From Slate.com (My favorite is bolded) ___________________ "The march to war affected the people's confidence. It's hard to make investment. See, if you're a small business owner or a large business owner and you're thinking about investing, you've got to be optimistic when you invest. Except when you're marching to war, it's not a very optimistic thought, is it? In other words, it's the opposite of optimistic when you're thinking you're going to war." —Springfield, Mo., Feb. 9, 2004 (Thanks to Garry Trudeau.) "See, one of the interesting things in the Oval Office—I love to bring people into the Oval Office—right around the corner from here—and say, this is where I office, but I want you to know the office is always bigger than the person."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004 (Thanks to Michael Shively.) "More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than—I say more Muslims—a lot of Muslims have died—I don't know the exact count—at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004 (Thanks to Michael Shively.) "In an economic recession, I'd rather that in order to get out of this recession, that the people be spending their money, not the government trying to figure out how to spend the people's money."—Tampa, Fla., Feb. 16, 2004 "King Abdullah of Jordan, the King of Morocco, I mean, there's a series of places—Qatar, Oman—I mean, places that are developing—Bahrain—they're all developing the habits of free societies."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004 "But the true strength of America is found in the hearts and souls of people like Travis, people who are willing to love their neighbor, just like they would like to love themselves."—Springfield, Mo., Feb. 9, 2004 (Thanks to George Dupper.) "My views are one that speaks to freedom."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004 "In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." "There is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron-clad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon." "The recession started upon my arrival. t could have been—some say February, some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started—but nevertheless, it happened as we showed up here. The attacks on our country affected our economy. Corporate scandals affected the confidence of people and therefore affected the economy. My decision on Iraq, this kind of march to war, affected the economy."—Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 "I was a prisoner too, but for bad reasons."—To Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, on being told that all but one of the Argentine delegates to a summit meeting were imprisoned during the military dictatorship, Monterrey, Mexico, Jan. 13, 2004 "[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004 (Thanks to Lewell Gunter.) "Just remember it's the birds that's supposed to suffer, not the hunter."—Advising quail hunter and New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, Roswell, N.M., Jan. 22, 2004 "One of the most meaningful things that's happened to me since I've been the governor—the president—governor—president. Oops. Ex-governor. I went to Bethesda Naval Hospital to give a fellow a Purple Heart, and at the same moment I watched him—get a Purple Heart for action in Iraq—and at that same—right after I gave him the Purple Heart, he was sworn in as a citizen of the United States—a Mexican citizen, now a United States citizen."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 9, 2004 "I want to thank the astronauts who are with us, the courageous spacial entrepreneurs who set such a wonderful example for the young of our country."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2004 "And if you're interested in the quality of education and you're paying attention to what you hear at Laclede, why don't you volunteer? Why don't you mentor a child how to read?"—St. Louis, Mo., Jan. 5, 2004 "So thank you for reminding me about the importance of being a good mom and a great volunteer as well."—St. Louis, Jan. 5, 2004
quoting shrub "There is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron-clad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon." WTF!!!!! is there anyone out there who can decifer this BS?
You know, ridiculing Bush for these things is starting to get old. I remember GWB saying the same undecipherable stuffs back in 2000. But he still managed to get elected. So either he's getting elected DESPITE of these remarks, or that these stupid stuff is actually helping him get voters. The latter is a very scary thought. What's so annoying is that I currently hold a really low opinion of John Kerry. I've yet to see anything constructive(meaning it's not a negative attack on Bush) out of his mouth from watching the news. The guy shows his lawyer skills by being good on the attack, but not exactly the type of person I'd feel good with as the president.
He said and this is paraphrasing. "I don't know a lot of things, but I do know what love IS, Jenny !" DD
Kerry's not my favorite guy either, but Bush takes the cake with attack crap. The stuff done in his name during the 2000 primaries and campaign showed he reigned supreme at misrepresenting the other guy and himself.
I'm not saying that Bush is better, just that choosing Kerry is more like saying "anyone is better than Bush" rather than showing true support. I really wished the Democrats could've come out with a better challenger. Oh well...
Kerry is the challenger. Of course he's gonna point out that the emporer wears no clothes. Kerry has ripped Bush's politics, and "attacking" a candidate's record is completely fair game. Why shouldn't it be? Because it makes the President look bad? C'mon. As long as both candidates refrain from personal attacks (family, etc.), I hope they tear each other up.
I think the flip-flopping angle has been grossly exaggerated; since when did understanding nuance become a character flaw. Please look up Kerry's speech before Congress after returning from Vietnam: http://pages.xtn.net/~wingman/docs/kerryst.htm I'd rather elect a candle burned about by decades of politics than a mere ball of wax.
What's wrong with that? True, choosing the lesser than two evils is never the desirable thing, but you can't criticize people for feeling that way, IMO.
I don't have a problem with Kerry's campaign, just that I wished he was better than that. Yes, it's fair game, but it's all Kerry's been doing since even the primaries, when he aimed at Dean. I have yet to see any good plans on how to recover the economy, or what is he going to do if and when he takes over the Iraq problem, at least not from his speeches. Empty criticism w/o ways to improve upon things just doesn't go along with me. If that's what my previous post sounded like, then I apologize. I wasn't trying to criticize someone else for their view, just pointing out that mine.
I agree with your sentiment that I wish there was a better challenger but what can you do with the way the whole system being setup for a two parties? I also think the comparison is wrong - it's not anybody is better than Bush, now it's whether one thinks Kerry is better than Bush or vice versa. One can choose to not vote or vote for some third party candidate or hope for a better system in the future but now it comes down to do you want four more years of Bush or four years of Kerry.
hate to spoil the fun, but here's the articluate Mr Kerry: TIME: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President? KERRY: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to—because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament. TIME: But it turns out there was nothing to disarm. KERRY: Well, if we had kept on inspecting properly and gone through the process appropriately, we might have avoided almost a $200 billion expenditure, the loss of lives and the scorn of the world and the breaking of so many relationships. TIME: Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank? KERRY: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively. TIME: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war? KERRY: I didn't say that. TIME: I'm asking. KERRY: I can't tell you. TIME: Might the war have been avoided? KERRY: Yes. TIME: Through inspections? KERRY: It's possible. It's not a certainty, but it's possible. I'm not going to tell you hypothetically when you've reached the point of exhaustion that you have to [use force] and your intelligence is good enough that it tells you you've reached that moment. But I can tell you this: I would have asked a lot of questions they didn't. I would have tried to do a lot of diplomacy they didn't. TIME: You would have asked more questions about the quality of the intelligence? KERRY: Yes. If I had known that [Iraqi exile leader Ahmed] Chalabi was somebody they were relying on, I would have had serious doubts. And the fact that we learn after the fact that that is one of their sources disturbs me enormously. TIME: As a Senator, could you not have asked that question? KERRY: We asked. They said, Well, we can't tell you who the sources are. They give you this gobbledygook. I went over to the Pentagon. I saw the photographs. They told us specifically what was happening in certain buildings. It wasn't. TIME: You were misled? KERRY: Certainly by somebody. The intelligence clearly was wrong, fundamentally flawed. Look, the British were able to do a two-month analysis of what happened to their intelligence. This Administration wants to put it off to 2005. It's a national-security issue to know what happened to our intelligence. We ought to know now. TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost? KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war. TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes? KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction." Perhaps he's being "nuanced" here, but to me it just sounds like BS.
Who kicked the inspectors out of Iraq? Bush said after the war in a Q&A overseas that the reason we went to war is that Iraq kicked the inspectors out. No. His press secretary had to laugh off that statement by saying, "Well what he really meant was..." violated UN resolutions, didn't account for WMDs, etc. The US advised the inspectors to leave because the bombs were about to start falling. We didn't let the inspections continue to fruition; we didn't give them a full chance. Not all avenues were explored to avoid war. So, understanding that, I find nothing wrong with all but the last two responses. Completely reasonable. Of course an Iraq without Hussein is a good, and no politician will say that he'd rather have Hussein still power. The question is whether that good mitigates a US-initiated war under false pretenses, and all that entails: a gutted intelligence vetting service, diminished international credibility, loss of human life, horrible budget deficits, etc. Does the good outweigh the bad? Don't know, and probably won't for several years (if civil war breaks out, many more die, and eventually another despot takes over, i gotta say no). One should be able to hold these competing ideas in one's head at the same time.
That's something we need right now CBFan. Maybe they'd let the Texas Souffle have an *unscripted* press conference then...
Bush praises man in speech on women's rights WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush has marked International Women's Week by paying tribute to women reformers -- but one of those he cited is really a man. "Earlier today, the Libyan government released Fathi Jahmi. She's a local government official who was imprisoned in 2002 for advocating free speech and democracy," the president said in a speech at the White House on Friday. The only problem was that, by all other accounts, "she" is in fact "he". http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040313/od_uk_nm/oukoe_bush_women_1
Most of 'em are funny, but this is downright creepy... "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." —George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004
