Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Just_Observing who wrote (10559)	2/19/2003 6:59:34 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Respond to of 25898

Bravo.....I wish that Clinton was still in office serving his third term. Today I heard he may seek the office of UN Sec. General..............7 countries support him already.

To: Just_Observing who wrote (10559)	2/19/2003 7:08:59 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Bush's ratings are dropping like bombs ( oops ........perhaps he's getting caught up in some bad Karma!) President Bush's Ratings Fall Sharply President's Ratings Now 52% Positive, 46% Negative Colin Powell Now the Only Cabinet Member or Political Leader with Very High Ratings ROCHESTER, N.Y., Feb. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The last two months have taken a heavy toll on the president's popularity, but a modest 52% to 46% majority still gives him positive ratings. Two months ago, almost two-thirds of all U.S. adults (64%) gave the president positive ratings and only just over a third (35%) gave him negative ratings. Other members of President Bush's cabinet, as well as the parties in Congress and Congressional leaders, with one exception, have all seen a huge decline in their popularity since the very high numbers we recorded soon after September 11, 2001. The one exception is Secretary of State Colin Powell. He still enjoys an extraordinarily high degree of popularity, with 76% giving him positive ratings and only 21% giving him negative ratings. These numbers are fractionally better than they were in December 2002, perhaps because of his powerful recent testimony to the United Nations Security Council. While none of the other leaders has seen as big declines since last December as President Bush has, their numbers, nonetheless, are all down very substantially since their peak soon after September 11, 2001. Including results from the latest poll, we see the following declines in popularity since soon after September 11, 2001: * President Bush down from 88% to 52%, a decline of 36 points. * Secretary of State Colin Powell down from 88% to 76%, a decline of 12 points. * Vice President Dick Cheney down from 69% to 45%, a decline of 24 points. * Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld down from 78% to 56%, a decline of 22 points. * Attorney General John Ashcroft down from 65% to 51%, a decline of 14 points. * House Speaker Dennis Hastert down from 52% to 33%, a decline of 19 points. * The Republicans in Congress down from 67% to 43%, a decline of 24 points. * The Democrats in Congress down from 68% to 38%, a decline of 30 points. These are some of the results of The Harris Poll(R), a nationwide telephone survey conducted by Harris Interactive(R) among a sample of 1,010 adults, from February 12 to 16, 2003. The Importance of Issues In December only 18% of all adults spontaneously replied "the war" when asked to think of the most important issues for the government to address. This was far below the economy at 34% but ahead of all the other issues. Now, fully 38% say that "the war" is one of the two most important issues for the government to address, virtually tied with the economy at 37%. Furthermore, the next two issues mentioned most frequently are terrorism (16%) and Iraq/Saddam Hussein (15%). Most other issues which were mentioned by substantial numbers of people have declined in importance: those saying education are down from 11% to 5%, those saying homeland domestic security are down from 9% to 6%, those saying employment/jobs are down from 8% to 5% and those saying health care are down from 10% to 8%. These responses were not picked from any list. They are the unaided responses of those surveyed. RATING DECLINES SINCE 9/11/01 POSITIVE RATINGS Soon December Now Change Change After 2002 (February (December (9/11 9/11 2003) 2002 to to Now) February 2003) President George Bush 88% 64% 52% -12 points -36 points Secretary of State Colin Powell 88% 74% 76% +2 points -12 points Vice President Dick Cheney 69% 50% 45% -5 points -24 points Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld 78% 59% 56% -3 points -22 points Attorney General John Ashcroft 65% 51% 51% 0 points -14 points House Speaker Dennis Hastert 52% 26% 33% +7 points -19 points Republicans in Congress 67% 47% 43% -4 points -24 points Democrats in Congress 68% 36% 38% +2 points -30 points Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist NA 31% 37% +6 points (NA) Note: (NA) = Not Applicable TABLE 1 PRESIDENT BUSH'S OVERALL JOB RATING "How would you rate the job President George W. Bush is doing as president - excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?" Base: All adults Positive* Negative** 2003 February % 52 46 2002 December % 64 35 November % 65 33 October % 64 35 September % 68 30 August % 63 37 July % 62 37 June % 70 28 May % 74 25 April % 75 23 March % 77 22 February % 79 20 January % 79 19 2001 December % 82 17 November % 86 12 October % 88 11 August % 52 43 July % 56 39 June % 50 46 May % 59 35 March % 49 38 February % 56 26 * Positive = excellent or good. ** Negative = only fair or poor. TABLE 2 RATINGS OF DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS - TREND (Not Sure's Excluded) "And how do you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing - excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?" Base: All adults TREND Positive Negative 2003 February % 38 54 2002 December % 36 55 November % 40 52 October % 40 52 September % 42 49 August % 38 54 July % 41 49 June % 45 46 May % 45 45 April % 47 42 March % 48 43 February % 49 41 January % 52 40 2001 October (high) % 68 24 May (low) % 40 51 2000 September (high) % 48 44 June (low) % 38 52 1999 October (low) % 42 50 January (high) % 50 47 1998 September (high) % 49 47 June (low) % 41 53 1997 June (low) % 36 60 February (high) % 43 54 1996 May (high) % 36 62 January (low) % 31 68 1995 November (high) % 34 64 July (low) % 30 66 1994 December % 28 70 TABLE 3 RATINGS OF REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS - TREND (Not Sure's Excluded) "And how do you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing - excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?" Base: All adults TREND Positive Negative 2003 February % 43 49 2002 December % 47 47 November % 47 45 October % 46 45 September % 47 42 August % 41 49 July % 39 52 June % 46 45 May % 48 44 April % 49 39 March % 50 41 February % 50 40 January % 58 34 2001 October (high) % 67 24 August (low) % 37 52 2000 May (low) % 33 60 February (high) % 38 55 1999 October (low) % 32 58 September (high) % 39 55 1998 June (low) % 31 62 February (high) % 44 53 1997 June (low) % 31 67 February (high) % 38 58 1996 May (low) % 29 69 January (high) % 33 66 1995 November (low) % 35 63 April (high) % 42 56 TABLE 4 RATINGS OF DENNIS HASTERT - TREND (Not Sure's Excluded) "And how do you rate the job House Speaker Dennis Hastert is doing - excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?" Base: All adults TREND Positive Negative 2003 February % 33 34 2002 December % 26 33 November % 30 31 October % 30 29 September % 35 29 August % 29 35 July % 28 36 June % 34 31 May % 33 25 April % 32 26 March % 33 25 February % 37 25 January % 40 24 2001 October (high) % 52 16 August (low) % 27 29 2000 August (high) % 29 28 July (low) % 23 31 1999 October (low) % 25 34 April (high) % 36 39 TABLE 5 RATINGS OF VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY (Not Sure's Excluded) "And how do you rate the job Vice President Cheney is doing - excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?" Base: All adults TREND Positive Negative 2003 February % 45 44 2002 December % 50 37 November % 52 39 October % 54 37 September % 52 37 August % 45 43 July % 46 41 June % 55 34 May % 55 33 April % 55 31 March % 59 29 February % 57 31 January % 55 31 2001 October (high) % 69 20 July (low) % 39 52

To: Just_Observing who wrote (10559)	2/19/2003 7:45:02 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

The sanctions worked - no one was attacked. Are you suggesting that the sole restriction placed upon Hussein after the Gulf War was, simply, nonaggression? (If so, are you suggesting such with a straight face?) And I don't remember the 12 years of Clinton. Clinton served two terms - that's eight years. (That's probably why you don't remember twelve of them.) On the other hand, it's been 12 years since the Gulf War ended. Just one source out of how many? If you're looking for certainty, you'll find none in the real world. I'm sorry to have to break it to you like this. There are any number of states which are particularly disposed toward discarding their agreements summarily and/or supporting terrorism, and it is those - plus any that arise in the meantime - that this action will hopefully make an impression upon. Some will only choose conflict, but that has always been the case. How many Muslims are there in the world? At least one billion. Correct, that's the estimate I hear most often. And how many will not hate us after our attack on Iraq? Yawn. Let them hate us while they choke down Big Macs, guzzle Coca-Cola, and chain-smoke Marlboros. Even our CIA and the British MI6 warn that the "war" on Iraq will substantially increase the chances of new attacks. Addressed. Message 18600761 We will have to sharply increase our Security and Military expenses to deal with this threat. Perhaps. Personally, I'd rather that we allocate a smaller military budget more intelligently, but you know those Republicans. Well, bureaucrats as a species. We export at least 1 trillion dollars of goods and services each year. Not only will the 1 billion Muslims boycott our products... LOL. That'll happen. ...all those who oppose this attack are liable to do so. That number is high as 80% in many developed countries such as Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain among others. I'll believe that when I see it. Got any documentation to support that "80%" estimate? So we are liable to lose valuable markets. Not going to happen - not appreciably, at least. Already in 2002, China attracted more investment than America. LOL. An emerging market on the road to capitalism with over one billion consumers versus a maturing economy in the midst of a recession with 280 million consumers. Which would you pick? China and Europe can and will be more than willing to replace our products on the world market. Let them try - even, in some industries, succeed. We need it. Great swaths of the U.S. private sector have been fat and happy with little appreciable competition for some time now - decades, in some sectors. The competition will be good for the quality of our products and services and a forceful streamlining of still-bloated multinational corporations. It'll be airline industry-styled economic tough love. So we have a double whammy - more spending coupled with less trade. A sure way to shoot our comatose economy in its head. I don't see where you theorized that domestic spending would rise, but less trade is one possible - and I believe, doubtful, at least to the extent that it will have an impact - outcome of an invasion of Iraq. Apart from economic and political considerations, there is matter of simple decency. As you see it, you mean. Right? Iraq is a poor starving country with a GDP of $10 billion while we are the greatest superpower in the history of the world with a GDP of $10,000 billion. Thank goodness for that, huh? Our attack will result in 500,000 Iraqi casualties and 1,000,000 Iraqi refugees (UN estimates). Got a link to those U.N. estimates? Not that I think they're realistic, but I guess we'll see pretty soon, right? Common decency dictates that we try to avoid casualties, especially of the innocent. Always. Appropriately, we target military and governmental facilities. If inspections are keeping Saddam in a box, there can be no compelling case for this level of casualties. I'm not convinced that Hussein is "in a box," and if he is, I certainly am not convinced that he'll stay in that box indefinitely. And with respect to the "level of casualties," like I said: we'll see. Dubya's decision to use unilateral force will be one of the most shameful decisions in human history - and also one of the costliest. Wow. Not only "one of the most shameful" but "one of the costliest...decision[s]" in "human history." I hope you're still around to tapdance out of these laughable superlatives when it's all over. Only an idiot can support the use of unilateral force - and an immoral idiot at that. In your opinion, you mean. :-) LPS5