their own eyes.
Stating the obvious does not make one a bigot, just as it does not make one anti-American to criticize Bush.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:06 pmFrankly, I am worried about the possibility of Israel striking Iran (in lieu of a direct move on our part) and we get involved in Iran as an ally of Israel.
An IQ of 91 indicates that about 57% of the US population is better able to reason than W. The average IQ in the US has crept up to approximately 107 since diet has improved and evolution has continued.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:39 pmThis correlates well with the latest MSNBC poll where 85% of close to 250,000 people think he should be impeached. The man’s a liar and he has no moral authority to lead this country.
Comment by Innocent Bystander #23
Innocent,
Why we don't see more polls like this on Lou dobbs, the big 3, hardball, or the Fox is beyond me...
...i just get this sinking feeling that Bush could eat their babies and they wouldn't impeach that bastard...
...to preserve the prestige of the presidency...
...but if a sitting prez can fu*kup the job as badly as the criminal Bushite regime has done, sold out the country, bankrupted it and committed TREASON as he's done...
...WHAT CAN a prez be impeached for?
March 14th, 2006 at 3:48 pmA president can be impeached for performing like George W. Bush.
March 14th, 2006 at 4:09 pmHey you shouldnt include the 3% who couldnt make it due to Illness Kids, work, etc...
It would be 100%
and guess what?
March 14th, 2006 at 4:22 pmHere comes The WHIG group part Deux
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/14/deja_vu_all_over_iran.php
So let’s look precisely at what course that is. In the past few weeks, we’ve seen the Bush administration create a brand-new Office of Iranian Affairs at the State Department, which looks suspiciously like a step toward creating the Iraq war planning office at the Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans. No word yet on whether the Department of Defense plans to create a parallel Office of Iranian Affairs, but it can’t be far behind. So that’s déjà vu, for sure.
And they are gonna try the same Misleading crap Again.
and the Same MSM is already starting repeating the Same Fear Factor Iran Rhetoric.
These people in the Bush Admin are seriously Wacked.
March 14th, 2006 at 4:26 pmThey got it all wrong the first time and apparently don't really care if it's wrong again.
The window is open...
It's up to the Democrats to force themselves in. The latest polling on Iraq: The war in Iraq appears to be the biggest factor in Bush's ratings. Public opinion on the situation there has turned sour. Asked two years ago...
March 14th, 2006 at 6:55 pm#23 and #26 - here's a better stat - 665,000+ for impeachment of GWB.....
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
hope that posts....www dot impeachbush dot org
March 14th, 2006 at 9:57 pm#26 What can a president be impeached for? Its very simple, all he needs to do is to unzip his pants! Where are all those who pushed so hard to get Clinton impeached for something that was not our business??? I just hope this Country can survive untill we get the majority of republicans out of the Senate, and House of Reps. I fear by then we will be at war with Iran too.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:11 pmBush is not ramping up the rhetoric against Iran just so the US can control both the 2nd & 4th largest known oil reserves in the world - that is a fortunate byproduct - it has more to do with the fact that Iran is threatening to trade oil on a non-US exchange. In the long run this will F$$K the US economy....you'll be begging for aid from Brazil and Mexico. Hussein was threatening the same action before Iraq experienced the wonders of 'liberation'.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:41 pmPeople have all this Semite/ant-semite semite Stuff messed up.
------------
In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.
Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages. Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean. I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.
Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes... I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you. I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became ... first it was ' gyu ', then ' giu ', then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced like the ' j '. Julius Caesar is ' Iul ' because there is no 'j' in Latin) then ' iuw ', then ' ieuu ', then ' ieuy ', then ' iwe ', then ' iow ', then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on. Then ' ieue ', then ' iue ', then ' ive ', and then ' ivw ', and finally in the 18th century... ' jew '. Jew.
All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing as 'Jew',there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu' -- Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to short up.
the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers -- they weren't Jews, as I just explained to you. They were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism.
There was no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn't exist. They pulled it out of the air ... a meaningless word.
Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:08 pmThere simply needs to be a paradigm shift in words; hell, the neo-cons do it all the time. Just change the meaning of the word Bush to something bad. It's not Benedict Arnold...it's, "hey, George Dubya, thanks for stabbin me in the back" or when someone really f#cks something up they, "dubyaed" it right up. Give these aholes some of their own medicine. By the way, he can never muster up support for an invasion because he will be the boy who cried wolf. Who the hell is going to trust him? The next presidential election should be run on, get this, "morals" and "returning honor to the presidency". The republicans are screwed for about a decade because of this guy.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:06 amObviously, 97% of AMericans hate democracy. We went to Iraq to free the Iraqies and to remove the 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'. Have u commies forgotten that allready? We need more contries liberated from the 'SATANIC HOARDE'....bring on CHENEY-RUMSFELD in '08! You guys have lost your minds, and your balls!
LET FREEDOM REIGN!!!!!
March 15th, 2006 at 5:43 amNo. 34 (Freedman) gives nothing but liberal, blue blood, left wing intellectual CHIT-CHAT! I've never heard some crap.Who gives a damn about what houty touty people from the past did! They never landed on the moon....NO! THEY WERE TOO DUMB TOO!! It was a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA who proudly landed men on the moon! No.35, I don't care for your bad language. you may use language like that on the streets of Harlem but not here. No.19, you are on thin ice in saying that a PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and a proud REPUBLICAN would fight a war, and go against the wish of GOD HIMSELF!
LET FREEDOM REIGN! WE OWE IT TO THE BRAVE BOYS IN THE TWIN TOWERS!
March 15th, 2006 at 6:00 amLET'S ROLL!
3% of the people polled were American Senators
March 15th, 2006 at 7:20 amI'm nearly speechless after reading this. Are you folks serious. I honestly have never in my life read more incoherent nonsensical garbage in my life. The amount of ignorance on this page is appalling. I would love to go through and explain how ridiculous you all are but it would be a waste of time. However for you knuckle heads talking about impeaching Bush, it would take maybe 10 minutes to actually read the laws of this country and then you could speak with some integrity. It's really simple; the president can only be impeached if he breaks the law. You may THINK he has broken the law but I don't see any of your (democrats) representatives making any SERIOUS claims that he has. Clinton was not (almost) impeached for getting a hummer, he was (almost) impeached for lying to a grand jury. I admit he shouldn't have been it was a waste of time, however lets just be honest when we debate, it's much much more fun and intellectually honest. I know that's tough when you have a bong surgically attached to your face, but at least try.
March 15th, 2006 at 9:42 am"I don’t care for your bad language. you may use language like that on the streets of Harlem."
Spoken like a true Baptist(racist).
March 15th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#39 - How about warrentless wiretapping? Forget all that "we gotta get the terrorist" stuff. We've been down this road before - Watergate? Ring a bell? Read the Church Commision Report. We the People passed a VERY SPECIFIC law (FISA, maybe you've heard about it) to deal with foreign surveillance activity, and even created a special court just to issue warrents for exactly this type of activity. It's basically a rubber stamp, but it does kinda sorta give some sort of oversight/accountability. Hell you can even get a warrent 72 hours AFTER you start the wiretaps. So why side step the court? Were you only wiretapping "terra-ists" or did they widen the net a little? Remember, if you are paranoid enough and righty enough, everone around you starts to look like terra-ists. Do you want to go through the list of people/organizations that Rush/Hannity etc have called terrorists? Dems challenge the president during wartime? TERRORISTS! If you think I'm paranoid, perhaps you should listen to the audiotapes that are on them there internets of Tom Delay talking to an official at homeland defense, using national security assets to track democrats as they attempted to boycott the illegal redistricting in texas a few years back. Paranoid? If Republicans would just play by the rules, then yeah I might just be overly cautious. But as we've seen they just can't be trusted with unlimited power.
Oh and the president lied about it. Numerous times, saying all wiretapping requires a warrent. And it doesn't help when Dems try to get an investigation into the wiretapping and the Repugs counter with the usual "nothing to see here, keep moving people" rhetoric. I'm sorry but the "paranoid conspiracy theorist" smear wears a little thin when you've lived through the WMD talk, yellowcake bull***t, curveball, downing street memos, torturegate, aluminum tubes, "you're doing a heckuva job brownie", deadeye dick, etc etc etc. This administration lies and when you call them on a lie you are crazy.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:42 pmThe real reason bush loosers went to war was to block the sale of IRAQ oil for food by the U.N. Oil is at $2.50 a gallon today!!!! It never had anything to do with terrorist. It was all about controlling the oil and gas flow to the freeworld.... Remember the pipeline from Afganastan to the Med-Sea!!I It ends at the IRAQ oil pipeline!
Unless you consider G. W. Bush a real neo-con terrorist.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this war with IRAQ and soon to be WWWIII with IRAN and others .
If the demo-wacks in congress don't get on the board and impeach this evil U.S. Dictator, then the demo-wacks will loose control of this country forever and G.W. Bush will be the First U.S. Dictator. Don't believe me, just ask Ex-Suprem Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as her speech just this last week was on this very topic.
GOD did not give Dubya the power, the American People did and we will all pay for this financially (10 Trillon dollars in Debt), 8.8 Billion Dollars lost in IRAQ and no one is even investigating this crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last Point: Cargo Containers & No Border Control...... America Is Dooomed!!!
Thank God the Bird Flu is coming............... That should do at least have of the elite in.....
Wow, From George 1776 - George 2006,
"It was a nice experiment while it lasted" General Tommy Franks, 2003
Goodbye-George
March 15th, 2006 at 1:12 pmtwo things. that "real american" must be for comedy relief. or else he admires bush for his 91 i.q. as for #39. i don't think impeachment is only if the president "breaks the law.' i believe the expression is "high crimes and misdemeanors. and treason too, but that is just more law breaking. if 2 thirds of the house and senate vote to impeach him then he is impeached. simple enough. it does not matter if he is convicted of breaking any law or not. that is not a requirement. the president cannot block any impeachment legislation with the defense of " i was never convicted of breaking any laws." again, that is not a requirement. so, if the voters think the president should be impeached, and they elect a democrat majority, say in 2008, with the intent that they do such a thing, and if the proper number of sens and reps vote to impeach him, then he is out. simple enough. saying "the president can only be impeached if he broke laws" is nonsense. i don't think the constitution requires that. so, if the american people do not want to tolerate a president who looks them in the eye and lies to them in order to drag them into war then that could be considered an impeachable offense. " high crime"? one of the highest in my opinion. if many of us do not want to tolerate a president who says " a dictatorship is great as long as i am the dictator", and then sets out on doing such a thing by saying "i am the one amercan citizen who does not have to follow the laws", then he is a direct threat to representative government and should not be in that office. the president is a u.s. citizen who has a paying job like you and me. he is required to obey all the laws of the land like you and me. leaders who obey their own law are called kings and dictators. oh, one other thing. when the president called the social security trust fund "worthless i.o.u's" to the letter of the law he was guilty of treason. it has something to do with betraying the financial standing of these united states.
March 15th, 2006 at 5:26 pmYEEHAA!!! NUMBER 39 IS MY BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE ARE BOTH THE FOLLOWERS OF GOD!
LET FREEDOM REIGN! DO IT FOR THE BRAVE MEN WHO LOST THEIR LIVES IN 9/11.
THEY WOULD WANT REGIME CHANGE!
March 15th, 2006 at 5:53 pmits always been obvious to anyone who wanted to see that the war was about the aquistion of Iraq's petroeum assets. my quetion for the past 3 years is who has these assets & what are their intensions with them? the ways its has been accumulated has always been sinnister. & i can can only surmise the purposes for them even more so. it's easy to villify an isolated & misunderstood people. for the purpose of exploiting their resources. just ask a native american about uncle sams track record.
March 15th, 2006 at 7:44 pmNumber 34: you are not a follower of your so-called god. Is it not true that your sixth commandment states "Thou shalt not kill"? Yet you are advocating the deaths of many people - for revenge. Hence you are not a follower of your god. You want death! Also, you are advocating violence as retaliatory action against a group of people - the wrong group of people - for the deaths of ~2800 Americans on 9/11. As of today, 33638 Iraqi civilians (known to be a massive underestimate) have been killed as a result your presidents' wanton war on terror....over 12 times as many Iraqis have died as Americans did on 9/11. In addition, your support for such action is in direct contradiction to the alleged statement of Jesus of Nazareth "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." (Matthew 5:39). So you are not a follower of Jesus, the so-called 'son of god', either. You are a very confused person, arent you?
March 15th, 2006 at 9:11 pmWeight Loss Low Carbohydrate Diet The Zone Diet
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 6:35 pm