Public Editor Clark Hoyt has a piece in today’s edition, that ends as follows:
I went back and read war coverage for much of the month of June and found many stories that conveyed the complexity and chaos of today’s Iraq. Times reporters wrote that Iraq’s political leaders were failing to meet benchmarks that would show satisfactory progress to the American government, that a formerly peaceful Shiite city in southern Iraq was convulsed by violence as rival groups fought for control, and that Sunnis feared their own country’s army because it is dominated by Shiites.
But those references to Al Qaeda began creeping in with greater frequency. Susan Chira, the foreign editor, said she takes “great pride in the whole of our coverage†but acknowledged that the paper had used “excessive shorthand†when referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. “We’ve been sloppy,†she said. She and other editors started worrying about it, Chira said, when the American military began an operation in mid-June against what it said were strongholds of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
On Thursday, she and her deputy, Ethan Bronner, circulated a memo with guidelines on how to distinguish Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia from bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.
It’s a good move. I’d have been happier still if The Times had helped its readers by doing a deeper job of reporting on the administration’s drive to make Al Qaeda the singular enemy in Iraq.
Military experts will tell you that failing to understand your enemy is a prescription for broader failure.
I’d be happy to see greater accuracy in representation, and greater breadth of representation in the NYT, but I don’t believe that they’d be particularly unhappy with broader failure, and though it’s nice of the Public Editor to parrot Gleen’s line and receive an admission of failure on the part of Ms. Chira, I can’t understand why they would think it important to include the disclaimer, “The public editor serves as the readers’ representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section,” unless they were concerned that his positions were so perfectly congruent with those of the paper as a whole that some might feel that it was rather too serendipitous.
Of course, the Times is rushing someone to cover and assess Michael Yon’s revelations, and I’m certain that they’ll run the revelation that one of the London-Glasgow terror plotters was in direct contact with an agent of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia on the front page above the fold tomorrow. It is only to be wished that the President and military would be so even-handed.
“Military experts will tell you that failing to understand your enemy is a prescription for broader failure.”
It cuts both ways, Collins.
Just as the unindicted war criminals Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon ordered the illegal carpet bombing of Cambodia, so too, their modern-day counterparts Bush/Cheney, are the scofflaws who will no doubt escape prison. But their legacy shall live on.
Just as Cap Weinberger and Adm Poindexter fulminated international hijinks, in the name of National Security of course, so too Bush/Cheney
had a vision which superseded the Law and once again, the ends justify the means.
Yes, folks. All roads lead to Iraq. People seem to forget the Libby
trial, conviction and sentencing is all about the lies that took us into that miserable clusterfuck.
And the worthless prognosticators who felt their expertise and prescience supplanted any need for laws which
are inconvenient, made a decision, then organized a Madison Avenue
Ad program designed to win over the American Public. It worked.
But now some of them are a little nervous and seek to plug every
leak in this earthen dam built in criminal haste. They think everything is a election campaign. Winning is the only important thing and it is not necessary to concern yourself with what is true or verifiable.
They will do anything to get to the goal line.
When they reached it, they saw
their mistake and sought to correct the situation by directing blame elsewhere. Iraq is lost because we don’t support the troops. Iraq is lost because the MSM is liberal and doesn’t support it. Iraq will be a disaster if we leave, and IF it does get worse it’s not our fault because we wanted to stay until the job was done.
Pol Pot killed millions because we left VN. If we had stayed, we would have averted that tragedy. It’s always someone else’s fault when
plans don’t work out the way our National Sociopaths expect it to.
Nothing changes. The liars are still in power. But Hope springs eternal, Favorable Bush impeachment polls now at 50%.
Thanks, ‘cleo, incoherence larded up with inapt metaphor was just the thing I needed – and you provided both in abundance.
“Favorable Bush impeachment polls now at 50%.”
Start holding your breath, incoherent one!
BTW, in your many postings throughout the web, have you ever recommended a particular plan to confront al Qaeda? That is, what to do? UN resolutions, perhaps? Or sharp detective work?
Cordially…
‘inapt’ nuff’ said.
Rick Moron? The book burner?
No, you’re thinking of the professor “Ric” that comes ’round.
Cordially…
No, Rick Moran of Right Wing ScutHouse who claims homo sapien heritage as a former Dem who suddenly got smart and joined the criminal conspiracy masquerading as “Rule of Law” advocates.
‘cleo,
is your comment due to your questioning the existence of the word ‘inapt’ or my use of ‘inapt’ to describe your … bad …. writing?
Apparently, “’nuff said” wasn’t, indeed could not be, ’nuff.
cheers.
I thought your bare bones comment had no content.
Therefore, it was inapt and you had said quite enough.
Hope that’s clear for you. Bless you my child.
“Of course, the Times is rushing someone to cover and assess Michael Yon’s revelations,”
Thats it? They should be sending staff (not stringers!) to all the mass graves.
oh Jaysus on a Pony, Cleo the Left Cultist comes to spew. KY Prof considers non-leftists a “cancer” and Cleo considers ’em a “criminal conspiracy”
Leftism is their religion and non-believers and apostates are not “mistaken”, they are eeevvviiilllll.
No wonder the Left minimizes, apologizes or supports Islamist terrorists. Totalitarian/authoritarian Like recognizes Like.
Semenlicker manged to boil down all of the DU and Kos rants into one grandly incoherent rambling post. Well done!!!
The vision of NY Times staffers rushing headlong to mass graves is too delicious to ignore. Not that I wish them ill of course. Call it a career graveyard. Metaphor, peoples, metaphor
“they are eeevvviiilllll.”
Your caricature does nothing to demonstrate the opposite. Or are they virginal in their white robes?
wait, I thought leftists were supposed to be more nuanced. none of this good/evil, black/white thinking. I’m confused.
Miss Cleo – We just think you are incredibly and consistently wrong, not evil. You, on the other hand, cannot afford the opponents of your political ideology the courtesy of having arrived at their positions in good faith, and simple conjure up imagined motivations, based essentially on your psychic abilities.
Either you supply a link or I’ll need to go on the assumption you pulled that number from your ass.
Cleo
My caricature? You just ranted about non-leftists as a “criminal conspiracy”. KY Prof posts calls non-leftists a “cancer”
either way, it is a dismissal of non-leftists as unworthy of actual debate on issues. typical of kosskiddies, du-ers, pandagons, et al.
The two of you are either representative OR a self-caricature of the Left.
Maggie – all nuance and rational thought gets tossed overboard once they are having an outbreak of oozing, puss-filled, festering BDS.
People, People, Hey, PEOPLE!!!!!
Semanticlueless has graced us with his presence and blessed us with an unadulterated reading of The Narrative™!
The Narrative™ brooks no resistance as it has been developed by the most enlightened minds. Now I know you think that Missy Clueless hates you but it isn’t so. She’s merely certain that all of us are hopelessly ignorant and, thus, utterly unworthy of engagement on an intellectual level. This is the result of all of us (for we are a formless mass devoid of significant rifts) having been lead disasterously astray by the True Criminals of History: Taft, Hoover, Roy & Dale, Nixon, Kissinger, Reagon and now, of course EvilBu$hburtonCheneypetro.
In order to achieve the joygasm of rhetorical co-mingling with Mistress Cluepile one must first repent of thy wayward wanderings and embrace The Narrative™. Be advised that, even then, you will not be fully trusted until you write a best selling book and have it quoted on the floor of the Senate.
Now read Senora Semiconscious’ rant above and tell me it doen’t remind you of the the most heated evangelist you ever saw on television. The only thing missing is the palm strike to the forehead and the flashing 800 number.
“either way, it is a dismissal of non-leftists as unworthy of actual debate on issues”
Wherefore is your debate?
I asked for a demonstration of your antithesis. Am I prohibiting you from it’s expression? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
BJTexs, I was wondering how many copies the Senora had printed and handed out on the local street corner.
How about spending a few minutes breathing into a paper bag, cleo, then see if you can come up with something related to the NY Times and AQ. Might make this all a little easier for everbody.
“Wherefor” means “why.”
BJTex, I almost understand what Semanticleo prattled through your reinterpretation. Almost.
1) I hate when I’m not the first to point out when some moron misuses “wherefore,” dangit.
2) It’s always fun when a lefty comes up with some content-free denunciation of The Other as evil and criminal, and then demands, DEMANDS proof that it isn’t true.
They’re just wasting the time that Americans won’t waste!
The irony, the absolutely clarified irony, is that someone who calls himself “Semanticleo”, is incapable of writing a coherent paragraph.
My sense is that he’s down in Mom’s basement, wearing greasepaint, a rubber nose and floppy shoes.
Does Mom let him walk around outside like that?
Thats it? They should be sending staff (not stringers!) to all the mass graves.
Interesting. So now the stinking fresh evidence of AQI atrocity is to be linguistically lumped in with the ‘ancient’ atrocity of Saddam’s regime.
Someone once said something about deaths, tradgedies, and statistics… Can’t quite put my finger on the name though.
But it appears that, to leftist mind, AQI’s victims are to be reduced to mere statistics.
Semanticleo, still spouting complete fabrications, I see.
I don’t know what’s more amusing, that Semanticleo failed to notice where the “understanding the enemy” quote came from (hint: it was not Dan) or that he/she/it persists in using the name while evidently ignorant of the English language and its proper usage (“inept” and “inapt” are both perfectly valid words, and BumperStickerist used the latter with precision, in case you’re wondering.)
Regards,
Ric
Robin;
Like Darleen and Collins, you have no substantive response.
where·fore (hwâr’fôr’, -fÃ…Âr’, wâr’-) pronunciation
adv.
1. For what purpose or reason; why.
2. Therefore.
The echo chamber is what it is because you folks made it so.
Empty, vacuous. The more empty, the more resounding the echo.
n.
A purpose or cause: wanted to know all the whys and wherefores.
“Like Darleen and Collins, you have no substantive response.”
Proof positive. The wingers are undone by Cleo’s wit!
“Either you supply a link or I’ll need to go on the assumption you pulled that number from your ass.”
Is it that unbelievable? Can you imagine how unbelievable it would be when compared to the polls showing support for impeachment of Klintoon?
“The wingers are undone by Cleo’s wit!”
It is far less difficult than you would imagine. Try venturing out of your room on occasion.
“Winning is the only important thing and it is not necessary to concern yourself with what is true or verifiable.
They will do anything to get to the goal line.”
Sounds just like the Left. Just replace “winning” above with “losing” and…there you have it.
Is it that unbelievable?
so we’re going on faith now? I’m more curious about why they think he should be impeached and if they understand what impeachment actually means. But I don’t think they were asked about that. too nuancy
Dudes, we’ve lost the New York Times. Even they understand that the Iraq war is a disaster. And public opinion for impeaching Bush is at 54%. Whatever will we do?
54%, 39%…
It’s the truthiness that really matters.
Semanticleo, observing that your comment was a fabrication from start to finish was a substantive response.
Just an example: “People seem to forget the Libby
trial, conviction and sentencing is all about the lies that took us into that miserable clusterfuck.” This is a lie. Libby was not charged with lying about the reasons for invading Iraq – indeed, such could not be a crime. He was charged about his testimony regarding discussions with reporters about the identity of Valerie Plame – discussions that did not even turn into news reports.
You are simply an incoherent liar, Semanticleo. A constant in a world of change.
And yes, totally. What the New York Times said.
Or not. BECAUSE OF THE TRUTHINESS!!
Comment by Semanticleo on 7/8 @ 1:32 pm #
“The wingers are undone by Cleo’s wit!â€Â
Not by half, sir. To be undone by such a wit.
Soaring Eagle? The NYT? Jules Crittenden spanked them on their incoherent editorial. They should be ashamed of themselves.
That would also hold up a tad better if he’d been charged with something that happened before we went into Iraq. But we shouldn’t expect the logically challenged to detect such nuance.
Good point, Pablo, a disassociation with chronology is a symptom of psychosis.
Sometimes its hard to be a wingnut
Giving all your love to just George Bush
You’ll have bad times
And he’ll have good times
Doing things that you don’t understand
But if you love him you’ll forgive him
Even though he’s hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh be proud of him
‘Cause after all he’s just a man
Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
From the article…
Actually, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which came into being in 2003, pledged its loyalty to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda the next year but is not believed to be under his operational control.
Well, that makes a whole load of difference. Good on the Times to point out that not all Al Qaeda’s are the same – they just happen to do that little thing of blowing up people they don’t like or approve of to gain control with fear. Yeah, the Times really gets it, good on them for asking these tough questions to prove this. Well done.
Good song parody isn’t that hard. And that isn’t good song parody.
Try singing that to Hillary, though. She’d probably enjoy it.
Indeed, almost all Al Queda affiliates are / were not under Bin Laden’s operational control – that’s a key part of the original idea.
Quite, given Pablo’s link to the Rasmussen Report quoting 39%.
Somebody called rewrite for the song parody.
Here it is.
Sometimes its hard to be a wingnut
Giving all your love to just [one man]
You’ll have [some] times
[when] he’ll [have dumb] times
Doing things that you don’t understand
But if you [sorta/kinda respect] him you’ll forgive him
Even though he’s hard to understand
And if you [sorta/kinda respect] him
Oh be proud of him
‘Cause after all he’s [still your] man
Stand by your man
Give him [your vote] to cling to
And something [known] to come to
When [polls] are [low] and [falling]
Stand by your man
And tell the [polls] you love him
Keep giving all the [votes] you can
Stand by your man
Stand by your man
And show the [polls] you love him
Keep giving all the [votes] you can
Stand by your man
—————-
semanticleo, when reached for comment, was only able to post ‘earthen …. damn, Cheney/Kissinger … Laos, quagmire — they shoot horses, in barrels … don’t they’
Why is it so hard for Leftists to understand that a person can support one policy without blindingly supporting ALL policies? The constant refrain that conservatives all worship Bush is so wildly inaccurate as to smack of outright projection.
“Why is it so hard for Leftists to understand that a person can support one policy without blindingly supporting ALL policies? The constant refrain that conservatives all worship Bush is so wildly inaccurate as to smack of outright projection.”
I totally agree. I can’t wait for 2008 when the Republican Party finally makes itself what it has always wanted to be: the rump party of the American South.
Geez, Moby, get back to the studio.
It cuts both ways, Collins.
Like a hammer, Dan.
Hey ‘cleo, go fulminate yourself.
You too, Sore.
“So now the stinking fresh evidence of AQI atrocity is to be linguistically lumped in with the ‘ancient’ atrocity of Saddam’s regime.”
Ancient? We’re finding fresh ones these days.
“Quite, given Pablo’s link to the Rasmussen Report quoting 39%.”
ARG has it at 46 for dubya, 54 for Cheney. Unbelievable.
“I’m more curious about why they think he should be impeached and if they understand what impeachment actually means”
I am curious as to why as well. Instead of impeach, I think the dems should spends lots of time proclaiming that they are not impeaching. Continue to switch the subject to that, etc… Much better.
‘cleo–
How now, frown clown? You say that we plead our case too much, but that we don’t respond to you? Whither went your wit? I have a right to a nap, I think.
But as far as why we went to Iraq, that has more to do with the documents destroyed by Socks than with Libby. Otherwise, carry on.
Shine, ARG is a push poll – not a valid poll at all.
45 actually.
Give or take 3 percentage points and it’s right in line with the Rasmussen Report.
Leo was describing the democrats there at the start, right, or was it just too pretzel twisted to understand?
Pull a bunch of points out of your ass, and voila: 54%. Or 83%. Whatever.
“Wherefor†means “why.â€Â
A nap. That explains the dream-state dissonance. But prevarication
continues while you slumber. This may be a new concept to you, but withholding a portion of the facts is tantamount to twisting them into a pretzel. But why would such nuance concern you?
You said “wherefore.” I said “wherefor.” But I still don’t think you understand what “to protest” means, in the Shakespearean usage. What’s the portion of the facts that you believe I’ve withheld, just so I’m up to speed? Please be explicit, or I’ll start thinking that when you use the expression “threadjacking,” it should be followed by the preposition “off.”
Since you mention Shakespeare it’s possible you’ve heard the line
‘Wherefore’ art thou Romeo’
The portion you withheld from the definition is copied above.
It’s a good metaphor for ‘sought’ vs ‘bought’ uranium from Niger.
“I totally agree. I can’t wait for 2008 when the Republican Party finally makes itself what it has always wanted to be: the rump party of the American South.”
Yes, especially with all the Southern candidates on the Republican ticket for us to vote for. Guys like Guliani, McCain, Romney, all good Southern boys everyone.
Idiot.
To even pose the question of impeachment without a “wherefor” is an incredibly brazen example of a *rhetorical will to power* that would redefine impeachment as nothing more than an expression of disapproval. The proposition posits a national recall election based on a sample size of 800 registered voters, correctly weighted of course. To elide articles of impeachment from impeachment is in effect a disinformation campaign, and totalitarian in intent, blatantly unmooring a concept from its Constitutional underpinnings.
y’know, Semantic Barneyfife, you really ought to quit while you’re no farther behind than you are.
What you need to do is go back and pay very, very close attention to spelling. Dan occasionally does a typo, as do we all, but he’s a good speller — and you’re making yourself, not Dan, look like a dork by not paying attention.
Regards,
Ric
“The proposition posits a national recall election based on a sample size of 800 registered voters,”
Watch the needle rise. Perhaps you recall the frustrated cries,
“The MSM isn’t reporting the successes in Iraq!!!” Followed by
“The Surge is working’. Wishing the needle to reflect your mind-numbing stupidity reveals your amperage to be less than is
required for telekinesis.
“45 actually.”
You’re right. voters at 46, all adults at 45.
“Give or take 3 percentage points and it’s right in line with the Rasmussen Report.”
And give or take 3 and 50% is not so unbelievable.
“Shine, ARG is a push poll – not a valid poll at all.”
How is it a push poll? Wikipedia tells me that a push poll is “a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.”
You think thats what ARG is doing here?
If I may…800 is a poor sample size. You need a min. of 1,000.
Perhaps in the future, but right now, +3 gets you to 48%.
Semanticleo, you remain however a liar.
Shine, it is a push poll because it lists talking points hostile to President Bush and then tests whether or not those talking points have affected the opinion of the persons polled. That’s a push poll, not an opinion poll. To rely on it only demonstrates your lack of seriousness.
FRED, FRED, FRED, HE’S OUR MAN! IF HE CAN’T DEFEAT THOSE DIRTY LIBERAL HIPPIES WHO OPPOSE THE IRAQ WAR, NOBODY CAN!
I guess Moby doesn’t have an album to work on.
Huge breakthrough. All Iraq needs to do is abolish weekends. This could be a real game-changer.
Put the needle down, sweetie. You’ve clearly had enough smack. Maybe some nice methadone would be comforting.
I guess the thread is dead. mea culpa
Democrats who unseated Republican opponents in 2006, creating the present situation, overwhelmingly campaigned on “ending the Culture of Corruption” and saying that it was not about Iraq. To the extent that they did debate Iraq, they almost all said that unilaterally pulling out would be a disaster and was not on the table.
The instant they took the oaths, they began shouting in chorus that “it’s all about Iraq! Pull out now!”, and the only way they addressed the “Culture of Corruption” was to try to insure that they got the lion’s share of the graft, and that no mere voter or <sneer>citizen</sneer> could say them nay.
The story Dan posted was amusing and pertinent to what we discuss here, because it illustrates one of our theses. NYT reporters, responding to the lingering remnants of honesty and honor not yet squeezed out by Pinch and the netroots, were starting to report actual events and trends in Iraq — and as a result were starting to get off message, verging ever so slightly toward contradicting The Narrative™. The editors brought them up short.
Which may be a clue as to why every popularity or “trust” poll shows that the only ones less popular than the Bush Administration are the Press and the Congress.
I would like to see Rasmussen or somebody do a big poll, some thousands of people, with the hypothetical “If you could impeach Congress, would you do it?” Five gets you twenty the “Yes” answers would approach sixty percent, with the “No”s divided more or less evenly among real supporters, don’t-cares, and people pointing out that the hypothetical was impossible.
Regards,
Ric
Cleo, cleo…sweetcheeks. Why do you demand a “substansive argument” from me when you don’t offer anything substansive yourself?
Then we have here some funny little Left cult acolyte, Soaring Chicken or something (too much watching of “F Troop” reruns), piddling on the floor hoping to shock the grownups.
What is it with you Lefties on a nice Sunday afternoon? A godbotherer wish you “God Bless” outside a Xtian church? You spotted an American flag? Not enough of the wrong kind of Iraqis (the ones resisting your “insurgent” allies) getting murdered today?
Go see a movie or something…. maybe a fantasy like Inconvenient Truth
Fascinating. So is that a high crime or a misdemeanor?
yours/
peter.
Do you favor or oppose the abolition of all political parties except Democrats?
Do you favor or oppose legalizing the lynching of Republicans?
The answers would probably horrify us.
“The answers would probably horrify us.”
But should you be surprised?
“But should you be surprised?”
That the progressive movement is poorly disguised fascism? Nah, I saw it coming 20 years ago.
Never wrestle with a pig, folks. You just get dirty and teh pig enjoys it.
B Moe, I don’t know how to respond to your “progressive” point, because I don’t know what it means. I don’t see myself as fascost. only inclusive. But you know best. Incidentally, I don’t think that wearing half-assed burkas in Washington is a good idea.
Lex – hmmmm, pork sandwiches….
tw: “pro-German from” – whoa, dude!
“Incidentally, I don’t think that wearing half-assed burkas in Washington is a good idea.”
My vacation plans are ruined.
I have nothing to say, but the turing word is just too good to let go.
tw:”Cleve sheep” – If that sheep in the corner says anything, she’s a damn liar!
oh, it’s on Robin! B Moe, perhaps you could wear an (tw)Iliad shirt instead?
Where does one begin; how about if William Wells, Anthony Lake, & Daniel Davidson; had not made such a fuss over the ‘illegality’ of the invasion of Cambodia; there would have been less pressure to pull out; re Cooper/Church,
Hughes, McGovern etc. Maybe Pol Pot wouldn’t have been able to fill the power vacuum through the umbrella group with Prince Sihanouk. And maybe 1-2
million Cambodians; would not have perished in Saloth Sar’s Maoism v. 2.0
after the declaration of year Zero. The fact that people like Lake had the unmitigated gall not to apologize for their stupidity; but was promoted to
National Security Adviser after his role at bringing the Sandinistas and
the mullahs to power and came this close to becoming CIA director; is unremarkable. This is not unlike the Clinton era State Department official
(George Kenney, among the leaders) who ‘resigned in principle over Bosnia; and then whined when some of their recommendations were belated taken up)
Hoyt’s previous employer, Knight Ridder; was among the most virulent opponents of every aspect of counter terror policy since 2001; taking up
Richard Clarke’s accusations; practically beatifying PLame & Wilson, yet
not really examining the truth behind Salman Pak,& WMD transfer issues giving the good samaritan to the Syrian & Iranian governments, jihad & IED campaign;their campaign against the Lebanese government, blaming us for the
backlog of Iraqis stranded in Jordan & Syria;because of their governments
actions in the field, et al.
Personally, I’m quite curious about this “illegal bombing of Cambodia” claim that semanticleo throws about.
What exactly made it illegal? After all, it’s important to remember that it was the North Vietnamese who first violated Cambodia’s neutrality. Take a look at any map of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Notice where it ran? That’s right—Cambodia!
So, if the enemy (in this case, the North Vietnamese) are running supply lines through a neutral country (in this case Cambodia, and also Laos), then by international law, the neutral state if it wishes to retain that neutrality, must defend its territory and make the violator of neutrality stop. If it cannot do so (and that’s arguably the case) or if it chooses not to do so, then it becomes a combatant, and may be treated as such.
People like semanticleo do violence to “cleo,” the goddess of history, by leaving out pertinent little details like who first violated Cambodia’s neutrality. More to the point, they then bandy about terms like “illegal bombing” with nary a clue as to what those terms actually mean.
But then, when we consider the defense of the Khmer Rouge mounted by the likes of Noam Chomsky, I suppose semanticleo’s little excursion into historical fantasy is about par?
LO. Which just goes to show his lack of confidence in his own abilities. Whatever the subject, I pity those poor students. Providing he has any.
“Shine, it is a push poll because it lists talking points hostile to President Bush and then tests whether or not those talking points have affected the opinion of the persons polled.”
Which questions are push poll questions?
“Perhaps in the future, but right now, +3 gets you to 48%.”
Which makes 50% not so unbelievable.
If you want to remove an elected official by popular opinion, or public mandate if you will, that would be a recall. Our system has no legal method of recalling the President. What we do have is an impeachment process, and it is generally accepted must have broken the law to be impeached. Under the “rule of law”, that is not a matter of public opinion. Unless of course you just plan to use the impeachment process as a means of political harassment.