PeterDavid.net

I think the major problem with tonight was the fact that his handlers let one through. His comment about submitting the question ahead of time struck me as very odd, till I remembered that this was the same man who has set up areas for protesters at all of his appearences where the press cannot see them. In fact, the press aren't even allowed there. It basically comes down to the fact that he doesn't want the world to see that emperor W. is naked.

I'm an Canadian/avid comic book reader.

Anyhow, I still can't figure out why out of the blue, the President of the United States decided to take down the evil Mr. Saddam.

I would have kept all my military resources focused on the finding the very evil monster who gave the money and the order to kill innocent civilians. I know Canadian military helped out in Afgan. But as for Iraq, there was no solid evidence to enter Iraq by military means.

This whole Iraq thing, everytime I hear that a highly skilled american soldier gets killed, I wonder how many more must die before the people of America say "ENOUGH!".....

PAD,

You're surprised? He's pulled this dodge before. 9/11/2001, I'm watching Bush on TV, for the first time in memory _hoping_ he'd show some class and some courage -- like Rudy Guliani who actually visted the site on the day. Bush looks like a teenager at a debate club, terrified of his audience.The only thing that could salvage the debacle would be Bush announcing he was abdicating and appointing Guliani his successor.

A few days later comes the staged, rehearsed, bells-and-whistles-and-rockets speech with a choreographed unanimous standing ovation. The text itself -- merely competent. It would have been an accomplishment if Bush had delivered it the first time. However, the commentators laud it as the 21st century standard for erudition.

Kerry could not devise any political advertisement, positive or negative, as damaging to Bush as showing those two speeches in juxtaposition -- the true one, reeking of failure from a man not up to his job, and the hoax.

I'd vote for a David Duke/Edwin Edwards ticket before I voted for George W. Bush.

This level of unwillingness to admit error is nothing new in the presidency:

Many folks, myself included, could have cut Reagan some slack if, after Iran/Contra, had said, "I knew it, and I blew it."

did anyone else notice his insultingly blatant non-answer to the question as to why he and the vice president will testify together?

The thing that irritated me about the press conference tonight was the idea that Bush should apologize for 9/11. What a load of horse @#$!

Maybe I just don't remember it, but I don't recall any demands for Clinton to apologize for the first WTC attack, for the Oklahoma City bombing, for the Khobar Towers bombings, for our African embassy bombings, for turning down Sudan's offer to hand over Bin Laden in 1996, for the US Cole bombing, etc, etc, etc.

Moreover, do we hear these calls for apologies every time there's a terrorist attack in Israel? Again, maybe I just missed this, but when was the last time Ariel Sharon was asked by an Israeli reporter to apologize because some Hamas terrorist blew himself up on a bus?

What about the police? If someone robs your apartment or house, do you ask the cop who comes to take the report to apologize because you got robbed? No, you place where it belongs, on the criminal responsible. And as far as 9/11 goes, aren't the members of Al-Qaeda the ones who should be apologizing? They're the ones who planned the attacks and carried them out.

But Al-Qaeda's not running for office in November and Bush is. Besides, the whole idea that Bush should apologize fits in perfectly with the Democratic approach to the war on terrorism. They'd rather promote the false idea that we can win on defense, that we can prevent attacks solely by beefing up our internal security. So if something goes wrong, if an attack gets through, that means WE must have screwed up and we'll just have to spend more money and give the government more power to deal with the problem. That allows Democrats to sit back, like Clinton did and Kerry plans to do, and pretend that we're taking significant steps against terrorism while actually doing very little of significance.

But that's the wrong approach if we want to make American more secure. So if anything, people should be thanking Bush for relentlessly hunting down the people responsible for 9/11 instead of asking him to apologize.

^^Actually I noticed that he hardly answered any of the questions. He basically kept ignoring the 9/11 questions that the reporters kept asking over and over (IMO, I think the reporters blew this too. They were not listening to each other and they kept asking a lot of the same questions and not really good ones at that. Personally, I'd ask why we haven't got Bin Laden yet..)

NOT only was he ignoring questions though, he was fumbling/nervous and he had a couple of brain farts in there (one really big one that was pretty obvious).

IF he did know all the questions that were going to be asked, well I tell you what, he didn't come prepared for them!! Maybe he just had a list of names there...

Bush really has to be one of the worst public speakers ever. He was just horrible tonight (aside: I laughed when one of the FOX reporters said that Bush did a good job with the conference).

I just do not know why people would want to vote for Bush, especially after seeing something like this.

I really hope that another President gets in office next year and I HOPE that person can at the very least inspire more confidence and give a great speech or two (aside: I think, with all his faults, that Clinton was a person who good at public speaking. He definitly knew what he was doing there).

I know theres more to the president then just the public speaking and such, but being able to commenicate to the public is something that a president NEEDS to do (aside: even one of the reporters commented on the fact that Bush wasn't a very good speaker!!).

I'm hoping for the best. Really.

DF2506
" Still doesn't understand why we have Saddam, but not Bin Laden..."

bush has made mistakes lots of them but my problem is there doesnt seem to be a good alternative
i mean john kerry ?
i would prefer nader i voted for him in 2000
but to vote for him hurts kerry who i am not sure is up for the job
i really dont know what i am going to do
is there anybody out there who is going to vote for kerry for reasons other then he is not bush?
i mean, do you think kerry is the man for the job ?
if so, why?

Actually, I'm just surprised that Cheney wasn't there on the podium with him. After all, if it's good enough for the 9/11 commission, it's good enough for a scripted press conference, no?

Blah, that's all I have to say. I suppose I should have expected it by now, but it was so namby-pamby a first-grader could have gotten through the press conference unscathed.

To reverse my usual level of not liking Bush, he did actually show some emotion with some questions, which was a welcome change from most of his other appearances.

But as far as apologizing for 9/11, answering why he and Dick "Halliburton pays me!" Cheney would answer the 9/11 commission together despite the panel's requests, and asking what his biggest mistake was, he really came off as arrogant and evasive. Sorry to those who feel otherwise.

Let's face it, I think a significant percentage of the American people think Bush fouled up in some way. This press conference did nothing, repeat NOTHING to aleve that. Combine that with his "Well, I'm not going to lose my job." statement, and he smacks of either being cocksure or knowing something the public doesn't. Either way, it did nothing for me. He had the opportunities, too. If he had confessed to a screwup just once, I would have changed my opinion of him. Not only that, but as PAD points out he could have apologized for something, minor or not, and it would have gained him huge points, without affecting his credibility at all.

However, he chose to deny that he had done anything wrong, and made the nice little statement that amounted to "I do what I please, polls be damned!" I appreciate the necessity of having to follow your gut on things that can be dicey, but for someone who claimed to be a uniter and not a divider, it really doesn't wash.

This may make headlines tomorrow, but don't expect it to make a splash.

I don't think bush knows how to apologize. All his life he's had people to cover his ass, and protect him from the reprecusions of his actions, no matter what he did. Why should he, or we, expect anything to change?

I agree, James, I don't think Bush should apologize. I'm glad Richard Clark did, but at this point, Bush's apology would just seem empty.

I have to disagree when you write:

**So if anything, people should be thanking Bush for relentlessly hunting down the people responsible for 9/11 instead of asking him to apologize.**

While he has hunted down some of the poeple responsible for 9/11, to say he did it relentlessly is just wrong. Pulling the team in Afghanistan that was looking for Osama and sending on the wild goose chase for WMDs in Iraq (and replacing them with a team versed not in Arabic language and culture, but in Latin American -- well, there's a clear example of relenting, IMO.

Rob Staeger
(There's another Rob S that posts a lot here.. I ain't him...)

Super Crusader, the fact that Kerry is NOT George Bush is an overwhelming reason to vote for him.

As someone said on Salon, Kerry was wise to keep silent; the quote said, "When your opponent is effectively committing suicide, don't commit homicide."

And as for Bush's apology, he might not have to apologize for 9/11 happening. But his own reaction to it is well documented, minute by minute, in a Flash movie on this site:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

Watch this movie, Mr. Tichy, and then say with a straight face that he has nothing to apologize for.

"The thing that irritated me about the press conference tonight was the idea that Bush should apologize for 9/11. What a load of horse @#$!"

See, whereas what irritates me is the immediate knee-jerk erection of a straw man by Bush supporters pretending that something was said when it wasn't because it's easier to attack.

I didn't say Bush should apologize for 9/11. In fact, I'm on record as saying that Bush shouldn't be blamed for it/couldn't have stopped it. There's plenty of misfires since, however, that Bush could have stepped up to the plate about and said, "Yeah, I screwed up on that one." But he didn't. And couldn't. Either because he's clueless or simply is pathologically unable to.

PAD

I *did* notice his non-answer about why he and Cheney are testifying together, all the more telling when the reporter pressed him on it and he stonewalled him a second time.

What struck me the most was the way in which he overtly redefined 'freedom' (one of his favorite buzzwords) as a 'gift from The Almighty' to 'every man woman and child on this earth'. He'd done so well not to let his fundamentalism show, but it slipped, and the implications of the slip are quite telling - he's on a crusade!

"I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom."

Not for nothing, PAD, but you keep expecting Bush to behave in a responsible, adult, intelligent manner. Why? Isn't it obvious to you by now his role consists solely of being presentable for the cameras? His employers feed him his lines and he says them. Period.
I feel for you, I do. My country has had more than its fair share of degenerates in the PM seat, but none so bad. None so bad.

"is there anybody out there who is going to vote for kerry for reasons other then he is not bush?"

But that’s the way most elections are won. Rarely does anyone get into office because they’re the best person for the job. Ask around and you’ll find that most people go to the polls to vote someone OUT of office rather than INTO it.

"is there anybody out there who is going to vote for kerry for reasons other then he is not bush?"

To be fair, I'd consider voting for Bush if he weren't Bush.

PAD

Well, Gorge W. did a good job of dodging blame, and giving non-answers to alot of questions, and eventhough reporters tried to trick him by rephrasing the same question, they just got a slightly different non-answer.

My personal favorite was dodging a clean answer on "pre-emptive strikes", when does the US decide to go ahead and take action before another actually does something? It was a good question... and he weasled his way out of it.

Many folks, myself included, could have cut Reagan some slack if, after Iran/Contra, had said, "I knew it, and I blew it."

Considering how long Alcheimizer's can take to become fully noticable, it's really quite possible that he really could not recall. It's sad but true. I can't talk to my Grandpa much anymore because even though he's known me for twenty three years (my whole life), he doesn't always remember who I am.

I cringed when the reporter asked him if he feels he should apologize. NO! I think Bush handled that question well. The terrorists are to blame for 9/11, and I don't think it serves any purpose to try to blame Bush (or, as Ashcroft thinly attempted yesterday, Clinton) for what is an unspeakable tragedy. I was impressed by Richard Clarke's apology, because it wasn't really an "apology" but more a comment on his sense of personal responsibility for feeling like he'd failed to prevent a tragedy. Whether that is motivated by book sales or whether it was authentic, that's for each person to judge.

But Bush scores low points for me overall. I missed the opening statement, so I can't comment on that, but it was clear that Bush was inadequately prepared for the press conference. That's not a comment on his intelligence. Bush isn't stupid. He's more intelligent than people give him credit for. It's more a comment on his staff not preparing him well enough. He dodged questions left and right, and after dodging them, he dovetailed into his prepared remarks about Saddam as an evil man, 9/11 is a terrible tragedy, the war on terror needs resolve, etc.

By far, the moment that struck me most was when the President was asked why he would only appear before the commission with the Vice President. The President responds by saying: "I look forward to answering questions." That prompts the puzzled reporter to follow up: "But why together?" Which prompts the President to say: "Because we look forward to answering questions. Next question."

That's a damning exchange, in my opinion. It suggests that either President Bush couldn't answer the question in a politically favorable way, or that he wouldn't answer it, period.

I'll agree that a lot of the questions asked caused me to cringe. I thought, "This is the third press conference we've seen, and you're using it to ask whether President Bush feels responsible for 9/11? Isn't there something more substantive you can ask?"

But I think the President did TERRIBLE. That's not a partisan remark. I think John Kerry's performance in a few of the Democratic debates was equally terrible: dodgy, skirting the issue, etc.

It sounds harsh, but I could almost hear the wheels churning in the President's head after each question was asked, and I knew that what was probably running through his head is, "How do I answer this question in the most politically favorable way, without tripping up and walking into a negative mine-field?"

It was a daunting press conference, that I'll admit. But the President's responses to the questions were not outstanding, and certainly it was not the kind of performance I'd expect from the leader of the free world, the commander-in-chief, and my President.

Michael,
>>I cringed when the reporter asked him if he feels he should apologize. NO! I think Bush handled that question well. The terrorists are to blame for 9/11, and I don't think it serves any purpose to try to blame Bush (or, as Ashcroft thinly attempted yesterday, Clinton) for what is an unspeakable tragedy. I was impressed by Richard Clarke's apology, because it wasn't really an "apology" but more a comment on his sense of personal responsibility for feeling like he'd failed to prevent a tragedy. Whether that is motivated by book sales or whether it was authentic, that's for each person to judge.

Expecting Bush to apologize for 9/11 has always sat funny with me. That being said, I am always amazed when someone could talke for over an hour and say absolutely nothing.

Bush not apologizing for 9/11 does not bu me and appears a non-issue... Bush not only being unable to admit any mistakes, but dodging that and almost all other questions scares the hell out of me for our country and our future. There is wisdom shown when admitting one's mistakes.

It looked like he has nothing left but cliches and sound bites. You could see him after each question running through them in his head and then picking out something that he thought might be close to an answer. For whatever reason, he's no longer capable of coming up with an unscripted remark even if it would help him.
I find it hard to believe that with most of the questions obviously known beforehand (re: Bush's own remark) he still couldn't answer any of them.

What struck me the most was the way in which he overtly redefined 'freedom' (one of his favorite buzzwords) as a 'gift from The Almighty' to 'every man woman and child on this earth'. He'd done so well not to let his fundamentalism show, but it slipped, and the implications of the slip are quite telling - he's on a crusade!

If saying that freedom is a gift from the Almighty is religious fundamentalism, then we need to have a serious look at the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our country was founded based on that idea. We shouldn't be so quick to cast it aside as fundamentalism.

The question was very open ended as well, meaning he could have admitted any mistake. Hell, he could have even said "Yes, I admit it was a mistake that we didn't go after Sadaam sooner then we did." That answers the question, but is still enough of a dodge that he isn't damning himself by going too far and admitting that he screwed up majorly. Not everyone would have been pleased with that answer, but at least it would have been an answer.

Or maybe even "I admit it was a mistake to wear this tie, since the pattern seems to be creating a rainbow effect to the viewers at home." ;-)

I find it interesting about there are complaints that there are "thousands of Iraqis dead" -- never mind the fact that possibly half of them were shooting at us.

"no clean exit strategy" -- since when was that ever an issue? The exit strategy is simple: once the Iraqi people are in control, with a government by their own people, then we exit. simple and easy to determine.

There's no reason in the slightest for him to apologize for what happened on 9-11. None at all. To do so would only present another opportunity for his opponent to try and use something against him, AND he simply wasn't responsible. To say he needs to apologize is as bad as those women who appear on Today all the time complaining about him to perky Couric. Their personal hatred of Bush has caused them to put is face on the terrorists that flew the plane into the buildings.

Richard Clarke's apology meant nothing, especially from some one who can't get his facts straight.

The fact of the matter is that there were multiple things that went wrong before 9-11 where the blame could be placed equally on both administrations (Clinton & Bush), but if Bush had attempted to stop some of the terrorists from boarding the planes would have created a greater firestorm from the ACLU and other "rights" groups.

"I find it interesting about there are complaints that there are "thousands of Iraqis dead" -- never mind the fact that possibly half of them were shooting at us."

Perhaps JP, but the USA is the INVADING, OCCUPYING force, we're the outsiders forcing our views on their country.

For just a second, I ended Bush's comment "If I had known that they were going to fly planes into the World Trade Center towers, I would have moved..." with "the towers farther away" instead of "heaven and earth".

I really wish that the Repubs had decided that it was Colin P's destiny to run this year.

"The fact of the matter is that there were multiple things that went wrong before 9-11 where the blame could be placed equally on both administrations (Clinton & Bush), but if Bush had attempted to stop some of the terrorists from boarding the planes would have created a greater firestorm from the ACLU and other "rights" groups."

And you know this how?

Didn't see it myself...I'm on vacation, though not, obviously, from the internet.

Bush never comes across as any great speaker; he can't almost make you believe that there are many multiple was of using the word "is" or that two people in a room having oral sex are not really "alone" because, hey, it's a big world out there and are any of us ever truly alone? And anyway, if two people are in a room they are, by definition, not alone because they ahve each other!

So he ain't so slick. But I'm not sure that's as much of a weakness as some think.

The big news, which seems to be flying by over the heads of those who are more worried about some generic Barbara Walters type question, is that he will probably be increasing troops in Iraq. This is both wise and will also come as a surprise to those who predicted that the big election move would be to bring them all back right before the polls opened.

The thing that irritated me about the press conference tonight was the idea that Bush should apologize for 9/11. What a load of horse @#$!

See, I don't buy this.

Not that Bush himself should necessarily apologize like he's taking the blame for 9/11, but the gov't has failed us for more than 20 years on this.
Yet Bush is still one of those pieces of the puzzle.

The lack of forsight, communication between groups, intelligence, for supporting the enemy of our enemy (bin Laden as well as Saddam).

Everything. One miserable failure (let's see what google attaches that to now, eh?).

Every senior official in the gov't over the last 25 years should be apologizing, because 9/11 was preventable, as well as people in the airline industry.

We had Moussoui (sp?) in custody before 9/11. We had the airline industry stonewalling every effort at increased security for the last couple of decades because, heaven forbid, it would cost money. A bunch of other corporate BS belongs here too (and, Bush is a corporate man).

9/11 was a failure of the leadership of our country as a whole.

Our country was founded based on that idea. We shouldn't be so quick to cast it aside as fundamentalism.

In the very first speech after 9/11, Bush went on about how fighting terrorism was a Crusade.

Now, while some of us might not harber hatred for other religions for events over a thousand years ago, that was the first time with Bush that I went "Ooh. Ouch."

And ever since then, it's been religion this, crusade that.
You put the two and two together, and it sounds alot more like fundamentalism than it would to our Founding Fathers, many of whom were Masons, which iirc is a *little* different than your run of the mill Christianity.

Hah!

"Exit strategy". jprill... are you serious?

American troops will likely be in Iraq for years, if not decades. How long did it take for us to leave Germany and Japan?

We'll be there for a long time, especially if we build permanent military bases there... since we're out of Saudi Arabia now.

There'll be no exit from Iraq for the majority of our troops there for years, IMO.

I wasn't for it, but now that we're there... it would be a shame to have the country go to hell... which it would if we just up and left.

Become an Islamic theocracy like Iran, or split apart, or just become a serious mess.

...

By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that on the one hand, US money is founding a "major Iraqi newspaper", but on the other hand, we're shutting down newspapers? Now, some have described the one that was shut down last month as nothing more than a propaganda rag, and that may be so... but there seems to be something odd about how we're giving the Iraqis freedom, as long as it's freedom to say things that aren't critical or damaging to us...

... or maybe that's just me.

I think we're getting sidetracked on the apology for 9/11 issue. What PAD said was that Bush was asked what he considered his greatest mistake and he couldn't name one, it didn't even have to be related directly to 9/11 given the examples PAD listed of possible mistake Bush owned up to.

I think this inability to admit to an mistake is a pathology endemic to this administration. From Rummy's dismissal of rampant looting as "untidyness" to Rice's "nobody asked me to do anything" whine to the 9/11 commission, this crew seems to have a deep-seated fear of admitting any kind of falibility. I never thought I would say this, but I miss the days when Reagan was willing to go before the press and speak off the cuff. I think Reagan held an unscripted press conference at least every six months. This is Bush's what? Second or third press conference? And like all of his public appearances, he gets a cheat sheet so he doesn't stray off the talking points.

It's a very surreal world we live in. Our political coverage is tightly scripted and prepared so that our leaders never have to think on there feet, yet our entertainment is dominated by looselly scripted "reality" programs.

Well, no President wants to admit a mistake, especially in an election year. There's always a fear in politicians that if they admit a mistake in such a public forum, it'll become a sound bite that will come back to bite them in an attack ad later. The Bush campaign has certainly tried to use Kerry's words against him, and frankly, I have no doubt that Kerry would do the same, because politics has become more and more about slinging mud and picking the candidate who you perceive comes out "cleanest" comparatively.

At this point, though, if Bush had come up with an honest and sincere answer for a mistake, if he had expressed a little humility, which is the topic of PAD's post, I'd respect him for it. I wouldn't attack him for it. I wouldn't vote for him, but I'd respect his courage. :-)

It'd never happen by either Bush or Kerry, though.

But yeah. Humility can be a good thing. It's definitely not a characteristic I perceived in Bush from the question and answer session last night. When several reporters questioned him about the WMDs, he got visibly flustered and essentially said, "Look. Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He was a threat to America." True. Absolutely. Horrible. Terrible. Dictator. Check. Check. Check. I question the President's using "Iraq" and "9/11" in the same sentence, but okay. I'll go along with it.

That doesn't really answer the question though. It answers a possible follow up to the answer that the reporter asked for, but it doesn't answer THAT question.

That's why his performance didn't impress me. He was fumbling for the right words to express his point, and kept coming back to the script.

I dunno. Call me a political idealist, but I want the President to be a little more astute on his toes, a little more forthcoming, and a little more humble.

I guess I'm an idealist. *shrugs*

James Tichy: Maybe I just don't remember it, but I don't recall any demands for Clinton to apologize for the first WTC attack...
Luigi Novi: Perhaps because he had been in office for only 37 days when it happened? And because only 6 people died? And because the FBI, ATF, NYPD and U.S Attorneys cooperated with skill and determination to eventualy identify, catch, extradite and prosecute all or most of the conspirators who did it?

James Tichy: ...for the Oklahoma City bombing...
Luigi Novi: Perhaps because Timothy McVeigh acted with one or two conspirators using affordable explosives that were easy to acquire, and placed in an easily rentable Ryder truck in an comparatively unimportant government building with no prior history of being targeted, making it unlikely to generate harbingerous hints that would show up on the radar screen of the major Federal law enforcement agencies, let alone the President?

The bit that genuinely scared me the most...

"Our obligation is to spread freedom throughout the Middle East."

Oh Boy. There goes the neighbourhood and the forseeable schedule.

John

Here's the 9/11 testimony dodge:

From the transcript:
-------------------------------------------
Q Mr. President, why are you and the Vice President insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And, Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

THE PRESIDENT: We will 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.

Q I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

THE PRESIDENT: 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.

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

Shameless.

It's not very hard at all to figure out why Bush and Cheney are testifying together before the 9/11 commission, if you've watched any of the public testimony.

For all of the talk of a non-partisan investigation, both sides are being partisan as all get out. If there was *any* *tiny* inconsistency between Bush's and Cheney's testimony, it would shortly be leaked to the press that there were inconsistencies between their versions of the story and *then* the whole (supposed to be private) testimony would have to be released to the public to quell the ensuing firestorm in the press.

By testifying together, the chances of inconsistent testimony are greatly reduced.

Now, you can say that the testimony would be inconsistent because they are busy lying and you *might* be right. It might *instead* be the case that it was an insane day and human memory is imperfect.

And I can't tell you which case would be the truth.

You know, I'm a republican. I don't blame Clinton for any of the mess going on in the world today. So please don't say it's all Bush's fault either. Way back in the day the President's office wasn't that huge of a deal. Sure, it has a lot of power, but it certinly doesn't run every aspect of this nation. Presidents have to cordinate with the other branches of legislation. The President simply doesn't have that far reaching power. In the last century the Presidental office has been percieved as larger - becuase we all want a single person to focus on. Any President, no matter what mistakes they make, I'd like to think they should be respected for putting such a freaking large bullseye on themselves. So to blame Bush for everything is like saying you personlly want a scape goat - so you know where to go with the pitchforks.

I didn't agree with Clinton on a lot of matters - but I've never thought he was responsibly for 9/11, any more than Bush was. NOBODY could have perdicted such events. If ever the meaning of 20/20 hindsight was exemplified - it was with this event.

Just to confirm, yes, the Presidential press conferences are all better staged than any show on Broadway. Questions are submitted by the reporters in advance, the White House chooses which ones to answer, and show up with their canned responses. Reporters who don't play along are simply ignored, which gets them into deep trouble with their editors. I'm surprised to hear any non-screened questions got through at all, and I'll bet whoever asked it won't get invited to the next Bush press conference.

As for voting for Kerry over Bush, I plan to vote for Kerry because I believe he's the better-qualified candidate. Of course, I also believe a sock monkey would be better qualified than George W. Bush, but that's a different matter all together...

By the way - anyone see last night's Whoppi? How's that for timing?

Now, you can say that the testimony would be inconsistent because they are busy lying and you *might* be right. It might *instead* be the case that it was an insane day and human memory is imperfect.

And I can't tell you which case would be the truth.

I can tell you that you would be more likely to get the truth if you get the inconsistent testimonies and then investigate the inconsistencies. And you may be even more likely to get the truth if they were under oath.

I don't blame Bush for 9/11, and I don't expect him to apologize. No one foresaw the possibility, except for Tom Clancy, and if that's anyone's fault, it's our counter-terrorism experts' faults. I disagree that we should have gone into Iraq, but now that we're there, I don't think we should leave until we've helped them create a new government. Still, Bush did nothing but dodge questions after question last night. It was disapointing. I'm not particularly impressed by Kerry, and I've no idea what his platform is. However, Bush's inability to tell us Why he's doing or has done anything terrifies me.

I think what the American people want more than humility from a president is an ability to speak with a sincerity that shows he truly believes what he is saying. Whatever you think of either Reagan or Clinton, both men were able to answer questions in a way that made you believe that they were speaking from the heart, that this is what they believed in. Watching Bush fumble over carefully scripted answers made me feel that this man believes only in George W. Bush.

Oh that Lefty media!

Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire.
...
Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?
...
Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
...
Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
...
One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it’s WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?
...
Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?
...
Sir, you’ve made it very clear tonight that you’re committed to continuing the mission in Iraq. Yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?
...
After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
...
with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have — quite significantly over the past couple of months — I guess I’d like to know if you feel in any way that you’ve failed as a communicator on this topic?
...
I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don’t have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

I know a LOT of high school and college level debaters who have a better command of the floor than our President does. Just last week, my college debate society trashed the living bejesus out of our on-campus rivals in our annual debate, and our on-campus rivals were giving better responses than the President did last night. How can anyone place their confidence in a man who **can't answer a question unless he knows what it is beforehand?** I mean, **this** is the guy who's leading us to a better tomorrow?
This is no-brainer stuff-- If you're going to hold a press conference, prepare for it. Assume there's going to be at least one ringer in the press corps who's going to slip an 'uncleared' question by you. With the 9/11 Commission hearings being the news of the day, how can the leader of the free world show up to a press conference utterly unprepared to answer any and every question related to the 9/11 hearings? Granted, you can't plan for every conceivable scenario (9/11 taught us that, if nothing else), but you can at least-- **at least** --generate some stock answers so you don't look like a simpleton when someone asks you a simple question. Like PAD said, there were a dozen ways out of that question that would've made him look good... so why does he end up taking the way out that makes him look bad? If the man can't hold up under pressure at a press conference, he's got no business being the President of the United States.
I just don't see how half of America can support this guy when he's obviously utterly unprepared for the job.
That OTHER John Byrne

"I find it interesting about there are complaints that there are "thousands of Iraqis dead" -- never mind the fact that possibly half of them were shooting at us."

So the other half...what? Don't count? Were freebies?

My God.

PAD

And while we're at it..."possibly half of them were shooting at us?"

What does that mean? "Possibly half?" That possibly it was more than half? Or possibly less? Could it possibly be, say, only one in three were shooting at us? Or maybe one in five?

So maybe four out of five people were just hanging about, hoping and praying for a better life, and we bombed them to bits. Blew them up, men, women, children, just gone. Could that "possibly" be the case? Could that "possibly" be a contributing factor to the increasing fatalities of Americans?

And could the inability to have foreseen that, or cared about that, be possibly...just possibly...a mistake?

PAD

I'm amazed that Bush's ratings are still in the double digits! What does this lying, thieving, cowardly moron have to do to wake up the country?

My wife says she would vote for our dog for president before Bush since the dog is smarter.

Bush's grandfather's assets were frozen in 1942 for dealing with the Nazis. It is obvious that money is more important to the Bush family than human lives or honor, no matter what crap W. spouts.

I am voting for Kerry.

Whenever there is a presidential election, I look at the two candidates, and their positions on the issues. And I vote for the one who agrees with me most often. I have no difficulty identifying that as Kerry.

All politicians are deceptive. The last President who told us the truth all the time was Jimmy Carter. (Not that that made him a good President - but I do believe he was honest, moral, and upright. painfully so.)

Voting for me gets down to the issues. If I seriously believed that there was no quantifiable difference in the beliefs of the two major candidates, I would consider voting for a third party.

PAD

I think he meant the top half. ;)

And with regard to the Bush/Cheney testimony -
will Kathleen be selling the Bush puppets before or after the testimony?

Not that I am happy with everything that Tony Blair says and does but Mr. Bush could learn a lot from him just by watching the weekly Prime Minister question time as well as the monthly press conference where journalists can ask Blair whatever they want. Of course Mr. Blair is prepared, sometimes it is really not difficult to guess what questions will be asked. It can happen that he doesn`t want to answer a question for whatever reason or evades it but he is not hiding behind scripts and protocols. Journalists and members of parliament can keep drilling whenever they are not happy with a reply.

Sometimes, that takes guts but this is part of what a prime minister or the US president should be capable of. He is representing the country and the country in question, meaning the citizens, especially journalists, have a right to ask questions - and to get answers.

Not only are these staged question and answer sessions Bush gives boring (to me nearly everything he says about his war against terror sounds like a broken record), they often smell of cowardice. And after this, it is even more obvious how arrogant he is. Maybe this journalist didn`t hand in his question in advance, that this is necessary is bad enough. But what is even worse is that Bush obviously never thought about it what mistakes he made.

What is so funny is that everyone keeps giving the same answer to why they are voting for Kerry and that is that he is not Bush and when asked what other reasons are there, everyone just says that is the only reason and it is good enough.

How is that good enough? Kerry is worse. He waffles on every decision. His record shows that.

How is that "he is not Bush" a good enough reason to vote for him???

How is that good enough? Kerry is worse. He waffles on every decision. His record shows that.

No it doesn't. That's just another soundbite that the Bush campaign threw out there, hoping it would stick. If you actually look at any of the "waffles", you'll see that it is misrepresented by Bush's ads. Luckily for Bush, most people don't check up on hte accuracy of ads.

This site is so blatantly liberal. I didn't say leftist, but blatantly liberal and anti Republican. This site is definitely partisan, Mr David. And thats ok because its your site. But I think we have to admit that this is a partisanly liberal site with mostly partisanly liberal people who respond to posts around here. Not always, just in general. So lets not pat ourselves on the back too much when we see SO MANY people on this site agreeing with us. Just a thought...

Kerry has built a campaign on his military record while his post-military record does show that he has voted many times for cutting the military's budget.

The truth is that the ads can be checked and Kerry does have a record of changing his mind according to his needs or his financiers at the time.

I just read this entire thread and I have just one question to the poster directly above me:

Robert, what in the flying @#!% are you yammering about?

Who's patting who on the what, where?

Liberals aren't the only ones who were disappointed by the President's performance/inability to thoughtfully answer questions last night... That I can 100% guarantee.

Kerry has built a campaign on his military record while his post-military record does show that he has voted many times for cutting the military's budget.

His military ecord is excellent. There's no real dispute over that.

His military voting record is vastly misrepresented by Bush's campaign.

I urge anyone quoting sound bites about their candidate or the other guy's candidate to check out:

www.factcheck.org

It's a good place to check out the claims by the candidates. Bush's claim that Kerry is a "flip flopper" is debunked there, as are some of Kerry's barbs.

Just FYI. :-)

This site is so blatantly liberal. I didn't say leftist, but blatantly liberal and anti Republican. This site is definitely partisan, Mr David.

Aren't you being disingenuous to those of us who aren't Republican and who form our opinions based on our own abilities and interpretations rather than unthinking partisan reasons?

I detest Dubya and everything he does for concrete reasons rather than any support for a political party.

There is this sales guy at the office, who, with a little prepping, can talk and talk and talk about any subject, and can be ever so convincing. He's great.

Elequent,

Confident,

Clear-speaking,

Would he be leadership material??

No.

No character.

If I was a Yank, I'd vote for Bush.

I think in the mistake section, he could have added, "I'm sorry I didn't deploy the Troops along the Torra Borra region to cut off Bin Laden and the Taliban leadership." Or, "Gee, I could have paid more attention to Richard Clark whne he talked about Bin Laden and not been so hard up for Iraq." Or "Wow, I should have not gotten into Iraq while Al-Qadda is out there plaining more attacks. You just can't win a two front war." Or, "I really wish I hadn't made people hate us so much." J

Honestly Bush should have admitted his biggest mistake was having a press conference at all.This man has to be the worst public speaker in the
history of the presidency.
"Blah ,blah,not on my watch,freedom, freedom we will not stand by freedom ,change the world ,freedom.God bless you, freedom"
What was the question again?????????

It seemed to me that there were a lot of attempts by the reporters to get Bush to say he was sorry in someway for 9/11. I can not help but feel had he given into that, the morning headlines would have said something like, "Bush admits 9/11 was his fault!" He was in a political arena last night. Did Bush make mistakes? Sure. But does he deserve blame for 9/11? No way. There has to be a bigger agenda behind the reporters numerous question instead of wanting to see a humble President.

Frankly I think the focus is off. We should ask more questions about his decisions to go to war with Iraq. Our focus should be on the proper response to the attack, both short and long term.

I've watched the flash site someone posted, which shows the timeline on the Presidents response to the first minutes and hours of 9/11. The man is not evil and heartless. I have to agree with his statement that he would have moved heaven and earth to prevent that attack. So would have Gore, Clinton or Kerry. We are going to criticize him for not shooting down the plane! I can not even imagine having to make that kind of decision. I know that our President has to be able to make decisions like that. But whoever was President I would give them the broadest benefit of the doubt in such a situation. It is a shame that this point is becoming an issue. Again folks, wrong focus.

I saw some of Bush’s speech and Q/A session last night. I will admit that he dodged a few questions (name me ONE politician or president that doesn’t), and did so rather blatently, but this was your typical press conference here, folks.

Nothing out of the ordinary.

What is being posted here is the most insipid “we hate Bush” bunch of drek I think I have ever seen.

I cannot think of a single time I have watched a press conference of this nature, and the questions and answers NOT be known before-hand. ALL president’s from BOTH sides of the ideological coin do this. It seems to be fodder for criticism this time around though, because it is Bush. Seems the only poster here who understands this is Robert Jung. And he said he doesn’t even support Bush.

As for a person’s ability to communicate, all I can say is look at Bill Clinton. I wouldn’t buy a used car from the man, let alone believe a word that comes from his mouth.

His “sincerity” is summed up in what Joey Tribiani on “Friends” called the “smell-the-fart” method.

When was Clinton “sincere”? When he looked like he was smelling something nasty and/or, he had that “looking off in space pursed lips” look going. That kind of “sincerity” can be faked by almost anyone.

Look in a mirror, and try it yourself.

As for Clinton’s ability to NOT sound like a boob when speaking, all I can say is “that depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is.” ‘Nuff said.

Tim H:

You asked how it would be known that groups like the ACLU would have had Bush’s ass for lunch had he taken some steps to stop the 9/11 attacks before-hand?

I can tell you how *I* know.

Because of the charges of racial profiling that occurred in the days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks.

It was known that all 20 (counting Zacarias Moussaoui) hijackers were men in their 20’s and 30’s of middle-eastern decent, all of whom were Muslims. If all men in their 20’s and 30’s who were also Muslims were stopped from getting on planes, either before, on, or after 9/11, the ACLU would be FIRST IN LINE to cry racism. Even though such actions before or even ON 9/11 could have prevented more than 3000 deaths, the dismantling of the Taliban, and the invasion/liberation of Iraq.

A question I forgotto ask.

PAD, please name one mistake you have made in the past month, and name your greatest fault.

Could this turn out to be his Viet Nam?

The truth is that the ads can be checked and Kerry does have a record of changing his mind according to his needs or his financiers at the time.

The facts do not bear out this accusation.

"PAD, please name one mistake you have made in the past month, and name your greatest fault."

Gentlemen of the press always give their full name and where they're from when posing a question. It's what's done in polite society. And you are...?

PAD

Jeff Gillmer, ABC.
"PAD, please name one mistake you have made in the past month, and name your greatest fault."

(Not seriously expecting an answer, but I do work for ABC and couldn't resist. And no, I'm not a reporter, but I work on the technical side.)

The thing that has stuck out for me about the press conference ( and may of the administration sound bites of the last few weeks) was that Bush kept saying "If I had known that they were going to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center towers, I'd have moved mountains..". OK you had no idea they'd fly the planes into buildings but there was an elevated amount of chatter about terrorists hijacking planes yet it seems like no one took any steps to beef up security for flights around that time. Flying planes into buildings is horrific but hijacking panes is also a scary thing to have happen yet no one seemed to be alarmed about the possibility.

And for the people who feel that this is a liberal Bush-bashing haven let me give a little background about myself - I'm 31 and have been a registered Republican since I was 18; I switched to the Democratic party at the beginning of the year because there is nothing Republican about the current administration and I would vote for almost anyone over Bush because he has been a disastrous president and on his watch has ushered in an era where the socially intrusive, religious conservative wing of the party ( the wackjobs that used to cost the GOP elections) have now taken over. Add to it his disastrous economic policies and the fact that he spends money like a drunken sailor.
And for a guy that everyone likes to praise as a "man of great character" Bush has presided over the most secretive and divisive administration since Nixon. Maybe instead of pointing the finger at people who want Bush gone and accusing them of having some liberal bias it would do you some good to look inward and admit that the only reason you support Bush is because you want your side to win despite the fact that your candidate has shown himself to be the wrong man for the job.

Jeff from ABC ,You obviously are missing the point this is not about every one confessing mistakes and faults .Our elected officials and representatives should be held to a high standard and be willing to admit a mistake.Yes im sure you are going to pull a what about this (fill in the blank )'politician.they are all wrong and in this case since the man(Bush )claims to be so religious i would think honesty and integrity would go with lifestyle.
In the future if you want "fair and balanced "coverage ,meaning right wing ,pro republican you may want to consider your competitors at FOX news.:)

recently GW said that everyone deserves freedom, and blah blah , the usual crap that he says when it comes to iraq.

the fact is that i cant really say where i live is free in the truest of democratic sense. my country has the traditional military dictator backed up by your every day paper parliament, and the thing is i wouldnt mind a bit more freedom and accountability in the system. in fact, its just ripe and waiting for GW to come and bomb the hell out of us.

Honestly speaking, I would rather shoot myself tha n have some american soldier come in out of nowhere and 'liberate' me. Let me work out my own problems, strenghten my own institutions instead of individuals , and let me and my people create freedom for ourselves.

i dont need george bush to come with his planes and bombs, and tell me what it is to be free.

Lee Houston, Junior;
No. It won't turn out to be his Vietnam. You know why? Because we are fighting this war to win. Unlike LBJ - and to be fair, Nixon to an extent though not as great - Bush is determined to let our military personnel do what is necessary to protect themselves.
Oh, and we already won the war. We are now trying to win the peace.
What you must understand is that liberal politicians and the media love to constantly bring up Vietnam because it is the only war the United States ever lost. I mean, they were calling the war a "Quagmire" THREE DAYS after it started.
So if when we roll over Grenada, it will be called "not a real war" and we'll be called a "bully".
When we win the first Gulf War after only about 100 hours on the ground, we'll again be called a bully, be accused of exaggerating the strength of the enemy and simultaneously excorciated for NOT GETTING SADDAM HUSSEIN!
No, Vietnam was a noble effort against Communism during the Cold War. History will show the way we handle Iraq to be possibly even more significant in world impact.
If we stay the course, which we are.
Because THIS President won't let it become Vietnam.
A major reason why I'll vote for him.
Any questions?

Highly recommended reading:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004954

No. The "other half" were caualties during the conflict. Especially when the lines between civilian and attacker become as blurred as they have been. Unfortunate to say the least.

One of the comments above mentioned the "looting", most of which was proven to be false and just incorrect. Including the major one of the museum where multiple artifacts were reported to have been stolen, only you would have to look far and wide for the article where we found out that the material was moved to a secure location before the war to prevent damage.

I'm still waiting for PAD's response to his greatest mistake. Interestingly enough, none of the reporters during the press conference introduced themselves and what news service they were a part of. Granted, they were submitted before hand with identifying information, but that doesn't mean there haven't been press conferences in the pass that have been done on-the-fly. If you want identificaiton, you get the email address (most of the time), when people post here.

If the exit strategy I presented isn't accepted, then why isn't the press screaming for the return of troops from Germany and Japan? They been there for how long, close to 60 years? It's been a year, and the press was screaming for troops to come home after 6 months.
The fact of the matter is that the idea I presented for an exit strategy still works. Once they can control themselves, we will let them manage themselves. Of course we'll set up a base there, but there's a slight difference between running the place like we are now and setting up a military base.

Interesting thought about the pauses President Bush made at the press conference the other night: here is someone who does pause before answering questions, but if you wanted, you could look at it as determining the best answer to give the press. You may not agree with it, but it's better than rapid fire answering and allowing a damaging sound bite to be used against you.

I myself still can't figure out why anyone would vote for Kerry. His military record claims are being disputed by multiple sources, including one of his reasons for getting one of his purple hearts.
He's stated multiple times that he would raise taxes on people making over $200k, proving that if elected I just will NOT try to increase the amount of money that I make to even close to that level. Why bother to try and make more money when more of it will be taken away from me.
He's also voted against the troops and support for them because the wording in the bill didn't have the removal of tax cuts for the "wealthiest" to pay for it.
Not to mention the fact that his speaking puts people to sleep. There's no excitement for him, there's nothing appealing about him, he's just not Bush. That's the only reason Democrats will flock to him.
I don't see leadership when I look at Kerry. It just isn't feasible.

Oh, Bush won't let it become another Vietnam? Thank God, I was worried that he had planned to get us into a protracted guerrilla war from the start!

The fact is, good intentions aren't enough. Johnson didn't intend for Vietnam to become the quagmire that it was. This administration sailed into Iraq and easily deposed Hussein's regime and then proceeded to pat themselves on the back, not realizing that they had just walked into a viper's den. They were totally unprepared to "win the peace" and had no plans for how they were going to create a peaceful democracy in a country whose entire history is ethnic bloodshed and iron-fisted rule in just a year. They still don't. More and more, I am convinced that the only thing we will end up creating in Iraq is another Shiite Iranian-style theocracy.

The sad thing is, while I can't think of one good reason to vote for Kerry, I can think of dozens of reasons to vote against Bush.

What you must understand is that liberal politicians and the media love to constantly bring up Vietnam because it is the only war the United States ever lost.

"We did NOT lose Vietnam! It was a tie."

-- Otto, A Fish Called Wanda

Tim "don't call me stupid" Lynch

"I myself still can't figure out why anyone would vote for Kerry. His military record claims are being disputed by multiple sources, including one of his reasons for getting one of his purple hearts. "

I seriously doubt you can find a reputable source (newsmax.com doesn't count) thats making those claims.

"He's stated multiple times that he would raise taxes on people making over $200k, proving that if elected I just will NOT try to increase the amount of money that I make to even close to that level. Why bother to try and make more money when more of it will be taken away from me."

While you are at it you can also cut off your nose to spite your face.

"He's also voted against the troops and support for them because the wording in the bill didn't have the removal of tax cuts for the "wealthiest" to pay for it."

And how selfish is it to continue an unecessary tax cut while soldiers are at war? The same soldiers who Bush sent to war without efficient equipment long before Kerry voted no on the 87 billion.

"There's no excitement for him, there's nothing appealing about him, he's just not Bush."

And Bush is just a Republican and the resentment of 8 years out of the oval office and fear of another 4 is all that seems to be important to the GOP. Otherwise this wretched president with his laundry list of faults wouldn't be held up as some paragon of leadership.

Re: Kerry's Purple Heart

Here's the *report* in the Boston Globe, which I *think* is a reputable newspaper. (I don't live in Boston. :) ) I emphasize report, because they're not raising the claims, but rather reporting on them.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/

I think people like Jerome are really missing something here.

Attack me and take over my country and you see what I'll do to you - using every gureilla tactic possible.

Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Saddam was one of the last of the twentieth century tyrants, but the US (and it's 'allies')had and never will have any justification for attacking and taking over Iraq.

Given the economic state of the country right now, it's youth are more prone to guerilla sentiment than any other right now.

You want democracy for Iraq. Let the Iraqis' learn about democracy themselves. You cant just shove such things down a person's throat and expect them to accept it because you (someone who is a million miles away) feels its right.

Such behaviour smacks of colonial hubris.

This made the news all the way over here in Australia. It was all the radio stations could talk about all afternoon.

Guys, he's a laughing stock.

JB

I can't believe people are scrapping about Kerry's military record. Whatever you might think about it, it's significantly more substantial than Dubya's (and for the record I couldn't care about either of theirs).

I'm actually going to vote FOR Kerry raising taxes on those earning more than $200K - just look at that number. We're not talking $20K, we're not even talking $50 or $100K, but $200 - the super wealthy need to be paying a greater share than they currently do. I fail to see why this is not common sense.

The money has to come from somewhere - Dubya's military spending (unprecedented by any leadership of any country in the history of the world) is wrecking the foundation of the American economy and pushing it into a debt mountain which is crippling public services.

Dean,

I think you missed the point. I was being sarcastic towards PAD's answer. I do work for ABC, but I don't care about mistakes PAD might have made. Why? It's none of my business and it won't affect my respect for his work. If I were that shallow, I wouldn't be here and wouldn't support his work because of his political ideas. I was just making a funny due to his answer.

As for switching over to FOX, I'll watch them (and I also watch CNN and occasionally some of the NBC Cable shows), but switching over there to work is currently out of the question. There are too many benefits being a Disney Castmember to give up. Especially when shopping for friends and family members around the holidays. : )

Oh, and to whomever was complaining that reporters at the press conference weren't introducing themselves...

The President was calling on them by name anyway. Why should they reintroduce themselves?

I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I will vote for whoever the best candidate is regardless of party affiliation. I have noticed however that for all the supposed "bush bashing" that goes on in here, these people usually give solid reasons for hating Bush. Whereas the people who support Bush just say why Kerry would be bad and why Clinton was bad, and the only thing that comes close to an endorsement is talking about this stupid war where way too many of our casualties were caused by ourselves or our allies. Is there anything non-war related that Bush has done for our country that can be considered good? or even not bad? I am not picking on anyone here. This is a serious question that i would like an answer to.

>> While you are at it you can also cut off your nose to spite your face.

It's a perfectly reasonable and valid argument. I've known people who stopped working past 40 hours a week because it didn't make any financial sense for them to do so. About ten years ago, a pharmacist I worked with quit his second job, because the tax bite didn't make it worth it.

Just this past week, a co-worker of mine got his paycheck from a two week period in which he worked 100 hours. The extra money he earned net was so little that he's vowed to never bother doing it again.

That's with the system we have in place now. Calling $200,000 rich in a major metro area like New York City is a joke. I'm not crying poverty for such people, mind you, but I do think it's unreasonable to tax them like they're in the uppermost tax bracket or are overachievers. I think that the tax code does punish achievement. I've seen it in action.

I would prefer a perfectly flat tax system, starting at something like $36,000 a year or so.

I am consistently amazed by posters who start off their posts by stating: "I didn't watch the press conference" or "I only saw part of the press conference" and then begin to comment on the WHOLE event as if they were one of the reporters sitting in the room.

Just curious, but how many readers actually continue to read the rest of that person's post (on this thread) if they start their post that way?

Not many, insideman... not many. :)
Ken (nfC): How is that good enough? Kerry is worse. He waffles on every decision. His record shows that.
On the contrary, that makes him more connected to voters: For the war? Kerry voted for it! Against the war? Kerry voted against it, too! No matter what your take on any particular issue, you can be sure that Kerry voted with your side at least once! Finally, a politician who's not afraid to be with us *some* of the time!
(sarcasm off)
Seriously, though, in a world run by "the lesser of two evils" concept, John Kerry certainly seems the lesser. So the guy changes his mind a lot? Could that not be the mark of someone willing to change his position once he realizes he's made a mistake? Granted, I haven't made a thorough study of his voting record, so I can't tell you if his waffling has any sort of consistency to it. Think of it more as a Devil's Advocate kind of positing. Who's more dangerous, the voting record waffler or the self-righteous zealot of 'freedom'?
While we're on the concept of freedom, let me posit you a scenario, unlikely as it seems. Imagine militant Muslims took over America... doesn't matter how, really, but let's say by military conquest. Now, our new Muslim leaders (because they've constructed an 'interm government' for us) tell us they've saved us from the Great White Devil Bush, and we are now free to experience the joys and benefits of their culture. Imagine middle American women in Ohio being forced to wear burkas, or having parts of their sexual anatomy removed. Imagine having the culture you were reared in excised, told "it can't be that way anymore; that was the old way, you must embrace the new way." Imagine the resentment you would feel toward others forcing their culture upon you. Imagine the confusion of trying to adapt away from American culture toward the Muslim tenets of faith, even if you wanted to. Seems a bit over the top, doesn't it?
That's exactly what we're doing in Iraq: we may not be building Starbucks Coffees or cramming Big Macs down Iraqi throats, but we're expecting an entire culture to switch from apples to oranges. Actually, it's more like from apples to cucumbers... the difference between the two cultures --their expectations, mores, and styles of government-- is so vast that to expect it to change overnight, or even to expect it to change out of sheer gratefulness over ousting their hated dictator Saddam, is to expect to much. Yes, many Iraqis are grateful they're no longer under Saddam's thumb... but I doubt that most Iraqis realized that the price of deposing Saddam would be a restructuring of their culture. It's like going back in time to force democracy on the fuedal Middle Ages... the 'democracy' would exist, but the people just couldn't wrap their minds around it: apples and cucumbers.
I'm not saying that the Iraqi people can or will never be democratic, or embrace a more free form of government than anarchy or theocracy or despotism. I'm saying the Bush administration's hopes were too high and expectations unrealistic. I'm saying that to expect them to flock to democracy, to the 'freedoms' Bush thinks can be handed out like so much Monopoly money, is about as reasonable as expecting Ohio to welcome forced conversion to the Muslim faith. Ohio would rebel under such conditions... why are we then so surprised that the Iraqi people are being so 'ungrateful' toward their liberators?
tOjb

"PAD, please name one mistake you have made in the past month, and name your greatest fault."

Very well, Mr. Gilmer: I could answer that very easily. I've been very open and honest about mistakes and faults of mine in the past.

But I will not answer that this time around, specifically to make a point.

I'm a private citizen.

I'm not the President of the United States. I did not ask the people of this country to vote for me, to believe that I was a compassionate conservative, a uniter and not a divider. I did not ask them to put into my keeping their own lives and the lives of their sons and daughters I'm sending off to war for reasons that still remain nebulous. I'm not a servant of the people, and I'm not held accountable to them beyond the strictures of the laws that apply to everyone. The President is paid his salary from our taxes. He has sworn to uphold the constitution, is the public face of the United States in terms of how we present ourselves to the rest of the world, and is answerable to the people of these United States as given voice by our elected officials and by the press.

My mistakes are no one's damned business but my own. The President's mistakes are everyone's business. They can cost jobs. They can cost money. They can cost lives. Hundreds of lives. Thousands of lives. And when the man who asked for our trust cannot think of a single thing in the past three and a half years that might be considered an error in judgment, that is--at the very least--cause for concern. Because humans make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone can think of things they've done wrong. Which means one of two things: Either George W. Bush thinks he's free of human error, which shows arrogance on a monstrous scale. Or he's so intellectually inept that he is incapable of self-analysis, even though the ability to analyze one's own job performance for weaknesses is a trait that anyone at the most basic middle management job should possess, much less the Commander in Chief.

So am I saying that I'm holding George W. Bush to a higher standard than I hold myself? Yes. Of course. But the question shouldn't be, why am I? The question should be, why isn't every other voter in his country?

PAD

Posted by Derek at April 15, 2004 10:24 AM
"I myself still can't figure out why anyone would vote for Kerry. His military record claims are being disputed by multiple sources, including one of his reasons for getting one of his purple hearts. "

I seriously doubt you can find a reputable source (newsmax.com doesn't count) thats making those claims.

I count Newsmax, and I find them a bit more reputable than CNN at times.
And in case you missed it: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/

"...Why bother to try and make more money when more of it will be taken away from me."

While you are at it you can also cut off your nose to spite your face.

I would, but there's no logical reason for doing.

I don't want to get taxed at a higher rate for EARNING more for WORKING HARDER, therefore if Kerry is elected, I will not try to work for that pay rate.

"He's also voted against the troops and support for them because the wording in the bill didn't have the removal of tax cuts for the "wealthiest" to pay for it."

And how selfish is it to continue an unecessary tax cut while soldiers are at war? The same soldiers who Bush sent to war without efficient equipment long before Kerry voted no on the 87 billion.

Yes, and that tax cut had nothing to do with improving the economy like it did?
Production rates in factories not seen since the last tax cut.
Job creation in the hundreds of thousands.

It's just a darn shame that tax cuts work every time they are tried.

"There's no excitement for him, there's nothing appealing about him, he's just not Bush."

And Bush is just a Republican and the resentment of 8 years out of the oval office and fear of another 4 is all that seems to be important to the GOP. Otherwise this wretched president with his laundry list of faults wouldn't be held up as some paragon of leadership.

The biggest faults I've seen with him is letting Ted "Where's my pants -- and my car!" Kennedy write the education bill, signing Campaign finance reform, and this stupid immigration policy.

I find no fault with his landing on the aircraft carrier and having the "mission accomplished" banner behind him.
I find no fault with his 2 tax cuts that have lead and is leading to great economic prosperity for this country.
I find no fault with removing Saddam from power, a man who had and used WMD on HIS OWN PEOPLE, and could possibly use them against us in the future either himself or through terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.

I'm actually going to vote FOR Kerry raising taxes on those earning more than $200K - just look at that number. We're not talking $20K, we're not even talking $50 or $100K, but $200 - the super wealthy need to be paying a greater share than they currently do. I fail to see why this is not common sense.

Hmm. I seriously doubt you would be saying these words if you were actually making that amount.

This is also not common sense BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY! You do not go to work just to earn money to just give it to the government. THAT is common sense. Not this "oh, people who earn more than $200k should pay more in taxes." They already do. They pay 20% more in taxes than someone earning $20k, does that really sound fair?

You want a different perspective? Fine. Say you start your own business, and it's really successful to the point where you have the potential to take home more than $200k a the first year. Except that Kerry is president, and he will TAX YOU MORE because you had the desire to work create your own business to earn more money to take care of yourself and your family (and your children). You had the desire and the opportunity because of this great country you live in to create a better life for your family to create a business that has turned out to be successful. So successful that you have the potential to earn more than $200k, except that over I don't know, 50%? maybe 60% will go to right back to the government. This is additional to all the fines, licenses, property or other taxes you have to pay for your business, not to mention what you pay at home in taxes.

You have to potential to succeed, and the sky is the limit.
Now we have someone who says that there is a limit, and if you go past that, half of what you earn because of your success will go automatically to the government.

No thanks.

jprill:
The Boston Globe article is reporting on the claims being raised not raising the claims itself and presenting facts to try and back them up. This attack on Kerry's Purple Hearts is the latest in a string of incredibly slimy attempts to smear the man...most of which were started by the people with zero credibility like Ted Sampley.
And if you seriously consider newsmax.com to be a better ( or even equal) news source than CNN than I don't think there is any reason to continue a dialogue with you.

Last week, I had the pleasure of interviewing Marvel Studios' Avi Arad to get the lowdown on all the Marvel movies coming out in the near future. The story runs tomorrow. If anyone would like me to e-mail them the story and/or the ton of stuff I wasn't able to include due to space, please e-mail me at: jeromemaida@hotmail.com.
I'll be sure to get it to you.
Thanks.

On taxes:

Hmm. I seriously doubt you would be saying these words if you were actually making that amount.

While I can't say I'm making $200K, my wife and I combined are making an income that, while of middle-class level in the SF Bay area, would be decidedly top-tier in more rural states.

I'll go on record now as saying that I would have zero, repeat ZERO, objection to a higher tax burden provided that it was clear where the money was going.

This is also not common sense BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY

And this is perhaps the greatest bullshit argument of the entire affair.

"It's not the government's money -- it's your money."

Who the hell is the government made of, if not people? If not us?

"Tax cuts", while a nice sound bite, come down to two things:

Either we go into debt, or we cut the services that the Big Bad Government provides.

Ever driven on an interstate freeway? Your taxes paid for it.
Gone to public school, either K-12 or college? Your taxes paid for it.
Gotten student loans to help pay for college or advanced degrees? Taxes.
Used Medicare and Social Security, or had elderly relatives do so? Taxes.

Now, if you want to publicly and permanently forgo the use of all of these items (and insist that you'll only eat food which wasn't inspected by the FDA, among other matters), THEN you can argue that "it's not the government's money."

Until then, you're simply arguing on behalf of acting like a leech.

PAD,
We disagree on a lot. But your last post here was pretty good. You make an excellent point. We disagree on a lot - but on this I have to give you props.

I find no fault with his 2 tax cuts that have lead and is leading to great economic prosperity for this country.

We must be living in two different countries.

We recently laid a few people off where I work. We've sent some of our work to off shore.
The original dept I worked in for this company was elminated and the work moved off shore.

Yet, I don't see companies cropping up with data entry positions on a daily basis to make up for these lost jobs.

Great economic propsperity? What friggin PLANET are you living on?

jprill,
The money we are taxed does not just "go to the government". It goes for education, environment, law enforcement, etc. or it is supposed to. Things that keep us safe, educated, healthy. The money from taxes comes back to all of us, unless you cut taxes for the wealthy. Then they just keep it. Or invest it in the stock market. How is that helping. I can't understand why everyone in this country who makes a decent living is so against giving some back to the rest of the country to help the quality of life. Are you people who make so much so selfish? The government is there to do the things we are unable to do for ourselves. Enforce laws, educate our kids, healthcare. Or do you hire private security to protect yourself? Have some firemen on staf in case of fire? Have a scientist on staff to test food to make sure it isn't contaminated? Do you homeschool your children or send them to private school without the use of government vouchers? I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

Tim Lynch,
Read your post after I wrote mine. I guess I repeated most of what you said. I just can't understand why people are so greedy they can't see that we need some government and it needs to be paid for.

"I find no fault with his 2 tax cuts that have lead and is leading to great economic prosperity for this country."

What alternate universe is this guy living in? I want to go there! I have many friends across the U.S. who have been out of work for more than TWO YEARS, and I'm talking about skilled professionals with advanced degrees. If the unemployment rate has gone down, it's simply because people have exhausted their claims--not because they have actually found jobs.

I just read an article that said the economic recovery is benefiting only corporations an CEO's. Corporate profits are up 37%, but hourly compensation is up only 1.2%. Tese figures come from a study by the Northeastern University's Center for Lavor Studies and is entitled "The Unprecedented Rising Tide of Corporate Profits nad the Simultaneous Ebbing of Labor Compensation". It also says that in every other economic recovery since WWII labor compensation increased at a greater rate than corporate returns. So, anyone who is having "great economic prosperity" right now, doesn't need it as much as those who are working 2 jobs to feed and shelter their families. But there we go. The only ones that matter in this economy are the ones that are already well off.

Well, I don't like Kerry. I think his military record is questionable as to being a "hero", but not an issue to me. He does represents\ the same old worn out Democratic party that I've gotten tired of. Just don't trust him. Not to pleased with Bush either. Not a lot of good choices, at least to me. So, to pick the lesser of two evils, Hmmm...

I just read my last post. Sorry about all the typos. I'm not really illiterate. (: )

And what are these idiot CEO's going to do when they've gotten rid of so many employees and all that are left are low pay/no benefits service jobs and no one can afford their over-priced products?

We recently laid a few people off where I work. We've sent some of our work to off shore.

Better this than laying off all you mothers somewhere down the line... maybe.

Better this than laying off all you mothers somewhere down the line... maybe.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Tim Lynch - well said!

...

Look, if the argument was that you were going to net zero more than you make by doubling your income... well, duh, that's a complete no-brainer, you won't make the money or go for that higher salary.

Here's the thing, though... if your net gain is worth the time / effort you put into it, regardless of how much more "Uncle Sugar" is taking... what's the problem? That you should get to keep all your money? Well, that's a nice fantasy, but I kinda like the status quo.

...

Just to add a few more lines to "what government does for you"... I may be a bit biased because I live in Wash DC (but don't work for the government, so I'm not a big ol' sponge on y'alls tax money)...

Without taxes to operate the government:

... if you invest all that money you want to keep, hope you don't mind that the Securities and Exchange Commission won't be helping the little guy out, and preventing insider trading, and so forth...

... that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can't operate... I mean, private industry does such a good job of regulating itself, why even bother inspecting nuclear reactors? One: Homer Simpson. Two: Chernobyl. Three: ... let's not, eh?

... that the National Institutes of Standards and Technology aren't insisting on product standardization - after all, the market can do that, right? Very small example - the glass elements in photospectrometers (that help drug companies and others analyze prospective drugs) are tested and certified by NIST. Hope you don't mind that that drug wasn't quite manufactured up to scratch...

... that the National Institutes of Health aren't up to the job (or doing anything for) of testing and subsidising research that often universities or companies aren't going to do on their own, and IN FACT heavily subsidizing the research of drugs companies!

... that the Centers for Disease Control aren't able to track that pesky Ebola virus, or SARS...

... that the intelligence community (CIA, NSA, NRO, DIA, etc etc) can't operate to see what our enemies are doing...

... that Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Agency wouldn't exist...

I could go on, but I trust you get my point.

Some people I know have argued that government shouldn't be in as many aspects of our lives as it is, that it should do defense and not much more... but y'know, sometimes I *like* the fact that "we" have all agreed that these other functions, which would be very difficult to provide privately, have come into being.

Personally, I like drivable streets, fire departments, public education, checks on investors getting screwed by companies, pollution controls, product and food safety standards... and so on. But these things cost money.

"Personally, I like drivable streets, fire departments, public education, checks on investors getting screwed by companies, pollution controls, product and food safety standards... and so on. But these things cost money."

Too bad the public education system is joke, the roads are full of potholes and crumbling, the crooked investors never seem to get caught or suffer any penalties of they do, yeah, the corparate world has GREAT pollution controls....

Too bad the public education system is joke, the roads are full of potholes and crumbling, the crooked investors never seem to get caught or suffer any penalties of they do, yeah, the corparate world has GREAT pollution controls....

So what's your suggestion? Remove all taxes and let the market decide everything?

It's easy to say X doesn't work. It's a lot harder to be constructive.

(And as for the crooked ones never suffering any penalties, that's a serious flaw in the system, but one that has a lot more to do with how government is influenced than it does with the tax system. If half the Senate weren't in the pocket of a lot of these folks, I suspect penalties would be just a smidge more harsh.)

TWL

Karen, Tim and Everyone,
First, let me say that this has been a tough economy, and I have experienced its effects personally. I had the inside track on a fulltime writing gig at the Philadelphia Daily News in 2001. I had a meeting with the editor-in-chief and he was setting everything in motion. Literally less than a week later, American Appliance filed for bankruptcy, and that was the straw that broke Knight-Ridder's (our paper's parent company) back. They immediately sent a memeo starting that a hiring freeze was being instituted immediately and that buyouts would begin. They haven't stopped. I was in sales at the time and that department was cut to the bone. I had many clients who cut back spending and eventually lost my job as a result. Because when companies are going through rough times one of the first places they cut back is advertising. Also, since the hiring freeze has been instituted corporate-wide, it means they are not hiring at the 35+ papers Knight-Ridder owns. Which means papers in Miami, Chicago, etc. And last year they almost nuked the freelance department. BUT there are many factors involved with this. It is far too simplistic (and inaccurate) to blame this mess on greedy corporate CEOs and tax cuts for the rich, as I will explain.

Well Timmy, when I'm elected I'll make my suggestions for fixing these things, but no one'll like them.

Too bad it's not my job to fix them. Why waste my time coming up with solutions when I'm not in a position to implement any of them? Not like the govenment listens to its citizens anyway (at least not unless that citizen donates several million to them...).

First,
Big labor can be just as corrupt and inefficient as Big Business, if not more so. Especially the inefficient part. I was on a sales team that was 100% commission, which means I and everyone else had to bust our asses. In 2000, I made more money than I had ever made in a year (though still less than $40,000) and had one terrific month. I worked about 12-14 hours a day.
Meanwhile, there were people on salary - some of whom absolutely hate the commission people's guts - who literally f---ed around all day every day and made more than I did! The union guaranteed them work (they would take away our accounts if they went over $100,000 in a year, a great disincentive to get more ads at a certain point, don't you think?) and freedom from accountability.
Check this out. Let's say in my best year I made $40,000. My percentage on some ads was 30% - almost a third - and on some was 15 %. So let's split the diffence and say I made $20,000 at 15% - which means I generated $120,000 in business - and $20,000 at 30% - whic means I generated $60,000 in business. So I generated $180,000 in business and made under $40,000.
Meanwhile, a there were people making a salary of $40,000 who didn't even bring in that much in revenue! They would literally laugh right in our faces. These people are GIVEN not just leads but clients, too. All they have to do is call back and do a little work and they would be easiy pull in what I did in a year in one month. But they have no motivation. They will be protected no matter what. The company can't do anything - except phase out salary salespeople, which they are now doing. It sucks for the salary people who do take advantage of their opportunity and even make bonus money. But there are too many of the absolute lazy POS, and they ruin it for everyone else.

I agree, labor unions are just as bad, just in different ways. Big corporate can move their operations overseas or find non-union labor, the unions can't just suddenly manufacture new jobs to replace lost ones.

Re; Bladestar

I was going to mention this down the line, but your last post just exemplifies what I was going to say, so I may as well respond to it. You say:
"Well Timmy, when I'm elected I'll make my suggestions for fixing these things, but no one will like them.
Too bad it's not my job to fix them."

Too bad it IS, Bladestar! See, this is precisely the problem. This is YOUR country, they are YOUR elected officials, and they are YOUR crumbling roads that YOU have to drive on, YOUR schools, YOUR public libraries, YOUR police and firemen that are there to serve you. If YOU don't care, why should they? For someone who's so in-your-face on this blog, I can't imagine you can't get four people you know to make your city councilmen aware of something important to you at a meeting. Not that many people go to council and township meetings (whic is the problem), so with a tiny group you could dominate it. Heck, eventually they may ASK you to run. It's amazing how many lower-tier elected officials are older and uneducated. They're used to doing things a certain way, and may lack energy and/or knowledge. A township supervisor near where I live said he would quit tomorrow if he knew whoever replaced him would know what te hell they were doing. It's not easy keeping up with all the grants and the like available for goods and services from the federal and local level. A lot do a poor job of it, but they're doing the best they can. They NEED people like YOU.
YOU would also likely dominate your local library Friends group, which assists libraries in fundraising, event planning and purcasing new books. want to make sure controversial books get in your library and prevent censorship? Here's your chance to do it.
In addition, most of your local state reps, state senators and congressmen are constantly holding open houses and they do listen. Or go to a $25-35 beef n' beer for one of them. It's a great and cheap way to gain "access" and meet other people who care enough to get involved.
It is easy to criticize buy hard to find solutions. So don't just criticize.
And ideas do matter. Jonathan Kozol isn't a politician, but his book "Savage Inequalities" changed my views on public education forever.
As George Carlin said, "If you have an ignorant, uninterested and uneducated electorate, what do you think you're going to elect?

Thanks but I'm too much an extremeist for that to work. Too politically incorrect. And too impaitient. And I'm too busy just trying to hopld my own ground to devote too much time to solving others problems. Been laid off twice in the past 3 years for just over 8 months total and took over 35% paycut in the process. Plus I have no interest in going to law school, and you practically need to be a lawyer to navigate the legal system and get anything done.

Be honest with ourselves and ditch the election system and switch to a "government lottery". Even 2-4 years, all the Senators, Representatives, The President, Vice-President, and Supreme Court Justices would be drawn at random from the list of Natural Born American Citizens. Your number gets drawn, you fill the position. The only way to get re-elected is blind luck of the draw. That alone would solve alot of problems...

The system is pickier about who serves on a jury in the long run than who runs the country.

PAD:

That answer was a total cop-out.

So, Bush is president. Why would the press, who makes it thier business to report "mistakes" (and rightly so. They should be reporting the news) fish for an answer to an absurd question?

That question was nothing more than an attempt to manufacture news. I could see the headlines if Bush actually answered.

Let's say Bush would have said "I would have confirmed more of the intelligence before entering Iraq." The headline would read "Bush admits to rushing into Iraq on faulty intelligence".

That question, frankly ranks up there with "if you were a tree..."

Yes, the president SHOULD be held to a higher standard. But as recent history shows us, that is not always the case.

I don't have time for law school, or council meetings, but when I become a mutie, which is any day now, I'm sure, that's when the world will finally be set right! I guarantee it!

Actually Wolf, PAD's answer was dead-on accurate.

Bush asked to be president, he fought to be president. He wanted the right to run the nation, so now he has to face up to teh responsibilty, that includes being honest with the citizens of the country, instead, Bush tries to hide everything from the American people, his admin. has the worst record in years for having information declared "Classified" and hiding it from the "Freedom of Information" act. A free country cannot survive being governed in secret. U.S. news and World Report and the local papers have been doing stories lately on how insulated and secretive this administration is.

As president, he MUST be held to a higher standard when he's throwing our soldiers lives away in a country that posed no threat to the US.

"I don't have time for law school, or council meetings, but when I become a mutie, which is any day now, I'm sure, that's when the world will finally be set right! I guarantee it!"

Please. We prefer the term "genetically advantaged".

Let's say Bush would have said "I would have confirmed more of the intelligence before entering Iraq." The headline would read "Bush admits to rushing into Iraq on faulty intelligence".
**************
Actually, this is exactly what did happen. Reuters carried the headline "Bush Stakes Re-Election Bid on Success in Iraq," despite the fact that President Bush said nothing like that during the press conference.

Bladestar,
They're not just others' problems, they affect you as well.
At the very least, you should help your local library. Threy need it and deserve it and get NO support.
In Philadelphia, they slashed the library budget by 50%. Some of it was restored. Which is a disgrace. But it is too simplistic to blame our "leaders". I blame people for not giving a damn!
Case in point, most of the places where they are cutting hours and services are branches in black neighborhoods, which brings out the usual cries of racism. But it's not. It is simply based on usage. The branch with the least usage by the community will get the most cut, and so on. If these neighborhoods actually took more advantage of the resorces that were available to them, they would not get as much cut.
Heck, if as many people were as passionate about taxpayer money being used for libraries as they were for using taxpayer dollars to fund two exorbiantly expensive new stadiums for rich owners and their rich players, the money WOULD go there instead.
If more people are interested ingames and rooting for millionaires than libraries, why should a politician risk his neck and tell them they're wrong. People get what they deserve.
One final note. I worked for months to get our branch's friends group up and running again. I took money out of my own pocket to help pull it off. At the first meeting, there were six people, including our "core" group of four unofficial officers.
So we had this big open house with Ronald McDonald for the kids, novelist Samuel Delany and Miss PA USA Camille Young, who came as a favor to me. Thee was pizza, arts and crafts and everything and a bunch of people signed up. I followed up with e-mail and phone calls to remind people about our next meeting.
The next meeting, five people showed up, including our "core" group of four.
But the previous week, 250 people ad found the time to bitch about the impact of neighboring St. Joe's University, bitch about these "white kids" renting in their community, bash "outsiders" like Korean store owners and talk about what was "owed" them by the college and neighboring businesses.
Heck, ten idiots the previous week took the time to block a bus route in the community because it "was causing pollution". And of course, if it stopped running there, they would be accused of abandoning the elder;y, the handicapped, and just people without cars who need to get to work.
In the end, people truly do get the government they deserve.

I don't really care about libraries. If I want a book I either buy it or borrow it from someone who has it. I'm rough on books so libraries are of no interest to me.

I've got my own money worries and have little enough time as it is. Maybe if I didn't have to pay so much in taxes, I might have some to spare, but since the government takes my money at effective gunpoint, spending it however they want, without my approval, I see no reason to give away even more of my hard-earned money to the things the government is supposed to be taking care of with my taxes. Quit throwing away money getting soldiers killed in lands they have no business in.

Quit giving big rich corporations huge tax breaks while also letting them move all our jobs overseas and sheltering their income in offshore banks and cheating on their accounting.

People tried to get involved, and while the 60's were fun, no real change came of it. People are too busy trying to keep their families clothed and housed and just trying to keep what little they have...

Jerome,

While we may have been on opposite sides of several discussions lately, I do agree with you that this is something everyone should consider "their problem" and not something for someone else to fix.

(Frankly, I'm not sure our Mr. Star is doing anything but trolling. Nobody who actually seeks out someone else's blog can be that much of a proud know-nothing nihilist.)

As for your situation ... first, I sympathize. Second, I agree with you that it's far too simplistic to blame the whole thing on "greedy CEO's and tax cuts for the wealthy". By the same token, however, it's equally simplistic to suggest that tax cuts for the wealthy and removing restraints on corporations is a panacea for everything that ails us -- and that particular simplification isn't too far removed from our current economic policy.

Got a surplus? Tax cuts.
Got a recession? Tax cuts.
Got a war? Tax cuts -- and hey, spend more while you're at it.

So ... er ... when exactly are tax cuts NOT the suggestion of this president?

TWL

Bladestar,

Does the fact that you don't tend to patronize libraries mean that they're not worth caring about? Or is it that you're not inclined to care about something unless it directly affects you?

TWL

I have no use for libraries, so I'm not going to go out of my way to help them.
They're worth caring about, but they're someone else's cause, not mine.

You can't fix everything, you have to pick what's important to you. Animals, especially dog and cats are my concern. YOU take care of the libraries if they're so important to you.

No one can work on everything, it's impossible, you have to pick your battles or you'll be to tired and punch drunk to be effective at anything.

Thanks for the insult Tim ("Nobody who actually seeks out someone else's blog can be that much of a proud know-nothing nihilist"), you merely confirm my opinion of you. Nice to know that those who don't agree with you are "know-nothings".
Explains so much about your psyche.

PAD says:
"Which means one of two things: Either George W. Bush thinks he's free of human error, which shows arrogance on a monstrous scale. Or he's so intellectually inept that he is incapable of self-analysis, even though the ability to analyze one's own job performance for weaknesses is a trait that anyone at the most basic middle management job should possess, much less the Commander in Chief."

Or......alternative answer C--he did not feel obliged to hand over a juicy sound bite that would have been used in the next Kerry For President campaign ad the very next day.

Since you have proven to be a man gifted with a tremendously creative imagination I can't understand why you could not imagine this possibility, one that not only makes sense but doesn't put the president in the worst possible light and...oh, wait, right.

"Got a surplus? Tax cuts.
Got a recession? Tax cuts.
Got a war? Tax cuts -- and hey, spend more while you're at it.

So ... er ... when exactly are tax cuts NOT the suggestion of this president?"

In Bush's defense, tax cuts really do help fix recessions. Tax cuts during wars and surpluses are just good because taxing people less helps get you re-elected.

So is this the thread where i comment about FALLEN ANGEL # 10?

:-)

I actually watched most of the press conference and all it did was remind me of why I am not voting for Bush in the upcoming election. Most of his answers let me asking "Why?" and "How?" Par exemple, how does a free Iraq put a kink into the future plans of terrorists? How is it linked to terrorism at all? Why are you still talking?

Ahem.

Anyway, but yes... I can't believe he's so blind as to not come up with one SINGLE mistake that he's made in this entire Iraqi campaign. I really do wonder if he's living in some perfect fantasy world where he is appointed by God to rid of all the "evils" in this one. He's just...his mind has gotta be veiled by SOMETHING; he's not seeing much of anything clearly. *twitches*

The question: how does a free Iraq put a kink into the future plans of terrorists?

Answers:

1) The former leader of Iraq paid a bounty to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. While this might not have looked like a lot of money to you and me (as in, not worth dying for), it actually was a lot of money to a Palestinian family. Now, of course, the follow-up question is: what does that have to do with terrorism?

Glad you asked. :) Aside from the fact that suicide bombings in Israel are terrorist acts, we do have to recognize that they aren't terrorist acts directed at Americans (in general). However, one of the major recruiting pitches that is given by folks like Osama bin Laden is that America supports the Israelis and is preventing the Palestinians from obtaining justice. The absence of a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is a continuing problem that aids in the recruitment of terrorists. And most informed people (I think) believe that Palestinian suicide bombings are generally detrimental to successful Israeli - Palestinian negotiations.

So by removing Hussein and creating a free Iraq, we would seem to improve the chances of peace between Israelis and Palestinians by reducing the incentives for suicide bombers, which should help reduce the overall incidence of terrorism.

2) In many Islamic nations in the Middle East, children are placed in madrassas, which are Islamic religious schools that -- in general -- teach a brand of religious fundamentalism that tends to breed more terrorists.

The theory is that a free, successful Iraqi state which is not bound to "radical Islam" will cause the populations in the surrounding nations to move away from the fundamentalists to emulate a moderate Islamic state with (presumably) a better standard of living, respect for human rights, and the like. So, instead of being a breeding ground for terrorists, you get stable, moderate states in the Middle East.

Is the theory correct? Hard to say. But Patty Hearst, Timothy McVeigh, and the Unabomber aside, you tend to see fewer people in wealthy states engaging in terrorist-type activity than you do among desperately impoverished populations. Or, more simply, you don't often get mugged on the street by a rich guy. (They just engage in corporate fraud. But I digress... :) )

Nice to know that those who don't agree with you are "know-nothings".

Which, of course, bears no resemblance to what I actually said. There are lots and lots of people who disagree with me, precisely one of whom I've referred to with that phrase. There are plenty of people who disagree with me politically who I think are very intelligent people.

You're simply not one of them.

TWL

Well,

Those of us that were guessing on what Kerry would do if Pres. just got our answer.

Kerry did the response to Bush's radio address just a bit ago. Kerry made it cleat that his actions on Iraq would be to...............
stay.

His stated belief is that we have to stay there and finish this. He only differs himself from Bush in what we should do while staying there. Not that he was really clear about his plans.

So, we're in and we're staying no matter who wins in Nov.

To respond to Bill Roper's "answers":
1. Regarding Saddam's payments to the Palestinian suicide bombers' families, you have noticed there have been several suicide bombings since Saddam was toppled, correct? I would posit that those who are blowing themselves up may not be all that concerned with the money. The entire Palestinian situation existed before Saddam came to power (Saddam didn't have anything to do with the Munich Olympics tragedy, and Entebbe is in Uganda--both incidents involved terrorist acts that had nothing to do with Iraq or Osama).
Yes, the bombings are a detriment to the peace process, but Sharon and the Likudists and their Orthodox Jewish supporters are every bit as much a detriment, and any failure to acknowledge that aspect dooms any hope of peace. Even the Palestinian Prime Minister, Qureia, felt betrayed by Bush's apparent thumbs-up for Sharon's recent "pull-out plan"--and Qureia is the guy that Bush said he would be willing to work with. I guess that only applied if Qureia was willing to accept being shafted by Bush.
2. A "madrassa", in and of itself, teaches the Qu'ran. "Radicalism", "fundamentalism"--these are no more unique to madrassas than they are to many Christian private schools, and to many trying to foist religion into the public schools (such as the recent evolution flap in Georgia). It should also be noted that in Israel, that beacon of democracy in the Middle East, the current government in completely beholden to ultra-orthodox religious parties and it's Orthodox Judaism that dictates much of the country's secular life. (Recently, there were news reports that Orthodox rabbis were refusing to perform their services since they hadn't been paid by the government.) It may be to the average Israeli's benefit that the country has so many political parties that none can hope to form a government by itself; otherwise, Israel could become little more than a mirror image of Iran.
As for your comment about "fewer people in wealthy countries", you might want to ask yourself why there were so many terrorist groups operating in Europe (the IRA in Northern Ireland, the Red Brigades in Italy, the Baader-Meinhof Gang/Red Army Factions in Germany, Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, Corsican groups in France) for much of the latter half of the 20th Century. Even if you'd limited yourself simply to "the United States", it would really depend on how exactly you classify a terrorist. Someone who kills abortion providers or blows up gay or lesbian nightclubs would qualify as "terrorists", and, of course, there was the KKK.

"Actually, this is exactly what did happen. Reuters carried the headline "Bush Stakes Re-Election Bid on Success in Iraq," despite the fact that President Bush said nothing like that during the press conference. "

If that's the article I'm thinking of--and I'm reasonably sure it is--that wasn't a "news" article. Instead it was an analysis, an opinion piece, and clearly labeled as such. The writer never said that Bush said any such thing. Instead the writer opined that--in not allowing for the slightest hint of misjudgment or rethinking of Iraq--Bush was taking a calculated risk vis a vis the election. The piece noted that the electorate is more polarized than it's been in years, and split almost down the middle. And that by not budging at all on his handling of Iraq, Bush was doing nothing to pull in the small percentage of undecideds. That he was catering only to those who already supported him, and if he continued on that course, he was going to have to hope that that group is large enough to put him back into office. Iraq has become one of the (if not THE) defining issues of his presidency, and the writer believes that his electoral success will stand or fall on the state of Iraq.

The writer's opinion of Bush's electoral hopes was then fairly accurately summarized by the headline writer.

So unless I"m remembering a completely different article, I'm not seeing the problem.

PAD

"Or......alternative answer C--he did not feel obliged to hand over a juicy sound bite that would have been used in the next Kerry For President campaign ad the very next day."

Well, that would certainly show some cunning reasoning on his part. How about we look at exactly what he said, so we can judge for ourselves whether he was thinking so quickly that he was pre-empting himself, or whether the synapses simply weren't firing:

"Bush: Hmm. I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. ... You know, I just, uh, 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 an answer, but it hadn't yet. .. I, uh, hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

Noooo...I'm forced to go with "intellectually inept." Because if he was REALLY concerned about how it was going to look in the next "attack ad," he would have come up with something more cunning than stammering, hemming, hawing, and looking like a deer in the headlights. And if that WAS his goal, by the way, then he failed miserably at it, because the new DNC ad features him fumblingly unable to come up with a single mistake...and then listing them for him, just as I did in my initial blog post.

Too bad he didn't see that coming. Could it be lack of imagination?

PAD

Joseph,
1.) I don't recall Mr. Roper saying that money was the ONLY reason for bombings. Fanatics, will of course do these things for free. But for desperate people on the edge, money WILL help push them over it.
Regarding Bush "shafting" the Palestinians. Please. The proposed agreement would still require Israel to give up settlements in the West Bank. Bush is simply not wiling to give away te store.
Heck, Carter was - and is - so sympathetic to the Palestinians he has been viewed by many as anti-Semitic.
Clinton desperately wanted his "legacy" to include Mideast peace. From the Oslo accords to Hillary standing by while a high-profile Palestinian woman bashes "the Jews" in public, there may never have been an Administration that did - or will - give the Palestinians the chance for a fair deal.

In fact, it was at Oslo that Clinton insisted that ALL Palestinian prisoners be released. Israel agreed but refused to release those "with blood on their hands".
But Clinton insisted ALL needed to be released to make the deal "fair" to the Palestinians.
So Israel gave in.
Turns out one of those "with blood on their hands" was Mohammad Atta, who showed how thankful he was to Clinton and America for negotiating his release by flying a plane into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Actually, under "the Bush deal" Israel would keep SOME of the west Bank and settlements while pulling out of the Gaza Strip.

Another case for SnopesBoy!

Turns out the "Attah, Mohamet" released by the Israelis was, in fact, not the same as the "Mohammed Atta" who was, at that moment, in Afghanistan, acquiring the false documents and training in English needed to come to America and learn to fly multi-engine jets.

Mohamet Attah is currently alive and well, and working in a vegetable stand in a Palestinian refugee village (hard to call them camps at this point...).

Well TIMMY!!!!,

Considering my opinion of you, your opinion of me doesn't really matter.

The theory is that a free, successful Iraqi state which is not bound to "radical Islam" will cause the populations in the surrounding nations to move away from the fundamentalists to emulate a moderate Islamic state with (presumably) a better standard of living, respect for human rights, and the like.

So, why aren't we doing more with the existing moderate Islamic nations, such as Jordan?

Craig J. Ries: So, why aren't we doing more with the existing moderate Islamic nations, such as Jordan?
Well, how much oil has Jordan got?
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
tOjb

The theory is that a free, successful Iraqi state which is not bound to "radical Islam" will cause the populations in the surrounding nations to move away from the fundamentalists to emulate a moderate Islamic state with (presumably) a better standard of living, respect for human rights, and the like. So, instead of being a breeding ground for terrorists, you get stable, moderate states in the Middle East.

And then, magic fairies will fly out of George W's butt and turn our belly lint into gold.

Well, our troops have had their supply lines cut. Spain is bailing. It looks like this may be the end game.

Naturally, the first thing that came to my mind was a song:

Bye Bye Bush
Bye Bye, Smirking Chimp
Farewell, Corporate Pimp
Your prospects have run dry

Bye Bye Bush
Goodbye, Chickenhawk
Tough action beats tough talk
You sent our troops to die
Because you told a lie
Bye Bye, George Bush, Goodbye.

They bombed our towers
So you fought back
And sought Al-Qaeda
Inside Iraq.
Now they all hate us
You lit the fuse
We may be "good guys"
But still we lose

Bye Bye Bush
Goodbye, Condoleez'
Farewell to Mideast Peace
The Rapture may be nigh

Bye Bye Bush
Goodbye, Dick and Don
I'm feelin' you'll be gone
Before we reach July
Because you told a lie
Bye Bye, George Bush, Goodbye

You lost Bin Laden
You got Saddam
You turned the desert
Into Vietnam
You might kill soldiers
Or swim in graft
But raise gas prices
And you'll get the shaft

Bye Bye Bush
Bye Bye, Preznit Punk
Your package has been shrunk
A drunk left out to dry

Bye Bye Bush
The New Butcher of Bagdad
Shoulda listened to your dad
It's time to say goodbye
Because you told a lie
Bye bye, George Bush, Goodbye.

"So unless I"m remembering a completely different article, I'm not seeing the problem."

You're remembering a completely different article.

The article I'm referring to can be found here -
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4819481§ion=news

It's a news article. Not an editorial. At least, it's in the news section. So, if it's an opinion piece, that's pretty poor organization.

Also, I botched the headline. It actually said, "Bush Says He Will Stake Re-Election on Iraq." So, regardless of whether or not this is an editorial, the headline is an outright lie. The President said no such thing.

So, regardless of whether or not this is an editorial, the headline is an outright lie. The President said no such thing.

Hmm. A better headline would be "Bush is staking his reelection on Iraq", because that's exactly what he's doing.

"Hmm. A better headline would be 'Bush is staking his reelection on Iraq', because that's exactly what he's doing."

If it's an editorial, that would be the case. If it's a straight news item, I'd prefer the facts without the opinion.

This is meant to reply to the suggestion that the Reuters headline was an outright lie, and an unfair mischaracterization of what the President said. Here is the exact text of the offending exchange, copied from a transcript of the press conference:

"QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq, yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year.

BUSH: Yes.

QUESTION: Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

BUSH: I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes."

Maybe Reuters wasn't at accurate at portraying the exchange as they could have been, and hell, maybe misinterpreted the word "stakes" in that sentence, but the exchange does give credence to their headline, by my reading. It does sound like the President is saying that the American people know the stakes of the re-election campaign, and that he thinks they'll follow his leadership and vote for him again.

How is the Reuters headline a mischaracterization of that exchange, just out of honest curiousity? I'm not being sarcastic. I just don't see how the Reuters article title is so offensive given the exchange I quoted above.

Brad Walker,
Yep. Spain has played a HUGE role in Iraq. Of course, by letting the terrorists sway their election, they gave the scum who are killing our men and women hope that if they just hurt us enough we'll up and leave too. Too bad our President refuses to give in. Of course, that's a good thing. A very good thing.
Your song was actually pretty lame. So much so,I'm surprised you didn't get it from Air America radio.

"How is the Reuters headline a mischaracterization of that exchange, just out of honest curiousity? I'm not being sarcastic. I just don't see how the Reuters article title is so offensive given the exchange I quoted above."

Because Bush never during the entire news conference stated that he was staking his re-election bid on the outcome in Iraq. The exchange that you cited certainly doesn't say that. The Reuters headline is wrong because its not the truth.

Given the fact that Bush never states in the exchange that you cited that he was basing his re-election bid on success in Iraq, how can you claim that the Reuters headline is accurate? Worse, how can you justify such a blatant bias as being anything but bad reporting at best? Unless the reporter writing the story either didn't read the transcript, didn't attend the press conference or couldn't understand what was being said.

To me, this is like my writing a news article on the end of Captain Marvel with the headline, "Peter David Cancels Captain Marvel with Issue 25." You might say, "Wait. PAD didn't cancel Captain Marvel. He doesn't have the power to do that. And he wanted to keep on writing it." To which I respond, "Well, I read on his blog that he's going along with it. He's writing a finale to the series, so he must not be too upset about it. In fact, since he's willingly writing a finale that he's trying to make as good as he can make it, he's a willing participant in the cancellation of the title. Therefore, my headline is accurate."

My headline's a load of baloney. So's the Reuters headline.

I understand what you're saying, but my whole point was, the Reuters headline was based on the President's response to a question about Iraq, and his reply, read in CONTEXT with the question he was asked, strongly suggests that the President thinks that he's doing the right thing in Iraq, and that he believes the American people know the stakes, see that, and will re-elect him.

Yeah, the President doesn't say "I'm staking my re-election bid on Iraq," that I'll grant. But IN CONTEXT with the question he was asked, it's strongly suggested that the President thinks that he will be re-elected BECAUSE the war in Iraq is the right thing to do in furthering the war on terror.

I'll agree that the headline is poorly worded, but it seems to me that the implication of it is an accurate encapsulation of the question and answer exchange I quoted above.

Could Reuters have worded it better? Yep.

Do I think that headline is necessarily the purest encapsulation of what the President said? Nope.

But I don't think that Reuters has committed some huge bias in taking the President's answer to a question about Iraq and re-election and writing a headline based on its natural implications. It certainly does strongly suggest that. The President was asked "Will the war in Iraq have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?" to which the President replied: "I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes." That sounds to me like the President is saying that what he's doing in Iraq is the right thing, and that the American people recognize that and will re-elect him.

I'll grant that the headline is poorly word choice, but it doesn't seem to be biased. Biased would be something along the lines of "War-monger President says he'll win or else the terrorists win."

*shrugs*

I see your point, and it's well taken, but I still don't think Reuters has committed some sin against journalistic integrity. It's not like they totally made something up. They may have jumped to gun in drawing a conclusory inference, but I don't think it's bias.

"I see your point, and it's well taken, but I still don't think Reuters has committed some sin against journalistic integrity. It's not like they totally made something up. They may have jumped to gun in drawing a conclusory inference, but I don't think it's bias."

Disagree completely. Despite your attempt to create a context that plainly is not there, the headline is made up. Bush never said he was putting all of his re-election eggs in the Iraq basket. Basically, what he said was that he believed the American people would support him because he was doing a good job. He didn't even mention Iraq or the election in his response. The headline was completely false. It was, in your words, "totally made up."

As for biased against Bush, it was clearly that. It clearly wasn't a lie that would help his re-election efforts. Now, whether or not the bias was intentional (this reporter could just be an idiot) or whether or not the bias was politically motivated are deeper, more complex questions that I don't know the answers to.

Bush never said he was putting all of his re-election eggs in the Iraq basket.

He doesn't have to say it, but he is.

Just as he doesn't have to say Saddam was in bed with bin Laden, he made enough insinuations to get people to believe it.

"He doesn't have to say it, but he is."

Good. We agree that the headline in question wasn't true.

Good. We agree that the headline in question wasn't true.

Ahh, see, you are doing the same thing.

I didn't outright say that the headline in question wasn't true, but you assume I did.

See how easy that was?

"Ahh, see, you are doing the same thing.

"I didn't outright say that the headline in question wasn't true, but you assume I did.

"See how easy that was?"

The headline stated that he said it. I pointed out that he didn't say it. You said that he didn't need to say it. Therefore, we agree that he didn't say it at the press conference and that the headline was in error. Yeah, it's easy all right. But you're not getting it.

Yeah, it's easy all right. But you're not getting it.

No, you're not getting it.

If Bush wants to stop suffering from Open Mouth Insert Foot syndrome, he needs to not seek reelection.
Another four years of this and he might end up brain dead.

"No, you're not getting it."

No, you're not getting. Nah nah nah nah-nah nah.

"If Bush wants to stop suffering from Open Mouth Insert Foot syndrome, he needs to not seek reelection.
Another four years of this and he might end up brain dead."

Non sequitor. Your facts are uncoordinated. (Apologies to Nomad.)

We weren't discussing your latest gratuitous insult aimed at the President. We were discussing the obvious falsehood of the Reuters headline. Not only are you not getting it, but you're drifting all over the map as well. Let me repeat when I said previously.

"The headline stated that he said it. I pointed out that he didn't say it. You said that he didn't need to say it. Therefore, we agree that he didn't say it at the press conference and that the headline was in error."

I had to repeat that because, unfortunately, it's as simplistic as I can get. If you still aren't getting it, I'm sorry. I can't help you.

The horse (the Reuters headline being false) is dead. Go on beating it if you want. I've made my point. The Reuters headline was false. Bush made no such statement at the press conference.

Bush made no such statement at the press conference.

Keep on believing that.

PAD,

You read between the lines incorrectly:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.php#002862

The headline would have been incorrect if it said:

"Bush states that he stakes his reelection on the war in Iraq"

or:

"Bush: 'I stake my reelection on the war in Iraq'"

As bush did not explicitly say that.

As it is, "Bush stakes reelection on the war in Iraq" accurately sums up what bush said:

QUESTION: Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

BUSH: I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes."

to wit: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0909/p01s01-woiq.html

In casting Iraq as the 'central front' in the war on terror, Bush has acknowledged how difficult that war could be...

By casting Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terror, President Bush has sharply raised the stakes both for success in that effort, and for his own presidency....

In many ways, Bush is staking his presidency on Iraq, says John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio. "The risks are simply that the matters on the ground won't work out as anticipated," he says. "The situation is highly unpredictable: Six months from now, we may be saying, boy he is a one-term president. Or we might be saying, he's cruising to reelection."

In many ways, Professor Green points out, the president's speech on Sunday reflects that events in Iraq have already not gone as anticipated. Certainly, Bush has come under increasing fire from Democrats and even some Republicans lately for not seeming to have a plan for postwar Iraq and for failing to get the necessary international support beforehand, leaving the US to assume almost all of the burden in the reconstruction effort. In that respect, Bush's decision to ask the United Nations to assume a greater role marks a significant shift from the administration's earlier go-it-alone approach...

thats from the christian science monitor.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10219097?source=Evening

Failure is unthinkable Bush tells America
By James Langton, Evening Standard In New York
14 April 2004

A defiant President Bush today placed Iraq at the heart of his reelection campaign after warning that failure was "unthinkable".
Referring to November's election, Mr Bush said: "The American people may decide to change. That's democracy. I look forward to making my case."

The headline would have been incorrect if it said:

"Bush states that he stakes his reelection on the war in Iraq"

or:

"Bush: 'I stake my reelection on the war in Iraq'"

As bush did not explicitly say that.

As it is, "Bush stakes reelection on the war in Iraq" accurately sums up what bush said:

******************************

Okay. Here's the headline as it appeared on Reuters, which I have already posted earlier in this discussion -

"Bush Says He Will Stake Re-Election on Iraq."

By your criteria as stated above, the headline is false.

While we're at it, anyone else want to agree with me?

I stand by my earlier analysis.

The Reuters headline is a fairly accurate description of the President's answer to a question, and taken in context with that question, it's not objectionable.

Like I said, it could have been phrased to more accurately reflect the exchange, but I don't think it's an outright lie. I don't think it's the whole truth either. But in referencing the exchange I quoted earlier, the President DID say that the American people KNEW the stakes of the war on terror, when answering a question about Iraq, and that as a result he didn't plan on losing his job.

Sounds like he was saying that he was staking his re-election on Iraq in the context of the war on terror.

*shrugs*

I call them like I see them. Wholly accurate and fair description of the exchange? No. But, in context, a reasonably accurate assessment of his statements at the press conference. I think so.

I stand by my earlier analysis.

I'm glad you're here to word this in a manner that actually reflects what I'm trying to say, but seem to have been unable to. :)

With all due respect to Mr. David, none of his suggestions would work. Six months from now, all people would remember are the George Soros headlines with the first four words "I made a mistake." You would see that commercial every nine seconds. Instead, six months from now people will remember a room full of reporters berating the leader of the free world, a man whom more than half of Americans like and admire. People are starting to ask themselves, if 50% of the country likes President Bush, why does every single person working at the New York Times, the LA Times, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, the Times Magazine, et al hate him? Are these really objective "news" organizations? Or is Bush-Bashing supposed to suffice for journalism these days? People are starting to figure out they're being played by the media, and people are starting to get sick of it. Look at the ratings for FOX News if you don't believe me.

I'm praying that America votes Bush OUT of office. The entire world is praying for that. I have no doubt a re-election would spark more terrorist attacks on the US. BIGGER than 9/11- resulting in more civil liberties being taken away. Don't you think that if a nuclear device is detonated in downtown NYC, that the nation would be put under immediate constraints? Nation-wide curfews. NO foreigners allowed in or out of the country. This is also a clear-cut path to civil war: how much freedom are americans going to lose before they stand up and fight their own dictators. Whether or not Kerry is qualified for the job, he is, at least for now the lesser of two evils. Up here in Canada we have our own circus of contenders to vote for, and we usually vote for people just so "the other guy" doesn't get in.

It's sad really. But Canada isn't a superpower.

Look at the ratings for FOX News if you don't believe me.

Fox News? The "Fair and Balanced"?

Even their news shows are hosted by people who are columnists rather than journalists.

"I stand by my earlier analysis."

You're entitled, even if your earlier analysis was demonstrably wrong.

Bush didn't say it at the press conference. He didn't. It's not in the transcript. It's not implied by any statement, even when taken in context. It is a fabrication. To say that the headline is accurate is to say that the truth is irrelevant.

That may be your position. It's not mine.

That may be your position. It's not mine.

Question: Do you believe Al Gore created the internet? :)

Ironic that this entire discussion is being carried out on a thread that was initially created to criticise the president for not copping to errors he alledgedly made.

If President Bush refuses to admit he was wrong, he's got some company here. Unless you can show me where in the press conference he said that he was staking the election on Iraq. So far, no one's been able to do that. Given the contortions everyone is going through to try to invent truth behind the headline, I doubt the phrase, "I was wrong," is in common use here.

"Question: Do you believe Al Gore created the internet? :)"

Sorry it took me a while to answer this question.

No, I don't.

No, I don't.

Ahh, well, still, you can see where I'm coming from.

You can also see why, based on that one example alone, that I don't think the media is as liberal and one-sided as people attempt to make it out to be.
Because that has to be the biggest misquote in the last 10 years, atleast. :)

"Ahh, well, still, you can see where I'm coming from."

No, I don't have the foggiest notion where you're coming from with this non sequitor.

"You can also see why, based on that one example alone, that I don't think the media is as liberal and one-sided as people attempt to make it out to be.
Because that has to be the biggest misquote in the last 10 years, atleast. :)"

I have not said in this discussion that the media was liberal. I said that the media was wrong in this particular instance. I think that a case could be made that liberal = wrong, but I haven't made that here.

These are two distinctly separate situations. I will be more than happy to discuss the Gore alledged misquote with you. However, until you admit to the fact that Bush did not state at the press conference that he is basing the outcome of the election on Iraq and that the headline is wrong, I don't see the need to move to another topic of accurate reporting. Bush didn't make that statement at the press conference, and if you can't admit that, why move onto another, similar discussion of accuracy in media? I have no reason to believe that you will be more reasonable when discussing Gore. (In other words, looking at what Gore actually said and determining if it was accurately reported without crawling into his head, creating a phony context, and then stating what you think he meant to say.)

No, I don't have the foggiest notion where you're coming from with this non sequitor.

Then there's no point in continuing this line of conversation. It's been explained to you multiple times, and you still don't get it.

"Then there's no point in continuing this line of conversation. It's been explained to you multiple times, and you still don't get it."

This was the first time that the Gore quote has come up, you provide no explanation for bringing it up, and you claim that it has been discussed multiple times.

It seems to me that the Bush press conference isn't the only thing that you're making up as you go along.

We do agree on one thing. Further conversation is futile if you insist on debating things that only exist in your imagination.

Craig,
Sorry. I have to agree with Tim here. Bush never said what the headline says he said, and for you to say otherwise, well I just don't know what else to say that will say with clearer affirmation that what you're saying the President said - and what the newspaper headline seems to say he said, he simply did not say.
Excuse me while I untwist my tongue:)

Tim and Jerome (I do hope you don't object to the use of your first names), I think you're missing part of Craig's point.

It's true that Bush did not explicitly state, in so many words, "I'm staking my reelection on this war." However, what he did say is that he believes that he is right - to the extent that he is confident he will be reelected, because of this issue.

That sounds to me an awful lot like he's staking most, if not all, of his reelection campaign on Iraq. If things go any more pear-shaped before November, that issue alone could be what costs him the votes of Joe and Jane Average. Had Bush said, "Even if I'm out of office this time next year, I still believe I was correct," that would indicate a sincere belief in his position. The statement that he actually made, however, tells us that this is going to be the linchpin issue, the one he believes will keep him in his current home for four more years. He is, essentially, thus staking his reelection chances on the Iraq situation (and, more broadly, on the Middle Eastern situation - if, say, the Saudis were to join in a pan-Arabic attack on Israel, that could screw Bush over pretty good too).

Thus, the headline is, relatively speaking, correct. Had it claimed to be a direct quote from Dubya, it would have been a lie. All clear now?

(I'm still working on the relevance of the Gore thing...)

"Thus, the headline is, relatively speaking, correct. Had it claimed to be a direct quote from Dubya, it would have been a lie. All clear now?"

Jonathan, the point is that the headline claimed that it was a direct quote. It said, "Bush Says..." Therefore, I trust that you agree that it was not factually correct.

If you believe that it's fair game to interpret what someone says and then claim that your interpretation is a direct quote from the person speaking, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Canadian,
I just scrolled upward and read your post.
Having done so, i just have to ask:
"ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!?!"
You talk about the possibility a nuclear bomb being detonated in downtown Manhattan - and the only thing that would concern you about that is the "loss of civil liberties" like "nationwide curfews"? Are you insane? What about the millions of people that would be dead? Or that would eventually die from radiation poisoning? Or - a distant but important third and fourth - the devastating effect it would have on the national and world economy and our national psyche? And the landmarks gone? And the industries shattered, not to mention the survivors' lives?
None of that grabs you as much as being in bed early or the path your morbid fantasy takes, which is civil war against our "dictators".
Yeah, Canada is not a superpower.
If it has many more scary people such as yourself, all I can say is:
THANK GOD!

Jonathan, the point is that the headline claimed that it was a direct quote. It said, "Bush Says..."

Sorry, but that's not a direct quote. By journalistic convention, a direct quote uses quote marks. Lack of quote marks indicates a paraphrase.

"Sorry, but that's not a direct quote. By journalistic convention, a direct quote uses quote marks. Lack of quote marks indicates a paraphrase."

Okay. This has passed into a level of silliness that I'm officially stating is beneath me. It seems that some people will say anything to defend what they consider true even when it is indefensible.

Screw journalistic convention when it's used to excuse a lie. Which is what that headline was. Bush never said during the press conference that he was staking the election on the outcome in Iraq. He didn't even imply it. He didn't even mention Iraq in his response to the question. So the headline is not an accurate quote. Nor was it, to hide behind journalistic convention, an accurate paraphrase. It was shoddy reporting that betrayed a bias against Bush. And I would venture to say that those who continue to defend the headline are apparently suffering from some interesting biases of their own. Their the kind of people who, to borrow a point made by a friend of mine over the weekend, would claim that Bush was responsible for poor nutrition and childhood obesity if he personally went into poor neighborhoods and spoonfed underprivileged children.

The truth doesn't matter as long as they can take their shot. And to argue about the truth with such people is an exercise in futility and not worth my time. It's nice to go into a debate holding all of the cards, but when your opponent insists on standing on the table and squaking about how you haven't won after you've shown your winning hand, it stops being amusing after a while. It degenerates into nonsense.

Good day, folks.

You can't be 23357 serious?!?