Mark Stapleton Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Even hardline conservatives are getting worried about President Bush's stewardship of the war they wanted, as this recent article explains. BTW, Bush was recently challenged to a public debate by Iranian leader Dr. Ahmaninejad. Of course, Bush and his supporters declined. Why? Are they scared? http://www.alternet.org/story/41086/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Even hardline conservatives are getting worried about President Bush's stewardship of the war they wanted, as this recent article explains. BTW, Bush was recently challenged to a public debate by Iranian leader Dr. Ahmaninejad. Of course, Bush and his supporters declined. Why? Are they scared?http://www.alternet.org/story/41086/ Hey Mark: I heard about the debate request but not the decline. I can only surmise that they are scared. W's not running would be his thinking, so why debate? Tho he held his own in the 04 debates. Kerry was a boob. (Howard Dean was my candidate in 04). W in 04 was very well prepared and rehersed. W's apparant lack of brain tissue truley frightens me. And he is so out of touch with the people in this country. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 W in 04 was very well prepared and rehersed. Who was he talking to in the debate when he interrupted himself to say, "Let me finish"? No one was stopping him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Adams Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Ron, Maybe you just found what has been wrong with W all the time. He is debating himself (the one that drinks, possibly?) You know when he does that famous "uuuh", he may be listening to drunk W. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 W. Bush had Kerry's committee record and other details down to the meticulous degree. The wartime commander in chief also had a wire over his shoulder and a box taped to his back, evidently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 The wartime commander in chief also had a wire over his shoulder and a box taped to his back, evidently. Kerry's running mate John Edwards appeared on the Tonight Show during the campaign, and Jay Leno showed a photo of Bush's back during the debate and asked Edwards about the evidence that Bush was wired. Instead of addressing the issue, Edwards cracked a lame, single-line joke about it (as I recall he said he thought the thing on Bush's back was "his battery") and the subject was dropped. That's an example of how deeply fear has been established now in America. If you're a politician running for office and some especially sensitive thing about the ruling regime is mentioned at all, you'd best just laugh it off. (And of course lose the election.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Bush is quite clearly an imbecile even by American standards. However he just this once shows a smidgeon of wisdom in refusing to get involved involved in a debate with that revolting little racist Dr. Ahmaninejad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Bush is quite clearly an imbecile even by American standards.However he just this once shows a smidgeon of wisdom in refusing to get involved involved in a debate with that revolting little racist Dr. Ahmaninejad One of the historically short sighted aspects of US foreign policy has that been the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” philosophy which led to backing some very unsavory regimes and groups. Members of this forum and other progressives have justifiably condemned the results of this policy. Unfortunate some suffer from the same myopia and use the same fallacious algebra: Bush = bad, Ahmaninejad = enemy of Bush, Ahmaninejad = good. Some times “a pox on both your houses” is the best philosophy. Debating Ahmaninejad Would be a bad idea because for all his faults Bush is the most important and powerful political leader on the planet. Him debating the Iranian president would increase his (Ahmaninejad’s) status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Even hardline conservatives are getting worried about President Bush's stewardship of the war they wanted, as this recent article explains. BTW, Bush was recently challenged to a public debate by Iranian leader Dr. Ahmaninejad. Of course, Bush and his supporters declined. Why? Are they scared?http://www.alternet.org/story/41086/ What makes you think Ahmaninejad is deserving of that honor? Do you think the director of the California penal system is obligated to debate Charles Manson? Ridiculous. If you bothered to read a newspaper today (big if), you'd know that Iran failed yesterday to comply with a United Nations deadline to halt its uranium enrichment work. This is a global problem, not just a US problem. If anyone should be debating Ahmaninejad, it's Kofi Annan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Debating Ahmaninejad Would be a bad idea because for all his faults Bush is the most important and powerful political leader on the planet. Him debating the Iranian president would increase his (Ahmaninejad’s) status. Someone once said in his inaugural address: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." One of his highest priorities was General and Complete Nuclear Disarmament. JFK would have been happy to debate anyone on the planet, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc. He was not a snob, and did not feel feel that his his own status would be diminished by speaking to the humblest person on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 (edited) Bush is quite clearly an imbecile even by American standards.However he just this once shows a smidgeon of wisdom in refusing to get involved involved in a debate with that revolting little racist Dr. Ahmaninejad You give him too much credit....he makes no decisions without the approval of Daddy and his handlers. The word Automaton comes to mind when I think of our "supreme commander". As an aside....life has been so much more pleasant since I placed B.S. on my ignore list. Thank you all for not quoting him in your responses lately....my blood pressure thanks you as well. Edited September 1, 2006 by Chuck Robbins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 Bush is quite clearly an imbecile even by American standards.However he just this once shows a smidgeon of wisdom in refusing to get involved involved in a debate with that revolting little racist Dr. Ahmaninejad I agree with you about Bush but I think that adding 'even by American standards' is harsh. All countries contain people who are ignorant and easily led. America probably has more, by dint of the fact that they have a larger population than other western nations. Further, they have been the subject of relentless propaganda from their media, constantly being told of the righteousness of their foreign excursions. America's 'democracy' is not democracy at all. It's a corporate oligarchy, jealously preserved and protected by a corrupt and venal media. America's failure to accept Ahmaninejad's challenge to debate is highly embarrassing and very telling, IMO. What can be lost by laying your case before the world? I believe the Iranian leader would probably not object to his opponent being wired up, given that his argument is a very strong one, IMO. Why can't Iran posess a nuclear weapon when America has 10,000 nuclear warheads? Is America the master race or something? Why doesn't America show the same concern about Pakistan's nuclear programme? This is a nation which reportedly harbors terrorist training schools. Other nations have nuclear weapons, so why must Iran be prevented from accessing this technology? There's no rational reason, none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Bush is quite clearly an imbecile even by American standards. However he just this once shows a smidgeon of wisdom in refusing to get involved involved in a debate with that revolting little racist Dr. Ahmaninejad You give him too much credit....he makes no decisions without the approval of Daddy and his handlers. Who helps you with your juvenile musings? Mommy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 The word Automaton comes to mind when I think of our "supreme commander". An automaton always does things automatically without question or complaint. Apparently Bush has to be roughed up now and then. ("It's okay, guys, it's nuttin', he just choked on a pretzel. Heh heh heh.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 The word Automaton comes to mind when I think of our "supreme commander". An automaton always does things automatically without question or complaint. Apparently Bush has to be roughed up now and then. ("It's okay, guys, it's nuttin', he just choked on a pretzel. Heh heh heh.") Maybe it was his version of Daddy's Diet Diplomacy Technique....(acronym DDT) people tend to see things your way when you threaten to binge and purge in your hosts' lap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now