Now that Bush's numbers are plummeting, how long until we find Bin Laden?

I get the feeling this will be one of those things where:

"we know exactly where he is, let's go get him"
(24 hours later after capture attempt)
"We have no idea where he is"
 
I predict right before the mid-term elections.

Amusing topic.

This would be a good CAG vbookie topic.

CTL
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Bush has said he's not concerned about bin Laden.

Porter Goss' comments seem kind of dumb to me. If you know where he is, go get him. If that's not possible now, why tip him off? Or is this all smoke and mirrors to flush him out?[/QUOTE]

I'm fine with invading Pakistan - promise not to complain about unilateral and illegal wars and I will see what I can do.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I'm fine with invading Pakistan - promise not to complain about unilateral and illegal wars and I will see what I can do.

CTL[/QUOTE]

most people probably do not want to invade a country that actually has WMD's.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']most people probably do not want to invade a country that actually has WMD's.[/QUOTE]

Or that could actually fight back (even without the wmd), or that would make everyone think we really are crazy and out to get the whole middle east.

Though this could be because we really have no clue where bin laden is, and this is an attempt to scare him into moving (since his current hiding place is too good) and hopefully catch him in the process or at least so he'll move into a less secure area.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']most people probably do not want to invade a country that actually has WMD's.[/QUOTE]

Well according to everyone's favorite Downing Street memo - so did Iraq.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Well according to everyone's favorite Downing Street memo - so did Iraq.[/QUOTE]

I'll believe it when I see it. Unlike a lot of things I think could be/ are true, I have little faith in its legitimacy as something that can bring down the president
 
[quote name='evilmax17']6 in 10 Americans oppose war

CIA chief has excellent idea of where Bin Laden is

Seems that whenever Bush is down in the polls, we have some new revelation to bring people back to the flock. So, as his numbers continue to decline, how long until he busts out the Bin Laden bombshell?[/QUOTE]

If they have such good info about Bin Laden then why the fuck don't they just get him and end this BS Bush has had with the War on Terror. But you know what this reminds me of is back during the 80's when we had the War on Drugs and how it is still rages on today. This will probably happen with the War on Terror, too.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']6 in 10 Americans oppose war

CIA chief has excellent idea of where Bin Laden is

Seems that whenever Bush is down in the polls, we have some new revelation to bring people back to the flock. So, as his numbers continue to decline, how long until he busts out the Bin Laden bombshell?[/QUOTE]

I thought it was we had him on ice and were going to bring him out a week before the election.

You kooks need to keep your stories straight.
 
CNN's worthless poll yesterday was "If U.S. intelligence officials have an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is, should they go get him?"

A better question would've been "If U.S. intelligence officials have an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is, why haven't we captured him?"
 
As long as we're bashing the media, I'm watching Fox & Friends this morning and after the top story that Saddam likes Doritos, then the missing girl in Aruba (News Break: She's still missing!) they do a piece on Howard Dean and how he was fighting back in a speech against Dick Cheney. E.D. Hill had the nerve to complain that whenever Dean does this he makes the story about him and then he becomes the story instead of whatever he was trying to say. :whistle2:s You just spent two segments telling us nothing important and then instead of reporting on the substance of what Dean said, you air the soundbyte of his rebuttal to Cheney. Don't criticize a lack of substantive news when you refuse to report it.
 
With Fox News' ratings plummeting since the election, and the fact that they're a "Republican Propaganda Outlet", they need someone to attempt to establish a shred of credibility over there.

That's a reason why I'm glad I don't have cable. Although I do miss out on Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann....
 
There's been a dearth of decent new coverage this whole year. Everything was Scott Peterson trial, Michael Jackson trail, Runaway Bride, Missing Aruba Teen, etc.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']With Fox News' ratings plummeting since the election, and the fact that they're a "Republican Propaganda Outlet", they need someone to attempt to establish a shred of credibility over there.

That's a reason why I'm glad I don't have cable. Although I do miss out on Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann....[/QUOTE]

What ratings are you looking at? They beat CNN on the Breaking News for the Jackson trial by 1.5 million viewers, that's nearly full two Nielsen ratings points on the total U.S. ratings and 3 Nielsen points higher in the cable ratings. O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes are beating CNN, MSNBC and CNBC shares even if you combined them and doubled the share.

Are you this wrong with the rest of your facts?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What ratings are you looking at? They beat CNN on the Breaking News for the Jackson trial by 1.5 million viewers, that's nearly full two Nielsen ratings points on the total U.S. ratings and 3 Nielsen points higher in the cable ratings. O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes are beating CNN, MSNBC and CNBC shares even if you combined them and doubled the share.

Are you this wrong with the rest of your facts?[/QUOTE]

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/fncs_2554_prime_downward_spiral_20939.asp
 
Still doesn't answer my question. They're still beating the other three cable news outlets combined. If everyone is losing viewers compared to last fall but Fox is still beating everyone combined and even crushing them on breaking news where is the crisis?

All news outlets cycle like this. This isn't news. I know you WANT it to be news but it isn't news.

CNN used to lose to Fox on normal programming then bury them on breaking news, that's no longer the case. That's actually a bigger concern at CNN than full day or prime time ratings. BTW, your numbers give no baseline of numbers or even what their sample is. They just say A25-54. Well, I can spin A25-54 numbers more ways than you can count.

Are they taking combined ratings from EDT, CDT, MDT and PDT? Are they measuring just EDT and adding the other time zones into that number even though the times could vary from 7, 6, 5? Are they adding numbers cumulatively? Meaning are they measuring the PDT and MDT numbers as local time zone prime time?

There's so many ways anti-Fox sites could spin this. Again, the top 3 prime cable shows are all Fox. Fox is beating everyone on breaking news. Hell, for the State of the Union they even topped the lowest broadcast network.

If that's weakness, give it to me to sell any day of the week. I'll do fine as an Account Executive peddling those numbers.

Here's the front page of the website you quoted.....

Monday, Jun 20
Friday Ratings: P2+ & 25-54 Demo
"Bug spray or not, once again FNC somehow managed to double the other three nets COMBINED in primetime Friday," an e-mailer says. Another e-mailer put it this way: "1 FNC = 8.5 MSNBC's." Here are all the numbers:

Total viewers:

Total day: FNC: 932,000 / CNN: 371,000 / MSNBC: 171,000 / HLN: 238,000 / CNBC: 108,000

Primetime: FNC: 1,821,000 / CNN: 562,000 / MSNBC: 172,000 / HLN: 430,000 / CNBC: 77,000

25-54 demographic:

Total day: FNC: 307,000 / CNN: 104,000 / MSNBC: 57,000 / HLN: 107,000 / CNBC: 35,000

Primetime: FNC: 548,000 / CNN: 188,000 / MSNBC: 71,000 / HLN: 146,000 / CNBC: 42,000

The hourlies:

6pm: Hume: 1,292,000 / Dobbs: 472,000 / Abrams: 239,000 / Mad Money: 193,000

7pm: Shep: 1,239,000 / Cooper (sub host): 407,000 / Hardball: 181,000 / Showbiz: 187,000 / Conan: 88,000

8pm: O'Reilly: 2,000,000 / Zahn: 393,000 / Countdown (sub host): 134,000 / Grace: 551,000 / Contender: 102,000

9pm: H&C: 1,793,000 / King: 830,000 / Situation: 172,000 / Prime News: 287,000 / Mad Money repeat: 83,000

10pm: Greta: 1,670,000 / NewsNight: 463,000 / Scarborough (sub host): 210,000 / Grace repeat: 452,000 / Deutsch repeat: 45,000

I fail to see the weakness you claim.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Still doesn't answer my question. They're still beating the other three cable news outlets combined. If everyone is losing viewers compared to last fall but Fox is still beating everyone combined and even crushing them on breaking news where is the crisis?[/QUOTE]

He only said that Fox's ratings were declining and it's true. They have half the number of viewers they had in October. No one claimed that CNN or anyone else was beating Fox.
 
EVERYONE'S NUMBERS ARE DOWN!

Do you think that news channels are going to have the same numbers the month before a Presidential election as they would the following spring?

NO!

That's the point. News channels are driven by major events and you really don't get much bigger from news than a Presidential election unless you get another 9/11. It's a pointless comparison.

It's no different than me trying to say OMG, the NFL Channel's ratings are down 70% from November to June!

DUH! I wonder why!

There is no weakness in their lineup. They're delivering everything and more than any of their competitors and most importantly aren't having to deliver "make good" inventory to advertisers. Why? Because everyone in cable news knew that news viewership would plummet across the board after the election.

Fox is still kicking everyone's ass 2-1 even when you combine the next 3 cable news outlets.
 
You're overlooking this fact: Also: In April 2005, FNC's weekday primetime demo average decreased 25% compared to the year-ago, while CNN increased 27%

Fox viewership is still declining.
 
You were still in a Presidential news cycle last spring. You know the whole Bush lied people died, national guard, Farenheit 911 coming etc. You were also less than a month behind Abu Ghraib as a new story. You know, the story that was worthy of 48 New York Times cover stories......

You can't compare 2004 and 2005 numbers without taking into account the news going on at the time. The comparisons are not apt.

If you can't see the major ass whipping Fox News puts on everyone else and you want to crow about CNN gaining 25% in viewership super. That means Paula Zahn now has 393,000 viewers as opposed to 330,000. Wow, I'm impressed.

Meanwhile O'Reilly still has over 2 million on a regular basis.

Wake me when the cable news race is interesting. This is as big an ass whipping in television ratings as you can find. Put it in comparision, when the WWF and WCW were going to head both organizations crowed about .3 ratings points between them as a major victory. Not THREE.... zero point three.

Now Fox is beating CNN by nearly 3 full ratings points. Know what happened to WCW when they fell 2 full rating points behind the WWF? They went out of business.

That's how big a deal this is. CNN isn't going out of business, they're mostly funded by your cable bill, but if they were dependent on ratings for their income like a radio station they'd be switching formats and conceding defeat.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I'll believe it when I see it. Unlike a lot of things I think could be/ are true, I have little faith in its legitimacy as something that can bring down the president[/QUOTE]

What does bringing down the president have to do with it?

The anti-war left believes the document is accurate.

How can they then escape the fact the document clearly states Iraq posessed WMD's?

Their premise is Bush lied about WMDs, yet the very document they would use to impeach him clearly states Iraq possessed them.

You see, that is the beauty of it.

Talk about shifting rationalizations for war, how about the shifting anti-war rationalizations:

Iraq didn't posess WMDs; Bush knew Iraq didn't posess WMDs.

But the document that we will use to impeach Bush says we [Bush] knew Iraq had WMDs.

But, lets shift our focus - Iraq didn't have enough WMDs to justify invasion.

What an utter farce.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']What does bringing down the president have to do with it?

The anti-war left believes the document is accurate.

How can they then escape the fact the document clearly states Iraq posessed WMD's?

Their premise is Bush lied about WMDs, yet the very document they would use to impeach him clearly states Iraq possessed them.

You see, that is the beauty of it.

Talk about shifting rationalizations for war, how about the shifting anti-war rationalizations:

Iraq didn't posess WMDs; Bush knew Iraq didn't posess WMDs.

But the document that we will use to impeach Bush says we [Bush] knew Iraq had WMDs.

But, lets shift our focus - Iraq didn't have enough WMDs to justify invasion.

What an utter farce.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Nice try. But the DSM, if true, means Bush was lying about war being a last resort. I'm not sure how you're trying to twist this to prove Iraq had WMDs. Where are the weapons if Iraq had them? We've had time to examine every piece of sand by now and they still ahven't shown up. They've called off the search.

To put it in your words - the document that we will use to impeach Bush says we [Bush] knew Iraq had WMDs and he lied to the world for a year that diplomacy was still an option. Invasion of Iraq has been the neocon wet dream since January 2001. Sept. 11th just gave them a flimsy excuse - a War on Terror against someone who never supported the terrorists who attacked us.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Nice try. But the DSM, if true,[/quote]

If true? Now that it can be used against you it isn't iron clad proof?


[quote name='MrBadExample']means Bush was lying about war being a last resort. [/quote]

Oh, and hasn't that always been the charge? I don't recall protesters marching in NYC claiming Bush was lying about war being the last resort, nor were people on this forum ever claiming that.

The unending and unrelenting mantra was that Iraq had no WMD.

No weapons. At. All.

[quote name='MrBadExample']I'm not sure how you're trying to twist this to prove Iraq had WMDs. Where are the weapons if Iraq had them? We've had time to examine every piece of sand by now and they still ahven't shown up. They've called off the search.[/quote]

That isn't the issue. The issue is did Bush lie about Iraq posessing them. Did he know before hand they didn't exist. According to your (now questionable) Downing Street Memo, they did exist and the British believed as much.

[quote name='MrBadExample']To put it in your words - the document that we will use to impeach Bush says we [Bush] knew Iraq had WMDs and he lied to the world for a year that diplomacy was still an option. Invasion of Iraq has been the neocon wet dream since January 2001. Sept. 11th just gave them a flimsy excuse - a War on Terror against someone who never supported the terrorists who attacked us.[/QUOTE]

Nice try. But you fail.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
Oh, and hasn't that always been the charge? I don't recall protesters marching in NYC claiming Bush was lying about war being the last resort, nor were people on this forum ever claiming that.[/QUOTE]

Actually that was mentioned and debated quite a bit on this forum. One side said "War should have been a last resort and we didn't give weapons inspectors enough time (or the sanctions were working!)" and the other side said "He broke tons of resolutions and we thought he had WMD so we had to invade before he could use them."

Or something like that. I'm too lazy to search.
 
I added the disclaimer "if true" because I'm not a fanatic that will swear allegiance before I know all the facts. I have not seen the memo nor could I verify its authenticity if I did. I have only said it deserves media attention to determine its validity. I don't recall either Bush or Blair questioning its validity last week when they were asked about it.

How in the world this memo could be used to support Bush I will never understand. It makes him out to be a liar.

Your argument about protesters is ridiculous. They weren't claiming he was lying about using diplomacy because there wasn't any evidence of it until the memo surfaced a couple of months ago.

You still seem to be arguing that Iraq had WMDs so where are they? I'm sure Bush would love it if you told us all so he could be vindicated. A memo saying Iraq had WMDs does not jibe with the fact that none have been found. I'll even concede (for the sake of this argument only) that Dubya firmly believed the WMDs were there. That doesn't mean that they were. It means he believed faulty intelligence.

The impeachable offense of the DSM is Bush was lying the whole time he said diplomacy was still an option for Iraq. The memo states that war was inevitable. So Bush lied about diplomacy to garner more public support. If that's not an impeachable offense, I don't know what is.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I added the disclaimer "if true" because I'm not a fanatic that will swear allegiance before I know all the facts. I have not seen the memo nor could I verify its authenticity if I did. I have only said it deserves media attention to determine its validity. I don't recall either Bush or Blair questioning its validity last week when they were asked about it.[/quote]

You lie. When I questioned it as an internet hoax you responded:

[quote name='MrBadExample']We'll see just how much hyperbole and hoax this is. You just keep drinking the Kool-Aid.[/QUOTE]

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1065591

The White House's response to this document was that it was a dead issue only dredged up for political gain.

[quote name='MrBadExample']How in the world this memo could be used to support Bush I will never understand. It makes him out to be a liar.[/quote]

Because you refuse to use the basic of intelligence. The document affirms that the intelligence community believed Iraq had WMDs, and regardless of wether they ended up having none or a stockpile of them, no one lied about it.

[quote name='MrBadExample']Your argument about protesters is ridiculous. They weren't claiming he was lying about using diplomacy because there wasn't any evidence of it until the memo surfaced a couple of months ago. [/quote]

No they were arguing that Bush lied about WMDs - which the memo utterly discredits!

[quote name='MrBadExample']You still seem to be arguing that Iraq had WMDs so where are they? I'm sure Bush would love it if you told us all so he could be vindicated. A memo saying Iraq had WMDs does not jibe with the fact that none have been found. I'll even concede (for the sake of this argument only) that Dubya firmly believed the WMDs were there. That doesn't mean that they were. It means he believed faulty intelligence.[/quote]

HE BELIEVE FAULTY INTELLIGENCE: which if you don't understand the difference between that and lying about intelligence please tell us now. You will be the first person I ever block for any reason.

[quote name='MrBadExample']The impeachable offense of the DSM is Bush was lying the whole time he said diplomacy was still an option for Iraq. The memo states that war was inevitable. So Bush lied about diplomacy to garner more public support. If that's not an impeachable offense, I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]

Sort of like Baghdad could have nuked Tel Aviv and France still would have vetoed a UNSCR?

Your comments are an irrelevant diversion from the reality of the document: Bush didn't lie about the WMDs.

You have a long way to go from one sentence in a British intelligence document to impeaching the US President.

But you will just shift to a newly invented anti-war rational when this one fails.

CTL
 
[quote name='Backlash']I sometimes wonder if everyone in this forum has me on ignore. About 5% of my posts actually get replied to.[/QUOTE]

No I don't believe in blocking people. I am not afraid of other people's ideas or views.

However MBE is teetering.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']You lie. When I questioned it as an internet hoax you responded:
[/QUOTE]

Here's the whole problem - you don't understand what a lie is. I never said the DSM was 100% authentic. I said we would see how authentic it was meaning that after it got some press and real scrutiny, it would be verified or not. You were making the knee-jerk reaction that it was fake. I was wanting a further investigation.

This is no longer about WMDs. It's about Bush lying about diplomacy. You keep running from that part of the argument and I don't blame you because there's very little ground for you to stand on there.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']No I don't believe in blocking people. I am not afraid of other people's ideas or views.

However MBE is teetering.[/QUOTE]

Please block me. I always feel like I lose brain cells arguing with you anyway.

Do I get to whinge and cry now if you don't block me like you do whenever someone says they're going to ignore you? :D
 
[quote name='evilmax17']6 in 10 Americans oppose war

CIA chief has excellent idea of where Bin Laden is

Seems that whenever Bush is down in the polls, we have some new revelation to bring people back to the flock. So, as his numbers continue to decline, how long until he busts out the Bin Laden bombshell?[/QUOTE]

it kind of doesnt matter what people think of Bush now that hes in office for the next 3.5 years. He cant be re-elected. I bet hes sitting watching his approval rating plummet while he sits and laughs his ass off......
 
Poll: Bush's Iraq rating at low point
Opinion of president's honesty also sinks
story.bush.friday.ap.jpg


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also suggests fewer than half now think he is honest.

A solid majority still see Bush as a strong and likable leader, though the poll indicates the president's confidence is seen as arrogance by a growing number.

Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to disapprove of Bush on his handling of Iraq in the past six months.

...story continued here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top