al-Qaida No. 2: U.S. 'Ran' From Vietnam
Oct 12 9:16 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader said the United States "ran and left their agents" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam _ and how they ran and left their agents _ is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now."

Senior U.S. military commanders have said that Iraqi security forces are improving significantly and some U.S. forces could return home early next year. Yet skeptics have raised concerns about whether such statements simply let the insurgency know how long they must wait for the U.S. to leave.

In a letter taking up 13 typed pages in its English translation, al- Zawahri also recommended a four-stage expansion of the war that would take the fighting to neighboring Muslim countries.

"It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," al-Zawahri wrote.

The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

The final stage, al-Zawahri wrote, would be a clash with Israel, which he said was established to challenge "any new Islamic entity."

The letter is dated July 9, and was acquired during U.S. operations in Iraq. It was written in Arabic and translated by the U.S. government. The Pentagon briefed reporters last week on portions of the document, but the full text was not available until Tuesday.

In a statement, the National Intelligence Director's office said the letter "has not been edited in any way" and its contents were released only after it was clear no military or intelligence operations would be compromised.

House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said his committee is reviewing the letter, but he cautioned "against reading too much into a single source of intelligence."

In his letter, al-Zawahri, a Sunni, devoted significant attention to al-Zarqawi's attempts to start a civil war with the rival Muslim Shiite sect, the majority that now dominates the new Iraqi government. Ultimately, al-Zawahri concluded that violence, particularly against Shiite mosques, only raises questions among Muslims.

"This matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue," he wrote.

Al-Zawahri was also critical of the Taliban, which was toppled in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, because, he said, they did not have the representation of the Afghan people. He said students of the Taliban retreated to their tribes.

"Even the devout ones took the stance of spectator," al-Zawahri wrote.

Contrasting that, he saw fearlessness in battles waged in the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Al Qaim.

At times, the letter got personal. Al-Zawahri said he tasted the bitterness of America's brutality, noting that his "favorite wife's chest was crushed by a concrete ceiling" during an apparent U.S. attack. His daughter died of a cerebral hemorrhage.

To this day, he wrote, he did not know the location of their graves.

The letter then switches to the court of public opinion.

"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.

The line is an apparent reference to a phrase _ "hearts and minds" _ often used by President Bush.

___

On the Net:

Read the full letter in English or Arabic on the national intelligence director's Web site: http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html
Original Post
Kevin:

I know that it is difficult for you - but could you please explain your position?

In your claim that "Bush created this mess" you clearly believe that all was well and good in Iraq prior to our invasion that had replaced the policy of Sanctions to smoke Saddam out.



I guess since there was no impact on the people of Iraq all we had to do is WAIT a bit longer?



Now despite the fact that the author of the book below has stated in a radio interview that he knows of no instances in which yielding to the Islamicists has produced a permanent truce rather than giving them a chance to regroup and strengthen.



But I understand Kevin. You and so many others on this board live in an ABSTRACT WORLD. It is all the fault of the Western Imperialists.

"Freedom Fighters" set off bombs in an open air market to kill MUSLIMS - Had Bush not bothered them THEY WOULD HAVE NO MOTIVATION TO DO SO

"Freedom Fighters" kill a long line of people waiting in line to serve as police or shoot an electrical line man as he is on a pole - They are only protecting their country against the American domination

"Freedom Fighters" set off a bomb in front of a mosque that NOT ONLY DESECRATES A QU'RAN but also KILLS THE MUSLIM BROTHER WHO WAS CARRYING IT AFTER LEAVING THE MOSQUE, PRAYING FOR PEACE - They are only doing Allah's will to fight the Infidels.

I gotcha Kevin.
The way Bush approached this lie of a war has destabilized the whole region....Colin tried to tell them how to go about it utilizing the UN and let things run their course...anyone with a sense of diplomacy would have gotten countries to work with them to contain terrorism withing their own borders....but since w is a cowboy he is on his own.. .you go out of your way to be the great white folk defender but you and I both know this will go down in history as a debacle and disaster.......he told them to brng it on...and americans are still dying years later.....remember when he put on the flight jacket and talked that war is over bullschit? He screwed up by not including sadaam's army and ust kicking them to the curb....now they are the insurgency...gaining in strength and organization, moving on to other countries....and if a) a civil war occurs in Iraq and b) the whole region destablizes and bum rushes Israel.....you should not be surprised.....as sad as 9-11 made me, i'm not surprised..I have been in other countries and I see how amerikkka operates...maybe you haven't but that is not my problem......time will tell.....I really do not want to deal with you and your counter-to-black-majority opinions 100% of the time....that is who you are....I see adequacy in the way the black majority thinks 100% of the time...so you and I are philosophical opposites and have nothing in common or anything to talk about to be honest........
and it is funny how someone can speak of defending Iraq and using the government for that purpose....but cannot fathom it being used to deliver their own people from poverty here in amerikkka....the very same people it created the poverty for in the first place...simply amazing......
quote:
The way Bush approached this lie of a war has destabilized the whole region



lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol


Only in the mind of Kevin can he see the "absence of WAR" as "stability".

The same people who are now SETTING OFF BOMBS to kill FELLOW MUSLIMS were filling mass graves during the 1990's when we had "Saddam CONTAINED".

The SANCTIONS by the United Nations and enforced by the USA and the UK served to "smoke Saddam out" but he had a gas mask and his people did not. I hope that you go to http://www.leftbooks.com and purchase the books that I have highligted above. Last year I purchased A WHOLE STACK OF THEM TO GIVE TO MY LIBRERAL FRIENDS to challenge them on their assumptions.

As with the levees we must believe that er'than was alright before Bush. I can atleast say that some folks have been consistent about their criticism of the US policy throughout the 90's and into today. Others of you are nothing more than partisan political HACKS.

I hear so many people say "The women of Iraq are LOSING THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE" in this new constitution - a false statement. If I were on the radio show with them I would ask them - When these women had the right to vote under Saddam BUT SADDAM WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE ALLOWED ON THE BALLOT (as with Cuba) WHAT RIGHTS DID THEY REALLY HAVE? So many of you being confined in your FALSE DICHOTOMY are unable to ask the next logical question that your challenges bring forth.

The FACT IS that we are dealing with a band of ISLAMACISTS who only know VIOLENCE as their means to instill OPPRESSION against their people and who resent the outside interference of Western interests to impose modern day standards of human rights. THIS IN NO WAY IS ME SAYING THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS CLEAN HANDS IN THE REGION - we do not.
quote:
Only in the mind of Kevin can he see the "absence of WAR" as "stability".



It is more likely to represent stability than the chaos and killing associated with war..but I forgot...this is a country where people try to explain the benefits of slavery to black people....it got us out of uncivilized Africa..and tamed the savages....my bad....I need to be more open minded (end sarcasm)
quote:
The same people who are now SETTING OFF BOMBS to kill FELLOW MUSLIMS were filling mass graves during the 1990's when we had "Saddam CONTAINED".
So the Bush/Adminstration LIED about "foreign fighters" being the backbone of the Iraqi insurgency? Okay! lol

A dumbass like you would call "them" all "the same people", though. I guess "they all look alike" and, by your accounts are "all Muslims" as if there has ever been some type of thing that stopped Christians from warring with each, etc.

How do you manage to say some of the DUMBEST things? And you do it all the time. How do you keep it up so well?

quote:
The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not "Saddam Hussein loyalists" but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are "wary of a Shiite-led government."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
So... Come again!!??

They were/are "the same people" HOW?
By what estimation? Your RACIST one?

Also, since you pretend to LOVE Democracy so much (when it comes to the Black Community)... What about the Iraqi Democratic Model with built-in structural and CONSTITUTIONAL protections of the "Minority From The Tyranny Of The Majority"?

You'll be Church [WHITE] Mouse quiet about that too, I'm sure. But, if you dare speak, please let's here you expound on the profound irony of your sorry ass celebrating the Bush Administrations initiatives in Iraq particularly in terms of Iraq's Democratic Power Sharing Model when compared to America's (lack thereof model).
American debacle
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI was national security advisor to President Carter.

October 9, 2005

Some 60 years ago Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for George W. Bush's place in history and "” much more important "” ominously for America's future, that adroit phrase increasingly seems applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.

Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, President Bush's speech Thursday was a throwback to the demagogic formulations he employed during the 2004 presidential campaign to justify a war that he himself started.

That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision-makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated. It has precipitated worldwide criticism. In the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the imperialistic successor to Britain and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread throughout the world of Islam.

Now, however, more than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is needed. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists. It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York City. Yet, in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London.

There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America's allies and client states in its deepening military intervention in the Middle East. Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be the brutal denigration of their religious kin's dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.

America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America's forbearance of a nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons. Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the U.S. look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.

Compounding such political dilemmas is the degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity. Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (a.k.a. torture) were publicly disgraced, prosecuted or forced to resign. The administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court now seems quite self-serving.

Finally, complicating this sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends. The budgets for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security are now larger than the total budget of any nation, and they are likely to continue escalating as budget and trade deficits transform America into the world's No. 1 debtor nation. At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of its early opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.

It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of U.S. policy. As a result, large swathes of the world "” including nations in East Asia, Europe and Latin America "” have been quietly exploring ways of shaping regional associations tied less to the notions of transpacific, or transatlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.

That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers and future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's ineptitude are Russia and China "” Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.

In a very real sense, during the last four years the Bush team has dangerously undercut America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle. Because America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, for a while longer, a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process, America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise constructive global influence. Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.

But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation. In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out "” perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the U.S. leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.

With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us, it would also be easier to shape a wider Middle East policy that constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while restoring the legitimacy of America's global role.
*dont know if I posted this before:

Bush's hacks

By Derrick Z. Jackson | September 14, 2005

THE SENATE confirmation hearings of John Roberts are in the eye of a perfect storm of American hypocrisy. It is largely assumed that Roberts will be confirmed despite his animus for affirmative action for people of color. In 1981 as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, he wrote that affirmative action ''required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates."

Such sentiments will not sink his chances for the high court, not in a nation where affirmative action of inadequately prepared white men is so rampant that we let them manage our two worst disasters.

There is Hurricane Katrina, where Michael Brown resigned this week as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Brown had no emergency management experience and did not know that the New Orleans convention center was reeking in squalor, despite media reports.

Days before the resignation, he was kicked out of New Orleans by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. That was the unqualified calling the unqualified ''unqualified." The natural-disaster-minded FEMA was rolled into the terrorist-minded Homeland Security two years ago but Chertoff had no experience in emergency management either. When National Public Radio asked Chertoff about CNN reports on conditions at the convention center, he said: ''If you talk to someone and you get a rumor, or you get someone's anecdotal version of something, I think it's dangerous to extrapolate it all over the place. . . . I have not heard a report of thousands of people in the convention center who don't have food and water."

Brown was at FEMA because of the old-boy network. He was hired as a general counsel by fellow Oklahoman and then-FEMA head Joe Allbaugh. Allbaugh had no qualifications for FEMA other than being a chief Bush operative for a decade. Allbaugh hired Brown even though Brown's last major job was an Arabian horse show commissioner.

With such incompetence in place for Katrina, Bush, a self-admitted academic underachiever who was a clear beneficiary of legacy admissions, followed up the stupid comments of his hacks with proclamations worthy of Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Despite years of scientific warnings and newspaper stories about the potentially catastrophic effects of a hurricane, Bush said, ''I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

This follows an amazing lack of anticipation over what would happen in Iraq, after an invasion and occupation where the architects were for the most part well-connected white men who never spent one day in combat. They gave no thought to the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in the invasion or to the nearly 1,900 US soldiers who have died.

There was Vice President Dick ''Five-Deferments" Cheney, who ballyhooed that we would be ''welcomed as liberators" and that the insurgency is in its ''last throes." There was Defense Secretary Donald ''We-Know-Where-the-Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction-Are" Rumsfeld. He flew jets for the Navy but never saw combat. There was former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul ''Wildly-Off-The-Mark" Wolfowitz, who trashed the assessment by the Army's chief of staff that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed to stabilize Iraq.

Bush's idea of diversity in this affirmative action for no-combat military experts was his African-American former national security adviser, Condoleezza ''Those 16-Words-Are-A-Data-Point" Rice. Rice, now secretary of state, was in the lead of defusing criticism over Bush's discredited claim that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons material from Africa.

Hardly by coincidence, the top player in the Bush administration who was the most reluctant to go to war was an African-American man who saw combat, former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It was Powell who urged his fellow Republicans at the 2000 Republican national convention to understand the cynicism of African-Americans when ''some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helped a few thousand black kids get an education, but you hardly hear a whimper when it's affirmative action for lobbyists who load our federal tax code with preferences for special interests."

Such cynicism is exploding again in America's face. While we are about to have a new chief justice who condemns affirmative action for black and brown kids, affirmative action for privileged white men has led to decisions that have cost this nation and the planet tens of thousands of lives. Of course Bush could not envision the breach of the levees. His form of affirmative action left him with no one of vision to show him the way.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI was national security advisor to President Carter.

October 9, 2005

Some 60 years ago Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for George W. Bush's place in history and "” much more important "” ominously for America's future, that adroit phrase increasingly seems applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.

Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, President Bush's speech Thursday was a throwback to the demagogic formulations he employed during the 2004 presidential campaign to justify a war that he himself started.

That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision-makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated. It has precipitated worldwide criticism. In the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the imperialistic successor to Britain and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread throughout the world of Islam.

Now, however, more than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is needed. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists. It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York City. Yet, in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London.

There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America's allies and client states in its deepening military intervention in the Middle East. Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be the brutal denigration of their religious kin's dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.

America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America's forbearance of a nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons. Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the U.S. look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.

Compounding such political dilemmas is the degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity. Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (a.k.a. torture) were publicly disgraced, prosecuted or forced to resign. The administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court now seems quite self-serving.

Finally, complicating this sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends. The budgets for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security are now larger than the total budget of any nation, and they are likely to continue escalating as budget and trade deficits transform America into the world's No. 1 debtor nation. At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of its early opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.

It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of U.S. policy. As a result, large swathes of the world "” including nations in East Asia, Europe and Latin America "” have been quietly exploring ways of shaping regional associations tied less to the notions of transpacific, or transatlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.

That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers and future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's ineptitude are Russia and China "” Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.

In a very real sense, during the last four years the Bush team has dangerously undercut America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle. Because America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, for a while longer, a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process, America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise constructive global influence. Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.

But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation. In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out "” perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the U.S. leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.

With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us, it would also be easier to shape a wider Middle East policy that constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while restoring the legitimacy of America's global role.
Poll: Bush Presidency Judged Unsuccessful
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago
For the first time, more people say George W. Bush's presidency will be judged as unsuccessful than say it will be seen as a success, a poll finds.
Forty-one percent of respondents said Bush's presidency will be seen as unsuccessful in the long run, while 26 percent said the opposite. Thirty-five percent said it was too early to tell, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
In January, 36 percent said successful and 27 percent said unsuccessful.
The increasing pessimism about Bush's long-term prospects comes at a time when many polls have found the public increasingly is negative about Bush's performance and the direction of the country.
Seven in 10 said they want the next president to offer policies and programs that are different from the Bush administration's.
Only half said they wanted the next president to offer different policies in 2000, at the end of the Clinton presidency. By a 2-1 margin, people said the Bush administration has had a negative impact on politics and the way government works.
People were inclined to say Bush's policies have made things worse on a wide range of issues such as the federal budget deficit, the gap between rich and poor, health care, the economy, relations with U.S. allies, the tax system and education. By 47 percent to 30 percent, those surveyed said Bush has improved the situation with national security.
Republicans give the president mixed reviews in many of these areas. Almost half of Republicans said Bush's policies have made the deficit worse and just 12 percent say he has improved that situation.
The poll of 1,500 adults was taken Oct. 6-10 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
___
On the Net:
Pew Research Center: http://www.people-press.org
** and to think that black people are told by racists and black cons that we do not understand.....now why in the fuck is public opinion NOW where black majority opinion was in 1999 before the election? I tend to think we may be more aware politically than others....the swing in the flag waving momentum bullshit proves as much.....idiots......



Blacks Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Bush's Job PerformanceCompiled by the DiversityInc staff


© 2005 DiversityInc.com

October 14, 2005
The results from the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll do not bode well for President Bush or the Republican Party.
The president's approval rating has reached an all-time low, slipping below 40 percent. In addition, the percentage of people who believe the country is heading in the right direction has dropped below 30 percent.
The poll shows approximately 39 percent of people in the United States approve of the president's job performance. What's more startling is that only 2 percent of blacks in the United States said they approve of Bush's handling of the presidency, NBC Nightly News reports. If this number is accurate, it is bad news for the Republican Party, since they have been struggling to win over more black voters in the last several years.
The poll also shows that a large and growing portion of participants said they would prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress. Only 29 percent think Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is qualified to serve on the nation's highest court.
The poll, which was conducted from Oct. 8–10, also finds that a strong majority of the 807 participants do not believe that the recent charges against GOP leaders Tom DeLay of Texas and Bill Frist of Tennessee are politically motivated. Sixty-five percent say that DeLay's indictment on charges of illegally using corporate contributions for political campaigns suggests potential illegal activity, while 24 percent say the indictment is politics as usual and has little merit, MSNBC reports.
"Any way you slice this data, I think these are just terrible sets of numbers," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturf.
quote:
What's more startling is that only 2 percent of blacks in the United States said they approve of Bush's handling of the presidency, NBC Nightly News reports. If this number is accurate, it is bad news for the Republican Party, since they have been struggling to win over more black voters in the last several years.



so i guess the 2% OF BLACK CONS FEEL THE OTHER 98% ARE THE UNINFOMRED ONES......THESE PERCENTAGES MAKE BLK CONS APPEAR TO BE EVEN BIGGER FREAKS OF THEIR RACE.....WOW......SIMPLY AMAZING......IS THEIR MISSION TO FEED THE BLACK RACE SOME...... bs

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×