Post by SaraPost by PhoenixPost by BotchPost by SaraFrankly, I don't listen to most of GW's speeches--it's torture. He's
inarticulate, boring and I don't believe half of what he's saying
(based
Post by PhoenixPost by BotchPost by Saraon his facial expressions, I don't think he does either).
That kinda says it all doesn't it, you don't like the way he talks or
looks
Post by PhoenixPost by Botchso dismiss him.
Good reason enough. The guy can't express a coherent thought. Why are
we supposed to believe he has them? Are we supposed to simply trust the
Republicans?
He looks like a lost little boy behind the podium. That's not a posture
I look for in the leader of my country.
I don't think any party/politician should be trusted at face value. You see
what you see, quite a lot of people don't agree. At least concede that your
opinion is colored by your hatred of him.
Nope, I won't. I despised Clinton's speeches and refused to watch them
because of their pandering slimy nature. They were absolutely awful.
That said, I loved watching him speak in a dialogue setting. His
press conferences were masterful, his conversations with the public were
riveting. The man was quick and interested and calm. I got the feeling
that he was interested in doing his job.
Bush acts like he'd rather be any where else. How would you feel about
an employee who acted that way? (after all the Pres is our servant.)
How would you judge someone who treated any interaction like it was an
inconvenience for him? What grade would you give an employee who
wouldn't share his master plan (or notes from important policy meetings)
and snarled or whined when asked to produce some results? 'Tell you
what, I'd can his ass.
Liking George or not isn't pertinent. He's not doing his goddamn job!
Hitler, was a smooth public
Post by Saraspeaker, by your standards of competence that would qualify him as
believable and a good leader.
Hitler wasn't smooth at all. Have you ever watched one of his speeches?
He reminds me of some preachers, in an utter rage - a frenzied
ideologue. I find his style just as painful to watch as any Sunday
morning evangelist.
Germany fell for this maniac, this tortured wild gesticulator, which
doesn't say much for them at the time.
I think we'd like to believe that Hitler was a good public speaker
because we don't want to think that our enemies, or <gasp> ourselves,
could become entranced by such a lunatic. But we can, oh god, we can.
Post by SaraPost by PhoenixPost by BotchYou're saying they sold the war to people, I agree, on lies? Don't
agree.
Post by PhoenixPost by BotchOther countries with more connections to Al Quaeda, you bet, does that
mean
Post by PhoenixPost by Botchyou would support going to war against those other countries then?
It certainly doesn't support invading Iraq, now does it.
Iraq had terroist training camps, or are we ignoring the facility with the a
jet airliner that they used to train hijackers, or the camp up north where
gas experiments were being done, ( remember those tapes of gases be tested
on animals ) or even the guy they're trying to catch now who came to Iraq,
lived there while he got medical attention and just stayed on.
Honey, catch up with the news. These are all things that Chalabi cooked
up for the Cheney Corp to dine on.
Post by SaraChalabi and
Post by Phoenixthe INC told Cheney there were WMDs and a connection with Al Queda. He
got over 100 million of our tax dollars for feeding us this line of
shit.
Just like the billions lost in the Oil for food program that was stolen
Post by PhoenixWhy would this adminstration choose to believe a con artist like Chalabi
over all the other information from highly respected sources? Why would
they ignore the warnings by the CIA about the man? Because they wanted
to LIE, that's why.
You mean those same respectful sources that told the UN ,France, Germany and
Russia they had WMDs?
Nope. No one would give Chalabi the time of day (he defrauded a bank in
Jordan and was involved in a fiasco that cost thousands of Kurdish
lives.) No one but our Pres and Vice Pres were enamoured of Chalabi's
stories of mobile chemical units, or reactor rods, or weapons hidden
under the waters of the Euphrates, for gods sake.
No one believed a single story from this guy except for this
administration and the New York Times.
Post by SaraPost by PhoenixPost by BotchThe way Gulf War I ended guaranteed a Gulf War II at some point no
matter
Post by PhoenixPost by Botchwho the president was.
Bullshit! That's blind justification on your part. Saddam hasn't been
a threat to anyone for almost 15 years.
The fact that he never even lived up to the terms of the end of Gulf I
made it inevitable.
When he didn't live up, we bombed the hell out of him (under Clinton.)
And he had NOTHING to respond with. NOTHING! He was fenced in. The UN
inspectors were right. Scott Ritter was right! There were no weapons!
So, since Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into his palace (which turned
out to have NO WEAPONS) then we engage in this invasion and protracted
occupation that is costing billions of dollars that we don't have. This
is how you want the government to spend your money? On long campaigns
that accomplish nothing? On killing 10 thousand Iraqi civilians for
nothing? On maiming and killing our military for nothing? No
chemicals. No nuclear. No big guns. No biological. No torture
chambers (except our own.) No grateful, liberated Iraqi citizens. No
example of democracy for the Arab world. No means to solve the
Israel/Palestinian problem. No stable source of oil to fill our SUVs
(and tanks) cheaply.
For this shit, you are willing to become a debtor nation who can't
afford to educate its kids or police its cities.
That's a fucking ideological implosion.
Post by SaraPost by PhoenixPost by BotchI can ignore the the psychology unless you can prove it. That's like
the
Post by PhoenixPost by Botchpeople who said Clinton was lobbing a few missiles and bombs just to
draw
Post by PhoenixPost by Botchthe attention away from his own problems.
What are you trying to say?
You cut what she posted, (paraphased)
"The psychology of Bush and his supposed vendetta with Sadam and of the
hawks around Bush couldn't be ignored in regards to going to war"
That in no way shape or form can be proven and is just as silly as the
things that were being said of Clinton at times, such as the 'wag the dog'
accusations.
Nope. There were plans to invade a docile Iraq long before 9/11, and
plans demanded from the Pentagon immediately after 9/11. Did you listen
to any of the latest hearings before Congress? Did you hear the
nonplussed generals who couldn't figure out why the huge need to attack
Iraq when it was a totally different place that bin Laden controlled?
Bush fired a large number of senior staff at the Pentagon and in the
military because they thought his Iraq ideas were lunacy. Why fight 2
wars... alone? Oh! The Afghanistan thing really isn't important - the
guys who brought down our towers took orders from there (not Iraq) but
that really doesn't matter to Bush. All he wanted was Iraq.
The old guard disagreed vehemently with Rumsfeld's claim that the
operation would only take weeks and 50 thousand troops. Turns out, the
old staff was right.
Post by SaraPost by PhoenixPost by BotchPost by SaraI'm sure you won't believe me, but I actually do not have a blinding
hatred for GW. I certainly don't like the way he's lived his life,
and
Post by PhoenixPost by BotchPost by Sarado not feel he has the qualifications to be president. He appears to
have no self-motivation; not to do well in school, business or even
life (drunk til he was 40?).
Shall we now start listing all the other presidents and politicians who
were
Post by PhoenixPost by Botchdrunks, even while in office, never held regular jobs and did horrible
in
Post by PhoenixSure! And lets discuss their merits! Surely none of them are as
universally incompetant as Georgie.Hell, Grant was a terrible
President, and a horrible drunk, but he could win a battle and knew how
to fight a war.
Thanks for making my point, she condemed him because of his past life
claiming he's unqualified.
JFK was hooked on drugs and a womanizer, did he or Ted ever work in the
private sector
I think being a public servant makes one ably qualified to continue
being a public servant - like president, say.
Post by SaraTed K is a drunk, womanizer, and liked to let his quiffs drown while he
saved himself
That's a debate for another time. I happen to agree with the latest
journalistic investigations about that topic which show that Ted was not
nearly so guilty of the crime made out.
And I appreciate much of what Ted has done as Senator. He knows his job
very well.
Post by SaraGrant was a drunk
As I stated, and fucking awful president
Post by SaraTruman was a failed business man
And a member of government for 25 years before he became president.
This failed businessman saved the US more tax dollars while he was
Senator than Bush could even conceive of. Bush treats our money like
it's his personal expense account.
You should have read the article I happened upon the other day, about
the private contractors in Iraq and how much they are costing us, and
how they can refuse to work, sit around the hotel all day and collect
our tax money, if things look slightly dicey. And guess what, any work
they start on, say, a hospital or telephone lines, can be immediately
preempted by something Halburton needs.
This is the policy of a fiscally conservative president? We pay to
destroy a country (that wasn't bothering us) and now we pay to build it
again. WTF?
Post by SaraClinton, did he ever work in the private sector? womanizer
Oh Clinton knew the public sector very well, and I respect him for it.
I don't really care who he fucked.
Post by SaraJefferson, slave owner
Which is a bloody shame. Too bad this country didn't outlaw slavery
immediately. We would have a 10th of the social problems if we had.
Damn stupid, and something that will haunt this country forever.
Post by Sarathe list goes on and on and on
And you still haven't mentioned a person less qualified to be our
President than George.
bel
Post by SaraPost by PhoenixPost by BotchHis mentality was pretty much that of a
Post by Sarajock, frat boy partier, who occasionally performed for his father and
family (and used their connections to accomplish it). I tend to
respect people who are thoughtful, reflective, articulate,
intellectually curious and enjoys reading books, and I would prefer a
president like that.
Partying frat boy attitude in his past, likely. Got ahead by using
family
Post by PhoenixPost by Botchconnections, of course he's the only one who ever did that isn't he?
And he isn't the first to run every business into the ground that daddy
ever handed to him. Are you saying that the silver spoon background
works in his favor for leading this country?
Not at all, but condeming him simply because of it isn't right either.
Are you thinking that his
Post by Phoenixsoft National Guard "experience" makes him ready to lead the country
into battle?
Compared to our last president, you bet.
Post by PhoenixUnless
Post by Botchyou personally know him I don't see how you ,in good faith, can make a
judgement on how thoughtful, reflective, intellectually curious, or
whether
Post by PhoenixPost by Botchhe's a big book reader, and neither can I?
Except Bush admits he doesn't read newspapers and the only books he
likes are Westerns. So we DO know, don't we.
No you don't, you know what they or someone else tells you. But to go with
your thought, Westerns are some lower form literature? What books are smart
enough you?
Post by PhoenixArticulate? His talent at
Post by Botchspeaking seems to depend on the forum and whether he's comfortable or
not.
Post by PhoenixPost by BotchHow much that bothers people usually depends on if they like him or not.
I like all the qualities you stated, for anyone.
So if we make Bush comfortable then he becomes magically articulate? Oh
yeah, that's my job as a citizen - to make my Pres happy and his job
cushy.
Nope it means he's like anyone else, as I said earlier, Hitler was a good
public speaker, so was Jim Jones.
Post by PhoenixPost by BotchI don't think anything he's done has been excessive or have seen him
preach.
Post by PhoenixPost by BotchI would have no problem if Lieberman, or anyone of any other faith
mentioned
Post by PhoenixPost by Botchtheir faith the way Bush has.
Then you're in danger of being hoodwinked by a religious agenda. I
think you should pay closer attention.
Must be a memeber of the ACLU where even acknowledging a religious belief
makes someone a fanatic.
Post by PhoenixPost by BotchPost by SaraI am a very loyal person and admire loyalty in others. Bush has shown
bad judgment with appointments based more on loyalty, than
qualifications, experience and ability. I don't admire that--it's
leading by emotion rather than objectivity.
Maybe you're right, what unqualified people has he appointed based on
loyalty?
Ashcroft
Cheney (Has he ever been elected to anything?)
Rumsfeld (surprisingly)
Condoleeza Rice (whose only area of expertise is Russia and Cold War
dynamics.)
Chalabi
Wolfowitz - if he gets the head of CIA
Ashcroft: Senator, Governor, State Attorney General and graduated with
honors from Yale
Cheney : Congressman, white house chief of staff and Secretary of Defense
Rumsfield : former Defense Secretary, white house chief of staff, ambassador
to NATO and congressman
Rice : served as an assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs,
special assistant to the president for the NSA, professor
of political science
Wolfowitz : Dean of John Hopkins school for Internaitional Studies,
Ambassador to Indonesia, Under Secretary of Defense,
Assistant Secretary of state for east asian affairs, his
list goes on for some time
Chalabi, last I saw he hasn't been appointed to anything.
It'd be simpler to just say you don't agree with their views so that makes
them unqualified to hold office. If not, what qualifications do you think
they're lacking? What office, education or job experience could make any of
them more qualified?
Botch