Well, I’m not going to argue with that. 
Seems to me you don’t need more evidence that the extremists are right. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I actually agree with this. I think his reasoning for leaving it for “future presidents” is so he can say “when I left, it was moving forward in a positive direction. Good things were happening. I have no control over what happened after I left office.”
I think he wants to prepare Americans for the worse (maybe lots of troops still there for years to come) with the hope that he can surprise on the upside (bring most home within the next 2 years). I don’t expect we’ll have more than 30k there when Bush leaves office. Which is still a lot, but only a fraction of how many are there now. Believe it or not, the ISF is making some good progress. Progress that should’ve come at least a year ago, but progress none thel ess. And I think Khalilizad (or however you spell his name) was a good pick for the job. Again, a year or two late, but a good pick none the less.
Because in order to do so, they need a brief period that provides an illusion of stability. That way they can claim that everything was peachy when we got out, and blame the problems on the Iraqi govt not running the show correctly.
Can you clarify? Are you saying Bush is going to pull out completely after a “brief period”? Define “brief”. Then let’s talk about the wager we’re going to place on that happening.
Poor John is just feeling the strains of trying to defend this indefensible administration.
It’s just my prediction. At somepoint in the near future, we’ll get a “lull” in the action, at which point we’ll get the hell out as quick as we can. From that point forward, we’ll claim that “it wasn’t broken when we left”, and blame the new Iraqi govt for the continuing chaos.
I am aghast that someone actually framed that glurge-y picture. I may need meds to crub my brain of that filth. :eek:
Bush got tired of being, excuse me, playing President long ago. It just shows more now. He is just so bad at it, if he wasn’t such a dick, I would feel sorry for him. He is tired of having to do this schtick, IMO, and his handlers were right all along–he really cannot handle open questions from the peanut gallery. I am appalled that anyone thinks that Bush is 1. intelligent and 2. able-as in capable of leading. Evidence is everywhere, sadly enough. IMO, he wants to keep a lid on Iraq until after the midterms, at least. All hell can break loose around Sept of '08 and that’ll be fine with him. This is a war made by him, fostered by him and it makes me sick that he can just walk away, shrug his weedy shoulders and say, “gosh, I gave it the ole college try. God must have other plans for Iraq.”
I will never feel sorry for McClellan, who makes Ari Fleischer look human. I am convinced that Scott has a computer chip in his head somewhere–does that man have any humanity in him at all? Bleh.
Isn’t there supposed to be a two click rule for referencing pornographic images?
Well, your entitled to your own opinion of course, but I think you’re basing your prediction on a charicature of what you think Bush is rather than what he actually is. I’ve seen every indication that he’s going to gut things out in Iraq no matter what.
Nice slip there. Sigmund leaps for joy.
Ze goggles! Zey do nossing!
Yeah, I know that jokes gotten old, but it seemed so appropriate.
Heh. I thought George Washington was meant to be Mother Theresa before I expanded the image.
I believe that you believe everything that you said above.
John, Helen Thomas was a member of the Washington Press Corps before George Bush was shitting his first diaper. She joined 63 years ago – during WWII.
She has been covering White House Press Conferences since Kennedy and has travelled extensively with Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Clinton.
Suddenly with Dubya, she was virtually shut out and snubbed. There isn’t a person reading my words who doesn’t know why. It isn’t because of partisanship – not after all those years of covering both sides. It’s because her questions are to the point and tough as nails. ** And members of the current Administration can’t cover their asses.**
She has balls bigger than anyone who stands at that podium.
Keep in mind that Ms. Thomas represents the people’s right to know. George Bush is a public servant.
I think you’re being a little harsh on her. I don’t think anyone with objectivity could make a case that Bush went to war as a “last resort.” She could have phrased it better and tougher and perhaps she should have asked him to confirm or deny the accounts of the Downing Street memo. But if his cabal had anyone with her courage and integrity, perhaps he would not have made the colossal blunder that he did.
Helen Thomas asked a question that should have been asked long ago. It’s a shame that such a thing is “being mean” now. It used to be called journalism. As for Bush leaving his mess for others to clean up, well shit. That’s been his style his entire life. He is still nothing more than a spoiled rich little frat boy. Responsibility? Acountability? Harumph.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that (except as noted below) , but I was responding to a poster who said Bush should have treated her better in that press conference. I disagree-- I wouldn’t even have let her into the press conference. Why should Bush allow someone into his press conference under the guise of an objective reporter when she has made public her disdain for his administration? I don’t care how many years she racked up as a reporter-- she can’t be considered one any longer. One might as well have expected Clinton to invite Rush Limbaugh to one of his press conferences.
Don’t be so sure that “the people” are with Ms. Thomas. The press is viewed by most people as slightly higher than used car salesmen and ambulance chasing lawyers. Her question at that press conference was of the “Are you still beating your wife” variety. It plays well to the left-leaning Bush haters, but not to those who don’t hate him. When those people see the president being badgering with rhetorical questions, the President wins. And that’s probably why he (or Rove) wanted her there, and why he called on her.
I am no fan of Bush, and I don’t like his presidency. But… I have no need or desire to simply see him embarassed at a press confernce. That’s all a question like that seeks to do. She isn’t going to get an answer about what Bush’s “real” reasons were for going to war, but she gets to make a jab at him in public. BFD. It plays well to the left and the Bush haters, but I don’t think it serves the process of getting the facts out.
Right then. The only true journalists are those who ask prearranged or softball questions which segue easily into the party platform “sound bites”. Jeff Gannon was one of those “real journalists” I guess. :rolleyes: