Question for right-wingers/conservatives...

Guinastasia · September 2, 2004, 9:04pm

Holy shit.

He actually said that?

Jesus, I swear Bush could come right out, declare that Hitler was a genius, and some of these yahoos would scramble to find a way to spin it.

John_Mace · September 2, 2004, 9:48pm

That was hilarious!! I’ve got the perfect blonde chick for the job, too.

Binarydrone · September 2, 2004, 9:53pm

Ok, but only if he neglects to put her on the window ledge before plummeting to the earth

GLWasteful · September 2, 2004, 9:57pm

Or he decides that the last thing he wants to do is be seen with the blonde chick in question. After all, even Islamist fanatics have standards. And throws her to the ground woughwy.

John_Mace · September 2, 2004, 10:00pm

Nah… Can’t wish death on someone in the SDMB. How about he just ravages her in various ways first?

World_Eater · September 2, 2004, 10:06pm

So why don’t the Dems come out with a fucking commercial?

Cue all the spooky music and shit…

"I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority."
George W. Bush - March 13, 2002

Voice: It’s not in the Presiden’ts interest to find bin laden? He doesn’t care about bringing the mastermind behind 9/11, the worst attack ever on American soil, to justice? What the fuck is up with that?

[sub]vote kerry![/sub]

How about that Moto? Bush doesn’t give a shit about finding bin laden, discuss.

elucidator · September 2, 2004, 10:13pm

The word you are groping for is “ravish”, unless I completely misunderstand you. I’m assuming you are, like myself, kind of a deve?

And I want to commend all concerned with sternly refusing any “Muslim” and “pork” jokes in reference to Ms. Coulter. It is just this sort of self-restraint and good taste that keeps the Pit such a model of polite decorum and civil discourse.

Binarydrone · September 2, 2004, 10:13pm

Is it wrong that I find that totally freaking hot?

Binarydrone · September 2, 2004, 10:18pm

Fuuuuuuck you

John_Mace · September 2, 2004, 10:30pm

Did Bush actually say this? If you look at the text of his press conference on Mar 13, 2002, he doesn’t. What he does say is:

QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?

Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information – if you know if he is dead or alive. Deep in your heart, don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won’t really want to make…

BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man’s on the run if he’s alive at all. And I – you know, who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not? We hadn’t heard from him in a long time.

And the idea of focusing on one person is really – indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror’s bigger than one person. And he’s just – he’s a person who has now been marginalized. His network is – his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.

He is – you know, as I mention in my speeches – I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.

So I don’t know where he is. Nor – you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There’s going to be other struggles like Shah-e-Kot. And I’m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shah-e-kot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly; we’re tough, we’re strong, they’re well-equipped, we have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

I tried googling the exact quote, and all I get is references to blogs or sites like this one. No primary sources.

MysteryFellow63427 · September 2, 2004, 10:35pm

Unless they give Osama a shave and a bath first, that would be pretty skeevy. :shock:

In answer to the OP, yep, that there’s a flip-flop.

FTR I consider myself nominally Republican, but I won’t be voting for either Bush or Kerry this fall.

Binarydrone · September 2, 2004, 10:39pm

No man, see that is the hot part. Dirty, dirty love.

John_Mace · September 2, 2004, 10:43pm

My bad. Ravish is correct. But if Kerry can say “Jen-jiss Kahn”, I can say “ravage” instead of ravish…

Revtim · September 2, 2004, 10:56pm

Like John Mace I failed to find a primary source. This one may not be true, folks.

John_Mace · September 2, 2004, 11:00pm

Yikes. Just heard that Swifty ad again. And Kerry uses “ravage” (correctly) in it, too!

Shayna · September 2, 2004, 11:08pm

Hi there, Mr. Moto! We’re gonna have to stop meeting like this, or people are gonna start talkin’.

How 'bout I let the man who can actually do something about it, answer your question…

Text: Remarks by John F. Kerry to the American Legion

(All emphasis mine)

I can’t come here and fulfill my obligation as a candidate for president of these great United States of America and not give you an honest and serious appraisal of the challenge we face in Iraq and the war on terror.

No one in the United States doubted the outcome in Iraq or how swiftly the war would be won. No one. We knew we had the best trained troops in the world and, true to form, they performed magnificently, and we are all proud and grateful.

(APPLAUSE)

But the certainty of winning the war placed the most solemn obligation on the civilian leadership of this country to make certain that we had a plan to win the peace. The Army chief of staff, General Shinseki, told Congress we would need several hundred thousand American troops to win the peace and do the job properly.

His candor was rewarded with early retirement and his advice ignored, sending a chilling message throughout the ranks of the professional military.

By dismissing the State Department’s plan for postwar Iraq and proceeding unilaterally, the civilian leadership simply did not put the mechanism in place to be able to secure the country.

They were unprepared for the looting, insecurity and insurgency that burst out with the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

**They failed to secure Iraq’s borders and so allowed thousands of foreign terrorists, Islamist militants and intelligence agents to penetrate and destabilize postwar Iraq. **

Amazingly, they had no real plan for postwar political transition.

All of this happened despite clear and precise bipartisan warnings from Congress and regional experts.

Then as the challenge grew around our troops, the civilian leadership failed to respond adequately; failed to share responsibility with NATO, the greatest alliance we’ve ever built; failed to share it with the U.N., which also offered assistance; failed to share reconstruction or decision-making as a way of inviting others to shoulder the burden; and failed to provide the security on the ground necessary for postwar reconstruction.

**They rushed and short-changed the training and equipment of the Iraqi police. They failed to recruit enough experts in language and culture of the region and used those that they had ineffectively. **

The civilian leadership made a decision to disband the Iraqi military completely, so there was no internal structure to maintain order. They chose consciously to put an American instead of an international face on the occupation; failed to prepare for a large number of prisoners; and **most significantly, failed even to guard nuclear waste and ammunition storage sites, despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction was their fundamental reason for the war.

And some of the weapons that we didn’t guard are the very weapons being targeted at our troops today. **

As a result, today terrorists have secured havens in Iraq that were not there before. And we have been forced to reach accommodation with those that have repeatedly attacked our troops. Violence has spread in Iraq. Iran has expand its influence and extremism has gained momentum.

Now, I know that some of these things are hard to listen to. I know that it’s always tough to talk truth to power. But I think the **president himself on Monday admitted that he miscalculated in Iraq. **

In truth, his miscalculation was ignoring the advice that was given to him, including the best advice of America’s own military.

So when the president says we have the same position on Iraq, I have to respectfully disagree. Our differences could not be plainer, and I have set them out consistently.

When it comes to Iraq it’s not that I would have done one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently.

**I would have relied on American troops in Tora Bora, the best troops in the world, when we had Osama bin Laden in our sights, trapped in the mountains. I would not have sent Afghans up into those mountains who a week earlier had been fighting on the other side. I would have sent the best-trained forces in the world to get the number one criminal and terrorist in the world. **

(APPLAUSE)

I never would have diverted resources so quickly from Afghanistan before finishing the job. I would have given the inspectors the time they needed to do the job, not because that might have done the whole job of getting the weapons, but because by doing so we could have brought other countries to our side, which is the way you provide our troops with the best protection and the way you provide America with the greatest chance of success.

**I would have made sure that we listened to our senior military advisers.

I would have made sure that every soldier put in harm’s way had state-of-the-art body armor, state-of-the-art Humvees and the equipment we needed.

I would have built a strong, broad coalition of our allies around the world because every one of you sitting here knows, no matter what – take away party affiliation: This isn’t Democrat. This isn’t Republican. This isn’t independent. This is just common sense. Because everyone here knows that the best way to protect the troops is to make sure not only they have the equipment, but that you’re going from the maximum position of strength. **

If there’s one thing I learned from my service, which was a difficult time as we all know, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace. That I think is critical.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the bottom line, fellow Legionnaires, is this: that I don’t believe we, you, have to be shouldering nearly the entire financial cost of this war – more than $200 billion – and short-changing investments and health care and veterans, in education, and our safety at home.

But the question now is not just what we should have done, but what we can and must now do. I don’t think we need what President Bush has defined as a catastrophic success. I think we need a real success.

We need to bring our allies to our side. We need to share the burdens, the cost to the American taxpayer. We need to share the burden and reduce the risk to American soldiers. Together, we need to more rapidly train Iraqi police and military to take over the job of protecting the country.

That is what I will do as commander in chief because I’ll tell you what, that’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home as fast as possible.

John_Mace · September 2, 2004, 11:53pm

Hey, Equipoise: How about providing a link to a primary source for the 2nd quote in your OP, or ask a mod to close this thread? As much as I’d like to continue the Ann Coulter musings, we are supposed to be fighting ignorance here.

SteveG1 · September 3, 2004, 12:16am

I’m partial to red Dr-I triplanes, even though it would be a break with tradition.

Darwin_s_Finch · September 3, 2004, 12:32am

In that vein, here is a link to Bush’s press conference on March 13, 2002. The OP’s quote (which is found elsewhere on the net, but almost always in conjunction with the first quote; I have been unable to find any reference to that quote, especially in anything said by Bush on Sept 13, 2001) is, at best, a paraphrase of the following:

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part – deep in your heart, don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won’t really eliminate the threat of –

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is – really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s just – he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is – as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide – if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.

So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There’s going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I’m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We’re tough, we’re strong, they’re well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. **And, again, I don’t know where he is. I – I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became – we shoved him out more and more on the margins.** He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we – excuse me for a minute – and if we find a training camp, we’ll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That’s one of the things – part of the new phase that’s becoming apparent to the American people is that we’re working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

I have no love for Bush, and have no intention of voting for him come November. But I also have a particular distaste for “quote mining” and paraphrasing. It’s easy enough to come up with stuff Bush really did say or do without having to resort to rhetorical trickery (which I’m not saying Equipoise did intentionally, since these two quotes have been floating around for some time).

Brutus · September 3, 2004, 1:01am

What, no apologies from Equipoise for the misquotes?