Bush press conference highlights government crisis...
-
"The press conference held by George W. Bush on July 30 left the unmistakable impression of an administration in crisis. Wednesday’s session, held three days before the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch, was just the ninth press conference of Bush’s term and the first since early March, before the invasion of Iraq. It was only called after weeks of pressure from reporters, including a shouted request directed at the president by CBS News’ Bill Plante after an appearance by Bush the day before. Bill Clinton had held 33 news conferences by the same point in his first term, and George H.W. Bush, the current president’s father, had held 61. The administration’s aversion to press conferences has two root causes: concerns on the part of Bush’s political handlers about his general lack of knowledge and limited mental capacities, and an obsession with secrecy that reflects the White House’s contempt for democracy... Question: Mr. President, with no opponent, how can you spend $170 million or more on your primary campaign? Bush: Just watch. (Laughter)..." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/bush-a02.shtml[^] Why did Bush win my CP Presidential Poll again???:confused::mad::) As long as our military troops are dieing everyday overseas, I will in no way vote for continuing this administration. I have heard of death and taxes but this is out of hand:mad: ok, I'm going back to seattle now:(( + :jig: I have to take a connecting flight:mad::rolleyes: Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
"The press conference held by George W. Bush on July 30 left the unmistakable impression of an administration in crisis. Wednesday’s session, held three days before the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch, was just the ninth press conference of Bush’s term and the first since early March, before the invasion of Iraq. It was only called after weeks of pressure from reporters, including a shouted request directed at the president by CBS News’ Bill Plante after an appearance by Bush the day before. Bill Clinton had held 33 news conferences by the same point in his first term, and George H.W. Bush, the current president’s father, had held 61. The administration’s aversion to press conferences has two root causes: concerns on the part of Bush’s political handlers about his general lack of knowledge and limited mental capacities, and an obsession with secrecy that reflects the White House’s contempt for democracy... Question: Mr. President, with no opponent, how can you spend $170 million or more on your primary campaign? Bush: Just watch. (Laughter)..." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/bush-a02.shtml[^] Why did Bush win my CP Presidential Poll again???:confused::mad::) As long as our military troops are dieing everyday overseas, I will in no way vote for continuing this administration. I have heard of death and taxes but this is out of hand:mad: ok, I'm going back to seattle now:(( + :jig: I have to take a connecting flight:mad::rolleyes: Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: before the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch WHAT!!! UM... Maybe, Just Maybe, if he would do his job, the country would be a little better off. I can't even get a week of easily, much less a month and I don't think that my job is anywhere near as important as his. :mad:
-
JoeSox wrote: before the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch WHAT!!! UM... Maybe, Just Maybe, if he would do his job, the country would be a little better off. I can't even get a week of easily, much less a month and I don't think that my job is anywhere near as important as his. :mad:
ATTN: terrorists! the president will be unavailable for a month, you may wish to start operations again during this time :mad: Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
JoeSox wrote: before the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch WHAT!!! UM... Maybe, Just Maybe, if he would do his job, the country would be a little better off. I can't even get a week of easily, much less a month and I don't think that my job is anywhere near as important as his. :mad:
Maybe the U.S. and the world would be better off if he took eleven months vacation each year and was only available to wreak havoc one month of the year. :)
-
"The press conference held by George W. Bush on July 30 left the unmistakable impression of an administration in crisis. Wednesday’s session, held three days before the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch, was just the ninth press conference of Bush’s term and the first since early March, before the invasion of Iraq. It was only called after weeks of pressure from reporters, including a shouted request directed at the president by CBS News’ Bill Plante after an appearance by Bush the day before. Bill Clinton had held 33 news conferences by the same point in his first term, and George H.W. Bush, the current president’s father, had held 61. The administration’s aversion to press conferences has two root causes: concerns on the part of Bush’s political handlers about his general lack of knowledge and limited mental capacities, and an obsession with secrecy that reflects the White House’s contempt for democracy... Question: Mr. President, with no opponent, how can you spend $170 million or more on your primary campaign? Bush: Just watch. (Laughter)..." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/bush-a02.shtml[^] Why did Bush win my CP Presidential Poll again???:confused::mad::) As long as our military troops are dieing everyday overseas, I will in no way vote for continuing this administration. I have heard of death and taxes but this is out of hand:mad: ok, I'm going back to seattle now:(( + :jig: I have to take a connecting flight:mad::rolleyes: Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch Damn ... a whole month ... what does he do ? in his defence, I think it must be more a vacation from Washington pressure than just a leisurly vacation.
Maximilien Lincourt "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with backup tapes." ("Computer Networks" by Andrew S Tannenbaum )
-
"The press conference held by George W. Bush on July 30 left the unmistakable impression of an administration in crisis. Wednesday’s session, held three days before the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch, was just the ninth press conference of Bush’s term and the first since early March, before the invasion of Iraq. It was only called after weeks of pressure from reporters, including a shouted request directed at the president by CBS News’ Bill Plante after an appearance by Bush the day before. Bill Clinton had held 33 news conferences by the same point in his first term, and George H.W. Bush, the current president’s father, had held 61. The administration’s aversion to press conferences has two root causes: concerns on the part of Bush’s political handlers about his general lack of knowledge and limited mental capacities, and an obsession with secrecy that reflects the White House’s contempt for democracy... Question: Mr. President, with no opponent, how can you spend $170 million or more on your primary campaign? Bush: Just watch. (Laughter)..." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/bush-a02.shtml[^] Why did Bush win my CP Presidential Poll again???:confused::mad::) As long as our military troops are dieing everyday overseas, I will in no way vote for continuing this administration. I have heard of death and taxes but this is out of hand:mad: ok, I'm going back to seattle now:(( + :jig: I have to take a connecting flight:mad::rolleyes: Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: The administration’s aversion to press conferences has two root causes: concerns on the part of Bush’s political handlers about his general lack of knowledge and limited mental capacities, and an obsession with secrecy that reflects the White House’s contempt for democracy... Obviously you will believe just about anything you read. Is "The World Socialist Web Site" the place to go for credible journalism now? I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention.
I bleed orange.
-
JoeSox wrote: the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch Damn ... a whole month ... what does he do ? in his defence, I think it must be more a vacation from Washington pressure than just a leisurly vacation.
Maximilien Lincourt "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with backup tapes." ("Computer Networks" by Andrew S Tannenbaum )
-
JoeSox wrote: The administration’s aversion to press conferences has two root causes: concerns on the part of Bush’s political handlers about his general lack of knowledge and limited mental capacities, and an obsession with secrecy that reflects the White House’s contempt for democracy... Obviously you will believe just about anything you read. Is "The World Socialist Web Site" the place to go for credible journalism now? I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention.
I bleed orange.
Jason Henderson wrote: I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention what??? which president was "looking for attention" by doing press conferences ? and how does your preference for a "low-key" president square with W's riding a jet to a carrier landing ? CheeseWeasle
-
JoeSox wrote: The administration’s aversion to press conferences has two root causes: concerns on the part of Bush’s political handlers about his general lack of knowledge and limited mental capacities, and an obsession with secrecy that reflects the White House’s contempt for democracy... Obviously you will believe just about anything you read. Is "The World Socialist Web Site" the place to go for credible journalism now? I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention.
I bleed orange.
Jason Henderson wrote: Obviously you will believe just about anything you read. I NEVER stated I believe everything in the article. Why do you make judgements like this???? Jason Henderson wrote: Is "The World Socialist Web Site" the place to go for credible journalism now? There is nothing wrong with hearing other people's views on things, no matter what the source. It is my right to decide if it is crap or not. Jason Henderson wrote: I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention. So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. Not a good enough reason in my mind. Where's the Beef? Where's the WMD? Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
JoeSox wrote: before the president was set to begin a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch WHAT!!! UM... Maybe, Just Maybe, if he would do his job, the country would be a little better off. I can't even get a week of easily, much less a month and I don't think that my job is anywhere near as important as his. :mad:
jspano wrote: Maybe, Just Maybe, if he would do his job, the country would be a little better off. I can't even get a week of easily, much less a month and I don't think that my job is anywhere near as important as his. Get real... a "vacation" for a US president is not even close to a "normal" vacation. Every single day still has several hours of meetings and briefings. Business is still done. It's just done from Texas rather than DC. Beauty is only a lightswitch away.
-
jspano wrote: Maybe, Just Maybe, if he would do his job, the country would be a little better off. I can't even get a week of easily, much less a month and I don't think that my job is anywhere near as important as his. Get real... a "vacation" for a US president is not even close to a "normal" vacation. Every single day still has several hours of meetings and briefings. Business is still done. It's just done from Texas rather than DC. Beauty is only a lightswitch away.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention what??? which president was "looking for attention" by doing press conferences ? and how does your preference for a "low-key" president square with W's riding a jet to a carrier landing ? CheeseWeasle
I think he was just looking for an excuse to let some steam off. ;P :~
David Wulff
"Yeah, ohh, ahh. That's how it always starts. But then later there's running, and screaming." -- Jeff Goldblum, The Lost World.
-
Yeah, I know, but there still has to be some overhead. Not as good as being in the white house. The way the country is now, I don't think he can afford to do anything but work.
jspano wrote: Not as good as being in the white house. If he finds the constant interruptions of White House life and the political BS which is Washington, DC difficult to work in, maybe a trip to the Texas ranch is for the better. Don't think of it as a vacation, think of it as working from home. :-D jspano wrote: The way the country is now... Which way is that? :confused: Beauty is only a lightswitch away.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention what??? which president was "looking for attention" by doing press conferences ? and how does your preference for a "low-key" president square with W's riding a jet to a carrier landing ? CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: and how does your preference for a "low-key" president square with W's riding a jet to a carrier landing ? I would say it compares favorably to getting a $200 haircut in Air Force One while it is parked on a runway a LAX...... ;P Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Obviously you will believe just about anything you read. I NEVER stated I believe everything in the article. Why do you make judgements like this???? Jason Henderson wrote: Is "The World Socialist Web Site" the place to go for credible journalism now? There is nothing wrong with hearing other people's views on things, no matter what the source. It is my right to decide if it is crap or not. Jason Henderson wrote: I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention. So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. Not a good enough reason in my mind. Where's the Beef? Where's the WMD? Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. How about Clinton turning over control of our mission in Somalia? I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are long term commitments for both men and material. They can't be anything but that. Have there been tangible results since 9/11? I think so, we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, we can't change the nature of a group of people who have been at war for decades overnight. As for Iraq, again there is progress. A tyrant has been removed from power, and his henchmen are being rounded up. Where are the WMD? Probably buried in the desert somewhere, or possibly even in Syria.... but Saddam H. isn't going to be using them. And for losing soldiers, unfortunately that is a side effect of war. We don't make foreign policy for other countries, we hav to live with what ad how thy decide to behave. The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. The previous administration would lob a few cruise missles at a threat and call it good. Which is more effective? Personnaly I prefer fighting over there to seeing some half cocked terrorist coming here and killing Americans..... I can think of 3000 reasons to never wait to be attacked again. And yeah, I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them That Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and how does your preference for a "low-key" president square with W's riding a jet to a carrier landing ? I would say it compares favorably to getting a $200 haircut in Air Force One while it is parked on a runway a LAX...... ;P Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: I would say it compares favorably to getting a $200 haircut in Air Force One while it is parked on a runway a LAX oh doug. come on. we're talking low-key vs. attention-seeking. clinton's haircut was neither high-profile nor attention seeking. bush's carrier landing, on the other hand... [why would this get modded down? what about this is even remotely disputable?] -c CheeseWeasle
-
JoeSox wrote: So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. How about Clinton turning over control of our mission in Somalia? I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are long term commitments for both men and material. They can't be anything but that. Have there been tangible results since 9/11? I think so, we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, we can't change the nature of a group of people who have been at war for decades overnight. As for Iraq, again there is progress. A tyrant has been removed from power, and his henchmen are being rounded up. Where are the WMD? Probably buried in the desert somewhere, or possibly even in Syria.... but Saddam H. isn't going to be using them. And for losing soldiers, unfortunately that is a side effect of war. We don't make foreign policy for other countries, we hav to live with what ad how thy decide to behave. The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. The previous administration would lob a few cruise missles at a threat and call it good. Which is more effective? Personnaly I prefer fighting over there to seeing some half cocked terrorist coming here and killing Americans..... I can think of 3000 reasons to never wait to be attacked again. And yeah, I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them That Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, they are not. not even close. in fact, they're growing stronger. WaPo "Bands of 50 or more pro-Taliban fighters have begun appearing around Kandahar, both along the border with Pakistan and in the interior of the province. Just over the border in the Pakistani town of Chaman, high-ranking Taliban officials are meeting openly and handing out guns, money and motorbikes, according to a witness and Afghan police officials. Poor Afghans who don't share the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islam or its mission of jihad are nevertheless accepting Pakistani money to plant land mines and bombs in Afghanistan, they said. " Doug Goulden wrote: We don't make foreign policy for other countries say what? even ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is deeply involved in making foreign policy in other countries; for example, we're withholding money to try to keep other countries out of the ICC. yes, of course it's our money to withhold if we want... but to say we're not trying to set their foreign policy is the same as saying the federal govt. isn't trying to impose a 21yr drinking age on the country by withholding money from the states. -c CheeseWeasle
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Obviously you will believe just about anything you read. I NEVER stated I believe everything in the article. Why do you make judgements like this???? Jason Henderson wrote: Is "The World Socialist Web Site" the place to go for credible journalism now? There is nothing wrong with hearing other people's views on things, no matter what the source. It is my right to decide if it is crap or not. Jason Henderson wrote: I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention. So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. Not a good enough reason in my mind. Where's the Beef? Where's the WMD? Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: Where's the Beef It's in Alberta. It smells a little funny but we're assured it's perfectly fine to eat. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Doug Goulden wrote: we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, they are not. not even close. in fact, they're growing stronger. WaPo "Bands of 50 or more pro-Taliban fighters have begun appearing around Kandahar, both along the border with Pakistan and in the interior of the province. Just over the border in the Pakistani town of Chaman, high-ranking Taliban officials are meeting openly and handing out guns, money and motorbikes, according to a witness and Afghan police officials. Poor Afghans who don't share the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islam or its mission of jihad are nevertheless accepting Pakistani money to plant land mines and bombs in Afghanistan, they said. " Doug Goulden wrote: We don't make foreign policy for other countries say what? even ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is deeply involved in making foreign policy in other countries; for example, we're withholding money to try to keep other countries out of the ICC. yes, of course it's our money to withhold if we want... but to say we're not trying to set their foreign policy is the same as saying the federal govt. isn't trying to impose a 21yr drinking age on the country by withholding money from the states. -c CheeseWeasle
Hehe, when was the last time the US didn't make a foreign policy for other countries? WW1? :) -- Berlin rules.
-
JoeSox wrote: So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. How about Clinton turning over control of our mission in Somalia? I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are long term commitments for both men and material. They can't be anything but that. Have there been tangible results since 9/11? I think so, we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, we can't change the nature of a group of people who have been at war for decades overnight. As for Iraq, again there is progress. A tyrant has been removed from power, and his henchmen are being rounded up. Where are the WMD? Probably buried in the desert somewhere, or possibly even in Syria.... but Saddam H. isn't going to be using them. And for losing soldiers, unfortunately that is a side effect of war. We don't make foreign policy for other countries, we hav to live with what ad how thy decide to behave. The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. The previous administration would lob a few cruise missles at a threat and call it good. Which is more effective? Personnaly I prefer fighting over there to seeing some half cocked terrorist coming here and killing Americans..... I can think of 3000 reasons to never wait to be attacked again. And yeah, I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them That Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. No, actually you don't - not if you're a left wing whiner. Doug Goulden wrote: Have there been tangible results since 9/11? Of course. No new attacks have taken place and I seriously doubt only one was planned. Doug Goulden wrote: They are gone now Of course you'll have a whiner or two saying, "No they're not". But that is idiotic since the point is they're not doing us any harm as they're pretty busy running around in the unpatrolled or uncontrolled (by our forces) areas of Afganistan and Pakistan; planning, plotting, running, hiding, maybe attacking soldiers - but doing us here no harm. Doug Goulden wrote: And for losing soldiers Two quick points: 1) soldiers {including reserves} know full well the risks, 2) Los Angeles / Chicago or New York are probably envious of the statistics --> which is not to say anyone should be thrilled, just puts it into perspective. Doug Goulden wrote: The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. Thank God. Doug Goulden wrote: I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them Amen! Mike