NationStates Jolt Archive

Man, Bush just looked really dishevelled, almost like a hard-tagged fighter tonight, when he first came to the podium. And for a change, the press didn't lob softballs at him...they are FINALLY beginning to ask the hard questions...and as a patriot, and a Democrat, I was glad to see that.

But, man, they raked him over the coals this time! :D

And we saw, for the first time in a while tonight, the real Bush...the dumb, bumbling, inarticulate idiot who refuses to acknowledge his own mistakes and shortcomings.

As a Democrat, I sure hope this hurts him badly in the polls. I want my country back, dammit!!

I feel sorry for those that base their total opinion of Bush on one news conference...

But boo yah! Finally the President's getting tough questions that he cannot answer.

Kinda makes me wanna be one of those journalists...throwing hardballs at the President every week or so

god help us if he is elected again...

Bush looked kinda disheveled tonight; it didn't seem like he could grasp the words he was looking for . . .

and even though I oppose him on some issues, I don't exactly loathe the man . . . but I would like to have some more answeres one why the 9/11 intel fell through, as well as Iraq

That was an excellent interview...I'm sure the approval rating will take another dive after this. I think most Americans will pick up on his dodging of questions, and sheer stubborness, especially when he claimed he hadn't made any real mistakes. I loved the part when he proclaimed America's divine mandate to liberate the world-George is going down in flames, and he'll get doused in proverbial kerosene by November! :twisted: :twisted:

I feel sorry for those that base their total opinion of Bush on one news conference...

But boo yah! Finally the President's getting tough questions that he cannot answer.

Kinda makes me wanna be one of those journalists...throwing hardballs at the President every week or so

I agree. And I do not base my total opinion of Bush on this one news conference. I had a negative opinion before. I have a more negative opinion now, and I cast my vote as such.

And I'd LOVE to be one of those journalists, throwing harballs at the President every week.

In fact, if I were a journalist, I'd condier it the greatest honor if only Bush would make the same comment (unintentionally caught on-mike) that he made about Adam Clymer.

Those who are political hacks here, like me, will remember when Bush said (unaware the microphone was on) to Cheney..."there's Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times."

I would be THRILLED AND HONORED if Bush considered ME a "major-league asshole."

I feel sorry for those that base their total opinion of Bush on one news conference...

But boo yah! Finally the President's getting tough questions that he cannot answer.

Kinda makes me wanna be one of those journalists...throwing hardballs at the President every week or so

I agree. And I do not base my total opinion of Bush on this one news conference. I had a negative opinion before. I have a more negative opinion now, and I cast my vote as such.

And I'd LOVE to be one of those journalists, throwing harballs at the President every week.

In fact, if I were a journalist, I'd condier it the greatest honor if only Bush would make the same comment (unintentionally caught on-mike) that he made about Adam Clymer.

Those who are political hacks here, like me, will remember when Bush said (unaware the microphone was on) to Cheney..."there's Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times."

I would be THRILLED AND HONORED if Bush considered ME a "major-league asshole."

I can see alot of things that will be used on Saturday Night Live in that conference.... :lol: ....and as usual, he avoided all the questions

I missed it!! :evil: :x :(

I can see alot of things that will be used on Saturday Night Live in that conference.... :lol: ....and as usual, he avoided all the questions

I can imagine it..

Reporter: Mr Bush, what're some of the mistakes that you are willing to admit?

Bush: Next question

Reporter2: Mr Bush, how close are we to finding WMD?

Bush: Next question

Reporter3: Mr Bush. Are you really a women/

Bush: No comment

I am beginning to think that the presidency is bad for each presidents health. Grant it they are at least four years older but take a look at each one, they all look 15 years older when they finish their term. the best example is Honest Abe, when he was, well... after a while his eyes began to look like craters.

I am beginning to think that the presidency is bad for each presidents health. Grant it they are at least four years older but take a look at each one, they all look 15 years older when they finish their term. the best example is Honest Abe, when he was, well... after a while his eyes began to look like craters.

Actually, the example I'd have used is Jimmy Carter. He went in looking 30, and came out 4 years later, looking 60. I saw a picture of him the other day, and damn if I didn't think at first that the picture was of Jerry Ford!

I voted for Bush. I will vote for him again. His scripted speech, which I hope he wrote or had major sway in writing, gave me confidence in him as the Commander-in-Chief. The question-and-answer part, though, showed me that, yes, he comes across as a bumbler, a cowboy, and arrogant. I did not like the jokes he told from the moment his serious speech ended. But I believe he bumbles only in his one-on-one speech. I want him to be a cowboy who shoots the men in black hats. And I do not believe he is arrogant. That smirk that seems to be on his face a lot? I think that is the shape of his mouth, not the shape of his heart. But now I know why the Tonight Show with Jay Leno portrays Bush as a shoulder-shaking chuckler. But seriously, even the comedian who portrays Bush on Leno speaks with greater clarity than Bush did in that question-and-answer series. (And that is because the skits on Leno are scripted.) I had to steel myself during his answers because of his style, not his substance. If you want a great communicator, then you had one for eight years with Bill Clinton. And we all suffered for it militarily.

I support Bush's resolve now to give the Iraqi people their sovereignty on June 30. I know why he is doing it. Partly, it is to keep his word, America's word, that we will not be an occupying imperialist. Partly, it is because he does not want the American people dragging Iraq along by the ankles. They need to stand on their own feet and arrest their Fallujahn terrorists and al-Sadr militants.

I do not support, as some have, the carpet-bombing of Fallujah as retaliation for the deaths of the four civilians. Diehard terrorists do not quail long from such attacks. If the city were surrounded and assaulted with notice, then the terrorists would take innocents as hostages. If we dropped a nuclear bomb on the city, then the terrorists would send children into the rubble to fill pails with radioactive dirt for radiological weapons!

I know what some believe. Some believe war is never the answer; that police should never use force against suspects; that if a bystander is hurt in a pursuit, it is the fault of the pursuers, not the pursued; that prison is where the innocent are placed because they are poor or minorities; that we need to arrest Osama bin Laden, but not with force, and that he should be given lawyers, and that he should be tried at the Hague, and if he is sentenced, then he should serve life in prison instead of being executed.

You have a choice. You can attack terrorists you know want to kill you or enslave you. Or you can wait until they come to your cities and attack you first. And you can try to hamstring the National Guard, FBI, and police who try to protect you after they are here. But what will you do if the Islamist finally makes it to your door and kicks it down? Will you apologize for your country's past mistakes? Will you promise to burn your porn and put your mother and daughters in headscarves? Will you bow down to Mecca? Or will you even be alive to decide at that point whether to be enslaved or to fight back?

Ha. You probably think I am just being alarmist because you think we will always have a military and police force capable enough to respond to any domestic attacks. It can't happen to you, can it? And even if it did happen to you; even if you died in the World Trade Center, we just need to defend the country (without violating or suspending anyone's rights) from the inside. We don't need to take it offshore, do we?

You have a choice this November to go forward in the war on terror or to elect a leader who would not have attacked Osama bin Laden or removed Saddam Hussein. ~ Michael.

The way he was talking about how it's America's divine mission to bring democracy to nations throughout the globe reminded me the way the muslim fundamentalists talk. Pity he can't see that.

I don't remember hell, but if I didd it would look like Bush

didnt see it tonight but wished i did. i was too busy reading H.P. lovecraft to care about a serious issue :D

I missed it!! :evil: :x :(

I did too, actually (horrible, stressful week). Has anyone seen an internet feed of it around yet?

I'd LOVE to interview Bush.

ME: So mr.president, why did we goto Iraq?

BUSH: Because Saddam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass Destruction were a threat to America.

ME: How? You openly admitted he did not have any WMD's chem or bio weapons.

BUSH: We had to engage Iraq in combat because they were a threat to peace and stability in the region.

ME: But that gives America no right to engage Iraq when it does not threaten america.

BUSH: But Saddam Hussein was a threat to America.

ME: How?

BUSH: He was harbouring weapons of mass destruction.

Oi.

im from sweden, but hey ur president bush gives me the creeps
accually i feel sorry for him, its obvious some people just shouldnt be the president of the worlds only superpower.....
good luck in electing a democrat

im from sweden, but hey ur president bush gives me the creeps
accually i feel sorry for him, its obvious some people just shouldnt be the president of the worlds only superpower.....
good luck in electing a democrat

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/newbie3.jpg
I dunno...he DID pose for this picture...

Well I did see the interview, and as shockingly scary it was that THAT man is our PRESIDENT, it was nothing new, nor anthing I didn't expect. I am with the 1st MEU and I served in Afghanistan and in Iraq early on, it was not a place we were supposed to be. I like to pride myself as one of the only liberal officers in the Corps. George W. Bush is THE BIGGEST threat to GLOBAL peace and Security. There are no WMD's in Iraq. When we told Hussien to stop, HE DID.

Right now, we have lost more AFTER the bumbling idiot declared the conflict over, than while he declared it a hot conflict. John Kerry is exactly what we need as a president, and I will again have a commander that I am proud to follow. He actually knows what war is like, and has HALF A BRAIN. I am sorry but just because GB Sr. could do it, doesnt mean Jr. can, he has proven that. I mean come on, the man started his own oil company, and went bankrupt because he couldnt FIND OIL! IN TEXAS! And PLEASE but no matter how much you do or don't believe in any faith, in the United States of America, you NEVER declare ANY national action or Policy as Devine!

the problem that you democrats have is you see he answers as bumbling, because no matter what he says, you will think its a wrong answer. and no, im not a republican either. i happen to think bush is a great president. wow....ricidule him cause 9/11 intel fell through. im sure that was his personal fault. gore wouldnt of missed that........NOT. al gore is just as big of a dunderhead as bush is, and probably more. they all say they are certain parties, say they are different, but in order to be a good politician, a president has to be in the middle...gore would of went to war with iraq. heck, nadar would have ended up at war with them. it was unavoidable.

he contradicted himself as well.
in the begginning he said something to the effect of the iraqi people welcomed the united states as a liberator and welcomed democracy. then later he said that it would take the iraqis a while to adjust to having a democratic government

dubya the hypocrit

the problem that you democrats have is you see he answers as bumbling, because no matter what he says, you will think its a wrong answer. and no, im not a republican either. i happen to think bush is a great president. wow....ricidule him cause 9/11 intel fell through. im sure that was his personal fault. gore wouldnt of missed that........NOT. al gore is just as big of a dunderhead as bush is, and probably more. they all say they are certain parties, say they are different, but in order to be a good politician, a president has to be in the middle...gore would of went to war with iraq. heck, nadar would have ended up at war with them. it was unavoidable.

No, it wasn't. Afghanistan, yes. The difference is that Iraq was Bush's preoccupation, and that is why we're there. Who knows where Gore would have gone, and who cares - no one's said that Gore would have been a great president either.

Non-partisan, yet you generalize that all Bush's detractors must be Democrats. How funny. Tell me, are you of voting age?

...gore would of went to war with iraq. heck, nadar would have ended up at war with them. it was unavoidable. Really? Please PLEASE ENlighten me as to why Gore and Nader Would have gone to war with Iraq? And PLEASE tell me why it was unavoidable.. Oh yes.. and try and do so without using an answere like:
"If we wouldn't, America would be nuked by Saddam"
Because, well thats just stupid..

yeah he didn't look to great and probably didn't feel to great. I'm all for tough questions but I can't help but feel they were mean spirited and mostly put forth by liberals who hate him and republicans no matter what. You know the type if clinton or a liberal did the same thing, praise!

yeah he didn't look to great and probably didn't feel to great. I'm all for tough questions but I can't help but feel they were mean spirited and mostly put forth by liberals who hate him and republicans no matter what. You know the type if clinton or a liberal did the same thing, praise!

:roll:

Really, that's all I have to say about this. Quite frankly, I think it's all I need to say about this.

I thought the President gave the required performance and did so adequately. Of course, I heard him on the radio on my way home from work, so I can't comment on whether or not he looked 'deshveled,' or any other way. He gave some shifty answers, but that's normal. I guess he didn't feel like putting on the sound-byte circus tonight. Oh, well. :wink:

For the people who say he dodged the question about making mistakes, you must have missed the part where he said, "Sure I have made mistakes, many of them, who hasn't?"

When asked about his biggest mistake since Sept 11, he gave an appropriate answer, "I am not prepared to answer that question." What would you say right now on live TV is the biggest mistake YOU have made since Sept 11?

How many times does Bush have to tell you people that he is not the best public speaker there is? He has never claimed articulation as one of his strong points.

When asked specific questions, about 9/11, he did the correct thing in not giving specific answers. Remember he is due to testify in the inquiry and any lawyer (even one as pathetic as Clinton) would have given him advice not to answer those questions.

We have a president who stands up and tells the world that the United States is going to keep their word. We are not in Iraq for indefinite occupation. That was never our goal. We are also not going to leave Iraq unable to protect theirself.

When asked about the WMDs, president Bush gave the best answer he could have. The intelligence that he acted on was believed to be true by not only the US but the UN as well. Saddam had used WMDs against his own people, what would possibly be the benifit of believing he wouldn't use them again. He had them, he used them, he had the capability of making more.

Just heard another one of the liberal reporters on ABC saying that there was never any threat to the US in Iraq. Even said there is no threat there today. I wonder what he calls the killing of four American civilians? Oh that is right they weren't supposed to be there. The reason they are there is to help in the rebuilding of Iraq. That must make them fair targets, but it doesn't mean that there is any threat to Americans in Iraq.

:shock:

Bush Press Conference Again Scripted Beforehand

Paul Joseph Watson | April 14 2004

George W. Bush's Tuesday night press conference was the usual torrent of endlessly repeated cuddly sugar coated questions followed by the same endlessly repeated worn out monotone responses.

Interestling enough though Bush again let it slip that the press conference was scripted and that the questions had been vetted beforehand by the White House.

Near the end of the conference Bush took a question;

-----------------------------------------------

QUESTION: "Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?"

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet."

-------------------------------------------------

Anyone who watched the TV footage witnessed the embarrasing sight of Bush pausing for at least five seconds and saying absolutely nothing. Bush's admonition that the question should have been written 'ahead of time' (like the rest) proves that this was an impromptu question in an otherwise carefully scripted briefing.

Many people have speculated that Bush actually wears an ear piece and the responses are fed through to him and he just repeats them. I have done radio interviews but I'm by no means a master of public speaking. If a radio host asks a question about a topic that I have no detailed knowledge of then I can at least give a surface answer and so could most other people. Bush, the President of the most powerful country on earth, could not even do that. He literally stood there in silence fumbling around 'waiting for an answer to pop into his head' (or through the ear piece).

This pep rally for the Neo-Cons has again fallen flat on its face and Bush has only further proven that he runs absolutely nothing in Washington and is just the frontmen for the real powerbrokers behind the scenes.











.

QUESTION: "Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?"

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet."

I don't remember hearing that. Do you have the text someplace you can link from?

I'm sure you know that the President employs a speechwriter, sometimes several, but I'd like to see a transcript if you know of one.

Hasn't he given fewer live press conferences than any other President?
Maybe this example shows us why.


Yeh, most presidents seem to age rapidly. But hey, give Jimmy Carter a break, it's been 30 years since he was in office. How will you look in 30 years? :shock:

This doesn't exactly apply, but what the hell--it's about the President and
about the subject of tonight's performance:
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tt040413.gif

This doesn't exactly apply, but what the hell--it's about the President and
about the subject of tonight's performance:
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tt040413.gif

Wow. I'm inspired to become so hated as to cause that kind of self-serving editorial ignorance. Do they teach that at Yale? :wink: And if they did, did John kerry take that class too? Four more years of this kind of thing may be guaranteed! Fun! :P

Oh--you think that was hateful?
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/images/pdb2.jpg

The way he was talking about how it's America's divine mission to bring democracy to nations throughout the globe reminded me the way the muslim fundamentalists talk. Pity he can't see that.

No thats quite outrageous. One would think it is easy to seperate "Its the Almighties gift for us' when refering to freedom, and 'Kill the evil infadel, down with the Great Satan.

I'm just going to try to beat some sense into you liberals, if you care to pay attention to anything that doesn't support your "arguements." Bush was completely screwed either way with 9/11 and Iraq by bedwetters like you. Let's look at the two possible scenarios for 9/11 and Iraq.

9/11:
Scenario 1) Bush takes action (providing intelligence was adequate, though it wasn't) and takes out the terrorists before 9/11. To do so meant wiretaps and other things (to find them, you have to be able to look for them, right?). However, no 9-11 happens as a result. There is no event that justifies his actions to prevent the attack. Leftists label Bush as a "big brother," and through rehashing it in the media, Bush is despised for the rest of his term.

Scenario 2) 9-11. Bush takes the war back to the terrorists and tries to pass the patriot act to prevent things like 9-11 from happening again, but a former advisor writes a book saying Bush ignored terrorism (ironic, since Bush quadrupled funding to counterterrorism and intelligence BEFORE 9-11.) A commission is formed with the purpose of forcing Bush into a corner. It's an election year, and his opponent is an ultraliberal who says whatever the public feels like hearing.

On 9-11, Bush was screwed either way.

On to Iraq...
Scenario 1) Bush goes to war with Iraq on the same intelligence the UN had, which said Saddam had WMD. The WMD haven't been found yet, and the media is getting impatient. It's an election year. There is no event that justifies his actions to prevent an attack. That attack would have been... thank God we will never find out what it would have been. However, public opinion turns on Bush.
Scenario 2) Inaction. Bush doesn't address the threat of Iraq. I wonder what the next 9-11 would have been. Fortunately, this scenario is now impossible.

Just answer me one thing: What would YOU have done? Better yet, what would your idol Kerry do? Maybe you should think that over a bit before blindly following him. His answer to everything is the UN. I'll be blunt. The UN's track record is not impressive.

One answer that bugged me the most was when someone asked him why he would only testify at the 9/11 commision only with Dick Cheney at his side, and not independently like the 9/11 commission requested.

He said it was because the 9/11 commission had questios and he wanted to answer those questions.

They then reiterated the question so that he would understand that they were asking why it had to be with Dick Cheney at his side and he gave the exact same answer.

Something funny going on? Does Dick need to shove his hand up Bush's ass to get him to say the right thing like a good little puppet?

Why woulnd't he answer the question?

Reyens Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

get over it. saddam posed no threat to the United States.

Israel has a powerful Army and WMD's and if they felt Iraw was a threat they could have attacked or even nuked Saddam.

I don't remember hearing that. Do you have the text someplace you can link from?

I'm sure you know that the President employs a speechwriter, sometimes several, but I'd like to see a transcript if you know of one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics/13CND-BTEX.html?pagewanted=print&position=

"In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.

I would've gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein.

See, I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm. "

One answer that bugged me the most was when someone asked him why he would only testify at the 9/11 commision only with Dick Cheney at his side, and not independently like the 9/11 commission requested.

He said it was because the 9/11 commission had questios and he wanted to answer those questions.

They then reiterated the question so that he would understand that they were asking why it had to be with Dick Cheney at his side and he gave the exact same answer.

Something funny going on? Does Dick need to shove his hand up Bush's ass to get him to say the right thing like a good little puppet?

Why woulnd't he answer the question?

Here's that part of the transcript for you, GB.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics/13CND-BTEX.html?pagewanted=print&position=

"QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them."

Gee, there's more...

Bush Contradicts Self At His Own Press Conference:

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df04142004.html

links are provided in the article.

go figure

Reyens Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

get over it. saddam posed no threat to the United States.

Israel has a powerful Army and WMD's and if they felt Iraw was a threat they could have attacked or even nuked Saddam.Are you 100% sure he posed absolutely no threat whatsoever? The reason Israel doesn't attack is because they are an island. They are surrounded. If they struck out, you would wind up with another 500:1 war. Like I said, if Bush took action and stopped the 9/11 terrorists, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we never would have found out what they were going to do. The difference with Iraq is that we didn't wait for them to jump up and bite us in the ass. We may never find out what Saddam was planning, just as we wouldn't have imagined a 9/11 if it had been prevented.

Reyens Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

get over it. saddam posed no threat to the United States.

Israel has a powerful Army and WMD's and if they felt Iraw was a threat they could have attacked or even nuked Saddam.Are you 100% sure he posed absolutely no threat whatsoever? The reason Israel doesn't attack is because they are an island. They are surrounded. If they struck out, you would wind up with another 500:1 war. Like I said, if Bush took action and stopped the 9/11 terrorists, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we never would have found out what they were going to do. The difference with Iraq is that we didn't wait for them to jump up and bite us in the ass. We may never find out what Saddam was planning, just as we wouldn't have imagined a 9/11 if it had been prevented.

So you suppot the action taken in Iraq, huh? With no evidence whatsoever that Bush has been able to produce, you support the invasion of a soverign nation because someone THOUGHT they might pose a threat to us. Hmmmm...

Well, how would you like it if some law enforcement people came by your place and arrested you, because they THOUGHT that you were planning to hold up your local 7-Eleven for 50 bucks and a Mars bar? Same concept.

Reyens Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

get over it. saddam posed no threat to the United States.

Israel has a powerful Army and WMD's and if they felt Iraw was a threat they could have attacked or even nuked Saddam.Are you 100% sure he posed absolutely no threat whatsoever? The reason Israel doesn't attack is because they are an island. They are surrounded. If they struck out, you would wind up with another 500:1 war. Like I said, if Bush took action and stopped the 9/11 terrorists, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we never would have found out what they were going to do. The difference with Iraq is that we didn't wait for them to jump up and bite us in the ass. We may never find out what Saddam was planning, just as we wouldn't have imagined a 9/11 if it had been prevented.

So you suppot the action taken in Iraq, huh? With no evidence whatsoever that Bush has been able to produce, you support the invasion of a soverign nation because someone THOUGHT they might pose a threat to us. Hmmmm...

Well, how would you like it if some law enforcement people came by your place and arrested you, because they THOUGHT that you were planning to hold up your local 7-Eleven for 50 bucks and a Mars bar? Same concept.So you oppose taking out the 9/11 terrorists in America, huh? With no evidence whatsoever that Bush has been able to produce, you support the disappearance of nineteen people? "The first and fourth amendments have been shit on." Your words.

In case you haven't guessed, this is based on my scenario if Bush had known and taken out the 9/11 terrorists. We never would have found out what they planned to do and no horrendous event would have happened to justify his actions. The same thing applies to Iraq. We may never find out what they planned, and even if it were declassified, there would be people like you saying Bush made it up. You refuse 100% to give him the benefit of a doubt, because, by God, he can't be right. :roll:

By the way, sometimes the law enforcement people are right.

Reyens Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

get over it. saddam posed no threat to the United States.

Israel has a powerful Army and WMD's and if they felt Iraw was a threat they could have attacked or even nuked Saddam.Are you 100% sure he posed absolutely no threat whatsoever? The reason Israel doesn't attack is because they are an island. They are surrounded. If they struck out, you would wind up with another 500:1 war. Like I said, if Bush took action and stopped the 9/11 terrorists, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we never would have found out what they were going to do. The difference with Iraq is that we didn't wait for them to jump up and bite us in the ass. We may never find out what Saddam was planning, just as we wouldn't have imagined a 9/11 if it had been prevented.

So you suppot the action taken in Iraq, huh? With no evidence whatsoever that Bush has been able to produce, you support the invasion of a soverign nation because someone THOUGHT they might pose a threat to us. Hmmmm...

Well, how would you like it if some law enforcement people came by your place and arrested you, because they THOUGHT that you were planning to hold up your local 7-Eleven for 50 bucks and a Mars bar? Same concept.So you oppose taking out the 9/11 terrorists in America, huh? With no evidence whatsoever that Bush has been able to produce, you support the disappearance of nineteen people? "The first and fourth amendments have been shit on." Your words.

In case you haven't guessed, this is based on my scenario if Bush had known and taken out the 9/11 terrorists. We never would have found out what they planned to do and no horrendous event would have happened to justify his actions. The same thing applies to Iraq. We may never find out what they planned, and even if it were declassified, there would be people like you saying Bush made it up. You refuse 100% to give him the benefit of a doubt, because, by God, he can't be right. :roll:

By the way, sometimes the law enforcement people are right.

You know...if it was anyone but Bush, I could maybe give the benefit of the doubt. but not Bush. He had WAY TOO MUCH of a personal axe to grind with Saddam, and was itching to get at him.

And the profiteering now going on in Iraq, by companies like Halliburton makes Bush's motivations very suspect.

Not to memtion that...first it was about WMD's. Then when no WMD's were found, we started hearing about it being about "liberating the Iraqi people."

Which never was a stated reason beforehand. Only after we got in and found no WMD's. Then Bush needed another reason.

The REAL reasons, I suspect, for Bush are O-I-L...as well as getting even with Saddam for the assassination threat against Poppy Bush...and possibly an Oedipal complex in which Georgie Porgie is trying to win his mommy's love by doing what Poppy could not do.

So, like I say, if it was anyone else, maybe the benefit of the doubt could be given. But, being as it's Bush..no benefit of the doubt comes from here.

And, you're also right in one other observation...there is NOTHING Bush could do to make me like him or agree with hum, r think he's a decent person. I hate him with every fiber of my being. I fully intend on voting against Bush in November.

While that means voting for Kerry (who I'm less that enthusd about) even HE would be better than Bush!

I can't STAND that sanctimonious, self-righteous, smug, smirking son of a Bush!

I think Bush held up quite well at the press conference. The thing about him that some percieve as being simple-mindedness is what I percieve as Bush being a big picture guy. He doesn't handle details well, but gives them to the rest of the administration to handle. He just outlines what he wants done. But I did think he looked terrible. Whatever happened to that nice look, with his slicked back hair, and a pressed suit?

Reyens Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

get over it. saddam posed no threat to the United States.

Israel has a powerful Army and WMD's and if they felt Iraw was a threat they could have attacked or even nuked Saddam.Are you 100% sure he posed absolutely no threat whatsoever? The reason Israel doesn't attack is because they are an island. They are surrounded. If they struck out, you would wind up with another 500:1 war. Like I said, if Bush took action and stopped the 9/11 terrorists, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we never would have found out what they were going to do. The difference with Iraq is that we didn't wait for them to jump up and bite us in the ass. We may never find out what Saddam was planning, just as we wouldn't have imagined a 9/11 if it had been prevented.

So you suppot the action taken in Iraq, huh? With no evidence whatsoever that Bush has been able to produce, you support the invasion of a soverign nation because someone THOUGHT they might pose a threat to us. Hmmmm...

Well, how would you like it if some law enforcement people came by your place and arrested you, because they THOUGHT that you were planning to hold up your local 7-Eleven for 50 bucks and a Mars bar? Same concept.So you oppose taking out the 9/11 terrorists in America, huh? With no evidence whatsoever that Bush has been able to produce, you support the disappearance of nineteen people? "The first and fourth amendments have been shit on." Your words.

In case you haven't guessed, this is based on my scenario if Bush had known and taken out the 9/11 terrorists. We never would have found out what they planned to do and no horrendous event would have happened to justify his actions. The same thing applies to Iraq. We may never find out what they planned, and even if it were declassified, there would be people like you saying Bush made it up. You refuse 100% to give him the benefit of a doubt, because, by God, he can't be right. :roll:

By the way, sometimes the law enforcement people are right.

You know...if it was anyone but Bush, I could maybe give the benefit of the doubt. but not Bush. He had WAY TOO MUCH of a personal axe to grind with Saddam, and was itching to get at him.

And the profiteering now going on in Iraq, by companies like Halliburton makes Bush's motivations very suspect.

Not to memtion that...first it was about WMD's. Then when no WMD's were found, we started hearing about it being about "liberating the Iraqi people."

Which never was a stated reason beforehand. Only after we got in and found no WMD's. Then Bush needed another reason.

The REAL reasons, I suspect, for Bush are O-I-L...as well as getting even with Saddam for the assassination threat against Poppy Bush...and possibly an Oedipal complex in which Georgie Porgie is trying to win his mommy's love by doing what Poppy could not do.

So, like I say, if it was anyone else, maybe the benefit of the doubt could be given. But, being as it's Bush..no benefit of the doubt comes from here.

And, you're also right in one other observation...there is NOTHING Bush could do to make me like him or agree with hum, r think he's a decent person. I hate him with every fiber of my being. I fully intend on voting against Bush in November.

While that means voting for Kerry (who I'm less that enthusd about) even HE would be better than Bush!

I can't STAND that sanctimonious, self-righteous, smug, smirking son of a Bush!Yes, he may have a grudge against Saddam, but my scenario still works. Read it carefully, and please think about it. What would you do if you were president in that situation? As far as WMD goes, I don't know what happened. He had them, he didn't get rid of them, so logically, he still has them. (we know he had them because he used them against people in his own country. We know he still has them because he offered no evidence he destroyed them (why wouldn't he admit if he destroyed them if he's got a bunker buster pointed at his face?)) We just have to find them.

Think hard about your oil arguement. It's an election year. If there was any solid evidence whatsoever that Bush was there for oil, don't you think it would be a bold-face, front-page headline in every newspaper on the continental United States?

Remember when the big arguement from the Dems was "Where's Saddam? We went in to find him, so where is he?" Whaddayaknow, we scooped him up. "Uh, he wasn't that important anyway!" It's only a matter of time. You're a leftist. What will you say if and when WMD are found? My guess is that you will say they were planted, again because Bush can NEVER be right :roll:

I have no problem with you voting against Bush, so long as you only do it once :D . Bush is far from perfect, but I believe that he would do a better job than Kerry. I don't think it's a good idea to put somebody in office just because you want someone else out. Kerry has yet to show why, on his own merit, that he would be a good choice. From CNN, FNC and others over a period of several months, I have paid attention to what he says. He is extremely hostile to those who don't share his beliefs. ("Are you a republican? Did you vote for George W. Bush?" "Yes." (boos and catcalls)) What the man was asking was a justified question. Who were these leaders? That's a very broad term. By "leaders," he could be talking about anyone from Kim-Jong II to someone in his volunteer groups.

Saddam gave proof to have destroyed 99% percent of his WMD's. That which wasn't accounted for is to old to work anymore and there is no way he could have produced any more in the time he had.

I just hope Kerry will be able to clean up some of Bush's mess.

Reyens Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

get over it. saddam posed no threat to the United States.

Israel has a powerful Army and WMD's and if they felt Iraw was a threat they could have attacked or even nuked Saddam.Are you 100% sure he posed absolutely no threat whatsoever? The reason Israel doesn't attack is because they are an island. They are surrounded. If they struck out, you would wind up with another 500:1 war. Like I said, if Bush took action and stopped the 9/11 terrorists, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we never would have found out what they were going to do. The difference with Iraq is that we didn't wait for them to jump up and bite us in the ass. We may never find out what Saddam was planning, just as we wouldn't have imagined a 9/11 if it had been prevented.

You're right, we aren't 100% sure that he posed absolutely no threat whatsoever...

:shock:

We aren't 100% sure about Tony Blair either.

:shock:

Nor are we 100% sure about Paul Martin.

:shock:

We better start invading. There are 190+ countries that we aren't 100% absolutely sure post no threat to the US!

I think Bush held up quite well at the press conference. The thing about him that some percieve as being simple-mindedness is what I percieve as Bush being a big picture guy. He doesn't handle details well, but gives them to the rest of the administration to handle. He just outlines what he wants done. But I did think he looked terrible. Whatever happened to that nice look, with his slicked back hair, and a pressed suit?

The facade's wearing down...only so much a coddled rich boy can take, after all.

You thought he did well? You don't find the passage cited by Esselldee at the top of the page to be the least bit suspicious and evasive?

How much line are you willing to give this guy?

First off, I'd like to say that the ability to speak in public articulately does not make a good President. You can have the smoothest speaking idiot in office, and he would have no bounds to be a leader.

Even Hitler was a great speaker. That helped him force his way to power.

The bumbling around is just how President Bush speaks. Go to this page (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/) and listen to the Oval Office tour with Bush. He has problems speaking, even if its just about a room. It is not that he is uneducated on the issue, its that he just cant come up with the right words. I am the same way, sometimes.

Anyway, just because Saddam didnt pose a direct threat to America does not mean that he did not pose a threat. Saddam has the money to fund a nuclear arms technology program. With the large abundance of nuclear materials on the black market these days, it would not be too hard for him to get the essentials to create one. With the amount of nuclear engineers in the world, it would not be hard for him to gather a team to create a bomb. I dont think Saddam would launch a nuke, but it would be in his best interests to, would it not? It is largely believed that Saddam is funding terrorist organizations in the middle east. It would be easy for him to supply those organizations - who want nothing more than to see Americans cripple in pain - with nuclear technologies. It would be in the interests of the Islamic radical terrorists and Saddam Hussein to see the country of America staggering on the ground.

The war with Saddam was a measure taken to ensure American safety. It sounds like the majority of you here taking that for granted?

I think a leader should HAVE to speak well, especially if he is the leader of the most powerful country on earth. Who in their right mind would put their confidence in someone who sounds like an idiot?

Besides... this wasn't for the safety of America as there was NO THREAT!!! -- Saddam had nothing to do with terrorist actions against the U.S. -- Saddam had restrictions put against him so that he could not develope WMD's -- Saddam was supported by the U.S. while he was killing his own people!!!!! -- Saddams military capability was 100 times less than it was during the first gulf war, and since then the U.S. never stopped bombing Iraq. -- Saddams neighbors weren't even worried about Saddam.

Tell me how you think it would be in Saddams best interest to have nuked anyone please.

I think a leader should HAVE to speak well, especially if he is the leader of the most powerful country on earth. Who in their right mind would put their confidence in someone who sounds like an idiot?

Besides... this wasn't for the safety of America as there was NO THREAT!!! -- Saddam had nothing to do with terrorist actions against the U.S. -- Saddam had restrictions put against him so that he could not develope WMD's -- Saddam was supported by the U.S. while he was killing his own people!!!!! -- Saddams military capability was 100 times less than it was during the first gulf war, and since then the U.S. never stopped bombing Iraq. -- Saddams neighbors weren't even worried about Saddam.

Tell me how you think it would be in Saddams best interest to have nuked anyone please.

Actually, Hitler was a great leader and politician, it's just that he also happened to be a genocidal maniac. His charisma and ability to manipulate people got him into office by exploiting nationalistic sentiments in the nation. Bush just got in because he was the Republican Party's guy who happened to be more animated than a lump of driftwood.

Anyway, just because Saddam didnt pose a direct threat to America does not mean that he did not pose a threat. Saddam has the money to fund a nuclear arms technology program...

Oh dear, you're right too, he did have the resources to fund such a project.

:shock:

So does Bill Gates.

:shock:

And countless billionaires around the world. Why aren't the fighter jets going out?!

The war with Saddam was a measure taken to ensure American safety. It sounds like the majority of you here taking that for granted?

McCarthy-era blacklisting was also in the spirit of ensuring American safety, as was detaining Japanese Americans in prison camps in WWII. Here's a tip - the government is not Grandma. Just because some politician says that he's doing something for you doesn't mean that you have to smile and give him a hug.

I'll question my government all I like, thank you, because I don't take my freedom of speech for granted. That is in my best interest, not Bush's war-mongering in my name, with my tax dollars, and with the lives of my countrymen.

I think Bush held up quite well at the press conference. The thing about him that some percieve as being simple-mindedness is what I percieve as Bush being a big picture guy. He doesn't handle details well, but gives them to the rest of the administration to handle. He just outlines what he wants done. But I did think he looked terrible. Whatever happened to that nice look, with his slicked back hair, and a pressed suit?

The facade's wearing down...only so much a coddled rich boy can take, after all.

You thought he did well? You don't find the passage cited by Esselldee at the top of the page to be the least bit suspicious and evasive?

How much line are you willing to give this guy?
Yes, he did do pretty well in outlining his vision. Like it or not, he outlined it.
Anyhow, this thread seemed to be addressing more of a fashion statement. All politicians, celebrities, and whoever the hell is making a speech on national television to millions should look their best. A person of power, like Bush, should project power. What I'd wear if I were him would be a designer suit, like Armani or Vallentini. Wear a Bill Blass if you have to, but not that tacky blue tie he always wears. It makes him look like a professor. Anyhow, his unkempt hair made him look tired, almost like he was drunk. He needs slicked-back hair, and even a little foundation wouldn't hurt. But my God did he look bad. Bush needs to fire his personal PR team after that speach.

I think a leader should HAVE to speak well, especially if he is the leader of the most powerful country on earth. Who in their right mind would put their confidence in someone who sounds like an idiot? Have you ever heard "I speak softly but I carry a big stick?" That was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of the greatest leaders this country ever had.

Besides... this wasn't for the safety of America as there was NO THREAT!!! -- Saddam had nothing to do with terrorist actions against the U.S. -- Saddam had restrictions put against him so that he could not develope WMD's -- Saddam was supported by the U.S. while he was killing his own people!!!!! -- Saddams military capability was 100 times less than it was during the first gulf war, and since then the U.S. never stopped bombing Iraq. -- Saddams neighbors weren't even worried about Saddam. Weren't worried, or were afraid to attack? These "restrictions" you talk about don't work. Basically it's saying "Play nice... or I'll tell you again to play nice." The UN is too timid, too corrupt. They don't support us, but we foot most of their bill.

Tell me how you think it would be in Saddams best interest to have nuked anyone please.How was it in his interest to torture children to death in front of their parent's eyes? How was it in his interest to invade Kuwait when Iraq is already one of the most oil-rich nations on Earth? How was it in his interest to do half the things he did in an average day? He is no politician. He is a bloodthirsty tyrant, in love with death and a despiser of America. Every day we seem to be finding more evidence of an Al-Quada link, but you hear little about it on the news. You have to accept that there is evil in the world, and evil causes evil men to do evil things, plain and simple.

ROTFLMFAO!!! Reyens you are too Hilarious.

1. Speaking softly is much different than sounding like a complete dumbass when you speak.

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." - Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"You're back here with my people. You're back here with the tequila drinkers, yeah. What you need is to go up there and make a little whoopee with the tequila drinkers, get to know them better." - G.W. Bush from Journeys With George by Alexandra Pelosi, debuted on HBO Nov. 5, 2002

"When I was coming up it was a dangerous world, and we knew exactly who the they were. It was us versus them, and it was clear who them was." - G.W. Bush from Journeys With George by Alexandra Pelosi, debuted on HBO Nov. 5, 2002

"I can't hear you because I can't see." - G.W. Bush from Journeys With George by Alexandra Pelosi, debuted on HBO Nov. 5, 2002

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002



2. Weren't worried. Most were against the U.S. invading. There was nothing to fear of Saddams already decimated army.


3. I was asking Hulkamanialand why he made this statement basically, "I dont think Saddam would launch a nuke, but it would be in his best interests to, would it not?"

- It was in his interest to torture people to make them fear him.

- It was in his interest to invade Kuwait to get more oil and money.

- It was in his interest to keep his throne by being a brutal tyrant.

- Saddam was a friend of the US until we went to war with him for invading Kuwait. Saddam is the product of U.S. foreign policy.

Reyens I would like to see your sources on this, "Every day we seem to be finding more evidence of an Al-Quada link, but you hear little about it on the news."

If this were true it would be ALL OVER the news.

And Bush would be on TV everyday saying it to get his approval ratings back up.

And isn't the saying "Walk softly and carry a big stick"?

Bush and Condi Rice both look like they have aged big time.

Bumpy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!