posted
Did Bush actually say this? I was half asleep listening to the news and they reported this, but I couldn't remember later if they had played an audio clip of the President's appearance on TV last night or whether reporter was supposedly quoting him.
A "war president?"
What the heck is that?
Is this a sign that the guy is just mindful of his legacy or is "war president" code for something important and mystical in the American ethos?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh thank goodness. I was afraid this was related to Bob’s nomination for forum president on the other thread, and I thought I was going to have to start organizing a Hatrack peace movement.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he meant that he's a president during wartime, which involves a new set of responsibilities and concerns that peacetime presidents don't have to deal with as often. I mean, while it's a bad sound bite, there's nothing damning about the meaning in context.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh thank goodness. I was afraid this was related to Bob’s nomination for forum president on the other thread, and I thought I was going to have to start organizing a Hatrack peace movement.
I knew it! He never should have moved to Texas...
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay...just a segment to put this in context:
quote:The commission I set up, Tim, is one that will help future presidents understand how best to fight the war on terror, and it's an important part of the kind of lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in Afghanistan prior to us going in, lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous world. And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't.
I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
Um...that last part, about seeing the world "the way it is" sounds a little odd coming from a guy who just may have made the largest blunder in misusing flawed intelligence data in the history of Western Civilization.
The fact that he sees things through the lens of war makes me want him out of the Oval Office more than ever. I think his judgement is skewed.
I'd rather have a person in there who sees the world through the lens of what is best for American AND the world.
It would've been nice if he'd stuck to THAT theme (putting this back in context) when he started talking about himself as a "war president."
I want a t-shirt with his face on it and the phrase "I'm a war president" emblazoned across his forehead.
quote: I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
Oh, what I'd give for red pen editing function on this board. The education reform President needs to go back to school. You know, we really don't need a Rhodes Scholar in the White House, but someone who at least knows the rules of the English language would be good. I wish I "was" President, cause I "got" the ability to see danger in the world, too. Obviously, any reforms to the system will come too late for him.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He said it was over back in May... Ironically American soldiers seem to be dying every week... -_-
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Troops are killing, being wounded, and being killed regularly.
Our excuse to hold American Citizens without trial, and sending others out to be tortured is that they are Enemy Combatants and we must go to extreme lengths when at war.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um...that last part, about seeing the world "the way it is" sounds a little odd coming from a guy who just may have made the largest blunder in misusing flawed intelligence data in the history of Western Civilization
You know, after watching the movie "Pearl Harbor" the other day -- I thought of how screwed that president was -- his intelligence people told him there was a "possible" threat -- more intuition than actual hard data -- and they didn't act on the information in time. Pearl Harbor happened.
Our president acts on intelligence that wasn't enough hard data -- and it turns out that possibly there wasn't a WMD threat.
Seems to me, that as president, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If there had been WMD and we'd been caught off guard, then he would be damned for that. Since he acted proactively and on advice he was given, now he's damned for that.
I'm sure glad I'm not president. It is easy to be "armchair quarterbacks" (or in this case, Presidents) when you are sitting at home only learning information from mass media.
posted
I don't know what everyones problem is about WMD's anyway.
Who cares? Its not like we didnt KNOW that he had them, we've seen him use Scud Missles against Isreal. Hell, did anyone watch that press confrence with the CIA where they outlined everything they were right about and everything they were wrong about. Saddam had a flying UMV that spewed GAS overhead of people. He quite literally had a flying vehicle of death.
Is anyone sad that Saddam is out of power?
What if this happened in WW2: "Hitler did not have WMD!!!" WHO CARES?! HES HITLER!
It would be a diffrent story if Bush lied but he didn't, he went over exactly what intellgence said. Further more, he didn't say Saddam was an imminient threat(though Clinton did when he was pres) He did however say that he was going to take action before Saddam was an imminient threat.
Which given their nuclear program probably would have been within the next 3-4 years.
Why don't you go to work for the CIA or the NSA then, if you have such a dire need to know the details.
Me -- I don't think the public needs to know everything that our intelligence agencies know, for obvious reasons. Society in general seems to either 1) blow things out of proportion, or 2) ignore important stuff. That's why we have trained people to analyze this stuff over years and interpret. Sure, they aren't perfect.
I agree with Ronin -- Saddam was a very bad leader -- killed thousands of his own citizens, for Pete's sake! It doesn't matter to me whether there were ever WMD or not.
quote:Me -- I don't think the public needs to know everything that our intelligence agencies know, for obvious reasons. Society in general seems to either 1) blow things out of proportion, or 2) ignore important stuff. That's why we have trained people to analyze this stuff over years and interpret. Sure, they aren't perfect.
That's right, best if the people don't know what reasons our leaders had for starting a war, or why they decided OBL was the 9-11 attacker, or who they've imprisoned and for what reasons.
If we don't know what our leaders have done and why, how can we make informed decisions about voting?
quote:I agree with Ronin -- Saddam was a very bad leader -- killed thousands of his own citizens, for Pete's sake!
Pervez Musharraf is almost as bad, and he's our new ally.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's at least some plausible evidence to suggest that the President knew of the Pearl Harbor attack and DIDN'T warn anyone. Didn't take even basic precautions.
That's a lot different from launching a pre-emptive strike against Japan based on what was admittedly incomplete information.
At least I see it as very different.
Recasting this as "damned if you do, damned if you don't" I think is a little too jaded, IMHO. I get that you were maybe injecting a little criticism in there of all us Monday morning presidents, but I think in this case, it's necessary.
If we're not allowed to question the actions of our President, we might as well be living in a dictatorship. I think that people would've been far more willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt if he had come forward with his evidence --which he never actually did.
I would've even supported him more than I do now if he'd come forward and said "hey, we've got some spotty information that really has us worried. Given Saddam Hussein's reluctance to comply with UN resolutions and the indications in this partial information, we're concerned enough about the threat his regime poses that we think we'd better go in there in force and make sure they don't try anything."
But instead, they talked about proof and "urgent" threats. Now it turns out we were just getting into semantic arguments about what is meant by "proof" and "urgent."
By the criteria he now says are valid (they were thinking about developing these weapons), there isn't a country on Earth that we couldn't justify wiping off the face of the planet if we so choose.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I get that you were maybe injecting a little criticism in there of all us Monday morning presidents, but I think in this case, it's necessary
And just why is it necessary? You will NEVER have all the information he had at the time he made the decision -- no matter what is released. You will NEVER know what YOU would have decided in exactly the same position.
I vote Bob for president. He thinks he can do a so much better job of making the hard decisions and not be swayed by popular opinion.
I wouldn't mind the criticism, Bob -- it just seems like that is ALL you do about Bush. Never try to point out what he has done right. You must be an impossible person to be around if all you focus on is the negative of a leader and none of the positive. Do you treat your boss that way?
posted
Hmm...Actually, I only do this to people I actively dislike. And Bush as a person as well as a leader is among the worst people I have ever encountered.
But...just so you know, I have acknowledged that he did a creditable job as governor of Texas, according to people whose judgement I trust. I don't have any first hand knowledge of his performance. But I have given him credit for it.
Also, I've said in other places here on this forum that he's not as bad as I expected in some areas of his performance. While, at the same time, I think his cabinet is much much worse than I expected.
Specifically with regard to Iraq, I do believe the accusation that the Bush team had decided from day 1 of their administration that Iraq was going to be dealt with "once and for all." I do believe that they (consciously or subconsciously) ignored contrary evidence and amplified corroborating evidence to support a military solution. And I believe that they are lying about it now.
Given those beliefs, I cannot in good conscience cut this man and his staff some slack. I think they are just short of war criminals and I wouldn't tolerate their behavior if it was coming from the President of France or Canada or Timbuktu so I shouldn't tolerate it from our own leadership.
But the bottom line, FG, is that I simply do not for an instant believe that they did "the best with the information they had available." They did what they wanted with the information they had available, and that is a very very different thing.
posted
Okay - let's just agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that. This is probably not a good day for me to choose to discuss it.
And I have to leave for lunch now, so by the time I get back, I will have lost my fire -- be back to my usual easy-going self. And I really don't want to fight about it.
quote:Oh, what I'd give for red pen editing function on this board. The education reform President needs to go back to school. You know, we really don't need a Rhodes Scholar in the White House, but someone who at least knows the rules of the English language would be good. I wish I "was" President, cause I "got" the ability to see danger in the world, too. Obviously, any reforms to the system will come too late for him.
Yeah, 'cause knowing the "rules" of a language makes you a good president.
IP: Logged |
posted
Not knowing the rules of grammar makes it harder to sell you "No Child Left Behind" educational reform plan.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I'm somewhat gladdened by his NASA budget. I don't agree with all the details, or the timetables, but it seems like a decent plan for NASA to implement.
posted
You know, Farmgirl might be on to something. Bob here actually might stand to make a better president than Mr. Bush Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shucks... I was really hoping this thread was going to be Bob's declaration of war on Philoticweb or something.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would really suggest reading the full transcript of that interview; regardless of your political opinions, bush's absolute lack of ability to form even the most rudimentary english sentences is absolutely hilarious. As i was reading it i was thinking how fun it would be to print the whole thing out, mark up all the errors, and send it to the white house or something. i doubt one could go through more than two paragraphs without having to mark something...
note: i wouldn't do it if you're feeling cynical though, it's sort of scary to think that someone with so little ability to communicate (or, in my opinion, think analytically) is in charge of the world's largest military.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless of your political opinions, bush's absolute lack of ability to form even the most rudimentary english sentences is absolutely hilarious.
Yeah. He made a couple of usage errors in two paragraphs. Take your trolling elsewhere.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if Bob does have it in for Bush, what exactly is wrong with that? I say that if OSC can have it in for Clinton, then Bob can have it in for Bush.
Though if both were to run for President, I have to say I think I'd vote for Bob. OSC is funny, but Bob is a riot. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If OSC and I were running mates -- sort of in a job-sharing relationship perhaps? -- we could corner the religio-agnostic, liberal-conservative, familyvalue/personal freedom bloc of voters no problem!
I read that whole interview and I do have to say that it IS hilarious. But that often happens when one reads a transcript of spoken words. The sentence fragments and blunders don't really come across if you watch and listen to the person, but when you read what was actually said, it is shockingly incoherent much of the time.
I started practicing my speaking habits once I discovered this in a session where we had a court reporter taking notes. She read back my statements, which I thought were so coherent and meaningful. It was gobbledygook, just like GWB's interview.
Now, why a President would allow himself to get into that kind of unscripted situation when he knows he's not a good extemporaneous speaker, I don't know. But I'm betting he came off as sincerely concerned about the welfare of Americans. It probably played very well.
I can't really ding him for incoherence. It's funny, but it's always funny. Only very polished speakers ever get better at this. And a polished speaker means he's been over-prepped.
I kind of like spontaneity in interviews.
Sometimes they REALLY slip up and give away something important. I saw some possibilities in this interview. Once he mentions the name of a group working in Iraq then says "Let me stop there" and moved on to something else. It was weird -- like no-one is supposed to know the name of that group.
There was another time when he said something was "wrong" then he said about two seconds later that it was "right." I find that kind of slip revealing as well because it's the sort of mistake people don't ordinarily make -- confusing polar opposite value terms. Makes me wonder whether he was trying to deny something that ultimately was true.
He had some very weak answers to a few of the more pointed questions. I wasn't too surprised. He hasn't got a lot to go on in his reversals of past statements (especially campaign promises).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
john boy, i'm completely serious. it's amusing.
I don't have time right now to post every grammatical error and instance of him loosing his train of thought mid-sentance, but here's the first few i found.
quote: Now, look, we are in a political season. I fully understand people — He's trying to avoid responsibility. There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether or not I made a — good calls, whether or not I used good judgment, whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power, and I look forward to that debate, and I look forward to talking to the American people about why I made the decisions I made.
Now, when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went.
By the way, quoting a lot of their data — in other words, this is unaccounted for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential — I believe it is essential — that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent.
Well, but what wasn't wrong was the fact that he had the ability to make a weapon. That wasn't right.
In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences.
And by the way, by clearly stating policy, whether it be in Afghanistan or stating the policy that we expect you, Mr. Saddam Hussein, to disarm, your choice to disarm, but if you don't, there will be serious consequences in following through, it has had positive effects in the world.
I don't understand the "no declaration of war" thing. Didn't congress vote to give Bush authority to go to war? Authority means it was his decision and responsibility, not "form and plan and then please check back with us after we've checked with our pollsters."
By the way, my first post was just a stupid pun. It should not be construed to mean I think Bush is a Star Trek fan or anything terrible like that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerinin, I know you're serious. I'm just saying you're a troll. I also don't trust your evaluation of anyone's command of the language, considering you can't even spell my name right when it's right in front of you. Here are the errors in your last post:
I don't have time right now to post every grammatical error and instance of him loosing his train of thought mid-sentance, but here's the first few i found.
[ February 11, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
But the truth is, you guys can short stroke all over each others posts, and it won't prove a thing. Typos will always get you in the end.
I do have to ask a question though. Other than be a republican, what exactly has ol' W done to create such fanatical devotion among his supporters?
I dislike paying taxes. I like small government. I fall well into the conservative side of the spectrum. No one would ever mistake me for a democrat. So, having said that:
W is a horrifying president. The reasons are many and varied, and argued over at length. But the one that you CAN NOT justify, no matter how hard you try, is the incarcaration of dozens of people with no access to any judicial process or legal council. The executive branch has basically been flipping off the judicial system every time it asks for an accounting on this situation.
You can't f***ing do that people, no matter what the justification, or the whole damn system goes down the tubes.
We are, all of us, a half step away from tyranny, all the time. It happens in the blink of an eye. Japanese citizens were stripped of their property and incarcerated during WWII for the crime of being Japanese. Jehovah's Witnesses were incarcerated during WWII for being 'seditionist'. They were later cleared of all charges, but still spent nine months in prison. It happens so fast no one sees it coming until afterwards.
You know what protects us from it happening again? Our horror at the idea of wrongful imprisonment and our system of checks and balances that keeps one group from arbitrarily deciding another group needs to be in prison.
The combination of the Patriot Act ("if you want to get people to go to war, tell them they are being attacked, then accuse anyone who is anti-war of being unpatriotic" -paraphrased from interview with Goebbels after WWII), and the imprisonment without trial of people who are nothing more than accused, is horrific. If you aren't terrified, you are living in a fantasy world. And we have members of the presidents staff quoted as saying that since this is a 'war on terror', then anti-war protests are acts of terrorism. Holy crap.
Is it worth supporting this sort of thing just so that 'our guy' gets to stay in office?
The attack of 9/11 did its work very well. It didn't kill America, but it gave it a nasty infection. I hope we get well soon.
[ February 11, 2004, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Jon Boy
