May 25, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TOO MUCH SUPERSTITION IN THE U. S.
Years after the Scopes Monkey Trial a new Gallup poll shows that one in three Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God. The interesting paradox is that so many Bible believers really can't tell you much about the Bible. People are hard pressed to name the four Gospels, for instance, or the Ten Commandments. If you just take a little time to read the Bible and the history of the Bible it becomes pretty apparent it can't be the literal word of any God. But we have some people who would like to impose a Taliban-like society based on their interpretation of the Bible. This article is from www.editorandpublisher.com:
NEW YORK About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word, a new Gallup poll reveals. This percentage is only slightly lower than several decades ago.
Gallup reports that the majority of those "who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally." Finally, about one in five Americans believe the Bible is merely an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."
There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, Gallup explains, with such belief becoming much less prevalent as schooling continues.
Those who believe in the literal Bible amount to 31% of adult Americans. This is a decline of about 7% compared with Gallup polls taken in the 1970s and 1980s. It is strongest in the South.
CIA WARNED BUSH
Among the plethora of excuses the Bush administration has offered, there is the one about "bad intelligence" on Iraq. Supposedly, the administration believed in weapons of mass destruction based on CIA intelligence. They believed there would be a short and happy war and smooth transition into democracy. But the CIA warned the administration in the leadup to the war that toppling Saddam Hussein could lead to dangerous instability and create a haven for terrorists. This article by Lisa Myers and Robert Windrem is at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/:
In a move sure to raise even more questions about the decision to go to war with Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will on Friday release selected portions of pre-war intelligence in which the CIA warned the administration of the risk and consequences of a conflict in the Middle East.
Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.
In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.”
Showing posts with label poll. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poll. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2007
March 19, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LIFE MUCH WORSE FOR IRAQIS
I remember a memo circulated by right-wingers that claimed things were just going great in Iraq since the U. S. invasion. They were getting new hospitals; they had electricity; the girls were getting educated. It was just propaganda, of course. A new poll shows the vast majority of Iraqis feel their lives are worse and they are very pessimistic about the future. This article by Susan Page and Omar Salih is at www.usatoday.com:
Jobs gone and schools closed. Marriages delayed and children mourned. Markets bombed and clean water in short supply. Speaking freely now a dangerous act.
And hope lost.
Four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Iraqis describe daily lives that have been torn apart by spiraling violence and a faltering economy. The bursts of optimism reported in a 2004 public-opinion survey taken a year after the invasion and another in 2005 before landmark legislative elections have nearly vanished.
Face-to-face interviews with 2,212 Iraqis — a survey sponsored jointly by USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a German TV network — find a nation that in large measure has fragmented into fear. Six in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going badly. Only one-third expect things to improve in the next year.
LIKE OIL AND WATER
Conservatives can't govern. That's been fairly well established. Eisenhower was the closest to a decent Republican president, although there were problems with his presidency too. Then we got louts like Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and now Bush II. All their administrations have been characterized by scandals. These are real scandals, not the phony Monica Lewinsky dustup. As this article notes, it boils down to ideology. How can a philosophy that consistently denigrates government make government work? The article by Robert L. Borosage is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
What is it about conservative administrations that lead them into disgrace and indictment? Incompetence isn't at the core of these scandals--ideology is.
Conservative presidents--from Nixon to Reagan to Bush--believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law. So Reagan spurned the Congress when it cut off funds for his loony covert war on tiny Nicaragua. And Bush trampled the laws to set up the torture camps in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere.
Each would seek to keep their lawlessness secret; and that would foster lies, obstruction of justice and ultimately disgrace.
Second, conservatives are acutely aware that they represent a minority, not a majority, position in America. From Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they play politics and exploit America's divisions with back-alley brass knuckles--from Reagan's welfare queen to Bush's impugning the patriotism of Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who literally sacrificed his limbs in the service of his country. They excel in the politics of personal destruction, as Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry discovered. And in the grand tradition of the establishment in American politics, they are relentless is seeking to suppress the vote, particularly of the poor and minorities who would vote against them in large numbers.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LIFE MUCH WORSE FOR IRAQIS
I remember a memo circulated by right-wingers that claimed things were just going great in Iraq since the U. S. invasion. They were getting new hospitals; they had electricity; the girls were getting educated. It was just propaganda, of course. A new poll shows the vast majority of Iraqis feel their lives are worse and they are very pessimistic about the future. This article by Susan Page and Omar Salih is at www.usatoday.com:
Jobs gone and schools closed. Marriages delayed and children mourned. Markets bombed and clean water in short supply. Speaking freely now a dangerous act.
And hope lost.
Four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Iraqis describe daily lives that have been torn apart by spiraling violence and a faltering economy. The bursts of optimism reported in a 2004 public-opinion survey taken a year after the invasion and another in 2005 before landmark legislative elections have nearly vanished.
Face-to-face interviews with 2,212 Iraqis — a survey sponsored jointly by USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a German TV network — find a nation that in large measure has fragmented into fear. Six in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going badly. Only one-third expect things to improve in the next year.
LIKE OIL AND WATER
Conservatives can't govern. That's been fairly well established. Eisenhower was the closest to a decent Republican president, although there were problems with his presidency too. Then we got louts like Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and now Bush II. All their administrations have been characterized by scandals. These are real scandals, not the phony Monica Lewinsky dustup. As this article notes, it boils down to ideology. How can a philosophy that consistently denigrates government make government work? The article by Robert L. Borosage is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
What is it about conservative administrations that lead them into disgrace and indictment? Incompetence isn't at the core of these scandals--ideology is.
Conservative presidents--from Nixon to Reagan to Bush--believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law. So Reagan spurned the Congress when it cut off funds for his loony covert war on tiny Nicaragua. And Bush trampled the laws to set up the torture camps in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere.
Each would seek to keep their lawlessness secret; and that would foster lies, obstruction of justice and ultimately disgrace.
Second, conservatives are acutely aware that they represent a minority, not a majority, position in America. From Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they play politics and exploit America's divisions with back-alley brass knuckles--from Reagan's welfare queen to Bush's impugning the patriotism of Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who literally sacrificed his limbs in the service of his country. They excel in the politics of personal destruction, as Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry discovered. And in the grand tradition of the establishment in American politics, they are relentless is seeking to suppress the vote, particularly of the poor and minorities who would vote against them in large numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)