There were what, one, at most two statements made by individuals who were not even policy-mkers within the administration who might have contradicted the President’s many-times repeated message… and if you look at the context of those one, maybe two seemingly contradictory statements, it becomes apparent that they were speaking incorrectly or being taken out of context… I think in at least one of the instances a retraction/correction was made shortly after.
So, on the one hand you have statement after consistent statement from Bush regarding his plan, and on the other hand, you have one, maybe two mistatements or taken-out-of-context statements uttered by low-level non-policy-making individuals from the administration… yet, despite the many, many repeated statements made by Bush regarding the matter, you choose to place great weight and credibility on one or two mistatements. Sorry, but I don’t see how that can possibly be a fair, or even reasonable way to judge anyone.
There were what, one, at most two statements made by individuals who were not even policy-mkers within the administration who might have contradicted the President’s many-times repeated message… and if you look at the context of those one, maybe two seemingly contradictory statements, it becomes apparent that they were speaking incorrectly or being taken out of context… I think in at least one of the instances a retraction/correction was made shortly after.
So, on the one hand you have statement after consistent statement from Bush regarding his plan, and on the other hand, you have one, maybe two mistatements or taken-out-of-context statements uttered by low-level non-policy-making individuals from the administration… yet, despite the many, many repeated statements made by Bush regarding the matter, you choose to place great weight and credibility on one or two mistatements. Sorry, but I don’t see how that can possibly be a fair, or even reasonable way to judge anyone.
:s[/quote]
"A President is judged by a lot of things. But one of the most visible ways that people judge a President is by the nature of the people who he surrounds himself with. And this administration has worked hard to attract people who serve our country by remembering a few basic principles. . . .
The first thing you’d notice there, I think, is a rug. It turns out each President designs his own rug. Being the delegator that I am – and I think if you were to ask any Cabinet officer and/or member of my administration he’d say, President Bush is a good delegator. Well, I delegated the design of the rug to our fabulous First Lady. (Applause.) Her taste is better than mine. (Laughter.)"
– President Bush, January 9, 2004
Maybe games will chime in and explain the difference between making foreign policy that involves going to war and designing a rug.[/quote]
Not convinced yet? Apparently you’re unaware that President Bush characterizes himself as the “Great Delegator”:
"Summoning reporters to his conference room on the modified Boeing 747 for the first time in his presidency, Bush gave an unusually introspective account of the style he plans to employ in the quest for peace. He said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the road ahead. . . .
[quote="fred smith…why anyone should not take the president’s words at face value.[/quote]
Pray tell why anyone should take his words at face value.
Even if we ignore the discussion that was had over whether he lied or not over invading Iraq, he like all politicians will bend and spin supporting evidence to suit whatever topic he is commenting on.
Anyone that blindly accepts at face value the words of any politician, especially those at very senior levels is only a fool to themselves.
It is just a shame that a few posters on this board are incapable of realising that.
[quote=“Traveller”]
Anyone that blindly accepts at face value the words of any politician, especially those at very senior levels is only a fool to themselves.
It is just a shame that a few posters on this board are incapable of realising that.[/quote]
Don’t be ridiculous. Who said anything about blind acceptance?
In any event, its more foolish, not to mention highly unfair, to maintain allegations of dishonesty with no proof whatsoever of the veracity of such allegations. :s
Maybe games will chime in and explain the difference between making foreign policy that involves going to war and designing a rug.[/quote]
Not convinced yet? Apparently you’re unaware that President Bush characterizes himself as the “Great Delegator”:
"Summoning reporters to his conference room on the modified Boeing 747 for the first time in his presidency, Bush gave an unusually introspective account of the style he plans to employ in the quest for peace. He said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the road ahead. . . .
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Traveller”]
Anyone that blindly accepts at face value the words of any politician, especially those at very senior levels is only a fool to themselves.
It is just a shame that a few posters on this board are incapable of realising that.[/quote]
Don’t be ridiculous. Who said anything about blind acceptance?
In any event, its more foolish, not to mention highly unfair, to maintain allegations of dishonesty with no proof whatsoever of the veracity of such allegations. :s[/quote]
As expected a highly typical response from a member of the Bush brigade.
I have no doubt that your unwavering support for the little s**t will continue until he finally leaves office. I do wonder though, had Bush been a democrat rather than a republican and behaved in the exact same manner whether either of you would still have been so supportive, somehow at least in fred’s case i doubt it.
There’s a statement completely devoid of any value whatsoever.
I can’t speak for fred. However, one of my favorite presidents is Harry Truman. I admire him for being a leader, especially when public opinion was against him. Likewise, I loathed Clinton, not so much for his policies, but due to the fact that he never led the nation. He relied way too much on polls. I want someone who will lead.
I cannot speak for fred. However, I can comment on the sheer stupidity and or ignorance of your above statement.
fred has consistently complained that Bush has failed terribly as a fiscal conservative. Your characterization of our support of Bush as “unwavering” illustrates your ignorance of the matter. But, please don’t let that stop you from posting ridiculous statements. The entertainment value makes up for the lack of substance.
There’s a statement completely devoid of any value whatsoever.[/quote]
So unlike all of your responses and posts eh !!!
I can’t speak for fred. However, one of my favorite presidents is Harry Truman. I admire him for being a leader, especially when public opinion was against him. Likewise, I loathed Clinton, not so much for his policies, but due to the fact that he never led the nation. He relied way too much on polls. I want someone who will lead.[/quote]
Well if you actually think Bush is leading the US into a better position than it was before, then all i can say is that you are indeed blinkered and following blindly.
TM -
Truman f*ked up Central America too much and we, the USA, are still trying to correct his errors. Good-to-OK domestically, way out of his league internationally. Just my .02 on harry.
News just in -
[quote]Senate intelligence chief blasts media over leaks
Tue Jun 27, 7:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday blasted U.S. media for exposing details of highly secretive intelligence programs and asked the Bush administration for a formal damage assessment.
Sen. Pat Roberts , a Kansas Republican, asked U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte to report particularly on any damage to
President George W. Bush’s domestic spying program and another secret program by the
Treasury Department that tracks private bank records.
“Numerous, recent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence programs have directly threatened important efforts in the war against terrorism,” Roberts, a staunch White House ally, said in a letter to Negroponte.
“Whether the president’s Terrorist Surveillance Program or the Department of Treasury’s effort to track terrorist financing, we have been unable to persuade the media to act responsibly.”
Negroponte’s office had no immediate comment. The national intelligence director told Roberts’ committee this year that media leaks compromise the effectiveness of intelligence operations and undermine the morale of intelligence officers." - more at link news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060627/ts_ … y_leaks_dc[/quote]
I think this one is going to generate heat in a legal way. We’l see.
That may be true, Cowboy. And perhaps Bush will screw up the ME (though I hardly can imagine how anyone could)… but, I agree with Bush’s approach and I am glad he is sticking to his plan, despite all of the opposition to the same. Bush knew from the start that his place in history would be determined largely by the success or failure of his policy in the ME, and he knows that the chance of success is very slim… yet, he decided then to go ahead and he has basically stayed the course.
Time, not the likes of Traveller, will tell us whether Bush is a success or a failure.
From Monday’s Oversight Hearing on Pre-War Intelligence Relating to Iraq. Question by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) as to why he and other members of Congress were given false information.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]TM -
Truman f*ked up Central America too much and we, the USA, are still trying to correct his errors. Good-to-OK domestically, way out of his league internationally. Just my .02 on harry.
News just in -
[quote]Senate intelligence chief blasts media over leaks
Tue Jun 27, 7:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday blasted U.S. media for exposing details of highly secretive intelligence programs and asked the Bush administration for a formal damage assessment.
Sen. Pat Roberts , a Kansas Republican, asked U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte to report particularly on any damage to
President George W. Bush’s domestic spying program and another secret program by the
Treasury Department that tracks private bank records.
“Numerous, recent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence programs have directly threatened important efforts in the war against terrorism,” Roberts, a staunch White House ally, said in a letter to Negroponte.
“Whether the president’s Terrorist Surveillance Program or the Department of Treasury’s effort to track terrorist financing, we have been unable to persuade the media to act responsibly.”
Negroponte’s office had no immediate comment. The national intelligence director told Roberts’ committee this year that media leaks compromise the effectiveness of intelligence operations and undermine the morale of intelligence officers." - more at link news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060627/ts_ … y_leaks_dc[/quote]
I think this one is going to generate heat in a legal way. We’l see.[/quote]
TC, i hope it does, it is time that the judiciary took a long hard look at the actions of the administration, although i believe the majority of the SC are republican appointed, we all know where their bias will likely lie.
