Apart from weeping for America, you take solace from the implication that even some of the people who think Saddam was connected to 9/11 -- and thus presumably that the war was totally justified -- now believe Bush is screwing up.
I had not heard that statistic. Where's it from?
Realize that much of the disapproval of Bush is based on him being a loser, and that a few more JDAMS or even nukes might get him a third term.
3 - If you click the second link, it cites an issue o Newsweek.
Admit that low approval ratings for Bush are contingent do not mean the population is becoming more progressive or even reality-based. Reagan had low approval ratings, and look what good that did us.
4: Joint Direct Attack Munitions?
I wish there was an overlay with likely voters. I suspect--perhaps wrongly--that likely voters are better informed.
I don't know if this is cheerful or the reverse, but I think a big chunk of the people who think Saddam orchestrated 9-11 just aren't interested in the news, and have Saddam and 9-11 both in the "Things that were important five years ago and have something to do with the GWOBadness and the Middle East." It's not a belief, it's an association, and people who have that association but aren't Bush fans aren't using it as the base for further thought about the news -- they're reacting to this month's news without thinking of where it came from.
I think the outstanding 12% or so that connect Saddam to 9/11, but also disprove of Bush, probably disapprove on the basis that he (Bush) is not sufficiently mean to Mexicans. These aren't rocket scientists, here....
I'd be curious to see an updated version of this 2003 poll, which indicated that:
the frequency of these misperceptions [i.e. those studied in this poll] varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
11: OTOH, NPR-listeners still haven't heard the fucking word "filibuster" to describe Senators staying up all night while they debate a bill instead of fucking voting for it.
If I see Steve Inskeep on the street, he's a dead man.
David Rees is funny. At a reading, in addition to saying he would sign copies of his books after the show, he offered to systematically redact, by hand with a black marker, any copies of Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat" that people might have brought.
10 gets it right.
And it is somewhat true that we have failed to set our mighty boot down on Iraq with an organized campaign of terror. We instead have a disorganized campaign of terror as the result of Bush's vestigial idealism (and the neocons' actual deluded idealism) combined with Cheney's deluded evil.
12 WTF is going on, there? Why do you think they're not just calling it a filibuster?
15: The NYTimes only mentions the word once, in the second paragraph of the Hulse and Zeleny write-up. It's otherwise about the Democrats failing.
The talking-point is clearly supposed to stay on that, rather than the unwillingness of the of the Republicans to push back on the administration. You know, when it really counts.
If I see Steve Inskeep on the street, he's a dead man.
I think he deserves a stay of execution, at least for a little while, for being willing to challenge Frances Thompson on her BS about al Qaeda in Iraq. Not that you shouldn't keep the electric chair warmed up, just in case.
he offered to systematically redact, by hand with a black marker, any copies of Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat" that people might have brought
That would be awfully time consuming. Wouldn't spray paint be easier?
19: 'spray paint' s/b 'a recycling bin'
4 is right. Bush's approval rating is so low because of his ineffectiveness, and not because everybody thinks he's substantively wrong. That's what people are getting at when they say the war has been mismanaged. The thought is that he and his advisers had more or less good ideas, which they've only failed to execute, as opposed to their having pursued very effectively a terrible set of policies.
His present ineffectiveness, I should have said.
Meaning that he doesn't have the political clout he used to, and won't have it again.
21: . . . or as opposed to their having poorly implemented a terrible set of policies.
Why "poorly"? By Social Darwinist lights he seems to have done a pretty bang-up job, at least until recently.
24: Ah, you mean political ineffectivness, not ineffectiveness in policy or governance. Yes, I'm sure the lame-duck aspect describes some of his drop in popularity amongst what would otherwise be his base.
When I am king, electronic voting machines will have simple factual quizzes programmed in. Anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 - or, in a future decade, some other demonstrably false yet widespread misconception with immediate relevance for public affairs - will be disqualified from having their vote counted.