Yes, I would have much preferred if he had really responded honestly to some of those barbs. Then we could have had more Precious Moments ™ like the famous “Major-League Asshole” gaffe. :rolleyes:
Seriously, his comments may have been particularly mild, but they were also particularly superficial, particularly dismissive and particularly disrespectful. Just the way a good President should be, right?
As to the OP, I don’t see any reason to doubt the “respectfully.” What else would you have him do or say? Political leaders don’t last long by handwringing or temporizing in public, and case-making generally is left for minions. I think the “respectfully” is, as others have said, the proper political approach for acknowledging the opposing viewpoint. Everyone is free to doubt his motives, but politically I think his response was pretty well limited to exactly the words he used.
As for the hole card analogy – which I like, to a degree – don’t think that the other national leaders at the table haven’t seen Bush’s hand. Here’s Chirac on WMD:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030224-423466,00.html
Bad coding. In the quote, the initial statement is by the Time magazine questioner. The following statements are Chirac’s.
Its kinda like saying, “Youre a filthy son of a low life whore!! … and I mean that in the nicest possible way.”
I never did like being politically correct. 
Sorry that last post was a tad vague.
I meant, Yes, it was a bit too much to ask. He is a politician.
Yes, I suppose that politically, “respectfully” was a smart thing to say. It’s not so much about whether or not he said it, I guess, as it is about whether or not he meant it. I’m given lots of reason to doubt his respect, with all of the others things he said.
I suppose, like X~Slayer, I dislike politically-correct dissembling like this. If he (Bush) doesn’t respect the anti-war protestors’ views (and does anyone seriously think that he does?), then he shouldn’t say that he does.
Again, I guess I’m expecting too much when I expect a politician to speak honestly and clearly, rather than with PC doublespeak.
Well, I saw the clip of his saying it on TV, and if that’s “respectful” disagreement, I’m the Queen of Romania. The sneer was palpable, it said “I’m being polite and diplomatic, which is real hard for a straight-forward, down to earth guy like me when confronted by a bunch of naive peacenik hippies who oughta go back to Russia if they like it so much…”
Of course, my judgement may be clouded by that fact that I don’t really like the guy very much.
No kidding. Really don’t. Part of my resentment is he fooled me so completely. Back in 2000, I remember saying I prefered Gore, but the election seemed to be center-right against center-left, all in all, a fairly benign situation. Fuck me for stupid.
I see a guy who believes that hoary old myth about how a guy can have Hidden Greatness that nobody sees until a historic crisis arises, and his true nature is revealed, that he is a Leader of Men. God save us all, the little twit really believes he’s Churchill.
You know, you have said this a few times, so I am getting the hint that this is what your rant is specifically about. Please correct me if I am wrong.
But, then you say something like this;
The only way I can think that your exasperation is not hypocritical would be if you showed some sort of evidence that you have a clue what Bush means when he says something like this. Tenuous evidence is fine too, as long as it is not something rediculous like your opinion of his meaning, 'cause that doesn’t mean a damn thing to me. If you cannot, I only see this as whining that “I don’t think he respects me, so therefore he doesn’t”.