It's already happening. You could argue if the Iraq war sped things up to slowed them down but little by little the ME is moving toward the western ideals.
Aside: BTW...does anyone know exactly how the neo-con plan for the ME works? I know that it hinges on occupying Iraq, and that there's a domino theory that argues that the rest of the countries of terrorism concern related program activites will fall in line. But I've never seen anything about how and why, precisely, this will happen.
Good point!
It's clear to me that the neo-con plans will never be publicly detailed. That would be counter-productive to their goals (as well as a further admission that they misrepresented their reasons for invading Iraq). On the other hand, I would say that recent weapons-program-related events in Libya have fallen right in line with the neo-con ME domino theory. Too bad they can't articulate their policy clearly & completely enough to claim this as one of their few real successes in the WOT.
Geez, his handlers can't even help him pick out a TV-safe TIE
LOL thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one! Aiiiiiieeee....
Sadly I didn't notice the first time it was aired because I had my back to it while working on my iBook. Now that it's being rebroadcast I was going to settle down and actually watch it. Switching to black & white helps
He answered a third of the questions like a 4th grader, and the rest were just canned responses, only half of which had enough of the right words in the right order to be coherent.
You got to love all of those times he stared up at the ceiling trying to remember the canned answer and all the pauses while he tried to recall the right word or name of such and such.
I haven't seen anything that painful to watch in a long time.
You had to love this one:
Quote:
And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.
The text doesn't even do it justice. It was so painfully clear that he was unprepared and was just trying to avoid telling the truth.
In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.
You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?
BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.
John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just - I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.
I would've gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein.
See, I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.
One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised of the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed.
You know, there's this kind of - there's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq. They're worried about getting killed, and therefore they're not going to talk. But it'll all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time.
However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually not only had weapons of mass destruction - the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them.
And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm, on America, because he hated us.
I hope - I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
I hope - I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
I didn't catch this the first time around (was too busy laughing), but note that he's even confident about his being wrong about not being able to to think of something that he was wrong about.
Point taken you're right. Bunge just has to follow me around the forum like a yapping dog and posting useless replies questioning me.
It's not my fault you're so often wrong as you so eloquently admit to in this post. Your pride simply doesn't let you see you're shortcomings when I point them out to you, that's all.
If he really said this I think it should be enough to get him impeached. My freedom has nothing to do with his 'all mighty' ...
"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty..."
Q. To move to the 9/11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before Sept. 11. "I was not on point," you told the journalist Bob Woodward. "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for Sept. 11?
A. Let me put that quote to Woodward in context. He had asked me if I was, something about killing bin Laden. That's what the question was. And I said compared to how I felt at the time after the attack I didn't have that ? and I also went on to say my blood wasn't boiling, I think is what the quote said. I didn't see, I mean I didn't have that great sense of outrage that I felt on Sept. 11. I was, on that day I was angry and sad. Angry that Al Qaeda had, at the time thought Al Qaeda, found out shortly thereafter it was Al Qaeda, had unleashed this attack. Sad for those who lost their life.
Your question, do I feel?
Q. Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for Sept. 11?
A. I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family members. And I do quite frequently. I grieve for, you know, the incredible loss of life that they feel, the emptiness they feel.
People are going to vote for this man... millions of them. That scares me more than anything the man himself says. I look forward to the debates too, George. Hopefully you can remember the question 60 seconds after someone asked you, and actually provide an answer that addresses the question.
A hopeful society is one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology.
It's not my fault you're so often wrong as you so eloquently admit to in this post. Your pride simply doesn't let you see you're shortcomings when I point them out to you, that's all.
No one here is questioning the questions leveled by the press.
There were many political questions designed not to primarily gain usefull information but to inflict political damage to the president.
"Are you sorry for 9/11" is simply looking for an opening---once you get an admission of guilt you can get endless milage from that admission.
"did YOU make any mistakes"
same thing---a pointless question that has no other purpose except to undermine his credibility.
"why are you and Cheney going in front of the commission together" another profoundly stupid question designed to take a wise political move by Bushco and turn it into some sort of devious behavoir.
This sort of cross-examination from the media is exclusive to candidates they don't approve of----which is natural---I would expect liberal idealoges to sabotage their opponents.
No one here is questioning the questions leveled by the press.
There were many political questions designed not to primarily gain usefull information but to inflict political damage to the president....
But to act like this is sincere questioning?
Hell, when has this noodle have press conferences on a regular basis? Never. So these questions need to be asked. I'm quite sure, as with his other...what...3 press conferences he's had the questions were screened and picked before hand? The one telling one on one interview of his stupidity and arrogance was his with Tim Russert. Chilling to say the least.
Arbusto is a tool, a dupe, a puppet. As someone mentioned, he has handlers and manipulators. Any and all policy is being made and decided by Chenney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz and company. Bush is only a figurehead and a mouthpiece. But jeez, those "handlers" must shit bricks during these press conferences..."Oh, don't say that...NO! Ah, shit he said it...again...".
You guys are too poiticized and personally hateful of Bush to be rational.
Wether or not Bush wants to naswer a sucker question is not news, it's not even relevant. This is not TV, Bush is not an actor, he has little TQ, and those facts aren't much more than fodder for superficial thinking.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
Aside: BTW...does anyone know exactly how the neo-con plan for the ME works? I know that it hinges on occupying Iraq, and that there's a domino theory that argues that the rest of the countries of terrorism concern related program activites will fall in line. But I've never seen anything about how and why, precisely, this will happen.
Good point!
It's clear to me that the neo-con plans will never be publicly detailed. That would be counter-productive to their goals (as well as a further admission that they misrepresented their reasons for invading Iraq). On the other hand, I would say that recent weapons-program-related events in Libya have fallen right in line with the neo-con ME domino theory. Too bad they can't articulate their policy clearly & completely enough to claim this as one of their few real successes in the WOT.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Geez, his handlers can't even help him pick out a TV-safe TIE
LOL thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one! Aiiiiiieeee....
Sadly I didn't notice the first time it was aired because I had my back to it while working on my iBook. Now that it's being rebroadcast I was going to settle down and actually watch it. Switching to black & white helps
ahhh the 1950's....
You got to love all of those times he stared up at the ceiling trying to remember the canned answer and all the pauses while he tried to recall the right word or name of such and such.
I haven't seen anything that painful to watch in a long time.
You had to love this one:
And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.
The text doesn't even do it justice. It was so painfully clear that he was unprepared and was just trying to avoid telling the truth.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.
You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?
BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.
John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just - I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.
I would've gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein.
See, I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.
One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised of the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed.
You know, there's this kind of - there's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq. They're worried about getting killed, and therefore they're not going to talk. But it'll all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time.
However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually not only had weapons of mass destruction - the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them.
And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm, on America, because he hated us.
I hope - I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
Stuff like this doesn't even need commentary.
Originally posted by giant
I hope - I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
I didn't catch this the first time around (was too busy laughing), but note that he's even confident about his being wrong about not being able to to think of something that he was wrong about.
Originally posted by Scott
Point taken you're right. Bunge just has to follow me around the forum like a yapping dog and posting useless replies questioning me.
It's not my fault you're so often wrong as you so eloquently admit to in this post. Your pride simply doesn't let you see you're shortcomings when I point them out to you, that's all.
Originally posted by Luca
You know, both of you are being equally foolish. Nothing gets accomplished by simply barking back and forth at each other.
Sorry, but he was wrong. I just pointed it out.
( eyes the fact that both barkmeisters have >5k posts )
missed the speech while teaching.
off to watch the video replay... C-SPAN has an hourlong RealVideo Stream
Originally posted by bunge
If he really said this I think it should be enough to get him impeached. My freedom has nothing to do with his 'all mighty' ...
"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty..."
Q. To move to the 9/11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before Sept. 11. "I was not on point," you told the journalist Bob Woodward. "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for Sept. 11?
A. Let me put that quote to Woodward in context. He had asked me if I was, something about killing bin Laden. That's what the question was. And I said compared to how I felt at the time after the attack I didn't have that ? and I also went on to say my blood wasn't boiling, I think is what the quote said. I didn't see, I mean I didn't have that great sense of outrage that I felt on Sept. 11. I was, on that day I was angry and sad. Angry that Al Qaeda had, at the time thought Al Qaeda, found out shortly thereafter it was Al Qaeda, had unleashed this attack. Sad for those who lost their life.
Your question, do I feel?
Q. Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for Sept. 11?
A. I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family members. And I do quite frequently. I grieve for, you know, the incredible loss of life that they feel, the emptiness they feel.
People are going to vote for this man... millions of them. That scares me more than anything the man himself says. I look forward to the debates too, George. Hopefully you can remember the question 60 seconds after someone asked you, and actually provide an answer that addresses the question.
A hopeful society is one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology.
what was wrong with his tie
Originally posted by bunge
It's not my fault you're so often wrong as you so eloquently admit to in this post. Your pride simply doesn't let you see you're shortcomings when I point them out to you, that's all.
QED
There were many political questions designed not to primarily gain usefull information but to inflict political damage to the president.
"Are you sorry for 9/11" is simply looking for an opening---once you get an admission of guilt you can get endless milage from that admission.
"did YOU make any mistakes"
same thing---a pointless question that has no other purpose except to undermine his credibility.
"why are you and Cheney going in front of the commission together" another profoundly stupid question designed to take a wise political move by Bushco and turn it into some sort of devious behavoir.
This sort of cross-examination from the media is exclusive to candidates they don't approve of----which is natural---I would expect liberal idealoges to sabotage their opponents.
But to act like this is sincere questioning?
Originally posted by dmz
No one here is questioning the questions leveled by the press.
There were many political questions designed not to primarily gain usefull information but to inflict political damage to the president....
But to act like this is sincere questioning?
Hell, when has this noodle have press conferences on a regular basis? Never. So these questions need to be asked. I'm quite sure, as with his other...what...3 press conferences he's had the questions were screened and picked before hand? The one telling one on one interview of his stupidity and arrogance was his with Tim Russert. Chilling to say the least.
Arbusto is a tool, a dupe, a puppet. As someone mentioned, he has handlers and manipulators. Any and all policy is being made and decided by Chenney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz and company. Bush is only a figurehead and a mouthpiece. But jeez, those "handlers" must shit bricks during these press conferences..."Oh, don't say that...NO! Ah, shit he said it...again...".
just gimme some truth
Originally posted by dmz
"did YOU make any mistakes"
same thing---a pointless question that has no other purpose except to undermine his credibility.
Yeah, blame the question for his ****up. Clearly it was a great question that shed a lot of light.
Bush 04: It's Not My Fault...even when it's my mouth that did it.
Wether or not Bush wants to naswer a sucker question is not news, it's not even relevant. This is not TV, Bush is not an actor, he has little TQ, and those facts aren't much more than fodder for superficial thinking.
Q: Why are you and the vice president testifying together to the 9/11 commission?
Bush: Duhhh, because they asked me to testify?
Q: Yes, but why do you need the vice president there at the same time?
Bush: Duhhhhh, because they asked me?