It's G. Dubya's Time!





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: It's G. Dubya's Time!
By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Here we go! The speech has begun.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:29 pm: Edit

G. Dubs is bringing the noise and the funk! He is sticking it to every critic who has been saying he's only focused on terrorism and war...education, healthcare, tax reform- that's all I've heard (sans. intro).

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Kerry--><--Bush

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:35 pm: Edit

LOL, Vancat!

Yeah, I made up my mind already, 100%. The speech was OK, and definitely better than Kerry's. None of that "reporting for duty" garbage. He's got my vote. A lot of meat in the speech.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:37 pm: Edit

By the way, the clip they showed right before he came to the stage was very moving. However, he better not mess up the tax system a whole lot.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

When Einstein says, "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax," it's kind of hard to mess it up any more.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Hehehehe...

One more thing, I hope he doesn't do any more constitutional amendment crazy talk...

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:49 pm: Edit

lol i cheated and read the entire speech ahead of time. Not bad, indeed.

THough I wish Bush would get a professional speech therapist. His style is low-key and not nearly as lame as Kerry for the most part, which is good, but i honestly cringe sometimes when he speaks.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Bush is more expressive when he speaks than Kerry- better facial expression and body gestures. Although sometimes he goes over the top and it messes up his rythem.

But I'm still listening- still fantastic, I'm not a trixy little cheater like Vancat ;) .

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

HE was amazing, he bared his soul, he bared his vision. he even said "i know you might disagree with me on things, but at least you kwno where i stand" (or something liek that)

all this speech has made me do is become even MORE passionate about the election and just more worried...i practically feel worried for my life, to the point where I feel that with wahtever President is in office, my life is in their hands...and I don't care what Kerry did in Vietnam, i woudln't trust him if my LIFE depended on it.

OMG i'm so sick of Kerry's response in Ohio, he's like, "4 years ago, Bush said he was gonna do this and create so and so jobs"

Well 4 years ago we didn't nkow about all the challenges that really WERE ahead of us...and even after we were MET with those challneges (terrorism, war etc...) our country is moving UP, gradually...not as rapidly as people might have liked, but we didn't fall apart, and that's thanks to Bush.

but still, if people vote based on domestic matters, and all the people who don't have jobs= it's going to be a tight election

if people are willing to grasp what a critical time we're at in this country, and how we're deciding the course and destiny of this world--then Bush will win no doubt.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit

Unlike Kerry, Bush feels comfortable in his own skin. He can make fun of himself in a non-artificial way.
Kerry is a packaged, long faced, finger wagging, boring, liberal, inconsistent, very political, and self serving man who has spent his entire mature life aiming for this goal.

The kerry campaign is nervous and scrambling. As many analysts have said, any campaign that now asks for weekly debates, campaigns during the opposing convention, and holds a rally right after the opposing convention is on its way to death.

By Bobmarley (Bobmarley) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit

Both Kerry and Bush are making me more and more cynical about politicans and people in general. That and the plethora of idiots (both Democrat and Republican) who call in to CSPAN.

Read the Fortune magazine article: Bush or Kerry, Who's Stupider on Jobs?

Oh yeah, and I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to a duel.

Shortcake, you feel worried about your life? Between 2 and 3 thousand Americans have died as a direct result of terrorist attacks in this country over the past 4 years(too lazy to get the statistics), you're more likely to be hit by a car crossing the street. And you do realize through our invasion of Iraq we're creating more terrorists than we're stopping? And it's not incredibly difficult to get into this country.

Fact is, I wouldn't trust Bush or Kerry to make me a ham sandwich. My view is that they're both ••••••••, but Bush is a dangerous •••••••.

Yarr, I can't believe that word got filtered, I said it when I was maybe 5. Anyways, point made.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit

Exactly! Go Bush and his genuineness =) i love how he's happy with himself and doesn't try to be anybody else.

Plus kerry has a horse face and he married his wife for his money...who spends all her EX-husband's money on causes her ex would ahve never DREAMED of supporting

Kerry said in his autobiography he was ashamed of what he did in the military and ashamed of all his medals...so ashamed in fact, he was willing to shame all his comrades and get publicity for it too. yet on the campaign trail he's a proud veteran

and edwards may be good looking, but there's jsut somethign i can't seem to trust about him...he's too slick...reminds me of another Clinton. blech blech blech!

(this is all superficial and unintelligent i know..but hey voters can think this way too)

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:53 am: Edit

Shortcake, you feel worried about your life? Between 2 and 3 thousand Americans have died as a direct result of terrorist attacks in this country over the past 4 years(too lazy to get the statistics), you're more likely to be hit by a car crossing the street. And you do realize through our invasion of Iraq we're creating more terrorists than we're stopping? And it's not incredibly difficult to get into this country.


first off, that is the worst possible thing you can ever say to someone who knows peopel that lost their loved ones on 9/11. To even THINK of minimizing their deaths, "oh well it's only 2000 or 3000 maybe"

Shame on you.

It's not BUSH's job to worry about if i get hit by a car, it's his job to worry about people who haev the intention of attacking this nation, not because of what policies we have, but because of who we are. Because if they attacked us for our policies, then they wouldn't have been so eager to kill INNOCENT people directly.

I'd rather get hit by a car and die in a free and safe country--die a free American. Then get hit by a car in a nation succumbnig to the will of terrorists and to teh nations who don't wnat to fight them.

that's post number 1..my iraq post is coming hold up

By Lax46 (Lax46) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:58 am: Edit

Bush is a great speaker, I'll give him that. I only came to watch the ending of his address (the last 6 paragraphs really), and was really moved by it. He seemed heartfelt and sincere, and his monkey-cuteness made it all the much better. I like Bush, I wouldn't mind having dinner with him, Laura, and the twins.

However, John Kerry and his family are utterly charming. I myself claim to be both a Republican and a Democrat, I lean closer to the Republicans because of what they stand for and closer towards the Democrats because I was raised liberal and have politically active parents who are Democratic to the bone.

I'll give Georgie boy props on wowing me, but not so much on his stands and viewpoints, and his Republican-ness. I feel sort of filthy and disgusting saying this, but if I were 18, I would probably vote for Bush.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:59 am: Edit

Bush says he wants to create conditions that will weaken terrorists to amount to the power they do--he's simply underlying the essence of the war. Osama Bin Laden is most likely NOT hiding in Afghanistan, because the country is "free" (from Taliban) and the conditions aren't accomdating.

it's not only about army vs. army like a "normal" war--it's about idealogies, and terrorists as we know have the firm support of civilians in their prospective countries. Children are taught in schools to hate America and see US as terrorists.

What kind of war can we win if the ideologies that promote terrorism is so deeply rooted in their current culture, no matter how many battles we win--if we can't win the hearts of civilians, that's no *war* "won" in its true sense.

THAT IS what IRAQ is about--that is WHY I HOPE it becomes a successful Islamic democracy, becasue if it does--it will be the first in the region, and HOPEFULLY will have a domino effect on the rest of the Middle East and encourage other places to reform and decrease the influence of the IDEOLOGIES in the places which BREED the terrorists. That's the only way this war will ever be won...not only by killing Osama. We have to stop it at its source. that's what he means by "creating conditions" A "FREE" Iraq= harder conditions for terrorists to establish dominance and spread their philosophies.

Especially in the Middle East, a great many people see their war against the US as a dire religious duty, something they're doing for God. It's a war of ideaology---and Kerry and Edwards simplify the situation and say "we're gonna get these guys and win this thing" which is simply not representing the reality of the situation and is kinda disturbing actually how they're willing to create this illusion of some simple war that shoudl be going perfectly but isn't. They make it seem as though every mistake or bump in the road is a result of incompetence and lies, but every bump in the road (like Iraqi insurgency) just attests to the fact that this war is going to be long, hard, and costly no matter how strong our military--because it's not a military battle--so there.

BUt we have to stay committed, that's my opinion...many people, particularly European nations never saw the situation in Iraq as dire, WMD or no WMD, Hussein or no Hussein or don't feel that it has to bring about change in the Middle East in order to win this thing. Honestly, I don't know how they see this war can be won?

BUsh understands the complexity of the situation and he's not some cocky dumbass that's gonna asy "yes we'll win" that'll be giving a false picture of some simple war.

But i realize, it's pointless to 'duel' or debate with so many people like you Bobmarley...i hate sounding so prejudiced, but it's true. You guys seem to be more willing to hate and blame AMerica than to hate terrorists...you guys seem to want to SATISFY terrorists (like the ones in Iraq) rather than bring them down. You don't think it's worth it...


you're not willing to grasp the fact that peopel are going to die doing so, that mistakes might be made, but that the purpose remains. you're not willing to grasp hwo LONG it's going to take. You're not willing to grasp that the terrorists don't care who they kill to see their vision fo the world succeed --EVEN YOU.

Don't ignore the extremist Islamic Chechens holding children hostage in Russia, don't ignore the bombings in Madrid, don't ignore the bombings against Australian tourists in Indonesia, don't ignore the terrorist attacks on teh Phillippines. It's all the same people, just in different places...and they don't just hate America...they hate FREE countries. (The Chechen situation is obviously a bit different, but it just shows you how brutal terrorism is)

Maybe you should move to Canada (i don't know where you liev) a bunch of teens were polled and the vast majority felt that AMerica was the force of evil in tihs world.

and when i ask people like YOU how you would handle 9/11...i never get any answer...but hey, i dont' know you and have never met you so--- maybe you do have an answer (that makes sense). So here's your chance. But don't mind my reservations...you did say that 3,000 people dying is nothing to worry about right?

By Lax46 (Lax46) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:01 am: Edit

AMEN CC-SISTER.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:04 am: Edit

Edwards good looking? Kerry Charming? Bush a great speaker? I clearly see the world differently!

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:13 am: Edit

ISOLATIONISTS LIKE YOU WOULD ALLOW 9/11S TO HAPPEN ALL OVER AGAIN. THANK GOD BUSH AND ADMIN. ARE NOT DUMB isolationists...that's why we haven't had another attack of that magnitude. (hopefully not ever)

"Don't ignore the extremist Islamic Chechens holding children hostage in Russia, don't ignore the bombings in Madrid, don't ignore the bombings against Australian tourists in Indonesia, don't ignore the terrorist attacks on teh Phillippines. It's all the same people, just in different places...and they don't just hate America...they hate FREE countries. (The Chechen situation is obviously a bit different, but it just shows you how brutal terrorism is)" I want to reiterate that

What does Israel have to do with any of those places???

The Hijakers hate AMERICA: they hate that the Arab civilization isn't the wealthy power anymore, they hate Las Vegas, they ahte Hollywood, they hate skimpily clad women, they hate Christian children, they hate Muslim children that play with Jewish children.

They are trying to save the world from evil America. It is the duty the Koran describes in their mind.

LOOK AT HOW THE TALIBAN ran AFghanistan..they want tot ake the world back to Muhammad's time!

I feel safe? why?

Because i know Osama Bin Laden fears for his life and he most likely IS NOT hiding in Afghanistan...because Afghanistan, as imperfect as it still is and alawys will be (America is imperfect too) AFGHANISTAN has been touched by liberty...and Bin Ladens can't run around like they're in heaven anymore.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit

The beauty of America is that there is room for all different opinions, but to be quite honest...i pesronally feel isolationists who are readier to hate AMerica and be more compassionate to the terrorist cause, either should A) move to Antarctica and sing "One Love, One Love, Let's get together and be all right"

or B) actually, i don't have a plan B...so whatever--but hopefully the citizens of this country know better and will entrust their safety to Bush.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:22 am: Edit

Well i fail to see how how hijakers willing to tear down buildilngs and kill a bunch of innocent Muslims in the first place are furthering their cause to stop our policy towards Israel?

But then again, they don't believe you can be a real Muslim and lead an AMerican way of life--when in reality there are plenty.

All i know is, we're not perfect, but we're doing something right fighting against them and you won't ever admit that.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:30 am: Edit

I personally am amazed that anyone thinks we can win the war against terrorists. I think Bush had it right the first time and was dissapointed when he backtracked.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:37 am: Edit

Bush says he wants to create conditions that will weaken terrorists to amount to the power they do


i also don't think he should have come back and said "no no no! we'll win it don't worry"

it's not the type of win people "know of" there's never going to be any formal surrender, and there will always be terrorists. but this war is about WEAKENING them, and keeping US and Free Societies strong.

but u know what? people said we'd never beat the Soviets...that the Cold War was just a new fact of life, and a fact of the future-- it'd jsut be dreaming.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit

Bush's speech sucked. Same old promises as in 2000. Why the same old promises? Because he failed to deliver them the first time around. Hopefully he won't get a second shot.

It would be interesting if someone could dig up the transcript from the 2000 speech and compare it to this one. Minus the terrorist additions, the speeches are frightenly similar

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit

He deleted the nation building and humble nation part.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:38 am: Edit

"Osama Bin Laden is most likely NOT hiding in Afghanistan, because the country is "free" (from Taliban) and the conditions aren't accomdating. "

If we did not make the huge mistake of sending a significant number of our troops to Iraq, we probably would have had Osama already. When we had him cornered in the mountains, guess who Bush depended on to pursue him... the Pakastanian troops. He was too busy shipping ours to Iraq.

"THAT IS what IRAQ is about--that is WHY I HOPE it becomes a successful Islamic democracy, becasue if it does--it will be the first in the region, and HOPEFULLY will have a domino effect on the rest of the Middle East and encourage other places to reform and decrease the influence of the IDEOLOGIES in the places which BREED the terrorists. "

That is extremely ignorant and establishes an overall lack of understanding of the Islamic-American history. It is not going to happen. Iraq is a terrible place to start this "domino effect" anyway due to the diverse factions of Islam within Iraq. It is practically a 3way civil war in Iraq.

"Especially in the Middle East, a great many people see their war against the US as a dire religious duty, something they're doing for God. It's a war of ideaology---and Kerry and Edwards simplify the situation and say "we're gonna get these guys and win this thing" which is simply not representing the reality of the situation and is kinda disturbing actually how they're willing to create this illusion of some simple war that shoudl be going perfectly but isn't."

When did Kerry and Edwards ever say that? You are severely misguided. I said this before and I will say it again, the Bush administration are the only ones who see this a simple war, black and white. Hence their occupation of Iraq without ever having an exit plan. Kerry and Edwards want to regain the rest of the worlds trust. International Relations 101. The Iraq people do not like Americans. I found it funny how Bush almost took credit for their soccer teams success... only to have the soccer team publicly denounce Bush and the American occupation in Iraq. We can not be the leading face in this. The rest of the global community needs to share the burden, which is exactly what Kerry and Edwards want.

"BUt we have to stay committed, that's my opinion...many people, particularly European nations never saw the situation in Iraq as dire, WMD or no WMD, Hussein or no Hussein or don't feel that it has to bring about change in the Middle East in order to win this thing. Honestly, I don't know how they see this war can be won? "

The situation of Iraq was not dire that is why. Did the 9/11 report not prove that? The major problem here is that you say "WMD or no WMD"... that is extremeley troubling. Are you forgetting the fact that Bush led the American people into this war based soley on the idea that they had WMD's or were WMD active?

"BUsh understands the complexity of the situation and he's not some cocky dumbass that's gonna asy "yes we'll win" that'll be giving a false picture of some simple war."

I almost fell out of my chair laughing on that one. While you lack an overall collection of knowledge on international relations and world politics, you can at least produce a good laugh.
Please explain how Bush understands the complexity of the situation. For starters, he has said "yes we'll win". He has always said that. He almost retracted it last Monday. But only to restate it last Tuesday. Bush's biggest mistake on Iraq was viewing it as a simple war. He had no exit plan, what more proof do you need? He never calculated the hostility the Iraqi people would display towards us. He never explored the possibility that this would incite a Muslim holy war and create a terrorist haven in Iraq.

"you're not willing to grasp hwo LONG it's going to take"

Neither was Bush.

"Don't ignore the extremist Islamic Chechens holding children hostage in Russia, don't ignore the bombings in Madrid, don't ignore the bombings against Australian tourists in Indonesia, don't ignore the terrorist attacks on teh Phillippines"

Good point. Bush was too busy waisting our time in Iraq to address those issues.

"and when i ask people like YOU how you would handle 9/11...i never get any answer...but hey, i dont' know you and have never met you so--- maybe you do have an answer (that makes sense). So here's your chance. But don't mind my reservations...you did say that 3,000 people dying is nothing to worry about right? "

Well I'll answer that one. I live in NYC. It was an absolute tragedy. The way Bush is using it as a political tool only adds insult to injury for us. RNC convention in NYC when you know you will lose the state of NY vote by at least 20%? Comon now. Bush did nothing special for NYC post 9/11. He took pictures with firemen? Cool. No different then how he would react to say visiting the destruction of a hurricane in Florida.

I don't live my life in fear. However I would feel a lot safer with Bush out of office. All he is doing is losing sympathy from the rest of the world in our fight against the terrorists.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:12 am: Edit

Scubasteve and Simba: Can I assume correctly that you were adamantly opposed to Clinton's bombing of Kosovo and the Serbs, and the $75 billion it cost to do so? Over 3000 civilians were killed by his bombs, and guess what, no one can find any mass graves - supposedly the reason for our assault. Where were all the protests then, and why isn't anyone clamoring for Clinton's head now? Why hasn't the left charged Clinton with being a war criminal the same way that Michael Moore and his fellow lunies are charging Bush with now? Do you know where the mass graves are? They're in Iraq filled with the bodies of those murdered by Saddam Hussein.

If you're opposed to the War in Iraq now, yet failed to condemn Clinton and Albright for what many believe to be their real war crimes in Kosovo then you're not worth listening to.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit

Scuba: I become more impressed by your insightfulness every day. This is much better than your posts about getting drunk and ^%@#$*& genius ash. You rock. Stay sober.

Browninfall:

I condemn anyone who needlessly wastes life as a war criminal, if it makes you feel better. Not that your comment was addressed to me, but I'll chip in.

Any idea how many civilians have been killed in the distraction in Iraq? Estimates range between 11793 and 13802. That's a lot of human beings with families. Just like you and me.

Have you ever seen someone die that you love? It hurts like hell.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit

don't care if you listen or not

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit

Brown,

While I was not particualry fond of Clinton's decision, it can in no way be compared to Iraq. For starters, the bombing was done by a NATO led coalition. Where was NATO in Iraq? Mass graves were not even the primary reason for the bombing, well at least not the only. The whole region was going to hell. Clinton did not mislead the American public like Bush did. Bush incited internal fear within the US, fear that Iraq had or was attempting to produce WMD's. Our President led us into this war in Iraq with a fear that should never have existed. Prewar, how many people do you think would support it, knowing that Iraq did not have nor was attempting to produce WMD's?

And even if it Clinton made a mistake, it did not come at the expense of the lifes of 1000 US soliders and the blame could at least be split equally throughout NATO... saving our respect in the international world.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit

Where are/were the protestors when Clinton did the bombing? Why the double standard on the left?

Emily: Is that another way of saying "never mind"?

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit

And what is it with the all too common Republican tendency to redirect blame by changing the topic once they are cornered?

What does Clinton have to do with any of this? He is not running for President. Dubbaya is.

El Noodle,

I stopped having wheaties and beer for breakfast. Can't make any promises for tonight though (it is Friday and i'm in college :) )

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Scubasteve thought Bush's speech sucked?

OMG!!!! WTF!!!UN-FRICKEN' BELIEVABLE I CAN'T BELIEVE HE HATED IT IT'S SUCH A SHOCK I JUST FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR SERIOUSLY I ALMOST HAD A HEARTATTCK!!! OMG!

I think Bush could have given an "I have a dream" caliber speech and you still would have thought it sucked.

Anywho, I think the election, barring any big national events (terroism, etc.) was clinched today. Bush dusted his cuffs off hit Kerry with the knockout punch. Kerry's post-convnetion speech was merely him staggering around the ring dazed an confused. He wants people to stop talking about his service in Vietnam, but he had Edwards introduce him as a war hero, he wants people to stop questioning his patriotism, yet he/Edwards (forget who) talked about Cheney's defferments, and he says he has a vision for America, yet he countered with "Well...Bush is wrong so that means I'm right no matter what I have in mind, and btw Bush is wrong."

I know anything can happen, and I may be proven wrong, but I cannot see any legitimate scenario in which Kerry organizes the troops and pulls this thing off. Kerry from the beginning was nothing more than a compromise between the anti-establishment Dean people and the populist Edwards supporters. Until Iowa, he was almost nobody's first choice, hell, he couldn't even run as the "war hero" candidate with Clark in the race. The only reason he got the nomination was because the different campaigns decided to run on the "anybody but Bush" mantra and picked the vanilla, unexciting Kerry. He literally lives up to the phrase, "jack of all trades, master of none." He does not have enough vigor, personality, or the campaign management(remember the unbeatable Carville/Begala team) to win this election on his own- he needs Bush to beat himself- which could happen depending on the focus- domestic or foreign.

The fact is, today, the Republicans are so much better at playing the political game than the democrats. Like I said, in the 90's, you couldn't touch Carville and Begala, they ran some of the best campaigns in history. But now, it's the Republicans that know how to win an election. This became obvious last night in ironically enough, the baloon drop- which worked to (almost) perfection and put the cherry on top, whereas I think we all remember the DNC production manager screaming for the baloons that never came.

So that's my 2 cents, I think Bush wins this in an election that won't be as close as people think. But again, I could be wrong, in that case, keep the 2 cents.

Best line of the evening:

"Critics say I have an arrogant swagger about me. Well in Texas, we call that WALKING!"

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 03:47 pm: Edit

It is so obvious Kerry's campaign is so worried. Now they are resorting to attacking Cheany for not serving in veitnam, Bush for lying, Bush for conspiring with the Saudies to allow high oil prices, and more Moore type accusations.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 03:48 pm: Edit

No we do call it a bully walk

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

I blame the international community a lot more than Bush in terms of all the other problems going on in the world. (like in Russia)

yeah Iraq, I don't doubt that it probably was a mistake to go in when we did...however, i don't believe Bush mislead or lied to us in any way. History will judge if it ended up being a good thing in the end...not short term effects.

SCUBAsteve, if you were running against Bush instead of Kerry...i'd be a lot more worried.

I loved how you defended your viewpoints in a very educated and un-condescending, insightful, un-brutal, non Michael Moore-ish way. So i'll just agree to respectfully disagree. I have a lot of faith in this President, and so does your governor and mayor. I don't expect New Yorkers to be all gung-ho about Bush 9/11 or no 9/11. My grandparents and aunt live in Manhattan and they're all actiev Kerry supporters and even had dinner with him. LoL but hopefully the REST of the country will pull through election day. (for Bush)

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Shortcakefairy, you make me feel very good about the makeup of those people voting for Bush. Pseudo-intellectual arguments and fallacies like yours will keep him in office.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 08:00 pm: Edit

I like how people look down on others on the opposite side of aisle- that's the Michael Moore way of doing things! If someone disagrees with you, they're really just making •••• up and are actually stupider than you- you are better than them!

But to be serious,

"I blame the international community a lot more than Bush in terms of all the other problems going on in the world. (like in Russia)".

How is this not a valid argument? You don't HAVE to agree that the international community is doing a great job, the UN has slipped up over the years, and it's not a "pseudo intellectual" argument to disagree with them.

"i don't believe Bush mislead or lied to us in any way. History will judge if it ended up being a good thing in the end...not short term effects."

Again, there is no definitive proof that says Bush LIED, I'm not saying he wasn't wrong, I am saying he I do not think he purposely misled or lied to the people- there is a difference. Again, no objective way to proove this, so it is not bad reasoning, merely an opinion based on what you've heard.

So, just because they don't agree with you does not mean they're using bad arguments. It's like saying you like Pepsi, and calling anyone who like's Coke a moron, and if they say they prefer the taste, you say that's a bad argument. Drink your Pepsi, and I'll drink Coke.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit

""I blame the international community a lot more than Bush in terms of all the other problems going on in the world. (like in Russia)".

How is this not a valid argument? You don't HAVE to agree that the international community is doing a great job, the UN has slipped up over the years, and it's not a "pseudo intellectual" argument to disagree with them. "

It is not a valid argument because it has nothing to do with the context in which I questioned him. I never said Bush is to blame for all the other problems going on in the world. I said Bush is to blame for being the most destructive President to our International Relations in the history of the United States.
What I did say about all the other problems in the world was this:

Shortcakefactory: Don't ignore the extremist Islamic Chechens holding children hostage in Russia, don't ignore the bombings in Madrid, don't ignore the bombings against Australian tourists in Indonesia, don't ignore the terrorist attacks on teh Phillippines"

Me: Good point. Bush was too busy wasting our time in Iraq to address those issues.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:47 pm: Edit

SCUBAsteve, if you were running against Bush instead of Kerry...i'd be a lot more worried.

bytheway i meant taht as a compliment LoL if it didn't come uot that way...i meant you'd probably be better than Kerry.

I'll just re-iterate again, that history will judge whether going into Iraq was a good decision or not...not jsut waht we see or hear right now from where we're sitting.

i do believe it's very important to question our authority, and question the decisions even our President makes. I undersatnd why people have so many reservations about the Iraq decision and about his policies in the first place. It's important to get to the bottom line.

However, it DOES bother me when peopel are just so eager to find "beef" on Bush? and just very determined to catch him in a lie (which from the facts that I know-- i don't believe, even Michael Moore has proven that Bush has lied or mislead us) I get confused whether the intention is out of love and support for the troops who are dying or whether it's to Bush-bash or make money (ahem Michael Moore)

It bothers me because it gives the impression to military families that what their family member did was in vain and pointless. Sort of minimizing their service. ALso, i can only imagine what it'd be like for the soldiers THERE and their morale. Even with teh Abu Ghraib scandal, it felt as if news networks all over the world indulged in it and made it seem as if it was a fair representation of all the troops in Iraq. Nobody seems to want to cover the good humanaitarian work so many of our soldiers are doing.

No matter waht the intention was for going in, the soldiers are doing a good thing, and in the end, having Saddam Hussein gone is better no matter which way you look at it. Therefore, I pesronally believe that allt he coalition troops there now are making the world a better place, and giving a country an amazing gift: the chance to be free. (of course, it is ultimately up to the Iraqis to fight for their freedom) and we should be grateful for their sacrifices.

Allegations like that shouldn't be made unless there's full proof, and evidence. And from the facts and evidence that are coming out, it is clear Bush didn't lie. he had bad information and the threat was miscalculated by A LOT of other people. (including the intelligence communities of other countries, such as Russia or even Egypt and Jordan)

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit

"he had bad information and the threat was miscalculated by A LOT of other people. (including the intelligence communities of other countries, such as Russia or even Egypt and Jordan)"

True. And another point of clarification, Sadam had been actively disobeying UN sanctions and actively pursuing WMB and other illegal weapons for YEARS. Which is the very reason why Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox (1998) in the first place. Bush took it one step further and kicked him out of his throne.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

the bush speech was boring and hollow. no specifics, of course. i was surprised by how bored i was. same old, same old. nothing made me angry. just sleepy.

someone posted earlier a comparison to mlk's i have a dream speech. you've gotta be kidding me, right?

now zell miller . . . a nut, for sure. but he was entertaining. the pharmaceutical companies should use him as a poster boy for what happens when you don't take your medicine as the doctor ordered. the republicans can have him.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 02:18 am: Edit

lol anna i just fell out of my seat

By Hayden (Hayden) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Annakat, actually I don't think the previous poster meant that the Bush speech was like mlk's speech. I think he/she meant that even if the speech were the equivalent, people who don't like bush wouldn't have given him credit for it.

Anyone who has read my posts knows I do not support Bush. But I thought it was a good speech in terms of delivery, most content, good touches of humor, etc.

Zell Miller on the other hand represented the worst of American politics. I can't wait for Jon Stewart next week . . .

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Thanks Hayden for clarifying that for Annakat.

"I think Bush COULD HAVE given an "I have a dream" caliber speech and you still would have thought it sucked."

By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit

yes, sorry for that. i misread the post. or maybe i saw it on one of the many message boards and blogs i read.

i still think the speech was boring and lacking substance though.

zell miller was the real star of the republican party during the convention. really displayed the mindset of the GOP.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:31 am: Edit

Hunter that statement was made towards me, and i will say it again, i respectfully disagree. I am man enough to admit when someone makes a good speech. Arnold was fantastic. McCain's rhetoric was fantastic as well, however his deliverly was weak.

Bush on the other hand, made the same speech he made in 2000 minus the terroism addition, and unfortunately, inclusive of the broken promises

By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

from the New York Times (and for all of you who like to bash the Times, it, along with perhaps the LA Times and the Washington Post, are the papers of record in this country . . . and the most desired places of employment for aspiring journalists from the SCHOOLS with which most of the posters on here are obsessed).


September 5, 2004

Amnesia in the Garden
By MAUREEN DOWD

The Manichaean Candidate sees the world only in terms of good and evil, black and white.

He scorns gray, nuance, complexity, context, changing circumstances and inconvenient facts. Real men make their own reality.

Trying to match John Kerry, who roused the base at his convention with a line bashing the House of Bush-House of Saud coziness, George W. Bush roused the base at his convention with a liberal-media-elite-bashing line.

Painting himself as the noble agent for "the transformational power of liberty" abroad, he said "there have always been doubters" when America uses its "strength" to "advance freedom": "In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to Allied forces, a journalist in The New York Times wrote this: 'Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. European capitals are frightened. In every military headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed.' End quote. Maybe that same person's still around, writing editorials."

She isn't. Anne O'Hare McCormick, who died in 1954, was The Times's pioneering foreign affairs correspondent who covered the real Axis of Evil, interviewing Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Patton. She was hardly a left-wing radical or defeatist. In 1937, she became the first woman to win a Pulitzer Prize in journalism, and she was the first woman to be a member of The Times's editorial board.

The president distorted the columnist's dispatch. (download a PDF of the original column)The "moral crisis" and failure she described were in the British and French sectors. She reported that the Americans were doing better because of their policy to "encourage initiative and develop self-government." She wanted the U.S. to commit more troops and stay the course - not cut and run.

Mr. Bush Swift-boated her.

The Manichaean Candidate's convention was a brazen bizarro masterpiece. The case to sack John Kerry featured the same shady tactics used to build the case to whack Saddam - cherry-picked facts, selective claims and warped contexts.

W. took a page from Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall," a futuristic movie about inserting fully formed memories into the minds of unsuspecting victims.

The president and vice president ignored all the expert evidence now compiled indicating no link between 9/11 and Saddam, and no Saddam threat to U.S. security. After talking about "the fanatics who killed some 3,000 of our fellow Americans," Dick Cheney boasted: "In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat, and removed the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Though the convention mythologized Mr. Bush's bullhorn moment at ground zero, there was no mention of Osama, the fiend W. vowed to catch that day. The speakers did not acknowledge the brutal spiral in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the re-emergence of the Taliban, now finding sanctuary with our ally, Pakistan.

Mr. Cheney, king of hooey, bragged about a "Taliban driven from power," even though just as the convention got under way, at least seven people, including two Americans, were killed by Taliban fighters in Kabul.

W. stormed ahead with the discredited domino theory of democracy promoted by the neocons and Ahmad Chalabi - ignoring the widening F.B.I. probe into alleged leaks from neocon central at the Pentagon to Mr. Chalabi, an accused Iranian spy, and to an Israeli lobby. "Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history," the president said, adding that "democracy is coming to the broader Middle East."

The $445 billion deficit? Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney erased it. In their inside-out universe, the economy is blossoming, there's money to pay for Mr. Bush's to-do list and No Child Left Behind is more than an empty slogan.

W. suddenly proclaimed himself a compassionate conservative again, even though extra-chromosome conservatives, as Lee Atwater called them, were in closed meetings calling for a culture war to curb the rights of women and gays.

Mr. Bush even tried to implant in our heads that he is the son of Reagan. He didn't give his dad a speaking slot, though the last two Democratic presidents spoke in Boston, and he spent more time in his speech lionizing Gip than Pop.

Inside Madison Square Garden, W. kept insisting he'd made the world safer. Outside, the exploding world didn't seem safe at all.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Annakat, are you saying that Maureen Dowd is an unbiased reporter?

By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:19 pm: Edit

hate to shock you mom, but there's no such thing. she's left of center--like most analytical types. but you should read her book, bushworld. it's well written, funny, and fair.

and whether she's left, right, or up a tree, everything in that column is TRUE. if you want to take it apart to give any substance to the challenge implicit in your question in your last post, go for it, and post your findings. thanks, ahead of time.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit

I haven't read the book yet but I know Maureen and have followed her for years. She is very left of center and proud of it! Saw her on Letterman promoting the new book and she was having a good time slamming W. She is a great writer, droll, funny but I wouldn't call her fair where Republicans are concerned.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:37 pm: Edit

and if you've been following her for years, you'd know that she's pretty critical of kerry, too.

so what's unfair and untrue in the editorial i posted?

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:45 pm: Edit

I've heard her name before, but I first saw her on Real Time with Bill Maher. She's quite dry, and not really in a satirical or humorous way. She seems arrogant, but she does know what she's talking about. Maybe it was just that one show, but she seemed sort of out of it.

However, after reading the article, I do not doubt that she's very good at what she does. She's quick witted and sharp on the page, it just doesn't translate well to TV. Even though I pretty much disagree with all of her observations/view, I would read her column- because I always like to know how the other side thinks. Thanks for posting it, but again, I do not agree with her take on the conventions (tone, speeches, etc.).

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:47 pm: Edit

It's the whole tone. "Mr. Chaney, full of hooey. ..Their inside out universe...empty slogan...extra chromosome conservatives...exploding world outside(she must have meant the dems)." Is that all factual and unbiased?

By Wisc_Away (Wisc_Away) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit

I also posted this on another thread.

College age males and parents of them please read. This is far more important than the rhetoric.

For those of you who are draft age, or have children who are, for the record, 19-20 is considered prime time, look at the changes that were made to the Selective Service act after Viet Nam.

The student deferment that existed back then is no more. Being in college will not keep you out of Iraq or anywhere else W decides to send you when and if the draft is reinstated.

The current SS Act calls for a only a one semester deferment (you can finish the semester) unless you are a senior and then you can get your degree. Then it's 1A status, translated that means you're in the army now!

Those of you who haven't really thought about the way that W, Rumsfeld and Cheney manufactured the war in Iraq better look a little deeper before you are looking at it in person!

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

And read Frank Rich in today's Times for some more "unbiased" reporting. I can see how people who only read the Times, which I did at your age, would take this as factual reporting. I always wonder who does read the Times these days. You read all the uber liberal columnists who take Bush and his wealthy cronies to task, then you open the paper to ads for a $101,000 Tiffany pendant and thousand dollar boots.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Maureen Dowd writes so well for someone who says virtually nothing. What she claims for facts are usually nothing more than her personal opinions. Fox News Sunday had her as its power player of the week. I thought I would die laughting at Fox News for trying to bow at the alter of the Queen Liberal. Her column belongs at the bottom of every birdcage.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page