• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

W. tonight

Iraq is moving, slowly, towards it's own destiny.

As opposed to what, exactly? Is there any country (or person) which ISN'T moving slowly toward it's (or their) own destiny?
 
"The oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be," Bush boasted to Moran, evidently unaware that this heightened the mystery of why the revenues weren't covering the reconstruction.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2098810/

Gee, I wish that Bush-supporter that came over during the conference would have let me watch it all. You would think she would have wanted to.
 
Saddam Hussein "was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States," Bush told Moran. "That's … the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence. That's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence." Actually, the Security Council didn't say Iraq was a threat to the United States, but never mind.
.....

"I asked for the briefing," Bush told Chen. "And that's what triggered the [Aug. 6] report." Tuesday's Washington Post tells a different story: "According to senior intelligence officials familiar with the document, work on it began at the end of July, at the initiative of the CIA analyst [who] wanted to raise the issue" of Bin Laden's threat to the U.S. mainland. But Bush can't believe that someone outside his head was trying to tell him something. He's certain he "triggered" the brief. That's why, as he explained to Chen, he "didn't think there was anything new" in it: He assumed it was his idea. He doesn't understand that the point of a briefing is to be told something you hadn't already thought of.

This explains the most amazing part of Bush's answer to Chen: "What was interesting in [the brief] was that there was a report that the FBI was conducting field investigations. And that was good news, that they were doing their job." Here is a president who reads that the FBI has found "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijacking" and concludes that all is well because the FBI is "investigating" such activity. Why does Bush make this mistake? Because he doesn't understand that the "suspicious activity" is the subject of the brief. He thinks the "investigations" are the subject. He thinks he's being told about his version of reality—the world inside his administration—not the world of plots beyond his awareness.

How does Bush square his obtuseness to the threat from Bin Laden with his obtuseness to the absence of a threat from Saddam? "After 9/11, the world changed for me," he explained Tuesday night. That's Bush in a nutshell: The world changed for him. Out went the assumption of safety, and in came the assumption of peril. In the real world, Bin Laden was still a religious fanatic with global reach, and Saddam was still a secular tyrant boxed in by sanctions and no-fly zones. But in Bush's head, everything changed.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2098810/

It took that for the world to change for him.

Well guess what? If you needed that as a wake up call, you were sound asleep.

Nothing, other than the needless, senseless, tragic deaths of thousands of innocents, changed on 9/11. We faced, and face, the same security challenges the day after, and today, as the day before.
We should not have done, or do, anything other than what we should have on 9/10, a concept I know few will understand, or agree with.

Go ahead and criticize it, because I have no intention of explaining it.
 
"Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons [not found in Iraq], I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein."

How telling is this?
 
I'm mostly a lurker here in the politics section, but I had to say I was moved by the president's performance. You see, I like to think that those who make decisions for the masses got to where they are because they are not only the most qualified person to take on such responsibilities, but are also widely regarded as an expert in their field. They should be able to set the masses at ease and make them feel confident about their decision to make him their leader. I was moved with Dubya's performance because, based on it, I believe he must be beginning to have trouble instilling confidence in even the most hard-core Bush supporters. What exactly is he an expert at? I have a feeling he picked the wrong profession after watching that.

Oh, props to Rik for being the only one to martyr himself to us with his "politically unpopular" views. You're brave. I just wonder why nobody else here of the Republican persuation came to your defense...
 
deanerk: "I have a feeling he picked the wrong profession after watching that."

Its more like they picked him.
Do you know what his total experience in governing was before being president?
(And Rik and the others can spare me the lecture about how that can be a good thing.)

You are correct as far as lack of support for his supporter here. I've cited many examples of people that voted for him in 2000, that ain't gonna do so next time.

Much can change in a few months though.

By the way, lurking is good.
Too many people when they have nothing to say, say it anyway.
 
Skeptic said:

The issue here is not that Bush should file an anti-descrimination lawsuit on those who claim he's "obviously" stupid and "everybody knows" he lacks intelligence without ever having been a thousand miles from him. put together. Other examples abound.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be great? As soon as he's out of office, Bush sues every person on this planet who called him "halfwit", "village idiot", "chimpanzee" and worse, gets stupidly rich (the richest person ever probably), buys Irak and retires there as life-time President to write his later famous book "Now, who's the Idiot" that will supersede Machiavelli's "Il principe" as the Bible of shrewd diplomacy and strategic thinking.
Some people on this board should start saving...
:p
 
a_unique_person said:


At present, the US is trying to direct it, without much apparent success.
Click to expand...

Apparent. If you trusted the NYT on this I can see why you would say this. Whatever might be "apparent" we really don't know.
 
subgenius said:


A wise old woman I know (mom) said just that. She likes a rich guy cause he can't be bought.

(And remember rule #1: no bad comments about moms.)
Click to expand...

Is that an endorsement of Cheney?
 
deanerk said:

Oh, props to Rik for being the only one to martyr himself to us with his "politically unpopular" views. You're brave. I just wonder why nobody else here of the Republican persuation came to your defense...
Click to expand...

Thanks Deanerk,

Don't get me wrong,...I never said that Bush did well on camera the other night...or ever for that matter. The man makes me cringe every time he speaks. Listen for a moment to the people who post here. Go back and count how many posts in this thread liken Bush to a chimp, or mention his speech patterns and regrettable tie selection. Here's my take,...all that stuff is BullSh!t and we all know it. I'd much rather have a "visually challenged" leader in the White House than a handsome, articulate, poll-taker.

Personally I don't understand why so many avowed liberals become appologetics for Clinton's presidency. After all, he did them no favors. Clinton had 8 years in office and his greatest accomplishments were fleeting at best. Great economic expansion...(a mirage that faded with the bursting of the tech stock bubble...and the revelations of corporate malfeasence) A great budget surplus built on something called the "peace dividend"....(as if the silences between bombings equalled "peace") In the end, all Clinton will really be remembered for is squandering the last of his power, prestige, and political capital in a desperate bid to remain in office.

All that was really needed to foster an 8 year flowering of the liberal agenda in a time of apparent peace and prosperity was for Mr. Clinton to keep his crank in his pants. Were I a liberal I'd have found that to be the greatest betrayal of all. Unforgiveable even.

In 2000 I voted for Mr. Nader as a protest vote as I could not stand Mr. Gore, and only knew Mr. Bush as an inarticulate rich boy. Yet since he has taken office I've found only his abysmal record on the environment to complain about. He has faced crises head on and has stood up for what he believes. His handling of the China spy plane incident first won him my admiration,...his handling of 9/11 cemented it.

Say what you will about Bush, but he is not an empty suit nor a puppet. He says what he means without apparent guile. I doubt he's capable of it...his emotions and inner struggles show all too plainly on his face for all to see. That he feels strongly for the plight of the victims of 9/11 and the families of soldiers lost in the WOT is so painfully obvious that I doubt even the most ardent Bush haters here would dispute it.

This man has put the safety of America before his political career. He had to know it was a great military and political risk to go into Iraq, yet he did so simply because he thought it the right thing to do. A self serving pol like Clinton would never have dared. That GWB is as passionate about securing America as OBL is passionate about attacking it there can be no doubt. That is what I look for in a president, and that is why I would not desert his cause just because it is at a low ebb of popularity.

Popularity may win "American Idol"...and in our flawed system may even win the White House, but will having a popular president keep us safe and our enemies at bay? Personally, I'd rather have a president that leads with integrity and a sense of right and wrong rather than a man who "appears presidential" and leads by reading the latest opinion polls.

But that's just me. I'm a skeptic, we tend to judge people by their deeds, not their words or appearance.

-z
 
But that's just me. I'm a skeptic, we tend to judge people by their deeds, not their words or appearance.
Click to expand...

Laugh a minute, Rick. I think I have been attacking his actions, all along, along with the rest of us. When he makes a pathetic appearance on TV, I'll attack that too. As an act, it makes you wonder if there isn't one person in the US, on the Republican side, who couldn't do a better job than him. The tactic of having a tame monkey as the front man is clearly a failure.

Attack Clinton all you want for his failures, I just can't see that the main focus of the attacks on him appeared to be a blow job. Everything else was a distant second. Now, if the Republicans chose to attack him on a matter of substance, maybe I would respect them a little more.
 
rikzilla said:

Personally, I'd rather have a president that leads with integrity and a sense of right and wrong rather than a man who "appears presidential" and leads by reading the latest opinion polls.
Click to expand...
A Washington Monthly analysis of Republican National Committee disbursement filings revealed that Bush's principal pollsters received $346,000 in direct payments in 2001. Add to that the multiple boutique polling firms the administration regularly employs for specialized and targeted polls and the figure is closer to $1 million. That's about half the amount Clinton spent during his first year; but while Clinton used polling to craft popular policies, Bush uses polling to spin unpopular ones---arguably a much more cynical undertaking.


SNIP


This is typical of how the Bush administration uses polls: Policies are chosen beforehand, polls used to spin them. Because many of Bush's policies aren't necessarily popular with a majority of voters, Steeper and van Lohuizen's job essentially consists of finding words to sell them to the public. Take, for instance, the Bush energy plan. When administration officials unveiled it last May, they repeatedly described it as "balanced" and "comprehensive," and stressed Bush's "leadership" and use of "modern" methods to prevent environmental damage. As Time magazine's Jay Carney and John Dickerson revealed, van Lohuizen had poll-tested pitch phrases for weeks before arriving at these as the most likely to conciliate a skeptical public. (Again, independent polls showed weak voter support for the Bush plan.) And the "education recession" Bush trumpeted throughout the campaign? Another triumph of opinion research. Same with "school choice," the "death tax," and the "wealth-generating private accounts" you'll soon hear more about when the Social Security debate heats up. Even the much-lauded national service initiative Bush proposed in his State of the Union address was the product of focus grouping. Though publicly Bush prides himself on never looking in the mirror (that's "leadership"), privately, he's not quite so secure. His pollsters have even conducted favorability ratings on Ari Fleischer and Karen Hughes.

Bush's public opinion operation is split between Washington, D.C., where van Lohuizen's firm, Voter/Consumer Research, orchestrates the primary polling, and Southfield, Mich., where Steeper's firm, Market Strategies, runs focus groups. What the two have in common is Karl Rove. Like many in the administration, Steeper was a veteran of the first Bush presidency, and had worked with Rove on campaigns in Illinois and Missouri. Van Lohuizen has been part of the Bush team since 1991, when Rove hired him to work on a campaign to raise the local sales tax in Arlington, Texas, in order to finance a new baseball stadium for Bush's Texas Rangers.

Like previous presidential pollsters, van Lohuizen also serves corporate clients, including Wal-Mart, Qwest, Anheuser-Busch, and Microsoft. And like his predecessors, this presents potential conflicts of interest. For example, van Lohuizen polls for Americans for Technology Leadership, a Microsoft-backed advocacy group that commissioned a van Lohuizen poll last July purporting to show strong public support for ending the government's suit against the company. At the time, Bush's Justice Department was deciding to do just that. Clinton pollster Mark Penn also did work for Microsoft and Clinton took heat for it. Bush has avoided criticism because few people realize he even has a pollster.

The nerve center of the Bush polling operation is a 185-station phone bank in Houston through which van Lohuizen conducts short national polls to track Bush's "attributes," and longer polls on specific topics about once a month. These are complemented by Steeper's focus groups.

One real difference between Bush and Clinton is that, while Clinton was the first to read any poll, Bush maintains several degrees of separation from his pollsters. Both report to Matthew Dowd, the administration's chief of polling, stationed at the RNC, who then reports to Rove. "Rove is a voracious consumer of polls," says a Republican pollster. "He gets it, sifts through it, analyzes it, and gives the president the bottom line." In other words, when it comes to polling, Rove serves as Bush's brain.




http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0204.green.html
Click to expand...
Bet he won`t like what the November polls have to say.
 
rikzilla said:

Personally, I'd rather have a president that leads with integrity and a sense of right and wrong rather than a man who "appears presidential" and leads by reading the latest opinion polls.
Click to expand...

Even if his "sense of right and wrong" really doesn't seem sensible??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom