News said Nat'l Sec for Bush is his No 1 asset - How can this be?!?!?

[HardWorkingDem]

Seriously folks, someone please explain this?

If it takes trying to think like a Republican (God forbid!), someone explain how this can be? When I ask Rethuglican co-workers to tell me just one thing well that the Bushies have done in Iraq or terrorism, they stammer and then pull the GOP talking points out of their ass (i.e., we got rid of a brutal dictator, he really did HAVE Wmds, et cetera).

But how on earth can this man poll positive about Nat'l Security issues? WTF is going on? (Though I did just see a Wash/Post poll that found 51 percent of the country wants to follow the Dems while 35 the Bushies - that is promising I guess.)

[fishnfla]

1. because he is failing on every other issue

one trick pony

[Arkansas Granny]

3. The only reason National Security is his # 1 issue is because

all of his other issues have failed miserably. How far did he get with Social Security and tax reform. We know that No Child Left Behind has been a fiasco. Not that I think he's done such a good job on National Security, but when all your other "great issues" are in the toilet, what do you do?

[TahitiNut]

5. If they feel so secure, why are they so scared?

Why is "terror, terror, terror" their big mantra? Why are they arguing for closed borders, more surveillance, more intrusive P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act provisons, and broader pResidential powers across the board? Furthermore, if the Bush Regime is so good, why do they need more power and money than any prior administration in history?

They're not merely paranoid; they're schizophrenic. :shrug:

[jseankil]

11. No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 there's your answer.

I don't agree with it either.

[Clark2008]

13. But there has been - the unsolved Anthrax attacks.

Conveniently, Republicans seem to have forgotten this one.

[unblock]

14. i guess the anthrax attacks were airborne, not on SOIL...

[linazelle]

2. So were the planes on 9/11--airborne that is...therefore Anthrax applies.

[unblock]

9. without getting too gruesome,

the planes did reach u.s. soil, whereas the anthrax didn't necessarily.

ok, i think i've had about enough of this line of thinking....

[quiet.american]

16. They do pull that out of the hat -- then get a blank look when I ask --

-- so why did he drop the ball on 9/11?

After the glaze passes, comes the inevitable -- "that was Clinton's fault." :crazy:

[Bridget Burke]

18. So they give him a pass for 9/11?

How intelligent....

[jseankil]

21. Multiple failures are to blame for 9/11

I don' think it's fair nor correct to just blame the Bush regime. The 9/11 plan was in the works well before Bush was in office.

People do remember his response and it was well received (high 80's/90's approval at the time)I would guess that still resinates since it was such an impacting time in American lives. Again I don't agree with the masses.

Please don't lable me a repub, while do I have a different view than you on this matter thatthat doesn't mean I'm a Bush boy.

[HardWorkingDem]

4. You are so right......and something overlooked in Dem politics...

I agree with you about the part dealing with the timing of Bush's initial reaction to 9/11 and it's impact on the psyche of the American people. His reaction was so effective that it struck some sort of deep connection with the American people and the left has yet to understand it and draft an effective response to it.

It was such a visceral connection that I don't know if we can effectively overcome it. (Guess I'd better get ready for some piling on here, but those that offer rebuttals must remember that we must stop singing to the choir and quit existing in our own echo chamber and reach the persuadable voters out there.)

[quiet.american]

23. As a New Yorker, I never thought Bush was effective at all.

I don't know what the rest of the world saw, but I saw a guy paralyzed with cluelessness sitting in a classroom full of kids with no idea what to do next.

Not effective.

[Bridget Burke]

20. I don't "just" blame the Bush regime.

But Bush neglected some very real warnings. And 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to him & his cronies.

The fact that he was in charge when 9/11 happened is not a reason to admire his "security" policies.

www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.aspx?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=40520

[quiet.american]

22. The Bush administration is to blame, and should be impeached.

And it's not just me saying it, but the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of 9/11 says it (former Sen. Bob Graham).

In fact, he wrote a book about it, Intelligence Matters. In black-and-white terms which even Bush could understand, he outlines the twelve different ways (at least) in which the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration failed to prevent 9/11.

Bush loves to remind us that he's the Commander-in-Chief. Except when it comes to taking responsibility for anything. He still refuses to testify under oath as to what he knew and when he knew it regarding "the events of September the 11th."

His entire administration dropped the ball. They are to blame.

[quiet.american]

12. May I join you in your "WTF" ?

Can't explain it either. Except the propaganda works I guess a la F-A-U-X "News."

[johnnyrocket]

15. Because the corporate media is owned by the Republicans

...I actually heard a news cast talking about Bush's spying on Americans, they called it "The Administration's terrorist surveillance program." Without a caveat!!!

We are swimming upstream against the powers that control everything.

[HardWorkingDem]

17. Do you remember a few months ago......

that someone reported their mail had been opened by the US Post Office and read in regards to National Security?

What we need is for some Dem senator to have his or her mail read or phone calls listened to and then come out and rage about it.

But I just don't get this issue. For the last two years all it takes is to turn on the news and one can see things aren't going well, but this clown STILL get's good poll numbers on what should be his weakest polling issue.

Baffling.

[louis-t]

10. Better yet, some Repug senator

should have his mail read. The only way they'll learn. If it happens to a Dem and he/she hollers, it's "Dems support the terrorists" again.

[LiberalEsto]

19. I think they really mean National Insecurity

I sure as heck don't feel as secure as I did in the Clinton years.

[TahitiNut]

6. How can I reply to a post made on Mon Jan-30-06 at 01:12 PM ...

... on Mon Jan-30-06 at 12:18 PM??? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[LiberalEsto]

7. Are you in a different time zone?

Or is your computer set to a different time zone?
Or is the time setting of your computer incorrect?
Or are your DU settings incorrect?

Check these just in case.

[TahitiNut]

8. Check the timestamps for yourself, in YOUR timezone.

:shrug: DU stamps the date and time, not me. They merely get adjusted on display to the DUer's local context.

To make it clearer, how can one reply to Post #17 with Post #6 in any thread? :dunce: