1

Yes, the press Qs were terrible. Where were the Qs about Iraqi mayors being elected? What about more specifics over who, on June 30, gets how much power?

That press need to blame the pres, especially a Rep pres., almost makes me think there would be a silver lining to the rain cloud of a Kerry win -- the US press would at least want the US to help Iraq become a good, democratic Iraq. Instead of another Killing Fields (like Cambodia after Vietnam).
[why two posts?]

2

Hey Joe

I'm with you on our irresponsible press, but the fact is that Bush gets off very easy. Have you ever seen the questions Tony Blair is asked in Parliament? Bush offered no plan for going forward in Iraq, just a bunch of nebulous goals about making the world a happier place. YIPPEE!

It's obvious that Bush has made many mistakes and thus far he refuses to take responsibility for any of them. That is one of the reasons he won't be elected in November.

What makes you believe that Bush has not failed us? Do you know something about the situation in Iraq or the findings of the 9/11 commission that I don't?

By the way, he did a piss-poor job of responding to the unscripted questions which were asked of him (the question about why he needs Dick there to hold his hand in front of the 9/11 commission). Or do you think it's unfair to expect the President of the country to be able to respond to questions without a scripted answer?

3

Cathy,

What makes you believe that Bush has not failed us? Do you know something about the situation in Iraq or the findings of the 9/11 commission that I don't?

As far as Iraq goes, I know that a maniacal dictator that was a threat to the region and the U.S. has been deposed and that the country is on the road to becoming a democracy. What about that are you opposed to?

As for the 9/11 commission, the real question is why anyone would think that Bush would have found some actionable items during his 8 months of office that Clinton wasn’t privy to during his 8 year reign.

By the way, he did a piss-poor job of responding to the unscripted questions which were asked of him (the question about why he needs Dick there to hold his hand in front of the 9/11 commission). Or do you think it's unfair to expect the President of the country to be able to respond to questions without a scripted answer?

I think its fair to expect unscripted answers from the President. But it should be in response to questions we really care about. Can anyone really claim that the 15 questions that were asked (including the Cheney one you allude to) were the most important questions that needed answering right now?

4

yes, i think they are the most important questions about how we got into this mess. you can't have a good future until you look at history. the history of this administration has been lies and deception.

and finally, the press has the huevos to call them on it. it is called freedom of the press, remember that? it is their JOB to ask tough questions. until now, the bush regime hasn't allowed themselves to questions. that is called fascism - look it up.

5

Joe:
Your response to the comment to your comment is another example of the issues raised in your comment about the Left. All that can be said is what geometricians used to say: q.e.d.

6

"As far as Iraq goes, I know that a maniacal dictator that was a threat to the region and the U.S. has been deposed and that the country is on the road to becoming a democracy."

Wow! How inspiring. How long is that road to democracy and how much is that going to cost me as a taxpayer? I recall that Bush lied about the cost the first time around -- I wonder if he's lying now about his mysterious "plans" for Iraq?

Like most Americans, I wasn't concerned about fundamentalist terrorists from Iraq attacking the US before the war, nor was I particularly concerned about Saddam (after all, he had no weapons to be concerned about) but I think the likelihood of a terrorist attack arising out of the Iraq situation is much greater now than it was before we occupied the country.

"As for the 9/11 commission, the real question is why anyone would think that Bush would have found some actionable items during his 8 months of office that Clinton wasn’t privy to during his 8 year reign."

Or that Bush I and Reagan were privy to during their 12 year reign. Of course, for part of that time we were giving Saddam money and weapons and intelligence to help him kill other people for us.

Do you suppose any of the Spring and Summer 2001 memos with the following titles could reasonably be considered "actionable" by Bush?

"Bin Laden planning multiple operations"
"Bin Laden network's plans advancing"
"Bin Laden threats are real."
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in United States"

I think a good argument can be made that it is appropriate for the President to be asked about these memos (which were drafted specifically to engage Bush's attention, as he is well-known to ignore items that aren't exactly on his radar).

Joe, you also said "I think its fair to expect unscripted answers from the President."

And I agree. Why then won't he provide such answers to the 9/11 commission in Dick Cheney's absence?

At this point, you must realize, most Americans are a bit suspicious of Dear Leader's abilities. I'm not surprised that you aren't. But it would enhance your credibility a bit to acknowledge that he has made mistakes.

Even Dear Leader made such an acknowledgement last night, although is Presidential-calibre brain somehow wasn't able to articulate what those mistakes might be.

"I'm confident I have [made mistakes], but you put me on the spot and I'm not quick enough on my feet to come up with one."

Gosh, that's encouraging to hear. I recall one time when the Chimp was reading a book to some schoolchildren and a secret service agent whispered in his ear. The Chimp was not quick enough on his feet that time either, although he quickly identified who must have attacked us. Turns out he was wrong, but let's forgive the guy, shall say? After all, Jesus was his favorite philosopher.

7

I blogged about the episode this morning. Check out how my fantasy Bush would've answered some of those questions!

8

german, you little puppet master you!

You wrote:

"Joe:
Your response to the comment to your comment is another example of the issues raised in your comment about the Left. All that can be said is what geometricians used to say: q.e.d."

You should follow german's advice Joe. No point in continuing to run this blog. All is darkness and despair. Alas!

9

If anyone would like to comment to the media outlets concerning the performance of the Committee to Elect John Kerry — er, uh, I mean the White House correspondents, the Media Research Center has a database of contact information here.

10

It just can't be the case that the media's post 9/11 quiescence is the norm, Joe. Bush picked this moment to have the press conference precisely because the news from Iraq is not very good. It could certainly be the case that all the stories about the last week are blown out of proportion by a supposedly "liberal media," but when you compare what has been happening to what this administration said would happen, I'm surprised that the questions haven't been harsher. Remember, this was supposed to be a war in which:

Iraqis would greet us as "liberators,"

Reconstruction and occupation costs would be covered by Iraqi oil revenue,

hundreds of thousands of troops would not be needed to get the job done,

and vast stockpiles of WMDs would be discovered.

None of these things have happened. When Clinton fired a missle at the Al Shifa plant in the Sudan (and questions were raised about its capacity to produce chemical weapons), the press -- and others -- raised a fuss. Now we have a situation in which a real war is going on and it looks like the administration both fudged the planning and was seriously mistaken about the process. Why are people complaining about the press? What should they be doing? Being the President's cheerleader? Come on.

The sad truth seems to be that the President really did mean "mission accomplished" after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. He and his defenders keep coming back to that point. Fair enough. But you can both like the fact that Hussein is overthrown and wonder about an administration that can get so much wrong and still get mostly softballs from the press until very recently.

The point is emphatically not that "all is darkness and despair." The point is the gap between what this administration said and what has happened. Is that not fair game for the press? If so, will you support that same quiescence when Hillary Clinton is the Commander-in-Chief?

11

Um, regardless of anything else, wasn't the fact that they were basically rephrasing the same question over and over again annoying to anyone? Or is that exactly what leftists want to hear? I mean, how is it responsible or useful to anyone to have reporters leaping all over each other to come up with the best speech disguised as a question??

12

Um, regardless of anything else, wasn't the fact that they were basically rephrasing the same question over and over again annoying to anyone?

Yeah, it was annoying to me.

Or is that exactly what leftists want to hear?

Not this leftist. That is just the incompetent media at work, pitching the Chimp random softballs for him to take a whack at (and add three or four paragraphs of time-sucking material about feeding starving Korean children, which he was not asked about).

There are much better questions to ask the Chimp, including questions about Condoleeza Rice's lies to the 9/11 commission. That will perculate up eventually. I notice that George Tenet has a rather inconsistent view of what happened during the late summer of 2001 relative to the President's view. Let's see if the press picks up on that (as they should, instead of swallowing whole this administrations claim that they did everything they could do to prevent a terrorist attack on American soil).

13

I was shocked by the way reporters kept asking the same question over and over. But I was impressed to an even greater degree by the gentle and kind way President Bush bore up under the assault. No, he didn't handle the questioning perfectly, but once again I came away thinking, "This is a good man. This is the kind of man I want to follow."

14

The media's job is to ask the tough questions. It is the job of right-wing propagandists like Fox to lob soft pitches and attack the left. The president and his cadre of Neo-cons have ample opportunity to put forth their furiously spinning version of events. The Iraq project was an ill-conceived venture which has lost goodwill for the U.S. among the international community and earned renewed enmity from Muslims already incensed by our uncondition support of Israel.

15

"As far as Iraq goes, I know that a maniacal dictator that was a threat to the region and the U.S. has been deposed and that the country is on the road to becoming a democracy. What about that are you opposed to?"

I agree with that statement. But tell me this; is a secular Islamic dictator worse then an Islamic Sharia State? Because to me that looks what we are headed towards. To me, the most disappointing moment of the night was when Bush was asked, whom are we handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th? Bush's response: to whom ever the UN tells me to. Tell me that doesn't scare you. On two fronts, we don't know, and the UN is involved.

16

Joe said:

"As far as Iraq goes, I know that . . .the country is on the road to becoming a democracy."

Hey Joe, our allies need you to blow some of that sunshine up their butts a.s.a.p.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/14/iraq.hostages.int/index.html

Also, you might want to share some of that same sunshine with your favorite conservative pundits. They're also starting to wonder how Dear Leader's gang managed to screw things up so badly. Why do the conservative pundits hate America?

And to theEnvoy: since Bush has clearly fumbled the ball, who should pick it up if not the UN? Is there an organization (or country) besides the United Nations which would have more credibility with the Iraqi people and which you would be happier with? Or is your position that if the United States does not control who is in power in Iraq, then "screw Iraq"? I mean, someone has to make some decisions (and explain the reasoning behind the decisions).

Personally I think we've managed to really mess Iraq up and at this point there are no "good" options. They all stink. The least we could do, however, is not to blame the current situation on the Iraqi people. Do you suppose that the "liberal media" will start to blame the Iraqis for the mess in Iraq, rather than the Bush administration? That would seem a tad unfair to me. Let's watch and see what happens!

17

Joe,

Saddam is in our custody now. His evil sons are dead. Almost all of the senior leadership is accounted for. There seem to be no WMD's... Iraq presents no credible threat to us.

I don't particularly feel like we should fund the reconstruction of a country that has trillions of dollars of oil in the ground. Nor do I care to see Americans die to rebuild Iraq or whatever it is we're allegedly doing.
And it really makes me ill to think of our guys getting shot at and killed ... especially while they guard another guy repairing power lines who is also being shot at ... to give the people electrical power who are doing the shooting.

We have 135,000 troops smack dab in the middle of 300 million pretty pissed off arabs who view Osama Bin Laden as Luke Skywalker and the US as the Death Star.

Meanwhile...back in Afghanistan, the Taliban are regaining control.
You remember them right Joe? They're the folks who hosted a group called Al Quiada which slammed four commercial jets into ground targets killing over three thousand men, women, and children...?

Call me simplistic; but doesn't it make sense if you want to stop Al Quaida, that you attack Al Quaida and not someone entirely different who has nothing to do with Al Quaida?

~DS~

18

The self serving blather of the press corp made me want to vomit.

GWB inherited 8 years of tresonable neglect by the Bill and Hilliary adminstration.

And why in the name of God Almighty is the blame for 9/11 not put on bin Laden where it belongs?

I'm VERY cynical about this press corps, and have ZERO respect for them. After the liberal Dems tried to steal the 2000 election, it is very clear that for the liberal press corp the issue is not truth but an agenda of power.

"New-speak" reigns.... Bah Humbug!

19

Cathy:

Bush hasn't gotten off nearly as easy as the administration who virtually ignored the terrorist threat for 8 stinking years! How come Clinton and Gore have not been publicly deposed by the 'bipartisan' 9/11 commission?

dicknbush:

Oh, yes, PLEASE, let's examine the history of how we got into this mess!!!! How about we start in 1993 with the first WTC attack?? Then move forward examining the war on terror (sic) that took place for the next 7 years.

Cathy (again):

Let's just call the title of this response to your next childish rant "Oh Cathy You are So Right". Not that the text of this response will have anything to do with the title....Do try and get a grip on reality when you come back from your far left halucinations.

Brett:

Why does the left always claim that being incorrect about something is tantamount to lying about it? If Bush had had accurate field intelligence from the CIA and FBI, I'm sure many of our pre-war assumptions/decisions would have been better. But the fact is that both the CIA and FBI have been hamstrung for years by Democrat politicians.

Rob Ryan:

You are correct that the medias job is to ask tough questions. The problem is that they asked the same useless, loaded, biased question 15 times! And it never ceases to amuse me how so many of the left in this country are SO FAR LEFT that a middle of the road news organization like FOX appears right wing! You guys crack me up!

OK, this much leftist rediculousness grows tiresome.

20

B.N. writes:

"I'm VERY cynical about this press corps, and have ZERO respect for them."

You should be cynical! Did you watch last night's Hardball? Jim Thompson said that "none of the predictions in [the 8/6 PDB] were proved out by September 11."

Can you believe it??? And Matthews said nothing in response! The laziness is astounding. "None of the predictions were proved out by September 11" is what Thompson said!

Both Thompson and Matthews evidently didn't read past page 9 of the 8/6 PDB because on page 10 it says: "FBI information since [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks ..."

Gee, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Thompson, I seem to recall that FOUR planes were hijacked on September 11, 2001, 100% consistent with the warning on page 10 of the PDB. Why do these people hate America?

I note that Condi and gang seem intent on ignoring the fact that four planes were hijacked on September 11. They would like to imagine that preventing a hijacking is different from preventing a hijacking which leads to planes flying into buildings (although they were certainly well aware of that possibility as well). Nevertheless, while Condi and Bushie were informed repeatedly that such hijackings were being prepared for in the United States, they did NOTHING. In fact, Bushie went on the longest vacation in presidential history after he was presented with the 8/6 memo. While he met with the CIA director ONCE during that vacation, Condi and Bush tell Americans that they had meetings every DAY! Amazing. What came of all these intelligence meeting that Bush and Condi claim were happening every day?

Nothing.

"The intelligence was not good enough" to allow them to act, they insist. But what about the intelligence relating to the weapons of mass destruction all over Iraq (lie)? The aluminum tubes that had only one purpose (lie)? The trucks for making bioweapons (lie)? Saddam's capability to drop an atomic bomb (lie)? That "intelligence" -- provided after 9/11, after the Chimp knew that his administration had difficulty dealing with intelligence -- that "intelligence" was somehow solid enough to justify occupying Iraq (provided it could be done cheaply enough, but then again price the Chimp quoted was cleverly lowered by resorting to a convenient ... lie).

Thank God he only has sex with his wife or I'd be inclined to think that this lying s.o.b. of a president wasn't the righteous warrior for Christ that he pretends to be.

21

David Johnson (no relation to Greg Johnson, I assume!) advises me to:

"get a grip on reality when you come back from your far left halucinations."

David, which of the following are hallucinations?

Any of the following titles of PDBs given to Bush?

"Bin Laden planning multiple operations"
"Bin Laden network's plans advancing"
"Bin Laden threats are real."
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in United States"

Am I hallucinating about the fact that George Bush will not appear before the commission without Dick Cheney by his side? By the way, Clinton and Gore did appear before the 9/11 commission SEPARATELY and I'm sure they would be happy to appear publicly, and separately, IF Big Time Dick Cheney and his sock puppet George Bush agreed to do the same. Not that there's a chance in hell that Karl Rove would allow that to happen.

Did I hallucinate last night's press conference where Bushie said that:

"I'm confident I have [made mistakes], but you put me on the spot and I'm not quick enough on my feet to come up with one."

Did I also hallucinate his rambling answer to a question about Iraq which included feeding starving children in Korea?

Frankly, David, I'm glad to hear that you're tiring of this "ridiculousness" because I'm only scratching the surface and there's a whole lot more "hallucination" where these came from. I wish it were a bad dream, David, I really do. Hundreds of our soldiers who died in Iraq might still be alive, not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqis. Does that REALITY not grow tiresome for you, David? Or does it make you feel like a big strong man?

Regarding this comment of yours, David:

"Why does the left always claim that being incorrect about something is tantamount to lying about it?"

Does "The Left" really always make such claims (whoever "the left" is in your worldview)? And I suppose that your opinion is that "the Right" only rarely makes such claims.

Let's be clear: when mistakes are made and admitted, they may fairly be called only mistakes. When mistakes are made and then covered up and no one takes responsibility for the "mistakes", that's LYING. Why did Bush stonewall the 9/11 commission for years? Why did he keep Rice for testifying in public under oath for months? The "national security" argument was a bunch of baloney (as we see whenever the administration trots out -- or threatens to trot out a la Bill Frist -- previously classified documents for purely political reasons, and as we see when the documents are finally revealed and turn out to be of no importance to national security but are damning to the administration's claims that it is and was the greatest anti-terrorism machine in the western world).

I don't want to tire you out with any more "hallucinations," David. You're liable to end up in bed with german if I keep reciting my leftist "bullet points" (supplied to me, ironically, by the Bush administration itself).

Oh, one last thing: can you give one example of a tough question that you would have liked Bush to answer last night? I'm very curious about what a "Rightist" (or "Centrist?") such as yourself might consider a "tough" question that isn't "useless, loaded" or "biased."

22

"...some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?"
Iraq is no Vietnam, God has graced us in this mission.

"How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong?"
haven't seen a lot of comments about this, but to me it was one of the most striking comments of Bush's press conference. Perhaps, it was the most honest comment he made all night. Here is the question:

QUESTION: 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?

Here is the comment:

...One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren't. They're now up and running.

For an Administration that failed to act on so many things like looting, nuclear waste, and the possibility that we may not be seen as liberators, I find the suggestion that Bush was worried about oil extremely pathetic. Not surprising, but after all we have been through in the past 10 days, it felt like a punch in the gut.

"Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any 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 that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?"

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 that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?"

"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?"
I was right http://slate.msn.com/id/2098810/

"Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?"
I think here

"Will [continuing the mission in Iraq] 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?"
Yes, I'd like to know what you plan to do in the holy land.

"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?

23

Hey Envoy. That post was even less intelligible than Dear Leader's bogus answers were. I didn't think that was possible. Congratulations!

24

German, let me help you.

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?"
I was right http://slate.msn.com/id/2098810/

German killah, I agree, I messed that post up. I'll help you out by a post with a slight dununciation and the beloved's schedule.

Here is the beloved's schedule. God bless the almighty Bear.
he Bears will continue their preseason slate by hosting the San Francisco 49ers on Saturday, August 21 (7:30 p.m. CT) and the New Orleans Saints on Friday, August 27 (7:30 p.m. CT) at Soldier Field.

Chicago will then conclude the preseason by facing the Browns in Cleveland on Friday, September 3 (7 p.m. CT).

The Bears have finished the preseason with a winning record just once in the last 13 years, going 4-0 in 1994.

In the regular season, in addition to home and away games against NFC North rivals Detroit, Green Bay and Minnesota, the Bears will host Houston, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington; and visit Dallas, Jacksonville, the New York Giants, Tampa Bay and Tennessee.

The Bears' regular season schedule, with dates and times, will be posted on ChicagoBears.com Wednesday at 4:15 p.m. CT.

Our entire fallen, stand by the monument to Armistice Day, and worship the beloved.

25

Cathy:

You are apparently still in your delusional state, because from what you've posted in response to me you obviously either did not read or are incapable of understanding.

The TITLE of something does not necessarily have anything to do with the contents of the document. Try reading a newspaper once in a while. You can find daily examples of this nonsense.

So how about 'enlightening' us with exaclty what you would have done between 8/6 and 9/10 that would have prevented 9/11 based on any of the information contained in the 8/6 PDB.

You are not hallucinating about Bush and Cheney going before the witch hunt together. What's your point? In the real world, it is common practice to get all relevant parties in one room at the same time to discuss something. It prevents miscommunication.

What does the method of appearance of Bush and Cheney have to do with how Clinton and Gore appear before the committee? This is not kindergarten, sweetie. Everything doesn't have to be 'equal'.

Those hundreds of soldiers and thousands of Iraqis might also still be alive had Clinton done ANYTHING about OBL and SH in the 8 YEARS he had to do so! But you can't see beyond your hatred for Bush to deal with that. That is what grows tiresome.

And on the lying issue, you just don't get it. Can't defend the point, so its "well the Right do it to" nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. Oh, gosh, you must be right. Whatever was I thinking? I'll try and explain this with small words and simple concepts so you might be able to understand. Say, for instance that you watch the weather on the evening news. The weather 'person' says it's going to rain tomorrow. So you bring your umbrella when you leave the house the next day. But it does not rain. In your world, the weather 'person' is a STINKING, BALD FACED LIAR, when in reality, 'he' made the prediction based on the best intelligence available at the time. That just about sums up how the left and the Bush haters have treated this entire situation. Do you expect the weather 'person' to apologize to you? Apparently so.

As for a tough question, I would have asked something like "Why have we given so much focus on Iraq and completely ignored Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia given previous statements by you that we would go after anyone who harbors or funds terrorist activity?" or "Why do you continue to claim that we are not fighting a religious war when the Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill us clearly believe that they ARE fighting a religious war?" or "If you are truly serious about fighting a war on terror, why have you not closed down our borders?" Is that tough enough?

26

Victor Davis Hanson has a fine note about when it started: 1979, with Khomeini and the ousting of the Shah. http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_the_fruits.html

It seems to me that Cathy would prefer to wait until after Iran gets nukes, and allows terrorists to get them, and allows Tel Aviv to be nuked -- before agreeing to military action. But, like most on the Left, she doesn't quite say this. She avoids specifying how many innocents must be murdered the terrorists before we can call it and war and fight back. Perhaps on another thread? But I doubt it.

27

dicknbush--I may have changed my opinion of you, you are probably not an idiot, but an agent provacateur. You are charicature of an idiot, post-grad liberal arts major. If this is facism, where are the concentration camps for political prisoners (don't bring up Git-mo, those people are enemy combatants, not political prisoners) or where are the brownshirts shutting down CNN or the Washington Post? When you (anybody) compare any US administration to any tolitarian (facism, communism, despotism, etc.) regime you are cheapening the sacrifices real people made to end real tolitarianism. I am not just talking about the US in WW2 or the Cold War, but how about the Solidarity movement in Poland or the French Resistance in WW2.

28

dicknbush and uscfengr:

Actually, the truly funny thing about the Left continually trying to associate fascism and Naziism with the Right is that the Left actually has MUCH more in common with both facsim and Naziism!

It just shows how brain dead the Left is to keep spouting this nonsense. If you go back and look issue by issue with both of those ideologies, you will see what I'm talking about. But I doubt those on the left would have the stomach to face that particular truth.

29

It's odd that anyone who criticizes Bush is immediately labled 'delusional' or a even more scary a 'leftist'. I'm a little sick of it.

I got news for folks who like to dismiss critics like Cathy Meyers with ad homs; I'm a republican, I'm under no delusions as far as I know, and I view Bush as the worst thing to happen to the GOP in my adult life. It's going to take years to repair the damage to the republican party that Bush has caused.

I've met George Bush several times in the last few years and I've had short conversations with him on everything from the stock market to Texas weather (I grew up in Austin, Texas and I worked across the street from the Capital building as a financial analyst for a large lobbyist).

I know from experience he's not the drooling idiot the press sometimes implies he is. I'd guess his IQ is about average. he does have convictions and he seems to be geniounely concerned for the country. I voted for him last time around.
But, I won't be voting for him this time.

Why? Various reasons, but one stands head and shoulders above the rest. One simple word: Iraq.

I was worried early on when Bush made the stem cell decision. It seemed a bit odd to me that a President would step in and intervene in such a promising *legal* field of science based on fundamentlist ideology.
Then 9-11 happened and I was behind Bush more than I'd ever been. I don't blame Bush for 9/11, nor do I blame Clinton. It's counter productive to try and hang that around their neck(s) and inaccurate to boot.
I also don't blame the FBI or the CIA. It would have been wonderful if we'd been able to stop it. Maybe a little luck, or maybe a persistant investigator, would have made all the difference. But that's not how it played out.. I blame AQ 90 %, Saudi Arabia 5 %, Sudan 3 %, etc.

So after 9-11, we HAD to take out the Taliban. We HAD to get a handle on Afghanistan. The entire world recognized that and sided with us all the way.

And then for some bizarre tangental reason we suddenly talking about invading Iraq. Now we're stuck there, the rest of the world views us as a bigger threat than islamic fundamentalism, we've pissed away the goodwill and support of the entire planet, we're paying for it in both lives and dollars-BIG dollars folks, and our forces are so thinly spread they've given up pursuing OBL aggresively. Wonderful.

We have an all volunteer armed force and they're being stretched so much that our combat GI's are being told a few days or weeks before their tour is up that they will have to stay an extra three months. Moral is not doing well...reenlistment and recruitment, which was at a peace time high after 9-11, is trending down strongly.

Iraq was such a strategic blunder it boggles my mind that anyone would defend the decision in hindsight.
The premise for invading Iraq turns out to be faulty. We've taken Saddam and his sons out, and now we're being told that unless we establish and pay for a complete rebuilding of Iraq and democracy in Iraq, the United States will fall? ROFLMAO!!! That's utter bullsh*t! Bring our troops home and stop dicking around about it.

Bush made a mistake and whether the mistake was the result of stupidity or poor information doesn't really matter to me. This is the 'varsity league' folks. We're talking about the executive office. Mistakes of this magnitude are unacceptable.
We all know why the religious right defends Bush with the same zeal they deny evolutionary biology. It's because he's a fundie. That's pretty much the same boneheaded behavoir employed by islamic fundies "No matter who bad he is, he's one of us".
The problem with ideological extremists is they cannot admit when they screwed up, and they won't reverse their policy.
(We see this in the EvC debate everyday. Creationists come barging into weblogs and forums with their nutty discredited mythology and when shown dead wrong, they turn their tails and run to ANOTHER forum and spew the same nonsense all over again or deny facts until they're blue in the face. It's entertaining when it's science; it's deadly for our troops in warfare)

Sad...
I can imagine a republican administration that values fiscal conservatism, stays informed of science, maintains a strong defense, encourages business investment, and does not let itself get dragged into asinine conflicts and political fights underwritten by end-of-the-world-nutters. That's what I hope to have a chance to vote for in 2008. I'll be voting against the present, distorted, incarnation of the republican party this November.

regards,
~DS~

30

Well, as card-carrying member of the VLWC, let me speak for leftists everywhere and say:

I certainly did not accuse the administration of lying in my post. And the press corp certainly did not accuse the president of lying, either. What they said, quite reasonably in my view, is that there has been a big gap between prediction (or presentation) and reality. It is entirely reasonable for the press to wonder about the President's responsibilities in this regard.

Why is it "biased and shoddy" to ask the president about what he said would be the case, but turned out not, in fact, to be the case?

Is it "honest and true" for the press to ignore contradictions between what the president says and what actually happens? Note that you do not need to make any claim about "lies" here, and frankly I couldn't care less about so-called members of the "left" who go on about lying. That is emphatically not the point. The point is finding out what kind of president we have. If we have a president who -- for whatever reason -- is not able to a) be right about crucial aspects of war planning and war preparation, and b) not evidently able to reflect on that fact and adjust policy to take account of it, I think that we have a problem, and if the press helps to bring that to light, then it is, in fact, doing its job. Ignoring the issue out of fear of being called biased would be an abdication of responsibility.

31

uc,

look up fascism in the dictionary. it is simply silencing the press and making your own spin. of course, politicians have always tried for spin, but never has an american office accomplished a media blitz like they have in the past few eyars. until the day before yesterday, when the 'free' press finally was allowed to ask the hard quesitons. adn all of america saw the chinks in the armourwhich revealed the lack of a plan for a future in iraq.

good to see that everyone on this post is not in lock-step with bush. if i were a republican, i would be upset too. republican used to mean conservative, now the dollar is weaker than ever. wonder why we pay more for gas? because you need more dollars to pay for a barrel when your dollar is worth less. world confidence in where america is going is shrinking rapidly. if i were in that news confernce, i would be asking about where the econmony and the defecit are going.

conservative used to also mean less government, now it means more.

i am not crazy aobut kerry, but bush needs to go. if anything, i am libertarian. any libertarian that votes for bush isn't one. time for regime change.

32

This is something. Bush is a fascist because he doesn't like press conferences? The liberals can write whatever they want, get on TV 24 hours a day, write music, appear in commercials, get on talk shows that begin in early morning and end at 2:00 AM. Where's the fascism?

This is going to be a long war on many fronts. If you guys hate what we're doing in Iraq, I can only imagine what you'll be saying when we flip over the House of Saud, go after the Syrians, foment a revolution in Iran, and build bases in Lebanon. Hang on. Things are just starting to get interesting.

Then again, suppose Kerry wins: the UN handles Iraq, the mullahs return, the Defense Department is up for another round of gutting, CIA as well, and the terrorists become more emboldened.

So the President isn't good at a press conference. Big deal. You must've hated FDR,then--poor guy couldn't even stand up at the microphone. Clinton sure was smooth, though, wasn't he?--could lie with a smile through the whole thing, and you guys don't give a damn. Form over function, for you people. Good news: Clinton is running for election again, in the guise of John Kerry (presently) and his wife (in 2008, after the way is cleared by the drubbing Kerry will get this November).

33

kevin,

'things are starting to get interesting'

yes, it is called armegedon, from revelations, remember that? is that really what you want?

oh, i forgot this is a christian blog, of course it is what christains want, then all the christians get to go to heaven, and everyone else can go to hell. guess it doesn't really matter then.

'being it on' as bush would say. the american soldiers that die should go to heaven if they are christians, the islamics beleive they are going to their own heanven, so who cares? lets all start blowing each other up and go to heaven!

34

DS:

I don't label just anyone who criticized Bush as delusional. You have to earn that. There's a big difference between criticizing Bush over actual issues just criticizing Bush because you are a Bush hater. I've seen plenty of both.

And as far as dismissing Cathy with 'ad homs', I was just playing her game. I would much prefer a reasoned discussion to that, but you can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who posts the way she does. Go back and read her posts. Accusing Bush of lying, calling him a Chimp, etc. You want to criticize someone, there's a good place to start.

And I've got news for you too. I'm not a repub. The repubs are no longer small gov't conservatives. They left me long ago. I'm a libertarian. I'm more than happy to criticize Bush for a whole host of things. But I do find the pure blind hatred coming out of the left to be disgusting. They used to accuse the right of being the party of hate. But you go to ANY leftist web site or blog and ALL you hear is vile hatred.

And as for invading Iraq, there are decent arguments on both sides of that. I don't disagree about the invasion itself, but our follow through has been weak. We really don't have any responsibility to rebuild Iraq. That was his first big mistake. They are perfectly capable of rebuilding themselves. And if he had cojones, we would already have taken out Iran and Saudia Arabia in addition to Iraq. We may not be fighting a religious war, but they sure as hell are.

On the discussion of who is 'responsible' for 9/11, that whole commission is such a waste of time. If they were really trying to address the problems, then MAYBE it might serve some purpose. But all they have been doing is trying desparately to affix blame. That's a waste of time and money. There's plenty of blame to go around. GET OVER IT ALREADY! Let's solve the problems so we can try to prevent it in the future.

And you were actually doing a good job until you decided to attack Christianity. Then I realize, oh yeah, he grew up in Austin, the heart of anti-christianity in Texas. Dude, you complain about ad homs and then call them 'nutty'. Hi, kettle! you sure are black today!

35

dicknbush:

If you are libertarian, you shouldn't be voting for either Kerry or Bush.

How about www.lp.org or www.constitutionparty.com

36

david,

i would vote libertarian if i didn't think it wouldn't swing the vote to bush

37

David Johnson:

Before I address some of your statements directly, let me just say that the term "leftist" is a pretty useless generalization. There are surely many political issues on which we could find some agreement, regardless of the fact that I believe that George Bush is a terrible president and the current administration are a pack of liars who refuse to take responsibility for their mistakes (mistakes which have cost this country a lot of lives, a lot of money, and a lot of goodwill in the rest of the world).

You wrote that:

"The TITLE of something does not necessarily have anything to do with the contents of the document. Try reading a newspaper once in a while. You can find daily examples of this nonsense."

So, your position is that the PDBs weren't accurately titled and that is why the Bush and Condi sat on their hands? If it's so easy to notice when a title does not correspond to the contents of a document, why didn't Bush and Condi say something to the FBI like "what's up with these alarming titles? the contents are just historical." David, consider why the PDBs were given such titles in light of the fact that President Bush has admitted over and over again that he hates sitting through long meetings or long memos.

"So how about 'enlightening' us with exaclty what you would have done between 8/6 and 9/10 that would have prevented 9/11 based on any of the information contained in the 8/6 PDB."

The issue is not "would have prevented". The issue is what "might have prevented" (or even slowed) the terrorists. David, NOTHING was done in response to the memos. Bush went on VACATION, remember? Did he meet with FAA officials? Did he prepare the citizens of this country for the possibility of such an attack? Remember, Bush and Condi knew all about 747s being used as missles (in spite of Condi's lies to the contrary). There were discussions before 9/11 of preparing a drill for a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

"In the real world, it is common practice to get all relevant parties in one room at the same time to discuss something. It prevents miscommunication."

Looks like we agree on this issue! Bush and Cheney will only allow themselves to be questioned together because Karl Rove is afraid the Chimp won't be able to keep the stories straight. Hooray!

"Those hundreds of soldiers and thousands of Iraqis might also still be alive had Clinton done ANYTHING about OBL and SH in the 8 YEARS he had to do so! But you can't see beyond your hatred for Bush to deal with that."

Boy oh boy. Why does the buck-passing stop at Clinton? What about when Reagan and Saddam were sleeping together?

Regarding Osama, David, wake up: your boy Bush had the entire world behind at one point ready to get rid of al Qaeda and and he pissed that PERFECT opportunity away. That's reason #1 why I (and many others) will vote the idiot out of office in November.

"The weather 'person' says it's going to rain tomorrow. So you bring your umbrella when you leave the house the next day. But it does not rain. . . . Do you expect the weather 'person' to apologize to you? Apparently so."

Gosh, David, where I live the weather people actually DO APOLOGIZE when they get the forecast dead wrong! A better analogy of my view would be if the weather people stopped using science to make their observations and instead just told people that every day was going to be sunny because that's what people like David Johnson want to hear. In that case, I would like the weather people to apologize and then I'd like to be fired. And you know what, David? They would be fired. Does that seem unreasonable to you?

The questions you propose asking Bush are interesting but not tough:

"Why have we given so much focus on Iraq and completely ignored Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia given previous statements by you that we would go after anyone who harbors or funds terrorist activity?"

Bush would say that they haven't ignored those countries and that great progress has been made. But the real answer is that, in fact, our resources are pretty much depleted with Iraq and also to truly "go after" those countries would require political help that we have squandered.

"Why do you continue to claim that we are not fighting a religious war when the Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill us clearly believe that they ARE fighting a religious war?"

This is a silly question. Bush would say that "Islam is a great, proud religion. Muslims are peace-loving people. The terrorists are distorting Islam and we're hunting them because they hurt America."

"If you are truly serious about fighting a war on terror, why have you not closed down our borders?"

This is coming from way way out in right field. Are you proposing that we prohibit anyone from entering or leaving the country? Not a tough question, but a baffling questions. Bush would ask you to clarify.

And lastly I have to address this from Kevin:

"I can only imagine what you'll be saying when we flip over the House of Saud, go after the Syrians, foment a revolution in Iran, and build bases in Lebanon. Hang on. Things are just starting to get interesting."

Sorry, Kevin, I won't be "hanging on" and waiting for those wonderful events to take place. I and many other like-minded people will cast our votes in November to ensure that the goons you follow so blindly are voted out of office. I will also be watching Kerry closely to ensure that if he takes steps which I believe compromise our national security, he hears about it.

And what's up the Clinton obsession? News flash: he's no longer in office. Try focusing on the current f*ck-ups for a change.

38

I understand David. And it's not Christians I dislike by any means. I don't even dislike creationists. I often find myself defending both groups from hostile attacks and preserving their ability to post on various message boards and forums behind the scenes.

I don't particularly care for fundamentalists of any stripe. It took us thousands of years to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps and crawl out of the darkness of superstition and fear. Naturally I'm concerned about people who seem dead set on dragging us back into that state, be they Islamic or Christian or worshipper of Winston the Giant and Divine Turtle (The one and only true God BTW IS Winston).

I'm just so disappointed in Bush that I get frustrated and react immaturely at times. I'm a little peeved that I have to vote for John who'll-tax-me-till-my-eyes-bulge-Kerry because of some dumb, cowboy obsession Bush had with Saddam. And I'm sick thinking of AQ and UBL still sitting pretty while we ground our forces down against Iraqi's.

~DS~

39

David the Self-righteous Libertarian writes:

"But you go to ANY leftist web site or blog and ALL you hear is vile hatred."

Hi David! Guess what, that's a lie. Do you want to bet that I can't find a "leftist" blog that is not "ALL ... vile hatred."

Of course, that assumes you can distinguish between a statement of fact that conflicts with your ideology and "hatred."

YOU are the one, David, that can't stop ranting about "leftists" as if everyone who ever had a liberal opinion about anything is weakening the All Powerful U.S. of A.

"And if he had cojones, we would already have taken out Iran and Saudia Arabia in addition to Iraq."

Gee, David, why stop there? No doubt the Iranians and Saudi Arabians would be so glad that we brought democracy to them, they would happily help us occupy every other country in the world where a terrorist might be found.

I got it hand it to you, David. You at least have the cojones to admit that you would prefer living in a state of perpetual war with the rest of the world. If you're clever, there's nothing stopping you from getting on a plane and going to Iran and assassinating a few people, if you're really that concerned about it. Before you go, I'll give you the addresses of my family so that you don't mistakenly kill any of them. On the other hand, they're not exactly libertarians so ...

40

Democrats on the 9/11 Commission have gotten very theatrical about the title of the President's Daily Briefing (PDB). It turns out that the title of the briefing and a description of its contents had been published in the Washington Post nearly two years ago. See James Taranto's Best of the Web for Aug. 12 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004944). He quotes the following from the Washington Post article, dated May 19, 2002:

The top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush on Aug. 6 carried the headline, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and was primarily focused on recounting al Qaeda's past efforts to attack and infiltrate the United States, senior administration officials said.

The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that Osama bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, according to knowledgeable sources.

Bush had specifically asked for an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the United States, because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas, sources said. But one source said the White House was disappointed because the analysis lacked focus and did not present fresh intelligence.

Oops.

41

Cathy:

There won't be much we can agree on until you can get over your HATRED for Bush.

And when exactly did Clinton take responsiblility for ANYTHING? Sure, there were plenty of 'bureaucratic snafu's' but that's not the same thing as 'the buck stops here'.

I would personally love nothing more than to never bring up Clinton again. But until you and apparently most of the left recognize your hipocritical disparity of treatment between Clinton and Bush, there is not other alternative but to keep pounding the point home.

On the 8/6 PDB, yes the title is rather misleading. In part this memo says "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to secure the release of 'Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists." So, what was the Pres supposed to do with this information? There is nothing in that memo that suggests imminence of anything. It also says that there were already 70 FBI investigations active related to OBL activities. So what should he do? Round up all the muslims currently under investigation? I can hear the hue and cry from the left now!

Next, you would have us believethat no one ever works on vactaion. Hmm, I do that all the time.

And what, specifically would Bush have warned us against? "My fellow Americans. I am here tonight to inform you that some time soon, somewhere, somebody is going to try to commit a terrorist act in our country. Don't be alarmed. Go about your normal daily activities." Get real.

Then you seem to think that we agree on something. Sorry, you (again) are mistaken.

And why stop at Reagan? Let's go back to Carter. No, how about FDR and the British after WWII?

I don't disagree with you that Bush pissed away a good opportunity. We just probably don't agree on why.

And try not to take this personnaly, but Cathy you STINK at analogies.

And if Bush answered my questions the way you just did, you would say he is lying.

Unlike the DC press, I did not spend hours coming up the the appropriate wording on my quesitons, so they could probably have been worded somewhat stronger, that does not mean they weren't tough questions. But at least I didn't ask the same useless loaded questions 15 times in a row.

And lastly, if Kerry is elected, I will happily use "Try focusing on the current f*ck-ups for a change." as my mantra for the left for the next 4 years.

42

Oops, what, Ed?

Isn't the real "oops" here the "oops" of the so-called "liberal" media completely dropping the ball with respect to this issue and the issue of stone-walling the 9/11 commission by the Bush administration? The existence of the memo was well-known to those who cared but those people were not the people that Fox News was talking to. Fox News would rather interview Alec Baldwin.

You say that "Democrats on the 9/11 commission have gotten very theatrical." How very honest of you and how timely as this is the latest RNC spin point! Congratulations on your fine recitation. Do you suppose that it is a coincidence that Republican claims of commission bias are being made only as it becomes clear that the commission is going to find some fault with the administration's handling of pre-9/11 intelligence?

One thing is odd about these claims of bias. Recall that the commission is BI PARTISAN, equally split among Reps and Dems and the commissioner, Thomas Kean, was SELECTED BY BUSH PERSONALLY. Not only that, both Dem AND REPUBLICAN commission members have made numerous statements that the proceedings are not tainted by partisanship.

So what the hell is deal?

"Bush had specifically asked for an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the United States, because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas"

Well, it's pretty clear to anyone who can read: BUSH GOT THAT ANALYSIS. They put the conclusion of the analysis right up at the TOP in the TITLE. Bush was "disappointed" in the lack of clarity, you say? Well, what did he do about it? Did he say: "look at the title of this! This is serious stuff Condi! I want the details from the FBI and CIA and I want the details in 72 hours!!"

No. He want to Crawford to clear away some brush.

Are Bush and Condi ashamed of their failures? You can bet they are. It's likely to cost them the election (which is all they really care about). So what does Condi do under oath when questioned by the commission about the PDB? Let's look at the transcript:

BEN-VENISTE: I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6th that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations — NOT historically, but ongoing, along with these numerous full-field investigations against al Qaeda cells— that PREPARATIONS WERE BEING MADE CONSISTENT WITH HIJACKINGS within the United States.

[recall what the PDB says on Page 10: "FBI information since [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country CONSISTENT WITH PREPARATIONS FOR HIJACKINGS ..." In essence, Ben-Veniste is asking Condi merely if she can read.]

Here's is Condi's THREE PARAGRAPH answer to Ben-Veniste's simple question:

RICE: "May I address the question, sir? The fact is that this August 6th PDB was in response to the president’s questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al Qaeda inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting, or the threat reporting that was actionable, was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.

This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do—speculative, much of it—in ’97, ’98, that he had in fact liked the results of the 1993 bombing. It had a number of discussions of—it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States, Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations underway. And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.

Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo—historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside."

We can quibble about whether Rice's answer is a LIE. But she sure didn't answer the question, as her oath required her to do. And she certainly misrepresented the contents of the PDB when it came to the CLEARLY NONHISTORICAL paragraph on page 10 of the PDB which discusses "patterns of suspicious activity in this country CONSISTENT WITH PREPARATIONS FOR HIJACKING".

Condi and Company are toast. Stick a fork in 'em, figure out how to clean up Iraq, and raise our taxes so we can pay for the lengthy clean up of Bush's crap.

One last thing: theEnvoy wrote

"I find the suggestion that Bush was worried about oil extremely pathetic."

Envoy, perhaps you've forgotten that Bush himself proposed in his LIE about the cost of the Iraq war that oil was going to pay for much of reconstruction. Not only Bush, but the whole world was worried about the oil pipelines.

43

David, you're last post sounded like a dying breath to me so I'm just going to declare victory.

But I can't leave this gem alone:

"And what, specifically would Bush have warned us against? "My fellow Americans. I am here tonight to inform you that some time soon, somewhere, somebody is going to try to commit a terrorist act in our country. Don't be alarmed. Go about your normal daily activities." Get real. "

Funny, that sounds like EXACTLY like the procedure which the Chimp put in place AFTER 9/11. David, it really has been a pleasure arguing with you.

"Unlike the DC press, I did not spend hours coming up the the appropriate wording on my quesitons"

If you think any member of the DC press spent more than fifteen minutes drafting those questions then you are ... mistaken (see, I can be nice when I want to be, David, but it's more fun to yank your chain and call you a wingnut).

I think the alert level today in Texas is pink, by the way. Don't go outside if you don't want your pants yanked.

44

Cathy:

It's just like a leftist to declare victory when you haven't won anything.

I sure hope that helps your self esteem.

You are so closed minded that you can't even seem to recognize when you are being derided. I feel sorry for you. If it weren't for your misguided rantings before I posted in this thread, someone might be able to believe that you were 'yanking my chain'. You exposed yourself as a liberal blowhard well before my first post.

I don't doubt that they spent about 15 minutes comparing notes on their questions. Thats how they were able to come up with the same question 15 times.

OK, now you can run away.

45

Look at David Johnson spin!

He says:

"Unlike the DC press, I did not spend hours coming up the the appropriate wording on my quesitons"

I say:

"If you think any member of the DC press spent more than fifteen minutes drafting those questions then you are ... mistaken."

How does David respond:

"I don't doubt that they spent about 15 minutes comparing notes on their questions."

David, it is not surprising that you are so eager to defend Bush and Condi's club because you suffer from the same disease they suffer from: mealymouth.

46

Cathy:

Don't assume that I'm defending them from you because I agree with everything they have done.

What I have a problem with is your hateful distortions of reality.

And it is oh so typical of the left to project their own behavior/attitude/action to someone who does not buy off on their version of 'reality'. (Cathy that is in reference to the mealymouth comment, since you probably won't understand an oblique reference.)

47

Cathy:

And what spin? Surely even someone as closed minded as you can see the difference between 'spending hours coming up with wording' and 'spending 15 minutes comparing notes'.

I realize this may be difficult for you but do try to keep up.

48

"What I have a problem with is your hateful distortions of reality."

Where have I hatefully distorted reality?

"And what spin? Surely even someone as closed minded as you can see the difference between 'spending hours coming up with wording' and 'spending 15 minutes comparing notes'."

I did see the difference. That's why I said watch David spin rather than watch David lie. You said "my excuse is X," and I replied "but X isn't true" and you SHIFTED THE SUBJECT SLIGHTLY SO THAT IT APPEARS THAT YOU WERE NOT BEING INCONSISTENT. I don't blame you for avoiding the obvious trap you laid for yourself with your big mouth, but you earned the title: mealymouth. Spinmeister. Keep it up. Your batting 1.000 so far.

49

David Johnson said:

"As for a tough question, I would have asked something like "Why have we given so much focus on Iraq and completely ignored Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia given previous statements by you that we would go after anyone who harbors or funds terrorist activity?"

Cathy gave a likely answer. Another answer Bush might give to this question may be found in the following press release: