I’ve said nothing about bias. I don’t think the reporter was biased-- please stop impying that I do. I said “sloppy”. And I said I thought it was a bad interpretation of what Bush SAID, not what he has done. One doesn’t report about what a person “says” based on what one infer from his actions.
Nighttime supplied a link to the transcript of the interview, and that clears things up a bit. But the article, as written, is still sloppy. As written, there is too big a gap between the quote given and the conclusion presented (in the first paragraph).
No, only that most voters didn’t think they are going as badly as Kerry said they were. In fact, if one is to infer anything from the article, one would infer that Bush DOES thinks some things in Iraq are going badly:
Seeing as how your President in now saying that the vote was a blank approval of – as per your own words – “neocon” iniciative, who’s right? You or Fearless Misleader?
Well, of course I think I’m right and Bush is wrong. Bush is saying that the voters chose him over Kerry and thereby gave him, and his policies on Iraq, a nod. Iraq was a major issue, but it wasn’t the ONLY issue in the election. Bush is making an assumption that it all came down to Iraq. Maybe, but we really don’t know. Anyway, what president is going to come out and say: “Hey, I won the election, but I think the voters really preferred my opponent’s ideas on policy ‘X’.” Bush is just saying what he’s said all along. He thinks he’s right on Iraq, and he thinks the majority of Americans agree with him. Is that a surprise? Is that supposed to be something new?
What you quoted from me was that, IMO, Bush should have lost because of Iraq. I think it should have sunk him, but it didn’t. Either most voters were OK with his Iraq policy, or (more likely) they preferred his OVERALL policies to Kerry’s. And even that’s an oversimplification, because personality plays a big role in presidential elections, too. Maybe it all just came down to Kerry not connecting with the voters as well. In an election as close as the last one, it could have been any number of things.
As far as this particular thread goes, though, I just don’t understand what the issue is. Was there anything really NEW in the article? Has Bush given any indication that he planned to ditch any of his crew over problems in Iraq? No. Does anyone expect Bush to suddenly admit to a reporter that his Iraq policy is riddled with problems. No.
In short, what is the debate? What new outrage are we supposed to pick up from this article?
Those who don’t get it by now perhaps never will. But those who *do * need to keep each other from despairing. It’s necessary to remind each other that things haven’t always been this way, and don’t need to be now, and unless we despair they someday won’t be anymore.
I read the article as Bush trying to proactively set up a defense that his guys who may have done things that will later be discovered to be illegal – like torture, murder and kidnapping – cannot be found guilty because the U.S. electorate has given their stamp of approval to these activities by not tossing his ass to the curb over Iraq.
I think the U.S. electorate has approved the kidnapping, torture and murder of U.S. civilians, but I still think they are illegal and I think Bush’s boys can still be nailed for them. Lots of people approved of lynchings at one time, too … didn’t make 'em legal.
How exactly would Bush’s election win provide a legal defense for, say, Paul Wolfowitz if Wolfowitz were to be charged with criminal activity? I don’t understand the legal precedent.
So it is stupid and, well, WRONG to say "“We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections”.
Some of think it is beyond wrong and stupid. Some of us think those are the words of a man who is so blinded to his own missteps and mistake as to be dangerous to the country and the rest of the world.
Are there so many lawyers on this board that the rest of us are now required to discuss *every * question in strictly legalistic terms now, too?
I read Evil Captor’s comment as meaning Bush is setting up a political defense - not only for himself and members of his administration, but for GOP Congresspeople who may be reluctant, or feeling pressure to dissent. He’s taking a load of criticism off of Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. by making it appear that it’s all his own doing, and he has a resounding mandate, y’all just shut up now and go along.
Right, it’s not a legal defense, it’s Bush giving political cover to his cronies. I don’t think it’ll work out if the Dems get the White House in 2008: Bush doesn’t have the mandate he thinks he does, and if things don’t work out VERY well in Iraq, he’s going to be VERY unpopular in 2009.
Sooner than that - the Congresspersons who’ve gone along, lemminglike, with Bush’s plans are going to have their own “accountability moments” next year.
I agree. Bush essentially didn’t answer the question. And I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that a politician was caught answering a different question than was actually asked by a reporter. Seriously, has he given ANY indication in the past the he planned to dump any of his staff because of problems in Iraq? Hasn’t he shown every intention to keep those guys on? This ain’t news, folks.
Here’s how I see it. The reporter used sloppy writing tactics to jazz up his story because he got a shitty interview with Bush. It’s not even the reporter’s fault-- Bush is famous for giving shitty interviews. The only thing new in the article is that Bush will stop pushing for the anti-SSM amendment. It’s new, but not particularly surprising as it died a quick death last year. It doesn’t even serve the tactical purpose of scoring electoral points for Republicans, since there aren’t any elections going on right now.
Perhaps the key word was “percentage.” Rather than using “more” you played the intellectual dishonesty card. Mind you, the so-called southern democrats never really encompassed the liberal ideas of many northern democrats. Which is probably why you might see more republicans in office in the south now, or others that are affectionately called dixie-crats–they have a (D) after their name, but have an (R) agenda.
Regarding the whole legal statement thing… unless you’ve been in a coma for 4 years, it is quite clear that the Bush Administration has not a care in the world about the legality of anything they do, because they are Right and to not do it would be Wrong, and thus above the law.
Or, to muck about into the worst of worst of movie quotes… “I am da law”
So what was your point again? Let’s look at what you said.
Intellectual dishonesty 1) Swapped “right” and “left” with “Republican” and “Democrat” while surely knowing that most of the south was right-wind Democrats
Intellectual dishonesty 2) Used thus said percentage to suggest that the right is more interested in civil rights than the left, ignoring, well, history, and, like, real life
Intellectual dishonesty 3) Pretended that the position of the right in the past is not directly linked to the position of the right today (replace “blac- er, sorry, negro” or “woman” with “homosexual”)