Strange how some people accept some things as truth based strictly on faith and are never skeptical, and assume other things are automatically false.

As for me, my skepticism always goes both ways.

As far as polls in general go, sure they can be biased based on the polling organization, the people polled, the wording of the questions, and a host of other factors.

But to deny that Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low right now seems kind of silly.

I bet that his own biased polls show the same thing. It's just a question of what the numbers are.

Here's a story from United Press International:

New polls have Bush at under 40 percent

Washington

March 03, 2006 12:01:13 AM IST

Polls released Thursday by CNN and Fox News put President George W. Bush's job approval rating at under 40 percent.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed 38 percent of U.S. adults approved of the president's performance in office -- just one point above his record low in the poll, 37 percent last November. CNN said respondents expressed concerns about Bush's ability to manage the government and pessimism over the war in Iraq.

The Fox News poll showed Bush with a 39 percent approval rating.

Fox said most of those surveyed opposed allowing a Dubai company to operate U.S. ports, and the Republican Party has lost ground to Democrats on the issue of terrorism. The GOP had a 13 percent advantage over Democrats on the issue at the beginning of the year, but that margin shrunk to 5 percent in the new poll.

By a margin of 14 percent, respondents to the Fox poll said it would be better for the country if Democrats win control of Congress in this year's election.

Both polls were conducted Tuesday and Wednesday.

(UPI)

--------------------------------------

I don't think anyone can accuse Fox News of being biased against President Bush, or being part of the "Liberal-controlled media".

What if Bush's approval rating was at an all time high, it would be rigged too, correct?

I agree that you can't always depend on polls, but if the right questions are asked, in the right way, to a wide range of people, that the "can" be fairly accurate.

I am also sure that all politicians DO pay attention to polls even if they claim they don't. Even though it may not be 100 per cent accurate, it is one way to monitor what the public feels. To depend totally on them isn't smart but on the other hand, for a politician to totally disregard all of them might not be too bright either.

TIS

Last time I checked, he's still in office until 2008.

I wouldn't be 100% sure of that.

Altho I thnk it's unlikely to happen, there have been some faint rumblings calling for impeachment.

And should the other shoe drop with respect to Iraq, the "Ports Deal", the wiretapping, or a host of other issues, those rumblings could easily become a roar.

If there's one thing we know about politicians of both parties, it's that they're like rats who desert the ship once it starts to sink.

And as Bush's approval ratings continue to drop and the mood of the American people hardens against him, you never know.

All it will take is one bombshell, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there's a bomb ticking away somewhere getting ready to explode in Bush's face.

PLaw, thanks for treading where no one else on the BB dares to go. :p

I agree with the potential bombshells and there are many possible. However, one thing I will say for this administration (excluding Bush), they are very smart and very shrewd at keeping things secret. I'm guessing one of the most secretive administrations we've had. So, with that in mind, and with the media on the right side of the political arena, (although I sense a change is possible there), it may very well be that we won't know the facts until long after GWB has left office. I guess it's better to know the truth later than not at all.

TIS

The problem is that the issues you've mentioned - Iraq, the Ports Deal, wiretapping, etc...are not "impeachable" offenses. After all - Congress approved Iraq. The Dubai deal was approved by a government committee. The Echelon wiretapping has been going on since Harry Truman initiated it, so that isn't anything new, either.

To be impeached, a President must be convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors." All of the actions you've mentioned, while controversial, are by definition not enough to get him kicked out.

Besides - even if you do impeach him, that means Cheney is in the Oval Office. For liberals, that would probably be as unacceptable as having Jesse Helms in there. :p

I'm not saying that Bush has committed any impeachable offenses of which we have been made aware.

I said "a bomb ticking away somewhere getting ready to explode."

Meaning something that we do not yet know about - possibly related to one of these issues, or possibly something new - that does constitute an impeachable offense.

For example - just suggesting possibilites here, not implying that any of these are the case -

If we should learn that the "intelligence" reports that were supplied to Congress by the Bush administration were known by him to be false, and that we were intentionally lied to about our mission in Iraq.

Or, if it should turn out that there is some kind of under the table deal in which money is being exchanged (read: bribes) to help the "Ports Deal" along.

Or, some kind of transcript or recording emerges of a meeting that Bush or some high ranking administration members had about the Katrina situation which indicates that there was an intentional delay or laxity on the part of the feds in responding.

Or, if it turns out that we had OBL cornered at some point, and bribes were paid somewhere along the line to members of the adminsitration by members of the bin Laden family to let Osama "escape".

Again, just for emphasis, I'm not suggesting that any of these scenarios are actually the case.....

As far as Cheney goes, I hear some talk that he may resign before his term is up, giving Bush the chance to hand-pick his potential successor.

Or, he may find himself forced to resign or be impeached himself.

I can think of a few ticking time bombs which might involve him as well.

Such as....

It turns out he was drunk when he shot his friend, hence the reason for the delay in reporting the accident.

Or, there's some kind of under the table dealings and bribery going in regarding Cheney, Haliburton, rebuilding Iraq, etc.

Again, just suggesting possibilities, not saying that they are the case....

It is all speculation. Could it happen? Sure. But it is the same as saying he could die in office, or he could complete his term with a record high approval rating. There is a possibility for each of them. But it is all speculation.

Well, of course it's all speculation.

I think I made that perfectly clear.

All I said was that I wouldn't be 100% sure that Bush was going to complete his term.

But I never would have suggested that there was any possibility at all of his father being impeached, or Reagan being impeached, or Carter, or Ford, or Lyndon Johnson, though.

While we are speculating, consider this:

There are several people (Joe Wilson comes to mind) who warned the administration that there wasn't evidence of Sadam possessing WMDs and that was "before" Bush made is case for war. That, if true, would be the "biggie" IMO.

And with all the bribery and shady dealings throughout this administration (Delay,Abramoff, Cunningham, to mention only a few), who's to say it doesn't go higher???

As far as Cheney goes, and I know most don't follow this, so I'll make it brief, it is suspected that he is the other "un-named" leaker in the Plame investigation. A couple weeks ago the administration after two years,turned over more than 150 e-mails to Patrick Fitzgerald that they originally had claimed were "lost" through whatever process. However, I read that Fitzgerald had conviscated Cheney's computer in the beginning, so it's possible other info was revealed.

Not only that, both Cheney & Bush did testify directly to Fitzgerald, but neither of them under oath. It's suspected that Cheney will be called to testify again, this time under oath. If he has something to hide,or if he was involved in any of this, he'll step down.

Sure, we are speculating on "what ifs", but there are so many secrets and shady dealing charges here that you have to ask questions.

All that being said, unless there is a major breakthrough of some kind, or unless there is more outrage by the public to pursue some of these issues, I think it won't be until after Bush is out of office before we know the full truth.

TIS

I simply think that there is more speculation and "hope" involved in these discussion than any likelihood of possibility anything of the sort will happen. You make good points regarding actions by President Bush people would consider grouds for not caring for him, but not for impeachment. All I'm saying is that there more "hope" than likelihood. I really don't think that he will be impeached. It has happened so few times (four) in our history that the odds are greatly against it, and even then, only two were successfully impeached (one resigned and the other was acquitted). Also, considering Republicans control Congress, it makes it even more unlikely, even if his popularity is at all-time lows.

Kindly don't assume that I personally "hope" that he is impeached.

I'd prefer to remember him as an honest, if incompetent, president, rather than as a criminal.

All an impeachment will do is divide the country even further.

I prefer to cross my fingers and live with his incompetence.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats should have the right to point their finger with the Bin Laden deal. Clinton neglected to take care of it. Bush didn't listen when briefed about Bin Laden at the beginning of his term. Like in many issues, both sides are equally stupid with this issue.