Dumbya, seen here with pursed lips and veins popping from his forehead, struggles to put together the phrase.. "I is gonna tell my Mommy", as the Prime Minister of Spain snickers under his breath.

-- (Global Poll reveals @ United States. no longer taken seriously), June 12, 2001

Answers

The Spanish PM farted and Dubya is doing his best to avoid hurling

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 12, 2001.

Yahoo June 11, 2001

Bush, Spain's Aznar See Growing Missile Threat

MADRID (Reuters) - The United States and Spain agreed Tuesday on the need for a comprehensive security strategy to counter the growing threat of ballistic missiles, a joint statement said.

The statement, issued by President Bush (news - web sites) and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, came as Bush, on his first overseas trip, seeks European support for a missile defense system that many on the continent denounce as a possible trigger to a costly new arms race.

``We face a growing threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles for their delivery. We are engaged in a consultation process with all interested parties about this new threat,'' the statement said.

``We agree on the need for a comprehensive security strategy that encompasses both offensive and defense deterrent systems, continues nuclear arms reductions, and strengthens WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and missile proliferation controls, and counter-proliferation measures,'' it said.

-- (Manuelo_Ortega_y_Gasset_@_El_Toro.merda), June 12, 2001.

Given that weapons of mass destruction have long existed that can be smuggled into a country rather than launched at it, the main point of building a missile defense system may be to enrich contractors in the defense industry.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), June 12, 2001.

David, what a cynical thing to say. I could make the equally irrelevant point that thousands of American jobs would be created by an anti-missile program. Betcha that the Congresspersons from Southern Cal, regardless of party, would support such a program

The real question to me is "do we need it for national security" and "does it work"? I don't know, but it does make me a little nervous that there are so many countries out there that hate our guts just because we exist. These same countries are acquiring nuke technology and delivery technology, thanks to China.

I absolutely don't buy the argument that strengthening American defenses will de-stabilize balance of power.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 12, 2001.

It might work, but it's doubtful it will keep us safe. After all, why launch a full-scale nuclear attack on the US, which will result in your own annihilation, when you can just send in a couple of true believers with a nuclear device in a suitcase to take out the target?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 12, 2001.

"I absolutely don't buy the argument that strengthening American defenses will de-stabilize balance of power."

As of today, the "balance of power" is, you say boo and we kick your ass to hell and back. Iran had the world's 4th or 5th largest army - and it was damn well equipped - except compared to us and the few allies we share our technology with. We took out their homeland in a bit over 8 weeks for crying out loud.

Who is it can send enough nukes this way to be sure they won't melt into glass? Nobody, that's who. Our submarine forces would take out anyone who dared.

So tell me again what this added $200 billion or so might buy us in added security? You build another Maginot Line and anyone who really is intent on kicking our ass will just work around it.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 12, 2001.

Lars, you find my statement cynical, but it is rooted in what I've observed in politics generally, and in the Beltway specifically. It also reflects my view that a missile defense system is a perpetual money pit or cash cow, depending on one's perspective.

Suppose another country was well on the way to perfecting and deploying a missile defense system that was effective against the current generation of missile technology. I'd imagine that it wouldn't be long before our own scientists had blueprints for a missile that would thwart the enemy's defense. This would compel the other side to improve its defense system, and so on.

If the roles were reversed, could we not expect the other side to devise countermeasures to our missile defense system, with the analogous escalation. And what has been accomplished as far as improving our security.

National security is a difficult issue to address effectively, but when our leaders seek to exploit difficult issues rather than address them, they are the ones being cynical.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), June 12, 2001.

National security is a difficult issue to address effectively, but when our leaders seek to exploit difficult issues rather than address them, they are the ones being cynical.

David--

I agree that national security is a difficult issue to address. I don't agree that our leaders seek to exploit the issue. An anti-missile system may not be the most effective defense but IMO it is better than none. What do you recommend? Please don't say a "peace treaty".

Another reason to give serious attention to targeting space-borne objects speeding in our direction is the possibility of comet or asteroid impact. (Not at all unlikely, the massive explosion in Tungusta Siberia in 1908 is now thought to have been a comet).

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 13, 2001.

Here is a proposed future U.S. Nuclear Policy from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). It's a bit too dovish for me but it's a point of departure. I hear very little talk of Foreign Policy these days.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 13, 2001.

I wish you idiot trolls would quit hijacking my threads by pretending to have an intelligent discussion. This thread was meant to make fun of and laugh at our Idiot in Chief Dumbya. Please get with the program.

-- (United States is now @ Banana. Republic), June 13, 2001.

Chuckle. Problem is that you've become the "make fun of and laugh" object. Dubya's numbers are up. Majority wants a missle shield. Majority wants an energy policy that includes energy. Tough times for libs but that's what happens when leadership shows up.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 13, 2001.

"Dubya's numbers are up."

Where you been asshole? The guy's a loser! Seems fairly typical of you hypocritical scumbag Repugs to say that liberals want a bigger government, all the while supporting that we spend billions more on a missile system that won't work and will end up causing WWIII. Of course it's hard to talk sense with someone who will kiss Dumbya's ass all the way until a nuke lands on his front lawn. Haahahahaa!!

*********

Tuesday June 5 6:12 AM ET

Poll Shows Support for Bush Declining

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s job approval rating fell eight percentage points over the past two months to 55 percent in a poll released late on Monday by The Washington Post and ABC News.

The pollsters said their survey of 1,004 adults taken May 31 through June 3 showed a steep jump in public disapproval of the Republican president's energy policies and a broad call for him to work harder at compromising with Democrats.

Fifty-eight percent of those polled disapproved of Bush's handling of the energy situation, a jump of 15 percent since the release of his energy plan, according to the Post/ABC poll.

Americans were evenly divided on whose leadership they preferred, with 40 percent choosing Bush and 42 percent choosing the Democrats. Just two months ago, Bush led by a 10-point margin.

Bush's current job approval rating was the same level he had upon entering the White House, but it was lower than seven of the previous nine presidents at the four-month mark.

Former President Bill Clinton's job approval rating fell sharply to 46 percent at the four-month mark when he was seen as tacking left after winning election as a centrist.

Bush's level is still higher than that, but it is down from his 63-percent approval rating in April, and remains lower than usual for a postwar first-term president, the pollsters said.

Other than Clinton, only former President Gerald Ford had a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency.

Bush won majority approval for his work on international affairs, taxes and education, but his ratings dipped to 40 percent and below on Social Security (news - web sites), the environment, energy and patients' rights.

-- (Carlos, you must pull head out odf butt @ in order. to see the light), June 13, 2001.

What is the significance of this poll?

-- jammy (jammin@with.jammy), June 13, 2001.

“What is the significance of this poll?”

Who do think was home during the day when the pollsters called?

-- All (liberals@must.die), June 13, 2001.

The significance of the poll is that it was posted by Tony Baloney. I can smell his funky body within minutes of his appearance here. Oh Tony......

-- (Lorelei@quick.lube), June 13, 2001.

Who do think was home during the day when the pollsters called?

Exactly. Any poll that shows declining support for Bush is obviously flawed in some way. Any poll that shows increasing support for Bush is 100% accurate. It's clear that the declining numbers in this poll are Clinton's fault. If he hadn't lied about getting that blowjob in the Oval Office, there wouldn't be any problems now.

-- (ClintonBad@Bush.Good), June 13, 2001.

DUMBYA LAUGHED OFF STAGE AT SECOND GIG

Dumbya: "Uuuh, hey Tony, uuh, how come they all laughed when I said "It's my way or the highway"? I mean, I'm the most powerful man in the world, right? That's what Poppy told me, how come they won't listen to me? *sniff-sniff, pout-pout*"

Blair: "Bwaaahahahaa!! Jesus Christ Dumbya, when are you going to grow up?"

-- (Dumbya @ the. manchild), June 13, 2001.

Blair sucks up to Dubya because he knows where his bread is buttered.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), June 13, 2001.

more leftist communist crap about bush.. Your fuckko gore lost now die already

-- LIAR (bullshit@lies.com), June 13, 2001.

Lars,
The FAS proposed policy is too dovish for me too. I don't see how increasing our launch time to days, would not merely make a first strike more attractive to the enemy.

I think our government should recognize the conditions that would tend to increase the risk of a deliberate nuclear attack, and then take measures to reduce the likelihood of those conditions.

Specifically, the rulers of most nations enjoy immense power and wealth that go along with their position. The desire to continue enjoying these privileges gives these rulers a powerful incentive to keep tight control over the keys to their missiles, so as not to jeopardize what they have by pointlessly provoking a retaliatory strike.

When a ruler is violently overthrown, there may be a period in which control over that country's missiles is up for grabs, until (if?) the new government stabilizes.

The U.S. has long engaged in aiding the violent overthrow of foreign governments. While it's valid to question the morality of favoring one murderous regime over another solely on the basis of the former's professed political leanings, more germane to the topic at hand is that this activity has the potential to destabilize those countries' nuclear arsenals.

With regard to targeting a comet or other body that threatens our planet, it seems to me that the requirements for such a system would be radically different from those for a missile defense shield. For example, a comet's trajectory and arrival time can be calculated well in advance.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), June 13, 2001.

The poster above wins the BEST CAPTION OF THE MONTH Award, congratulations.

Totally a crack-up. Seriously, does Bush actually think any Europeans find him anything but a totally ignorant asshole? Does the guy have any clue to whom he is speaking?

Bush League 100% damn straight. Hahaha whooheheheehahaha

-- (too@funny.haha), June 14, 2001.

Doc, why would anyone give a shit what other countries think about him? I'd love for them to put him down, then try to ask for money. Politics make strange bedfellows.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 14, 2001.

DUMBYA LAUGHED OFF STAGE AT THIRD GIG

Dumbya: "Look at me! I can impersonate a gorilla!

Belgian Prime Minister: "Yeah, that's real cute Dumbya, but we already know you are an idiot, you don't have to prove it."

-- (United States @ laughing stock. of the World), June 14, 2001.