Tag: Worst President Ever

Poll: Bush Is Worst President Ever (Or At Least Among the Last Five)

Jon Ponder

Most Americans agree that George Bush is the Worst President Ever, in the past 30 years, according to a new Gallup poll:

Americans think President George W. Bush will go down in history as the country’s worst leader of his era, according to a Gallup Poll released Wednesday.

But Bush rates the worst, with 54 percent saying history will paint him as a poor or below-average president, according to the survey.

The poll rated Pres. Reagan as the best president among presidents Carter, himself, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Poll: Bush Losing His Base Over Iraq

Buck Banks

Wingnuts wig out: It’s finally started to happen — things have gotten so bad in Iraq and the president is doing such a horrendously crappy job of leading the nation that his once-solid Republican base is eroding. Not that they actually “get it,” they apparently are just tired of staying the course with George, according to National Journal’s PollTrack:

A CBS poll conducted late last week tracked a 21-point drop-off among Republicans in support for Bush’s handling of Iraq.

President Bush’s approval numbers have long been somewhat deceptive. On the one hand, a popularity rating hovering in the 30s and 40s indicates that a lot of Americans don’t care for him. But partisan breakdowns have often revealed that he’s still popular with his conservative Republican base. A new CBS News survey shows the Iraq war sapping some wind from Bush’s sails.

In a poll that CBS News conducted with the New York Times in late October, 68 percent of Republican respondents approved of Bush’s war policy. Just 21 percent of independents and 7 percent of Democrats said the same.

Fast-forward to now. The long-awaited Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq is out, and Bush is scrambling to hear alternatives on how the White House should proceed before announcing what has been billed as a significant policy change in Iraq. The most recent CBS poll, conducted late last week, tracked a 21-point drop-off among Republicans in support for Bush’s handling of Iraq. Three-quarters of all respondents disapproved, a hike from the 64-percent disapproval in the previous survey.
[…]

Bush Strategy Sessions on Iraq: White House Creates Another Fake Reality

Jon Ponder
If the Bush team had used half the intellect and energy they have expended over the past six years on lying, spinning, smearing and political machinations to try to govern competently,the country wouldn’t be in this terrible trap — and they would not be the worst presidential administration in our history

They way the newsers tell it, Pres. Bush and his team read the Iraq Study Group’s indictment of their abysmal war-making in Iraq last week and immediately set out to get advice on the war from a wide range of experts in Washington.

After the president has gathered advice, he, as the Decider, will formulate a new way forward. He’ll announce the plan in a speech to the nation.

It sounds reasonable, but it is not true.

The Bush team has known the contents of the report for weeks, if not months. Condi and crew undoubtedly negotiated with the ISG over the wording, especially the sections describing Bush’s incompetence.

The president’s strategy sessions this week are strictly from Potemkin. The Bushies know what they must do in Iraq, and hardly anything can stop them from doing it. It’s all about politics for them. The deaths of military personnel and innocent civilians are unfortunate collateral damage attendant to their political goals. Ditto the billions of taxpayer dollars.

Their political goal in taking the country to war was to give Bush status as a “war president,” so that, among other things, he would sail to reelection in 2004. Now they are focused on their legacy. They urgently need to de-escalate the violence. which is why they have probably already decided to go for the “surge” of an additonal 30,000 to 50,000 more troops into Iraq that John McCain and others have proposed.

This is literally the last-ditch military solution and it fits their timeframe. Any new major operation needs to be over or winding down by January 2008, when the political necessities of the Republican presidential candidates, especially McCain, begin to assert primacy over Bush’s desire to tart up his legacy.

Sending in a large wave of troops is problematic because it is similar to a failed strategy Pres. Lyndon Johnson undertook during the Vietnam War. On July 28, 1965, he announced he was committing an additional 50,000 troops to the war effort. Then as now, the goal of the deployment was to quell escalating violence so that order could be established.

It failed utterly. The enemy was energized and met the surge with counter-offensives. The war dragged on for another 10 years, until the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975.

James Baker Probably Regrets What He Did in 2000

Trish

James Baker has to be kicking himself right now. After all, it’s largely his fault this num-nuts is in power. Serving as co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, and having its recommendations likely dismissed by the Cretin in Chief, is just a small pay-back for cursing us with this idiot to begin with.

Climb into the Way Back Machine and go to the fall of 2000. Baker led the Bush team petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to void the decision by Florida’s high court which allowed a recount of suspicious ballots. Baker held a press conference to condemn the “activist” Florida justices and plea to set things right.

Baker in 2000: “Let the country step back for a minute and pause and think about what’s at stake here. This may be the last chance to do that. There is no reasonable end to this process if it slips away.”

The vote here in Florida was very close, but when it was counted Governor Bush was the winner.

Now, three days later, the vote in Florida has been recounted. Over two-thirds of the state election supervisors overseeing that recount are Democrats. At the end of this recount, Governor Bush is still the winner, subject only to counting the overseas ballots, which traditionally have favored the Republican candidates. No evidence of vote fraud, either in the original vote or in the recount, has been presented…

Let the country step back for a minute and pause and think about what’s at stake here. This may be the last chance to do that. There is no reasonable end to this process if it slips away.

…For the good of the country, and for the sake of our standing in the world, the campaigning should end and the business of an orderly transition should begin.

Where to start? Palm Beach County’s Democratic Elections Supervisor, Theresa LaPore, was later forced to resign in disgrace. Vote fraud, in both the original election and the Katherine Harris-supervised recount, was presented and proven. And as for this country’s standing in the world…

But Baker was also right. There was a lot at stake, and it was our last chance to avoid the horrible consequences. I’m not happy that it looks like Bush is rejecting the ISG’s work because we need to figure out how to make the killing in Iraq stop. But there is, as my cousin Jon likes to say, a certain schadenfreude in all this. How do you like your president now, James Baker?

Poll: Bush Sinks to 30%, Lowest Approval Ever

Jon Ponder

How low can he go?

Pres. Bush’s approval rating today is just five points higher than Pres. Nixon’s approval when he resigned in August 1974:

The national job approval rating of President Bush has plummeted to 30 percent, an all–time low in the latest Zogby International telephone poll, sinking below the 31 percent approval rating he dropped to in early June.

Polls: Americans Agree Generally on Iraq Exit, Bush Worst President Ever

Buck Banks

Several ways out: As reported by National Journal’s PollTrack today, several recent polls show a marked preference among Americans for a measured pullout from Iraq, not a Vietnam-like mad dash. Most Americans agree that the botched war is pretty much due to George W. Bush’s utter incompetence.

Respondents seemed to think it’s still possible to make progress on the ground, although not possible to achieve victory as defined by the administration.

A new Associated Press/Ipsos Public Affairs survey finds that disapproval of the president’s policies on Iraq is at an all-time high of 71 percent. Bush apparently scores few points on non-Iraq policies as well; 64 percent disapprove of the job he is doing in general. That’s a slightly worse appraisal than the one given in mid-November.

It seems unlikely that Bush or Congress will embrace all 79 tenets of the Iraq Study Group’s long-anticipated report. But the two in particular the president has dismissed out of hand — drawing down U.S. forces over the next 15 months and bringing Iran and Syria into the discussion — are both policies Americans would like to see the administration pursue.

When asked about a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops by mid-2007, a half-sample approved by 60 percent. But when presented with a timetable that calls for troops to leave within two years, 71 percent approved. The results suggest that Americans aren’t exactly itching to quit Iraq simply because they feel things aren’t going well there, as supporters of the war might put it. Rather, respondents seemed to think it’s still possible to make progress on the ground, although not possible to achieve victory as defined by the administration.

Nearly two-thirds said a “stable, democratic government” in Iraq was probably out of reach. Thirty-five percent felt that a democratic foothold in the Middle East was still possible; half of Republicans queried said so, compared with 22 percent of Democrats, according to AP’s analysis.

A poll commissioned by WorldPublicOpinion.org and conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks also shows that Americans’ concern over Iraq has at least as much to do with the welfare of that country as U.S. interests. Fewer than two in 10 of those respondents wanted an immediate withdrawal within six months. A 40-percent plurality favored a one-year or two-year timeline, while 38 percent wanted a withdrawal only “as the security situation improves.”

An overwhelming 79 percent backed a major summit on Iraq that would include the United States, Iraqi leaders and Arab nations. When asked if the United States should try to work with neighboring countries “with whom we have other disputes” on the problem of Iraq, three-quarters said yes — including 72 percent of Republicans. Those figures held when respondents were asked if such talks should be held with Syria.

WaPo Says Iraq Report Is ‘Repudiation’ of Bush, Neo-Con Policies

Jon Ponder
This is where George W. Bush has led the United States, to a choice between alternatives that are (paraphrasing Paul Krugman) “truly awful” and “much worse than that.”

Iraq and a hard place: Listening to the newsers’ chatter about the report released by the Iraq Study Group yesterday, two things are apparent: Experts on all sides of the war have found a lot to criticize about the group’s suggestions for extricating the United States out of Iraq, — but no one (outside the White House) disagrees with their finding that the source of the problem is gross incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration and its neo-con advisers.

The Wasington Post’s front page story, titled “The Realists’ Repudiation Of Policies for a War, Region,” sums up the bitch slap delivered by the gray beards to the Bush Administration about its incompetent management of what has become the Iraq Civil War:

From the very first page, in which co-chairmen James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton scold that “our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people,” the bipartisan report is nothing less than a repudiation of the Bush administration’s diplomatic and military approach to Iraq and to the whole region…

Overall, it strongly suggests that Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have bungled diplomacy in the region with unrealistic objectives and narrow strategies.

And:

The report’s description of the violence in Iraq, which amounts to an attack on the administration’s understanding of the facts on the ground, will likely set the new baseline for how the Iraq conflict is portrayed.

“The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing,” the report warns.

The reason no one likes the ISG’s proposals for getting out of Iraq is that there is no way out that doesn’t risk the lives of thousands more innocent people.

A quick extraction is not possible. There are too many of our people there — not just the 100,000-plus military personnel but maybe another 100,000 civilian aid workers and private-sector contractors, plus the media. Evacuating these people would takes weeks, during which the they would be vulnerable as the level of violence among the insurgents escalates.

This is where George W. Bush has led the United States, to a choice between alternatives that are (paraphrasing Paul Krugman) “truly awful” and “much worse than that.”

Webb-Bush Contretemps: What Would JFK Do?

Jon Ponder

Now that St. McCain has revealed his true colors as a do-anything-say-anything-to-get-elected pol, some are suggesting that Sen.-Elect Jim Webb be the real straight talker, especially after his unpleasant encounter with the president last month:

This strange interlude at the White House, when Bush asked Webb about his son in Iraq, Webb said he wants to bring the troops home, and Bush barked: “I didn’t ask you that” says a lot about Bush and Webb.

Jim Webb has vast and enormous experience in military combat and military policy over the decades. Why on earth didn’t Bush pull him aside and ask his private counsel? Not only does Webb know far more than Bush about real wars and not only does Webb have an infinitely better record than Bush being right about this war, but Webb probably could have given some serious insight about what his son tells him from the ground.

But the Decider has already Decided.

My guess is, what JFK would have done, is invite Webb to the Oval Office, and while they were sitting in the Oval Office would have called the son in real time and asked: what the hell is going on over there? What do you think we should do?

But just like McCain is no Webb, Bush is no JFK.

Bush Knew Webb’s Son Had Almost Been Killed

Jon Ponder

When Pres. Bush got snippy last month with Sen.-Elect Jim Webb in an exchange about Webb’s son, who is serving in Iraq, it turns out that Bush had been briefed that Webb’s son had recently escaped a fatal attack, and was warned to treat the subject sensitively:

Not only did Bush know about it, he was specifically briefed on the incident before meeting with Webb, and was cautioned to be extra sensitive in speaking with Webb about his son.

Maybe he was drunk.

Here’s a transcript, via Trish’s post on Nov. 29, from the exchange at a White House reception for new members of Congress, on November 29:

BUSH: How’s your boy?

WEBB: I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President.

BUSH: That’s not what I asked you. How’s your boy?

WEBB: That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President.

Rummy’s Parting Shot

Jon Ponder
What remains unclear is whether Rummy was fired because Bush considered the memo to be insubordination, or whether he was let go to appease voters and shift the spotlight off the Democrats’ victory in the midterms.

Someone leaked a memo to the New York Times last week that was written by outgoing Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld just two days before Pres. Bush forced him to resign. In the memo, we learn that Rummy may not have been as stupid about the Iraq Civil War as he appeared to be, or as stubborn as his betters in the West Wing continue to be:

“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”

Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from shifting course, he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.

“Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis,” he wrote. “This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’ ”

“Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist,” he added. The memo suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact, the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House’s sharpest Democratic critics.

We may have to wait for Rumsfeld’s book (and you know there will be one) to find out whether he was fired over the contents of the memo, which Pres. Bush probably viewed as insubordination, or whether, as most people assumed before the memo was leaked, he was thrown overboard to appease voters and to take the spotlight off the Democrats the day after they won control of Congress.