LAT: After Flagging Support, a Second Wind for Bush

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-assess10jul10,0,6166558,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The bombs exploded in London, but the repercussions are still rippling across Washington.

A surge in public concern about terrorism means a probable boost in support for President Bush and the war in Iraq.

Renewed fear of terrorist sleeper cells will probably spur increased support for tough law enforcement measures such as the Patriot Act, which is up for renewal. And there's new enthusiasm in Congress for increased spending on domestic security, especially mass transit — an area in which legislators were cutting budgets three weeks ago.

There's no telling how long the wave of concern will last. If the London attack gives way to months of calm, the increased fear — and any gain in popularity for Bush — may well be short-lived. But for the moment, Washington is back in 9/11 mode.

"The bombings will give both Bush and Blair a boost," said Christopher Gelpi, a political scientist at Duke University who studies public opinion in times of war. "I think the attacks may help slow the ebbing of support over Iraq, because the bombings make point about linking Iraq and terrorism."

[alittlelark]

1. The LAT is a Moonie CROCK.

They are propaganda central, and almost always WRONG.

[Born Free]

24. funny how these things happen

just as the bush coward is sinking in the polls and looking pretty bad, suddenly there is a "terror" attack and he gets credit for saving the world

[Warren Stupidity]

2. I read the article looking for the poll numbers

No poll. No numbers. No news. Bullshit. Moonie bullshit.

[mom cat]

16. Not even a phoney poll...if there was a poll showing a boost for Bush, we

would have seen it by now, I guess Linbaugh was right,,, The bombings were not effective...not even for Bush.

[Cha]

3. Bullshit, latimes! You wish it would

boost up his flagging support.

This is one of the reasons we didn't want bush to illegally bomb Iraq because it would open a big ol' can of Middle East Whoopass!

Yeah, and the world isn't a safer place because saddam is gone.

The world would only be safer if bush were out..but that wouldn't help the corporate media..now would it?

Edit~ Snip~

"sabra (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-10-05 05:28 PM
Original message
Time (Magazine -Cover Story): Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe ...
Edited on Sun Jul-10-05 05:29 PM by sabra

<<SNIP>>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,108139...

From the Magazine | Cover Story

Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe ...
By DANIEL BENJAMIN


Posted Sunday, Jul. 10, 2005

Sir Ivor Roberts, Britain's Ambassador to Italy, declared last September that the "best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda" was none other than the U.S. President, George W. Bush. With the American election entering its final furlongs, he added, "If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it is al-Qaeda." The remarks, made at an off-the-record conference, were leaked in the Italian press, and Sir Ivor, facing the displeasure of his Foreign Office masters for committing the sin of candor, disowned the comments. But now, as the soot settles in the London Underground, the words hang again in the air.

It is, of course, bad manners to point the finger at anyone but those responsible for the killings in London. They shed the blood; they must answer for it. But as the trail of bodies that began with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 continues to lengthen, we need to ask why the attacks keep coming. One key reason is that Osama bin Laden's "achievements" in standing up to the American colossus on 9/11 have inspired others to follow his lead. Another is that American actions--above all, the invasion and occupation of Iraq--have galvanized still more Muslims and convinced them of the truth of bin Laden's vision.

The conflict between radical Islam and the West, like all ideological struggles, is about competing stories. The audience is the global community of Muslims. America portrays itself as a benign and tolerant force that, with its Western partners, holds the keys to progress and prosperity. Radical Islamists declare that the universe is governed by a war between believers and World Infidelity, which comes as an intruder into the realm of Islam wearing various masks: secularism, Zionism, capitalism, globalization. World Infidelity, they argue, is determined to occupy Muslim lands, usurp Muslims' wealth and destroy Islam.

Invading Iraq, however noble the U.S. believed its intentions, provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own. The evidence is available in the elaborate underground railroad that has brought hundreds of European Muslims to the fight in Iraq. And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory. Coalition forces in Iraq face daily attacks from jihadists not because Saddam Hussein had trained a cadre of terrorists--we know there was no pre-existing relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda--but because the U.S. invasion brought the targets into the proximity of the killers."


More at..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4065084

[aquart]

4. This is spec, right? NOT a poll report?

I would expect a rise for Blair, who actually went to the scene on the day it happened.

Bush, not so much.

[Cha]

9. The way see it ..

is the English are too smart to let this influence their support of tony whom they know lied to get them into the Iraqi Quagmire.

[acmavm]

5. AAAUUUUGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!! This thing again.

.

[FlemingsGhost]

6. Motive is there. (n/t)

Flem.

[JoMama49]

7. Are the people still really that stupid? When r they ever gonna

wise up?

[Journeyman]

8. This is "News Analysis" (and bad analysis at that), not "LBN". . .

This article is rife with unsubstantiated speculation. . . take it for whatever credence you care to give it. Me? I find no value to it beyond a vapid attempt to sustain Shrub's faltering support.

[jimshoes]

10. I think more people distrust

the chimp now more thn ever. Nothing he says has any substance to it. All fluff, like cotton candy. Except the lies of course, those get people killed.

[lovuian]

11. Thats the Hope but Not Reality!!! Bush & Blair can't get away

from Iraq War being a Lie!!! Trust has been broken and nobody will trust them again!!!

[truthisfreedom]

12. uhh... scuse me, please? Christopher... yes, they may show a link between

Iraq and terrorism... but it's a link BUSH AND BLAIR CREATED WITH THEIR ILLEGAL INVASION THAT NEVER EXISTED BEFORE. sheesh.

[Oversea Visitor]

13. Hahaha

What a spin.

[Triana]

14. The 'Patriot' Act...

...I went to a talk from a US Attorney last week about this - thing.

His name: Jim Letton

Oh how these critters sidewind and dance around the language in this piece of shit. I was appalled. FIRST OF ALL, he BLAMED CLINTON for it, multiple times, insisting that it was written during the Clinton Admin. Maybe so but it was >>>NOT PASSED<<< until bu$hit squatted and after 9-11.

Let's go over my notes here:

He insisted that roving wiretaps were consistent with 4th amendment rights - because the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and even ninth circuit courts said so.

Section 213 (sneak and peak, delayed notification searches):

First of all this neocon used the term "very narrow circumstances" at least TEN times during this brief talk. That alone made me suspicions because methough he doth protestech too much. He said that requests for such a search must be approved by a circuit court judge and >>>that they are RARELY DENIED or successfully challenged.<<< Typical notification times after you're snooped on is 7 days, longest being 90 days - the judge decides based on the case. He claims 'delayed notification searches' always existed and that this is nothing new. He says whereas they only had to get it approved within the gov't to do them, now a judge has to approve it. (awww).

Don't that make you feel better? Not me!

Section 215: Records snooping. He said that "nowhere in the Patrot Act are library cards mentioned!!" because detractors were whining about their library records being searched.

SO? What? Nowhere in the Patriot Act is it mentioned that medical, school, church, and internet - or whaterver records they please - can be obtained either. OF COURSE LIBRARY CARDS AREN'T MENTIONED! DOH! >>>He also said that they DON'T NEED PROBABLE CAUSE to request these records.<<<

Feel better yet? Not me.

Section 218: ALSO under FISA, the case can now (whereas it couldn't before) be treated as a criminal investigation to obtain the records. Investigations under FISA had to be completely foreign involvement. Now, foreign involvement only has to be a "significant part" of the case. So the requirements for launching a FISA investigation are now loosened significantly

FEEL SAFER NOW?

I don't....

ALSO, Letton said that FISA investigations can now be done on US PERSONS - ??! Yea. OK. That's just great, innit?

Section 212: He insisted that this only ALLOWS ISPs to provide info to authorities in the case of a life or death situation. (but, see Section 215...)

[Triana]

28. James Letten (to correct the spelling)

his website:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/lae/usatty/main.htm

[kansasblue]

15. Sunday Bush 50%

Sunday July 10, 2005--Fifty percent (50%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

[johnaries]

19. That's Rasmussen - when others had him at 42% they had almost

50%. They're a Republican pollster. Subtract about 5-8 points from their results.

[high density]

17. uuuuhhh??

So who authorized this idiot, Doyle McManus, to write this super lame article which seems to serve no other purpose other than to try to guess the results of the next round of telephone polling? Dumb. I can understand the post 9/11 support for Bush back in 2001 and 2002, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around how another terrorist attack in the world would improve people's views of this incompetent president.

[leesa]

18. Don't even go there, LAT, we aren't buying your slop.

[icymist]

20. When did speculation become 'news'?

Meanwhile other papers reported that the new wave of bombings in London are beginning to make the general population Think President Bush isn't protecting them and that the Patriot Act won't work in a free democracy. That's how you make speculation work both ways!

[Neecy]

21. huh....

Here we were lectured about not politicizing the London attacks, but we see from this article that the right feels no such self-limitation.

If we allow them to set the tone - as this article (lamely) attempts to do, they'll win every time.

[DBoon]

22. A second wind?

If so, it smells just as bad as Bush's first wind.

[DanCa]

23. In the mean time where is OBL?

Thats the question we should be asking every time a terror attack happens. I dont believe these numbers. I also believe that if OBL were a runaway bride our crack homeland security agents would have that butcher found in no time.

[roguevalley]

25. It doesn't mean that. I just means he can't stop what he started.

[unlawflcombatnt]

26. We should make sure Bush DOESN'T get a boost for this.

After all, he's the one in charge right now, and he didn't prevent this attack, yet he has managed to get another 1,700 Americans killed in Iraq for no reason at all.

The biggest "terrorist" in the world right now is George Bush, not Osama bin Laden. Which one of them has gotten the most people killed?

[VOX]

27. "Second wind" smells like more right-wing hydrogen sulfide to me.

And with that, I'm moving upwind from the LAT. :grr: