Another US President quiz
December 31st, 2005 at 8:05 am by David FarrarWhich President ordered the CIA to destroy Al Qaeda?
Which President when asked what should be done with the people captured said “That’s up to you”?
Under which President was the “renditions” program started, which involved moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections?
The answers are here.
Related posts:
- The TAPAS US political trivial quiz
- Obama is to be the 44th President
- A good speech by Cullen
- President Obama
December 31st, 2005 at 8:15 am
Well, David, I haven’t looked at the answer, but I am sure it is not George W or any other Republican.
It has to be a Democrat.
So my money is on that nice Mr Clinton.
Do I get the chocolate fish?
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 8:34 am
In my reading and certainly in my particular case the very widespread extremely negative opinion of Bush 43 and his administration is not purely or even predominently a result of partisan politics.
Conservative pundits continue to paint it as such, but that’s just dissembling, surely.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 8:48 am
Reid, someone forgot to tell all the people surveyed by Gallup about this ‘widespread extremely negative opinion.’ They just voted him ‘most admired man of 2005.’ Maybe it’s just widespread within the media you read.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 9:04 am
Since the sitting US President has been voted ‘Most Admired Man’ every year for several decades Bush’s achievement is not particularly noteworthy.
Did you see who the most admired women was?
http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=20635
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 9:39 am
Yes I did. She’d have to be, after putting up with his antics.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 9:58 am
Adolf, I read things like this survey from MSNBC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
Last I looked, that’s not a lefty site, and 86% for impeachment indicates a trend unlikely to be reversed.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 10:06 am
Oh dear someone who takes an Internet self-selecting poll seriously.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 10:16 am
Oh that naughty Clinton – keep digging chaps, we’ll save Bush’s arse yet! What we’ll do with it when we succeed is another matter – maybe put it in a jar & worship it, like we did with Brash’s “personality”. Stranger things have happened in the curious little world of the Politics of Arrested Development.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 11:14 am
Woppo – you can whine away as much as you like down here in l’il ‘ol Noo Zeeland (thinking you make a difference), but in the meantime Dubya just keeps doing the business….
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 11:16 am
It’s the trend that counts, and it’s all downhill for Bush 43.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 11:38 am
Yes it is the trend that counts Reid. And in the latest scientific polls the Republicans favourability is up around 7% and Democrats down around 9%.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 2:16 pm
So what’s the overall trend line showing for Bush’s job approval ratings since the election?
According to Zogby with respect to their latest…
“…The controversy, just days old, has not harmed the President, whose job approval rating has improved from a low of 38% earlier this month to 44% now – this as the nation has seen robust economic growth and the Iraq parliamentary elections last week were conducted with little violence and high voter turnout.
Asked whether they felt the nation was on the right track, 44% agreed, while 51% said the country was headed in the wrong direction, the poll shows.”
Oh dear. Perhaps the upward swing may not be part of a permanent trend then?
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1053
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
It’s interesting tracking the “development” of people who previously hid their political opinions. Does reid consider himself in-tune with conspiracy theories on a non-partisan basis? For exampe, does reid consider the ridiculous drug lord allegations thrown at Clinton by paranoid isolationist rightwingers during the 1990′s as legitimate? Does reid consider the Waco disaster an intentional act by the Clinton Administration? Does reid consider Clinton was in cahoots with the Chinese Government?
I note reid is the sort of person who thinks all content found on the Internet should be judged by itself, which presumedly casts ill-researched opinion and blatant propaganda in the same camp as news items from Associated Press, the Washington Post, etc. It’s one thing to think these agencies publish stories of interest mainly to the centre-left and mainly to the political detriment of the centre-right (or vice versa), its another thing entirely to consider their content as reliable as anything published on a nut-job website such as rense.com or smirkingchimp.com (as random examples of bipartisan insanity directed at Bush).
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Well gee AL you don’t know me at all and your questions are quite off topic. I’d be happy to respond in detail but not here and now. Just briefly,
In respect of smirkingchimp.com, I think it’s great comedy, I look at it the same way I look at http://www.dcpox.com/ – have a look at the archive – v funny
As for rense, when you get 70 million hits a month, let me know. If you look at their stories, with an open mind, you’ll see there’s a reason for the traffic.
As for Clinton, like Adolf who alluded to Clinton and China in a post only days ago, I’ve had an instinct for years that there is something amiss with him and his connections with China. During his administration significant military technology went East, such as the theft of the legacy codes (which gave China the neutron bomb), metallurgy and ballistics which gave them MIRV re-entry stability, and other military technology. All of this raises my eyebrows and I continue to be alert for threads, but like those mysterious deaths in the 80′s of those SDI scientists, the truth is elusive.
As for Clinton’s coccaine allegations, how should I know, but why don’t you have a look at the video called The Clinton Chronicles in Videon’s doco section and let me know if that raises any new thoughts in your mind?
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Internet traffic is no indication of a sites reliabilty – just look at the garbage churned out by the mega-blogs like Powerline, DailyKos and LGF. All three are massively popular reality-free zones. Something happens in the world that doesn’t flatter your chosen political ideology? Just visit the blogosphere, where you can find dozens of deranged paranoiacs who can explain to you that the offending event didn’t reall occur, and that you’re being lied to you by an evil bipartisan press controlled by (liberal journalists/right-wing media corporations).
Bush is currently enjoying a mild resurgence in the polls – he’s now in the low 40′s, after sinking to the mid-30′s during the Katrina/Harriet Miers thing.
Someone above claimed that Bush keeps ‘doing the business’. Remind me again – what HAS the US’s ‘CEO President’ accomplished in his second term?
Finally, AL bought up the issue of Waco – I think it would behoove those of us in the anti-Bush camp to imagine how they’d react if there had been Bush equivilents of Ruby Ridge and Waco, and consider that the transition in US civil liberties from Clinton to Bush hasn’t been as dramatic as many on the left would like to think.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 8:55 pm
What’s the difference between a republican party president and a democratic party president? Nothing that I can detect.
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 10:17 am
Reid how does it feel to make such a complete penis of yourself in public?
Vote:January 2nd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
It would be really interesting to see how Helen Clark and the Labour administration reacted to a terrorist strike against NZ, particularly if it ocurred within NZ. Clark and her vocal left wing supporters, some of whom pop up with their vitriol on this site, believe we live in a benign strategic environment. I have bad news for them – Muslim terroists despise the west in general, but they especially despise liberal social engineers of the left wing ilk. Furthermore they don’t give a rat’s ass who gets in their way of their nasty little war. They don’t care if their bombing campaign indiscriminately kills blacks, whites, women, children, Christians or even fellow Muslims. It is not a question of if NZ is the subject of a terrorist attack but when. The fact that we did not participate in Iraq and that we’re generally quite anti-US in this country will not protect us. The attack on the World Trade Centre and the Bali nightclub bombing ocurred well before Iraq. Something to think about for those armchair critics of Bush. What would they do as US president if an outright act of war like 911 was carried out against civilian, not military targets, by Muslim terrorists within their own borders.
Vote: