Posted on 08/18/2006 7:02:30 AM PDT by presidio9
President George W. Bush's popularity was not given a boost by the foiling of an alleged plot to bomb planes flying from Britain to the United States, according to a poll.
The Pew Research Center poll found that 37 percent of Americans approved of Bush's overall performance, virtually unchanged from a July survey.
Fifty percent approved of Bush's handling of terrorist threats, compared to 47 percent in June. The poll was largely conducted after the alleged airline bombing plot was revealed on August 10.
"The severity of the president's image problem is reflected in the fact that while many Americans (49 percent) feel the level of US involvement in resolving the Lebanon crisis has been appropriate, far fewer (36 percent) say they approve of Bush's handling of the issue," Pew said.
Meanwhile, the alleged airline bombing plot did not have a high impact on Americans' concerns about another terrorist attack.
A quarter of people surveyed by Pew expressed "high concern" about an attack against the United States, up from 17 percent in 2004.
The small rise in US public concern is similar to the one seen after the public transportation bombings in London in 2005 and Madrid in 2004, Pew said.
The poll was conducted between August 9-13 among 1,506 people. It has a plus or minus four percentage point margin of error.
I have many bones to pick with him as well. And I had many bones to pick with Reagan as well.
No President is perfect but on the things that he said he would do I believe he has delivered on. On the issues of taking the fight to the terrorists, pro-life issues, and appointing SCOTUS justices he gets close to an A with me.
I truly don't care about MSM popularity polls. If some in the GOP do care about these made up polls I then we are really in trouble.
"Most Americans probably think the Brits did this all by themselves because the American part in the operation was completely swept under the rug, or underplayed, or inserted briefly and quickly into news reports with no elaboration or expansion on the subject. "
What exactly was our role?
Oh is that so - well tell us wise grasshopper - what objective evidence do you have for such a statement?
SCOTUS nominations.
Oh is that so - well tell us wise grasshopper - what objective evidence do you have for such a statement?
W's Tax Cuts
Oh is that so - well tell us wise grasshopper - what objective evidence do you have for such a statement?
Saddam Hussein removed from power.
"I have many bones to pick with him as well. And I had many bones to pick with Reagan as well."
Agreed
"On the issues of taking the fight to the terrorists, pro-life issues, and appointing SCOTUS justices he gets close to an A with me."
This war is getting bogged down because we are too PC to fight it the way it needs to be fought.
Although Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban he has done very little to sway public opinion on why this is a horrific procedure. It seems that he is only concerned about this issue come election time - same thing of the marriage amendent issue. Meantime you have Mrs. Bush speaking out in favor of abortion and gay marriage. Dont tell me that your wife isnt an influence on you - hell to pay sometimes when you get in an argument : )
He almost appointed a known liberal Harriet Miers - who wrote articles in support of legalized racism (ie. affirmative action). Also check out this link re. one of his latest appointments:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/82006f.asp
Look Im not saying that Bush is the worst president we could of gotten he is better than the alternative definitely. But Im trying to offer some explanation of why his popularity numbers are so low - which if you compare to other past presidents they are.
Link please. And also, W vetoed the abhorrent carve-up-an-embryo bill.
Saddam Hussein removed from power is your objective evidence?????? I guess it is how you define effective. My definition of effective from the president standpoint would be his ability to enact policies from the executive office. Therefore to get congress to follow his lead. He hasnt shown much ability in this respect - not dis'n him just stating the truth.
Re. Hussein - any president could have taken out Hussein - we are the greatest military power on earth - what would of been peculiar is if we didnt - especially after 911.
Saddam Hussein removed from power is your objective evidence?????? I guess it is how you define effective. My definition of effective from the president standpoint would be his ability to enact policies from the executive office. Therefore to get congress to follow his lead. He hasnt shown much ability in this respect - not dis'n him just stating the truth.
Re. Hussein - any president could have taken out Hussein - we are the greatest military power on earth - what would of been peculiar is if we didnt - especially after 911.
"Link please"
Google it - I dont have time to research it for you.
It would be helpful if the pollsters asked those who polled negatively if they thought the president should be more conservative or more liberal. Of course, the questions would have to be more artful but I think the responses would be more informative. (I guess that's why they don't do it).
Apparently, and I'm surprised, Time magazine did an article:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
No, first you tell me what was so great about Carter, Bush the Elder, and Clinton.
The Muslims don't scare Bush because he is a Christian who believes God's promises. Read the BOOK, we win in the end.
If the GOP loses the Congress it is not Bush's fault but the fault of individual congress people who squandered their personal popularity for greed, fame or arrogance.
The US provided intercepts of communications between
British citizens? uh? ah ok.
Still more alarming is this exerpt from the article:
"So as not to derail the British round-up, Chertoff had to wait until the early hours of Thursday morning after all the London arrests were made before notifying U.S. airports of the threat, "
So Chertoff sits idly by while a threat to our national well being looms? His excuse, "not to derail the round up?" WTF? What if they weren't all rounded up and some got thru? What would be his excuse then for not notifying the airports of this threat?
I am not convinced this HS deal is the real deal...much less that it had anything to do with the round up. IMO the "knowledgeable US official" is either lying, or Chertoff himself by his own inactions in this scenario is a threat to our national security. That's why this dept was created in the first place. To notify those whose lives are in danger of the pending threat and hopefully save lives. In this case, Chertoff is more worried about arresting folks than he is concerned with saving lives.
Too many people confuse phto ops and image with leadership. They might have paid attention to an insignificant court ruling yesterday instead of signing pension reform.
"Too many people confuse phto ops and image with leadership. They might have paid attention to an insignificant court ruling yesterday instead of signing pension reform."
bingo
Not necessarily limited to communications between British citizens. International communications intercepts aren't limited by our laws, especially when there is no traversal of U.S. domestic soil. We could be dealing with a satellite intercept, cell phone intercept, or wire taps on known terrorist phone lines in foreign countries. Some of those countries would probably be very unhappy to hear how we learned what we learned, so it is notably vague except that signal intercepts by us were useful.
"So as not to derail the British round-up, Chertoff had to wait until the early hours of Thursday morning after all the London arrests were made before notifying U.S. airports of the threat, "
This makes sense. If we'd burned the British operation, we'd risk all future intelligence cooperation between our nations. According to some sources, the Brits accelerated their time table for the arrests at our insistence, because we felt the risk was already too high to continue to use the surveillance of the known plotters to uncover other terrorist operatives.
You ask what would've happened if some of them remained free, but you neglect the fact that demonstrating awareness of the plot here would've triggered a scatter and go to ground response in the plotters in England, leaving them uncaught and likely to attempt the attack later. As it is, the terrorists will have to start all over, without the ones that were captured by the Brits.
In this case, Chertoff is more worried about arresting folks than he is concerned with saving lives.
I think you're being unfair to Chertoff. Arresting folks and saving lives are the same thing in this case. I think he acted appropriately, and he had a lot more information than we do when he made the decision. He probably still has more information than we do. I'm not going to second guess him without a good reason, and I'm not likely to do much angry and obnoxious second guessing until he fails in his duty. I might nitpick about better ways to do somethings, or make suggestions, but I wouldn't impugn his motives by suggesting that his priorities are out of whack when it comes to protecting American civilian lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.