Umm, so what about the rest of the population who watched his speech and saw it? Just because someone didn’t see it doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to bitch about it.
FWIW, I think it fits him and his whole “Mission from God” standpoint. The fwatboy is all gwowed up and started his vewwy own WAAAAR. I’m sure Herbert Walker is very, very proud of his son. :rolleyes:
Sam
You’re 100% correct, if Lucki was complaining about the speech. If that was the case I wouldn’t have felt the need to respond to this thread.
He or she’s not complaining about what Bush said though. Lucki is complaining about what Bush did before he entered the room that only a couple of people saw. He “pumped his fist.” What does that mean? Was it a full ‘hoo-ah! I rule!’ pump, or a little one inch “OK I can do this. I feel good” pump? We don’t know, because we didn’t see it. Lucki doesn’t know either, but because he or she disagrees with Dubya, the worst is assumed.
Like said before, there are plenty of things to knock Bush about. Condenming him based on mere conjecture about something so inconsequential reeks of ignorance.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/5434637.htm
Lucki, I’m with you. This is an entirely inappropriate response. “Feels good”!!! Yeah, it really feels good to know that many people are going to be killed (whether you call it murder or not), and many more are going to be injured, homeless, and/or refugees. That’s not something to feel good about. Even if I thought this invasion was justified, I wouldn’t think this was the right way for him to act.
ME
Without siding with President Bush and how he has conducted himself, I will have to side with those who give the benefit of the doubt. No one has any idea of what he was responding to when Pres. Bush pumped his fist.
Brutus, President Bush is giving the Democrats a chance I didn’t think they had. Too much time to predict the outcome of 2004. If the Coalition finds WoMD, good for Bush. If the economy stops stagnating, good for Bush. If our men and women in the military come home relatively unscathed, good for Bush, especially if they do it before campaigning goes into high gear. IMO, the economy is what will have the most sway, even though any President’s ability to flatten the business cycle and overtly control the economy is weak, at best.
I agree. I’m not saying history will repeat, but this is similar to 1991. Economy not in the best shape it’s ever been, what should be an easy war in Iraq, and a Bush in office. I think it’ll mostly depend on the economy. Presidents are judged–unfairly in my opinion–on the economy. If this war goes quickly and easily and the economy starts to rebound, I think Bush will have a good shot for a second term. If the economy stays about where it is, Random Democrat could win, but the Democrats also need to put together a platform–something they have yet to seem to do.
Gee…Bush 1.0 had the highest approval ratings ever after fighting Iraq, and he lost to a hillbilly adulterer. Perhaps you should read history books instead of using them to prop up your kitchen table.
Bush Sr. sold out his conservative base, hence the ‘anger vote’ for Perot. That cost him the election. GW has done no such thing.
Didn’t your history books tell you anything?
And just as John Gotti had his Sammy the Bull, I guess Bush’s hitman is the Air Force, right? Or the Army? Navy? Marines?
I said it before, and I’ll say it again, in bold letters so you can’t possibly miss it:
THE MEN AND WOMEN IN THE ARMED FORCES ARE NOT MURDERERS!!!
That is all.
CNN, the same news service that has President Bush pumping his hand in triumph :rolleyes: has this piece on the decision-making process. Bush’s last minute decision: ‘Let’s go’ Doesn’t seem like a smiling, winking process to me.
Everyone apply your own biases at will. The only opinion I will give is that I agree with Airman Doors, USAF 100%.
Nice back peddling. Unfortuanately you peddled out of a lake only to fall into the river. Conservative base had nothing to do with it, it was all terrible economy.
To ‘backpedal’ is to ‘retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude’. I have and will do neither.
GW will win in '04, that is a virtual certainty. You are stuck in the early nineties, and insist on conjuring non-existant parallels between Bush Sr. and GW. The economy of today is far better then the economy of the early 90’s. GW has a strong and loyal conservative base.
The ‘Random Democrat’ poll was fun and all, but too many people are setting themselves up for serious dissappointment when they realise you can’t vote for ‘Random Democrat’. Those with Democrat leanings will have to vote for illuminaries such as Gephardt, Dean, and Lieberman. Ya, right, they have a chance.
You Nazi!
So your arguement is that conservatives allowed an adulterer hillbilly to become president because they were angry that Bush was a liar. That certainly explains everything, since the 90% approval was divided between Bush and Perot. Oh, wait, it wasn’t. Not that i would expect a realistic explination from you, anyway. I await your next post, when you call me unamerican and blaim the liberal media.
Ooh! Ooh! Who was it? LBJ? Sounds like him! Might be Nixon, although he seemed more the type to glare and hiss, not get loud. Reagan wouldn’t have the energy…Ford? Don’t tell me it was Saint Jimmy Carter!
Also, I think I’ll take myself down to Eddie Brandt’s Saturday Matinee and rent Feed.
It was Martin Van Buren! I say Impeach him retroactively!
As a long-time frustrated moderate, i.e. a commonsensical schmuck who’s pretty fed up with partisan posing on either side, I’m pretty sick, tired and FED UP with being reduced to voting for cartoons.
Dubya is pretty damn dismal. Okay, he’s horrible. But why the hell, with all the raw potential this country offers, have I had to hold my nose and settle for the “least awful” in at least the last 4 presidential elections?
I haven’t been voting “for” something, just trying to exert damage control. Can anybody explain why and how the choices became this narrow, stupid and superficial?
Veb