The New York Times And A "Jim Webb" Of Lies

Today on Meet the Depressed with Tim Russert Senator Jim Webb accused Senator Lindsey Graham of "putting political words in the Soldier's mouths." Actually, it seems Senator Webb did much worse than that today. He put words in their mouths and the mouths of their families and it also appears he got it wrong both times.

Webb was citing this below from a current NY Times story. (full NYT version here) A few interesting things happen when you try to confirm this specific item from a poll taken in May, which we only seem to be hearing about now for some odd reason.

Among military members and their immediate families who responded to a national New York Times/CBS News poll in May, two-thirds said things were going badly, compared with just over half, about 53 percent, a year ago.

There is indeed a May NY Times CBS poll, but if you look at it, you see why it wasn't making bigger news in May. It didn't give the Democrats what they wanted back then. So here we are three months later, they've striped out results they didn't like and are attempting to inject the ones they did like into the coming debate on war funding.

While the troops remain in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions.

CBS had coverage of the poll, again, no mention of military families and, keep in mind, this was long before the so-called Surge actually took full effect just two weeks ago. Other than party affiliation the only sub-group mentioned was African-American. CBS cautioned the MOE for that sub group shot up to an unreliable + or - 7 points. Any guesses as to what the MOE might be for this suddenly discovered, though previously unidentified "military family" sub group alleged to have taken part in this dated poll?

Also as regards Senator Webb, while referencing an "only 35% support" for the war number, it at least looks as though he might actually have become confused between the New York Times story and an old and already debunked Military Times survey - debunked as even the MT's is forced to admit they poll veterans and families not necessarily affiliated with active duty military today. You'd think Webb, an old soldier, would know that. He accused Senator Lindsey Graham of "putting political words in the Soldier's mouths." Actually, it seems Senator Webb did worse. He put words in their mouths and the mouths of their families and, as stated, it appears he got it wrong both times. He should apologize to our troops ... and stay off TV until he gets his facts straight ... and a better wig, if he doesn't mind my saying so.

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,125 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone May 18-23, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. An oversample of African Americans was also conducted for this poll, for a total of 192 interviews among this group. The results were then weighted in proportion to the racial composition of the adult population in the U.S. Census. The margin of error for African Americans is plus or minus 7 percentage points.

And strangely, back in May, not one Left wing blog opted to tout the NY Times lede:

"Americans view war in Iraq more negatively now than at any time since invasion,"

Either liberals don't even read the NY Times anymore, or they didn't want people to realize the strong support for continuing to fund the war which, ultimately, led to Bush winning that previous debate. All they are doing now is striping out what they didn't like from an old poll and bringing back the rest. If the numbers against the war still hold, we should assume the support for fully funding the troops does as well and Congress should immediately set about giving President Bush the funds he needs to continue the fine effort of our brave and loyal soldiers in the field.

Comments

[southdakotaboy]

Is it any suprise that the left is not telling the truth about the war in Iraq? They have to hide any thing that tells the truth so that the can cause the defeat of the US. They seem to think that this will then allow them to win in 2008.
The Dems are playing a very risky game. They depend on conservative Americans to join and support the military, what are they going to do after they have basically destroyed any reason for these people to join the military.
Once the muslims sense weakness they will come in for the kill. I don't think that this will be the destruction of the US, but it will lead to a surge in impossible list of demands and attacks.

[markg8]

I quote this May 24 poll all the time. The only thing in it that remotely supports your opinion is that the American public wanted benchmarks as opposed to a complete and immediate cut off in funding by a 69 to 13% margin. The Republican position of staying the course with Bush was at 15%. Statistically your position was right up there with Dennis Kucinich's. I can't imagine it's gotten any more popular.

There is nothing in the poll about the military or their families I can find. I guess the Times decided to hold back that information until today. When they don't release info like that and wait a year until after the election to let us know Bush is illegally spying on us it's not hard to understand why the Times isn't trusted anymore.

There is no strong support for continuing to fund the war. That's just a fantasy you cling to. The American people want an orderly end to this war.
We do not want a immediate cut off in funding that puts George Bush in charge of a mad rush for the Kuwaiti border or even worse sees him doing something even crazier like bombing Iran or upending the whole Pentagon budget, putting major weapons systems on hold - complete with big breach of contract penalties to his defense contractor buddies who will immediately lay off their employees - to fund his favorite war and put us even deeper in debt. That's all illegal as hell but we're talking about the Bush administration here, laws have never stopped them before.

You guys have talked about Bush Derangement Syndrome for years. You've completely missed the diagnosis and don't understand how infected you are.

[Bill Adkins]

Just watched that clip -- Linday so obviously didn't believe the crap he was spewing -- and Webb wiped the floor with him. The truth is, this Blunder in Iraq today is more about Bush personally than any benefit to America. Our soldiers are fighting and dying in a last ditch effort to prevent Bush from being remembered as the worst president in history. Well, our forces defeated Saddam Hussein -- but I do believe there's no way in hell to prevent Bush from being remembered as the worst president in history.

[Purple Avenger]

"but I do believe there's no way in hell to prevent Bush from being remembered as the worst president in history."

Just like Truman was the worst in his day right?

[Bill Adkins]

Compare Truman to Bush? He's spinning in his grave and planning to dig his way out so he can find you and kick your ass. Even dead presidents can take so many insults. This reminds me of the time someone compared Bush to Churchill. That was stupid, too.

[Phoenix]

This is stupid, too.

"Our soldiers are fighting and dying in a last ditch effort to prevent Bush from being remembered as the worst president in history."

So, you're saying Bush is solely responsible for the current fighting just so he will be remembered in a good light? You are an idiot. In case you haven't noticed, Bush doesn't give a rat's ass what anything thinks.

[Steve J.]

southdakotaboy writes: "They have to hide any thing that tells the truth so that the can cause the defeat of the US."

You haven't been paying enough attention but Mr. Buckley has:

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
February 24, 2006 2:51 PM

It Didn't Work

By William F. Buckley Jr.

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes—it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.

[Gavin M.]

So wait. The Times story confirms the stat that Webb cited, but he was 'lying' because the data is actually from May, as Webb said, while the stat was first published in July?

Are you hitting the Zima a bit hard tonight, Dan?

[Phoenix]

Just out of curiousity as I would rather poke my eyes out with pencils that read one word of W.F.B.... Did His Fatness-Way-Past-Retirement-Time Buckley bother to find out if that clothing merchant knew that the Sunni and Shiites have been fighting for almost a thousand years? How the hell is that America's fault?

"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." Do tell. Hey, we could leave Iraq and go back in six weeks and ask that clothing merchant what he thinks. Maybe he will have secured a great peace between the Sunni and the Shiites and for a bonus, the Kurds! Why are we there anyway? Let them kill each other so we won't have to be bothered with the fools. Thanks, Steve. I might be wrong but I'm no longer in doubt.

[bloodrage bob]

puh-LEEZ. "worst prez in history", at least the 20th-21st century version, is profoundly stupid, stunningly incompetent jimmuh carter. carter never did ANything right in his term as "instigator of our long national nightmare". not one thing, ever.

bush, while a big-gummint loving, conservative-in-name-only, open-borders, terrified-to-veto POS.....has at least managed a good economy; damn good econ numbers - numbers carter would've KILLED for - no recurrence of 9-11 and magnificent, stunningly easy (incredibly easy *even given that* we were fighting mere islamopigs) military victories in afghanistan & iraq. (where he's screwed up is in the management of the occupation. but that's another topic for another day.)

idiot liberals will of course deny this, but will find it necessary to defend the idiot carter without using *any* specifics of his "accomplishments". there's a reason for this.

[Steve J.]

"Did His Fatness-Way-Past-Retirement-Time Buckley bother to find out if that clothing merchant knew that the Sunni and Shiites have been fighting for almost a thousand years?"

I'm guessinf Fats knows but two of the finest war whores didn't:

BILL KRISTOL: And on this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there's been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. (NPR's Fresh Air, 4/1/2003)

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: We have no idea what kind of ethnic strife might appear in the future, although as I have noted, it has not been the history of Iraq's past. FEBRUARY 27, 2003

[Steve J.]

Dear bloodrage bob,

CARTER VS. FREDO
Remember, Carter had 4 years, Fredo's had almost 6.5 years.

TOTAL PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
(IN THOUSANDS)

CARTER
JAN 1977 65636
DEC 1980 74563
NET == + 8927

BUSH 2
JAN 2001 111560
MAY 2007 115591
NET== +4031

[bloodrage bob]

wow, steve. so your argument consists of an iraqi merchant blaming all the troubles in the world on america, huh?

think about that: an arab islamowhatever blames everything on.......someone else. ANYone else but themselves: the jooooos, america, britney spears.....any ol' scapegoat will do. all that matters is that it ain't **their** fault, ever. no how, no way. the muslim is ALWAYS blameless: the prophet said so. that about it?

do you even *read* the stuff (the DNC pays you $5.85 an hour to) type in here?

[bloodrage bob]

also, re that whole 'worst prez' thing, i see the same idiot liberals savaging bush for making haji's wear underwear on their heads at abu ghraib continue to sing the praises of harry truman: the man who *personally gave the order* to *nuke hundreds of thousands of noncombatant civilians*.

how very odd. it's almost as if they were using 2 different standards here.

[Phoenix]

Hey! Don't be calling Bill and Paul whores. On second thought, it's all right if you do. They're my favorite war whores. Don't forget Charles.

Nice that you picked quotations from 2003. There was no current problem then because Saddam took care of any whorseplay. And the fact is, Sunni and Shiites can get along - it's the insurgent fomenting trouble that have caused the mess.

[Bill Adkins]

And, Steve, Carter showed approximately a 15% increase - what's Bush's increase, 3%? As for you, phonics, you say, "Bush doesn't give a rat's ass what anything thinks..." That's very evident as to prosecution of the war on terror, no matter how wrong he is, he stays stuck on stupid. It's why we're in the mess we're in today. And it's why Bush is fighting in Iraq not for America but for his legacy. And that legacy is and will remain, 'worst president in history.' Bush has done the impossible - he's made Carter look competent in comparison to him. Hell, he's made Nixon look honest in comparison to him.

[nowingker]

Stuck on stupid doesn't begin to describe the winger attitudes, they STILL think two more months of 'surging' is going to get them a 'win' whatever that means, which of course beyond the platitudes they're fed on Fox and Rush's show, they haven't a clue.

Wingers simply disbelieve everything that doesn't fit with their worldview...anecdotes, polls, videostreams, intelligence reports, generals, field commanders, former heads of state, they can find a reason to dismiss every single thing because they look at every 'incident' in a vacuum, thus, each statement by an Iraqi is an anecdote, each statement by military is the opinion of a disgruntled 'fired' employee, each intelligence report is either an opinion or has been doctored. They refuse to put together all of these reports, polls, anecdotes, footage and statements because its apparent that its a fucking tsunami of information that clearly shows the Iraq situation is far beyond our control and that we cannot 'win' a peace between two factions vying for power. Whether or not Iraq was always beyond our control and a 'win' was always a pipe dream and its Bush's mismanagement that has brought things to disaster is a question for the historians.

I urge the poor fools who believe history will vindicate Bush not to hold their breath, sometimes the judgement of history comes quickly, when the evidence is overwhelming, think Caligula, Stalin, Augustus Caesar, FDR...

You can almost empathize with their desperation at this point, things in the present are so bad they have to keep on bringing up Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman to make themselves feel better.

[Bill Adkins]

Hitler, Napoleon, Attila the Hun, and, my favorite and the one I believe Bush to be most similar to is Napoleon III - Nappy III's machinations united the Prussian states and gave us Germany -- remember the two wars?

[Fred Beloit]

Year
President
Unemp. Rate**
1973
Nixon*
4.9

1974
Ford
5.6

1975
Ford
8.5

1976
Ford
7.7

1977
Carter
7.1

1978
Carter
6.1

1979
Carter
5.8

1980
Carter
7.1

1981
Reagan
7.6

1982
Reagan
9.7

1983
Reagan
9.6

1984
Reagan
7.5

1985
Reagan
7.2

1986Reagan
7.0

1987
Reagan
6.2

1988
Reagan
5.5

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the most recent unemployment rate, for the month of OCTOBER 2006, was 4.4 percent. MAY 2007 Unemployment Rate 4.5%. HOW DOES THIS LOOK TO YOU, WILLY? BUSH WINS HANDS DOWN.

[Fred Beloit]

HOW DOES THE ABOVE LOOK TO YOU, STEVE THE ECONOMIST?

[Fred Beloit]

Americans bad. SteveJ is American. He is bad. Willy Adkins is American. He must be bad. jong is....no, she must be good. Signed, your friend, Iraqi Merchant.

[chris]

"BUSH WINS HANDS DOWN"

Yeah, victories everywhere you turn.

You 26%ers are priceless!!!

[nowingker]

Unemployment was at its lowest under Clinton, who Fred mysteriously leaves out of his irrelevant posting on unemployment numbers.

Fred apparently thinks Bush is going down in history as a great president because unemployment was lower during his term than Jimmy Carter's, yeah, whatever, and the surge is working, we're turning the corner in Iraq, god is smiling....

But, hey, Fred probably also thinks that Dick Cheney is not a part of the Executive Branch!

[Fred Beloit]

chris is American. He very, very bad. Your servant, Iraqi Merchant

[Fred Beloit]

"Unemployment was at its lowest under Clinton, who Fred mysteriously leaves out of his irrelevant posting on unemployment numbers." Say, you promised never to communicate with me again, winko. What's the idea breaking your promise? I am very, very disappointed in you. Since you are lazy, I'll give you some of the missing data: By the way Clinton's lowest was 4.2%. Obviously the what's-happening-now is the most important data. It is clearly good. Don't forget to the videos about Hill and Bill I provided for people like you.
http://economics.about.com/od/economicindicatorinfo/a/bush_economy.htm
The Unemployment Rate
Clinton's 2nd Term: 4.40%
2001: 4.76%
2002: 5.78%
2003: 6.00%
2004: 5.63% (First quarter) 37 Months Under Bush: 5.51%
Last 15 Months: 5.92%

[Fred Beloit]

For the lazy idiots of the Left. Have fun. Title: Civilian Unemployment Rate
Series ID: UNRATE
Source: U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Release: The Employment Situation
Seasonal Adjustment: Seasonally Adjusted
Frequency: Monthly
Units: Percent
Date Range: 1948-01-01 to 2007-06-01
Last Updated: 2007-07-06 11:36 AM CT
Notes: Persons 16 years of age and older.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced several revisions to
the Household Survey on Friday Feb.7th 2003, with the release of the
January 2003 Data. They introduced the Census 2000 population controls
(which affect data back to 2000 and cause a break in the data in
January 2000), a new seasonal adjustment procedure, and new seasonal
factors back to January 1998. For further information contact the
Current Employment Statistics (CES) homepage at www.bls.gov/ces or by
calling 202-691-6555.

DATE VALUE
1948-01-01 3.4
1948-02-01 3.8
1948-03-01 4.0
1948-04-01 3.9
1948-05-01 3.5
1948-06-01 3.6
1948-07-01 3.6
1948-08-01 3.9
1948-09-01 3.8
1948-10-01 3.7
1948-11-01 3.8
1948-12-01 4.0
1949-01-01 4.3
1949-02-01 4.7
1949-03-01 5.0
1949-04-01 5.3
1949-05-01 6.1
1949-06-01 6.2
1949-07-01 6.7
1949-08-01 6.8
1949-09-01 6.6
1949-10-01 7.9
1949-11-01 6.4
1949-12-01 6.6
1950-01-01 6.5
1950-02-01 6.4
1950-03-01 6.3
1950-04-01 5.8
1950-05-01 5.5
1950-06-01 5.4
1950-07-01 5.0
1950-08-01 4.5
1950-09-01 4.4
1950-10-01 4.2
1950-11-01 4.2
1950-12-01 4.3
1951-01-01 3.7
1951-02-01 3.4
1951-03-01 3.4
1951-04-01 3.1
1951-05-01 3.0
1951-06-01 3.2
1951-07-01 3.1
1951-08-01 3.1
1951-09-01 3.3
1951-10-01 3.5
1951-11-01 3.5
1951-12-01 3.1
1952-01-01 3.2
1952-02-01 3.1
1952-03-01 2.9
1952-04-01 2.9
1952-05-01 3.0
1952-06-01 3.0
1952-07-01 3.2
1952-08-01 3.4
1952-09-01 3.1
1952-10-01 3.0
1952-11-01 2.8
1952-12-01 2.7
1953-01-01 2.9
1953-02-01 2.6
1953-03-01 2.6
1953-04-01 2.7
1953-05-01 2.5
1953-06-01 2.5
1953-07-01 2.6
1953-08-01 2.7
1953-09-01 2.9
1953-10-01 3.1
1953-11-01 3.5
1953-12-01 4.5
1954-01-01 4.9
1954-02-01 5.2
1954-03-01 5.7
1954-04-01 5.9
1954-05-01 5.9
1954-06-01 5.6
1954-07-01 5.8
1954-08-01 6.0
1954-09-01 6.1
1954-10-01 5.7
1954-11-01 5.3
1954-12-01 5.0
1955-01-01 4.9
1955-02-01 4.7
1955-03-01 4.6
1955-04-01 4.7
1955-05-01 4.3
1955-06-01 4.2
1955-07-01 4.0
1955-08-01 4.2
1955-09-01 4.1
1955-10-01 4.3
1955-11-01 4.2
1955-12-01 4.2
1956-01-01 4.0
1956-02-01 3.9
1956-03-01 4.2
1956-04-01 4.0
1956-05-01 4.3
1956-06-01 4.3
1956-07-01 4.4
1956-08-01 4.1
1956-09-01 3.9
1956-10-01 3.9
1956-11-01 4.3
1956-12-01 4.2
1957-01-01 4.2
1957-02-01 3.9
1957-03-01 3.7
1957-04-01 3.9
1957-05-01 4.1
1957-06-01 4.3
1957-07-01 4.2
1957-08-01 4.1
1957-09-01 4.4
1957-10-01 4.5
1957-11-01 5.1
1957-12-01 5.2
1958-01-01 5.8
1958-02-01 6.4
1958-03-01 6.7
1958-04-01 7.4
1958-05-01 7.4
1958-06-01 7.3
1958-07-01 7.5
1958-08-01 7.4
1958-09-01 7.1
1958-10-01 6.7
1958-11-01 6.2
1958-12-01 6.2
1959-01-01 6.0
1959-02-01 5.9
1959-03-01 5.6
1959-04-01 5.2
1959-05-01 5.1
1959-06-01 5.0
1959-07-01 5.1
1959-08-01 5.2
1959-09-01 5.5
1959-10-01 5.7
1959-11-01 5.8
1959-12-01 5.3
1960-01-01 5.2
1960-02-01 4.8
1960-03-01 5.4
1960-04-01 5.2
1960-05-01 5.1
1960-06-01 5.4
1960-07-01 5.5
1960-08-01 5.6
1960-09-01 5.5
1960-10-01 6.1
1960-11-01 6.1
1960-12-01 6.6
1961-01-01 6.6
1961-02-01 6.9
1961-03-01 6.9
1961-04-01 7.0
1961-05-01 7.1
1961-06-01 6.9
1961-07-01 7.0
1961-08-01 6.6
1961-09-01 6.7
1961-10-01 6.5
1961-11-01 6.1
1961-12-01 6.0
1962-01-01 5.8
1962-02-01 5.5
1962-03-01 5.6
1962-04-01 5.6
1962-05-01 5.5
1962-06-01 5.5
1962-07-01 5.4
1962-08-01 5.7
1962-09-01 5.6
1962-10-01 5.4
1962-11-01 5.7
1962-12-01 5.5
1963-01-01 5.7
1963-02-01 5.9
1963-03-01 5.7
1963-04-01 5.7
1963-05-01 5.9
1963-06-01 5.6
1963-07-01 5.6
1963-08-01 5.4
1963-09-01 5.5
1963-10-01 5.5
1963-11-01 5.7
1963-12-01 5.5
1964-01-01 5.6
1964-02-01 5.4
1964-03-01 5.4
1964-04-01 5.3
1964-05-01 5.1
1964-06-01 5.2
1964-07-01 4.9
1964-08-01 5.0
1964-09-01 5.1
1964-10-01 5.1
1964-11-01 4.8
1964-12-01 5.0
1965-01-01 4.9
1965-02-01 5.1
1965-03-01 4.7
1965-04-01 4.8
1965-05-01 4.6
1965-06-01 4.6
1965-07-01 4.4
1965-08-01 4.4
1965-09-01 4.3
1965-10-01 4.2
1965-11-01 4.1
1965-12-01 4.0
1966-01-01 4.0
1966-02-01 3.8
1966-03-01 3.8
1966-04-01 3.8
1966-05-01 3.9
1966-06-01 3.8
1966-07-01 3.8
1966-08-01 3.8
1966-09-01 3.7
1966-10-01 3.7
1966-11-01 3.6
1966-12-01 3.8
1967-01-01 3.9
1967-02-01 3.8
1967-03-01 3.8
1967-04-01 3.8
1967-05-01 3.8
1967-06-01 3.9
1967-07-01 3.8
1967-08-01 3.8
1967-09-01 3.8
1967-10-01 4.0
1967-11-01 3.9
1967-12-01 3.8
1968-01-01 3.7
1968-02-01 3.8
1968-03-01 3.7
1968-04-01 3.5
1968-05-01 3.5
1968-06-01 3.7
1968-07-01 3.7
1968-08-01 3.5
1968-09-01 3.4
1968-10-01 3.4
1968-11-01 3.4
1968-12-01 3.4
1969-01-01 3.4
1969-02-01 3.4
1969-03-01 3.4
1969-04-01 3.4
1969-05-01 3.4
1969-06-01 3.5
1969-07-01 3.5
1969-08-01 3.5
1969-09-01 3.7
1969-10-01 3.7
1969-11-01 3.5
1969-12-01 3.5
1970-01-01 3.9
1970-02-01 4.2
1970-03-01 4.4
1970-04-01 4.6
1970-05-01 4.8
1970-06-01 4.9
1970-07-01 5.0
1970-08-01 5.1
1970-09-01 5.4
1970-10-01 5.5
1970-11-01 5.9
1970-12-01 6.1
1971-01-01 5.9
1971-02-01 5.9
1971-03-01 6.0
1971-04-01 5.9
1971-05-01 5.9
1971-06-01 5.9
1971-07-01 6.0
1971-08-01 6.1
1971-09-01 6.0
1971-10-01 5.8
1971-11-01 6.0
1971-12-01 6.0
1972-01-01 5.8
1972-02-01 5.7
1972-03-01 5.8
1972-04-01 5.7
1972-05-01 5.7
1972-06-01 5.7
1972-07-01 5.6
1972-08-01 5.6
1972-09-01 5.5
1972-10-01 5.6
1972-11-01 5.3
1972-12-01 5.2
1973-01-01 4.9
1973-02-01 5.0
1973-03-01 4.9
1973-04-01 5.0
1973-05-01 4.9
1973-06-01 4.9
1973-07-01 4.8
1973-08-01 4.8
1973-09-01 4.8
1973-10-01 4.6
1973-11-01 4.8
1973-12-01 4.9
1974-01-01 5.1
1974-02-01 5.2
1974-03-01 5.1
1974-04-01 5.1
1974-05-01 5.1
1974-06-01 5.4
1974-07-01 5.5
1974-08-01 5.5
1974-09-01 5.9
1974-10-01 6.0
1974-11-01 6.6
1974-12-01 7.2
1975-01-01 8.1
1975-02-01 8.1
1975-03-01 8.6
1975-04-01 8.8
1975-05-01 9.0
1975-06-01 8.8
1975-07-01 8.6
1975-08-01 8.4
1975-09-01 8.4
1975-10-01 8.4
1975-11-01 8.3
1975-12-01 8.2
1976-01-01 7.9
1976-02-01 7.7
1976-03-01 7.6
1976-04-01 7.7
1976-05-01 7.4
1976-06-01 7.6
1976-07-01 7.8
1976-08-01 7.8
1976-09-01 7.6
1976-10-01 7.7
1976-11-01 7.8
1976-12-01 7.8
1977-01-01 7.5
1977-02-01 7.6
1977-03-01 7.4
1977-04-01 7.2
1977-05-01 7.0
1977-06-01 7.2
1977-07-01 6.9
1977-08-01 7.0
1977-09-01 6.8
1977-10-01 6.8
1977-11-01 6.8
1977-12-01 6.4
1978-01-01 6.4
1978-02-01 6.3
1978-03-01 6.3
1978-04-01 6.1
1978-05-01 6.0
1978-06-01 5.9
1978-07-01 6.2
1978-08-01 5.9
1978-09-01 6.0
1978-10-01 5.8
1978-11-01 5.9
1978-12-01 6.0
1979-01-01 5.9
1979-02-01 5.9
1979-03-01 5.8
1979-04-01 5.8
1979-05-01 5.6
1979-06-01 5.7
1979-07-01 5.7
1979-08-01 6.0
1979-09-01 5.9
1979-10-01 6.0
1979-11-01 5.9
1979-12-01 6.0
1980-01-01 6.3
1980-02-01 6.3
1980-03-01 6.3
1980-04-01 6.9
1980-05-01 7.5
1980-06-01 7.6
1980-07-01 7.8
1980-08-01 7.7
1980-09-01 7.5
1980-10-01 7.5
1980-11-01 7.5
1980-12-01 7.2
1981-01-01 7.5
1981-02-01 7.4
1981-03-01 7.4
1981-04-01 7.2
1981-05-01 7.5
1981-06-01 7.5
1981-07-01 7.2
1981-08-01 7.4
1981-09-01 7.6
1981-10-01 7.9
1981-11-01 8.3
1981-12-01 8.5
1982-01-01 8.6
1982-02-01 8.9
1982-03-01 9.0
1982-04-01 9.3
1982-05-01 9.4
1982-06-01 9.6
1982-07-01 9.8
1982-08-01 9.8
1982-09-01 10.1
1982-10-01 10.4
1982-11-01 10.8
1982-12-01 10.8
1983-01-01 10.4
1983-02-01 10.4
1983-03-01 10.3
1983-04-01 10.2
1983-05-01 10.1
1983-06-01 10.1
1983-07-01 9.4
1983-08-01 9.5
1983-09-01 9.2
1983-10-01 8.8
1983-11-01 8.5
1983-12-01 8.3
1984-01-01 8.0
1984-02-01 7.8
1984-03-01 7.8
1984-04-01 7.7
1984-05-01 7.4
1984-06-01 7.2
1984-07-01 7.5
1984-08-01 7.5
1984-09-01 7.3
1984-10-01 7.4
1984-11-01 7.2
1984-12-01 7.3
1985-01-01 7.3
1985-02-01 7.2
1985-03-01 7.2
1985-04-01 7.3
1985-05-01 7.2
1985-06-01 7.4
1985-07-01 7.4
1985-08-01 7.1
1985-09-01 7.1
1985-10-01 7.1
1985-11-01 7.0
1985-12-01 7.0
1986-01-01 6.7
1986-02-01 7.2
1986-03-01 7.2
1986-04-01 7.1
1986-05-01 7.2
1986-06-01 7.2
1986-07-01 7.0
1986-08-01 6.9
1986-09-01 7.0
1986-10-01 7.0
1986-11-01 6.9
1986-12-01 6.6
1987-01-01 6.6
1987-02-01 6.6
1987-03-01 6.6
1987-04-01 6.3
1987-05-01 6.3
1987-06-01 6.2
1987-07-01 6.1
1987-08-01 6.0
1987-09-01 5.9
1987-10-01 6.0
1987-11-01 5.8
1987-12-01 5.7
1988-01-01 5.7
1988-02-01 5.7
1988-03-01 5.7
1988-04-01 5.4
1988-05-01 5.6
1988-06-01 5.4
1988-07-01 5.4
1988-08-01 5.6
1988-09-01 5.4
1988-10-01 5.4
1988-11-01 5.3
1988-12-01 5.3
1989-01-01 5.4
1989-02-01 5.2
1989-03-01 5.0
1989-04-01 5.2
1989-05-01 5.2
1989-06-01 5.3
1989-07-01 5.2
1989-08-01 5.2
1989-09-01 5.3
1989-10-01 5.3
1989-11-01 5.4
1989-12-01 5.4
1990-01-01 5.4
1990-02-01 5.3
1990-03-01 5.2
1990-04-01 5.4
1990-05-01 5.4
1990-06-01 5.2
1990-07-01 5.5
1990-08-01 5.7
1990-09-01 5.9
1990-10-01 5.9
1990-11-01 6.2
1990-12-01 6.3
1991-01-01 6.4
1991-02-01 6.6
1991-03-01 6.8
1991-04-01 6.7
1991-05-01 6.9
1991-06-01 6.9
1991-07-01 6.8
1991-08-01 6.9
1991-09-01 6.9
1991-10-01 7.0
1991-11-01 7.0
1991-12-01 7.3
1992-01-01 7.3
1992-02-01 7.4
1992-03-01 7.4
1992-04-01 7.4
1992-05-01 7.6
1992-06-01 7.8
1992-07-01 7.7
1992-08-01 7.6
1992-09-01 7.6
1992-10-01 7.3
1992-11-01 7.4
1992-12-01 7.4
1993-01-01 7.3
1993-02-01 7.1
1993-03-01 7.0
1993-04-01 7.1
1993-05-01 7.1
1993-06-01 7.0
1993-07-01 6.9
1993-08-01 6.8
1993-09-01 6.7
1993-10-01 6.8
1993-11-01 6.6
1993-12-01 6.5
1994-01-01 6.6
1994-02-01 6.6
1994-03-01 6.5
1994-04-01 6.4
1994-05-01 6.1
1994-06-01 6.1
1994-07-01 6.1
1994-08-01 6.0
1994-09-01 5.9
1994-10-01 5.8
1994-11-01 5.6
1994-12-01 5.5
1995-01-01 5.6
1995-02-01 5.4
1995-03-01 5.4
1995-04-01 5.8
1995-05-01 5.6
1995-06-01 5.6
1995-07-01 5.7
1995-08-01 5.7
1995-09-01 5.6
1995-10-01 5.5
1995-11-01 5.6
1995-12-01 5.6
1996-01-01 5.6
1996-02-01 5.5
1996-03-01 5.5
1996-04-01 5.6
1996-05-01 5.6
1996-06-01 5.3
1996-07-01 5.5
1996-08-01 5.1
1996-09-01 5.2
1996-10-01 5.2
1996-11-01 5.4
1996-12-01 5.4
1997-01-01 5.3
1997-02-01 5.2
1997-03-01 5.2
1997-04-01 5.1
1997-05-01 4.9
1997-06-01 5.0
1997-07-01 4.9
1997-08-01 4.8
1997-09-01 4.9
1997-10-01 4.7
1997-11-01 4.6
1997-12-01 4.7
1998-01-01 4.6
1998-02-01 4.6
1998-03-01 4.7
1998-04-01 4.3
1998-05-01 4.4
1998-06-01 4.5
1998-07-01 4.5
1998-08-01 4.5
1998-09-01 4.6
1998-10-01 4.5
1998-11-01 4.4
1998-12-01 4.4
1999-01-01 4.3
1999-02-01 4.4
1999-03-01 4.2
1999-04-01 4.3
1999-05-01 4.2
1999-06-01 4.3
1999-07-01 4.3
1999-08-01 4.2
1999-09-01 4.2
1999-10-01 4.1
1999-11-01 4.1
1999-12-01 4.0
2000-01-01 4.0
2000-02-01 4.1
2000-03-01 4.0
2000-04-01 3.8
2000-05-01 4.0
2000-06-01 4.0
2000-07-01 4.0
2000-08-01 4.1
2000-09-01 3.9
2000-10-01 3.9
2000-11-01 3.9
2000-12-01 3.9
2001-01-01 4.2
2001-02-01 4.2
2001-03-01 4.3
2001-04-01 4.4
2001-05-01 4.3
2001-06-01 4.5
2001-07-01 4.6
2001-08-01 4.9
2001-09-01 5.0
2001-10-01 5.3
2001-11-01 5.5
2001-12-01 5.7
2002-01-01 5.7
2002-02-01 5.7
2002-03-01 5.7
2002-04-01 5.9
2002-05-01 5.8
2002-06-01 5.8
2002-07-01 5.8
2002-08-01 5.7
2002-09-01 5.7
2002-10-01 5.7
2002-11-01 5.9
2002-12-01 6.0
2003-01-01 5.8
2003-02-01 5.9
2003-03-01 5.9
2003-04-01 6.0
2003-05-01 6.1
2003-06-01 6.3
2003-07-01 6.2
2003-08-01 6.1
2003-09-01 6.1
2003-10-01 6.0
2003-11-01 5.8
2003-12-01 5.7
2004-01-01 5.7
2004-02-01 5.6
2004-03-01 5.8
2004-04-01 5.6
2004-05-01 5.6
2004-06-01 5.6
2004-07-01 5.5
2004-08-01 5.4
2004-09-01 5.4
2004-10-01 5.4
2004-11-01 5.4
2004-12-01 5.4
2005-01-01 5.2
2005-02-01 5.4
2005-03-01 5.2
2005-04-01 5.1
2005-05-01 5.1
2005-06-01 5.0
2005-07-01 5.0
2005-08-01 4.9
2005-09-01 5.1
2005-10-01 5.0
2005-11-01 5.0
2005-12-01 4.9
2006-01-01 4.7
2006-02-01 4.8
2006-03-01 4.7
2006-04-01 4.7
2006-05-01 4.6
2006-06-01 4.6
2006-07-01 4.8
2006-08-01 4.7
2006-09-01 4.6
2006-10-01 4.4
2006-11-01 4.5
2006-12-01 4.5
2007-01-01 4.6
2007-02-01 4.5
2007-03-01 4.4
2007-04-01 4.5
2007-05-01 4.5
2007-06-01 4.5

[nowingker]

What a waste of bandwidth. What an imbecile.

George Bush is a terrible president. He is going down in history as a terrible president. The yearly unemployment rate since 1948 isn't going to change that, nor is it going to change the fact that EVENTUALLY the American people and the American economy are going to pay a price for his massive deficit spending, not today, not tomorrow, but eventually.

[Bill Adkins]

Damn good thing Clinton left the economy in such good shape - the Clinton economy is all that stands between us and Bush delivering the Great Depression II.

[Bill Adkins]

BTW, Fred - in April, 2000 Clinton was president and the Unemployment rate reflects 3.8%. That means that Clinton's lowest number was 3.8% and not the 4.2% you earlier asserted.

[Fred Beloit]

"

[Fred Beloit]

"BTW, Fred - in April, 2000 Clinton was president and the Unemployment rate reflects 3.8%. That means that Clinton's lowest number was 3.8% and not the 4.2% you earlier asserted." (Sorry for the false start above, folks.) Why, yes, Bill, I see that. And here it is over seven years later and we are still feeling the good effects of the Clinton Presidency? Is that what you're saying? If that is so, perhaps you will have to admit the War was started by that same Presidency. Just play this Clinton State of the Union video to see why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnceSIxxOYg

[chris]

"

Poor Fred, he had something to say but got interrupted. Perhaps he:

A. Felt an urge to go outside and wave a flag.
B. Needed go go support the troops.
C. Went looking for bin Laden/WMDs
D. Dropped dead in his trailer (we don't get THAT lucky).

In any case, Fred is a true hero and patriot and we look forward to hearing his many insightful musings in the near future.

[Fred Beloit]

Barum bom bom bom bom. LITTLE WILLY: "What is that sound, Mommy?" WILLY'S MOM: Why it is the drums of war, Willy. President Clinton has started beating them."

[Fred Beloit]

LITTLE WILLY: "Mommy, I hear a siwwy wittle wrabit's voice now. What is that?" WILLY'S MOM: "Why that is not a Rabbit, darling. That is just a fat rat who lives in the basement."

[chris]

Poor Fred, sitting in his sweaty trailer and responding to his own posts. What a patriot, what a loser.

[Fred Beloit]

Lame, Boob. Very lame.

[chris]

Mother jokes, Fred? Further evidence that your kind never made it out of 4th grade.

[nowingker]

A. Felt an urge to go outside and wave a flag.

Doubtful, Fred like all wingers is deathly afraid the IslamOfascists are going to git him, so if he went out it was likely for ammo so he can protect himself in the coming 'war' which will be against the IslamOfascist/socialist/communist/Democrats/liberals.

B. Needed go go support the troops.

Wingers 'support' the troops by denigrating anyone who dares to consider the idea that our Iraq War was a poor strategy even more poorly executed that does not and never had a chance of success all the while frothing at the mouth and screaming about their desire for more torture and more civilian deaths.

C. Went looking for bin Laden/WMDs

Nah, in the winger mythology the WMD are in Syria, Saddam sent them across the border right before the war, he was apparently such an evil genius that he had acquired the WMD, then, in a brilliant move, he sheparded them out of the country rather than use them on an invading army, knowing all along this would make Bush look bad.

At present, I am unclear on where the wingers are with Bin Laden, sometimes they claim he is dead, other times they claim he is irrelevant, hiding in a cave, can't do any harm to anyone anymore, not even worth talking about.....they are probably quite confused about the new line of talking points that has Al Quaeda back at peak efficiency after a six year trillion dollar war against them, since they had prior to last week, been beaten back in Afganistan and worldwide, were in retreat, not able to launch the same type of attacks or having access to the same kinds of cash....what a difference a day makes!

D. Dropped dead in his trailer (we don't get THAT lucky).

Hate and blind faith give wingers an inordinately long life span, unfortunately.

[elixelx]

No doubt about it; if Bush is the worst president of this century, he's also the best president of this century! Go Figure!
I suspect though that in about four years nostalgia for the moral clarity of GWB will overwhelm the American Nation!

[nowingker]

Only by those who confuse 'moral clarity' with 'pig headed stubborness'

[bloodrage bob]

interesting that - after BB pointed out that truman personally nuked women & children - interesting that the liberal idiots are no longer singing truman's praises. instead, just going back to "mean ol' bush", version 100,000.

did you morons not *know* that truman nuked civilians?

also, for the liberal idiots now singing *clinton's* praises, the question WAS "worst prez in history". the answer IS "jimmuh carter". no amount of bubba-praising will change that fact.

ALTHOUGH......a good case could be made that sainted liberal icon FDR was, in fact, even worse than carter. a question for the liberal idiots: since, as you always squeal, that "bush lied", and "he's an incompetent" since we're still in iraq after 4 years - liberals are famous for having the attention span & staying power of 14-year-old boys - how can we explain that
1) FDR lied about trying to get into ww2? "i will tell you mothers and fathers that your sons will not be sent to die in some european war." - FDR, 1940
2) FDR couldn't get us out of the great depression, even though he had virtually unlimited powers and a compliant congress, in 9 frickin' YEARS?? the unemployment rate in 1940 was not much different from the rate in 1932. what an incompetent FOOL FDR was, right?

or did you idiots not know that, either?

we may now watch, amused, as the furious liberals desperately try & change the subject. "FDR was a living GOD! i don't know much history & stuff, but teacher said he was the bestest! i know THAT!! teacher made me memorize it!"

[nowingker]

God you are stupid.

Well, um, let's see, Truman nuked Japan, check. What's your point? That Truman nuking Japan makes him a worse president than Bush? Can't agree there. Jimmy Carter, was not a good president, but on balance, while he didn't achieve anything of note, he didn't oh say, destroy the balance of power in the Middle East, waste trillions on a 'war' on 'terror' or decimate the Constitution, so I am going to stick with George W. Bush as the worst president in history, hands down.

To your first point, well, again, um, JAPAN ATTACKED the U.S., get it, thats how we got into the war, FDR didn't declare war on Germany. If you want to argue that he knew Pearl Harbor was coming and let it happen in order get us into the war, that's another argument. But it is, dare I say, disingenious to say FDR 'lied' when he said he wasn't going to VOLUNTARILY get us into the European war since he ultimately did get us into the war after we were attacked.

As far as FDR and the Great Depression, the post war boom was the biggest 'boom' in our history and set the stage for the recovery of the US and world economies.

I feel sure that if Bush had been president during the Great Depression this country would have ceased to exist after millions died of starvation, riots broke out in all major cities and millions more left the country, all the while that dumbfuck would have been talking about turning the corner and what a great thing bread lines were.

FDR would have had Bin Laden's head on a spike within 18 months even if he had to send troops to Pakistan to get it done, and he sure as hell would not have invaded a fourth world backwater just to agrandize himself.

Did I mention how stupid you wingers are?

[bloodrage bob]

well, that didn't take long. liberals don't much cotton to attacks on the sacred memory of FDR and his butt-boy, truman.

so let's recap. noyyyinger: well, yes, it IS true that FDR was a profoundly incompetent economic president: unable to stop/reverse/do one damn thing about the depression even though he had 9 FRICKIN' YEARS TO DO SO......but (you say) thisdoesn'tmatterbecauselateron, thingswerereallygreat!!!

and yes, truman DID give the order to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilian noncombatants - women, kids, old folks, dogs & cats - but THAT doesn't hold a candle (you say) to bushitler, becauseatleasthedidn'thumiliatethembymakingthemwearunderwearontheirheads!!!

also, "democrats are immune from criticism. teacher told us so."

GOD, you are stupid, noyyyinger. not just "don't know squat about history" stupid...i mean REALLY, truly, *brain-damaged* stupid. the pity is you weren't drowned at birth.

[nowingker]

And right on cue, the cowardly little winger desires the death/murder of whomever disagrees with him.

With supporters like you Bob, we will have Iraq pacified in less than 30 years, surge on numbskull.

[nowingker]

PS

I should have known you were LYING.

I checked, unemployment rates fell by two thirds between 1933 and 1937.

Typical winger, he has to make up his own facts to find anything supporting his position.

I look forward to your tortured explanation of how what you really meant was.....and how saying unemployment in 1932 and 1940 was virtually the same wasn't really a lie because......

There are a lot of things that FDR can be criticized for, you show what a pathetic fringe lunatic you are when you have to make up LIES in order to do it.

LMAO.

[bloodrage bob]

ho-hum, utterly predictable squeals of mendacious outrage from the liberal.

lying little liberal, it's been years & years since i looked at the unemployment rates of the '30's, but even so, i can promise you......you're lying in your post that "the rate fell by 2/3rds."

the 1933 unemployment rate was roughly 25%. FDR, being a democrat, lied his ass off on the numbers: removing jobless from the count for any old made-up reason; removing CCC & WPA & soup-kitchen temps from the count; etc etc. even so, the mean ol' rate stubbornly stayed quite high. it's why FDR is - rightly - seen as an economic moron.

if we accept your above lie as true, that'd mean the unemployment rate in 1937 ("2/3rds less") was.....just 8%. and that didn't happen. FDR couldn't get the rate into single digits until mid-1941: **9 YEARS** into his terms. like i said: an utterly incompetent buffoon.

what an idiot you are, noyyyinger. too stupid to muster up a believable lie; and then adorning your lie with details that doom it for the horseshit it is. a pity you weren't drowned at birth, truth grrrl. so many lies that would have gone unsaid.....

[nowingker]

Unemployment fell by two-thirds in Roosevelt's first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933 to 1937), but then remained stubbornly high until 1942.

In 1937, the American economy took an unexpected nosedive, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938.

The U.S. had not returned to 1929's GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940—down from 25% in 1932.

-----------

Any questions liar?

[bloodrage bob]

so let's recap. the lying little liberal loon tells us that the stunningly incompetent FDR needed more than 9 YEARS to get a handle on his econ woes - your numbers are still lies, BTW - (any improvement in FDR's jobless rate was entirely due to the hordes of CCC/WPA men: 1930's-style welfare. do we count welfare recipients as "employed" nowdays? no? FDR did.) but evil bushhitler is a failure because the reinforcements sent into iraq haven't 100% pacified the country and turned it into japan in 6 whole.....weeks. "democrat gets no results whatsoever in 9 YEARS....good." "republican gets better-than-FDR-but-not-perfect results in just 6 WEEKS....bad."

interesting "thought" processes there, truth grrl.

lie as you may, truth grrrl, spin it as you may, but...

*carter is the worst president in history
*FDR was an economic incompetent moron
*and truman - if judged by current modern idiot liberal standards - truman was a war criminal.

interestingly, all 3 evil bonehead dorks were democrats. is that why the loopy legions of lying little liberal loser loons line up to defend them so passionately? could THAT be it??

[repukes are stupid]

God, if only a man like Hoover had been president during the Depression.

[repukes are stupid]

Can you even imagine George Bush as president in 1929? Jesus, that thought makes my skin crawl. So long, Repukes, the public's sick of you, bye bye.