I would have loved to see the Presiden'ts face after reading this....

**LilacDragon** · 09-13-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

Strange, I don't remember him saying he was a great guy. I must have taken a bathroom break or something?

Puleeze - every speech he gives any more is a tribute to himself and how he knows better then anyone how to run the world.

**Lady's Human** · 09-13-2006, 06:09 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/...ipt/index.html

How is this speech in ANY way self congratulatory?

**LilacDragon** · 09-13-2006, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/...ipt/index.html

How is this speech in ANY way self congratulatory?

I'm sorry. You are right. At no point does he take personal credit for much of anything.

I see that he does go on a bit about removing Saddam and his threat from power. He mentions Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam hasn't ever been an express threat to us! We sold him weapons not all that long ago. And the first time we went into the Gulf was because he had sent troops into Kuwait - it had nothing to do with protecting America. And if he was such a threat, why didn't we take care of it while we were there the first time. At no time has he supported Al Qaeda - that would be Syria. Ah, but not only are Syrians the "friends" of the U.S. in general - Syrian officials are friends of the Bush family.

Sorry, but if we can consider impeaching a President for a stupid stain on a dress, why is it that a man who lies to Congress to follow a personal agenda that gets thousands of people killed is allowed to stand at a podium and tell me how much God loves me?

**Lady's Human** · 09-13-2006, 06:52 PM

We didn't take care of Saddam Hussein the first time we were in Iraq because it was outside of the UN mandate for the operation, and we were invading with troops on line next to US troops who would have thought nothing of turning the turrets of their T-72s 90 degrees left or right and engaging US Forces (Syrian) had we crossed that line.

The Syrian Monarchy has never been a friend of the US, merely an ally of convenience during DS because Iraq was as much a threat to Syria as anyone else. Both sides play that game, and have for aeons, as "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

The US sold Iraq conventional weapons during the early 1980's while they were fighting Iran as a counterbalance to Iranian power. During the 1970's we sold arms to Iran for the same reasons, so there was a counterweight to growing Iraqi power. Geopolitics is ugly, and makes for strange and temporary alliances.

**LilacDragon** · 09-13-2006, 07:04 PM

You know what - we are going to have to agree to disagree on the current administration. Apparently you like it - I do not.

**Lady's Human** · 09-13-2006, 07:22 PM

As discussed ad nauseum in other political threads, there are things that the present administration has done that I like, and there are things that the current administration has done that I don't like. That statement holds true for the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 41 administrations, and holds true for my historical knowledge of all administrations. There are Democrats I would support, there are Republicans I would support. No administration is perfect.

**BOBS DAD** · 09-15-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

As discussed ad nauseum in other political threads, there are things that the present administration has done that I like, and there are things that the current administration has done that I don't like. That statement holds true for the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 41 administrations, and holds true for my historical knowledge of all administrations. There are Democrats I would support, there are Republicans I would support. No administration is perfect.

LH,

I find this statement of yours to be be disingenious at best and at worst, an insult to an intelligent person's intelligence!!!

I think you ARE A "HUGE" FAN of this President, and like many others who I am friends with (who are similarly inclined) - you most likely find it increasingly more difficult to defend him and his dreaded performance in your own mind, but cannot openly admit it!

I believe this because I feel that you find a caveat in everything he does and that your defense of this President and his administration always has a ring of "quit picking on them". Yet I suspect that when the media and the right wing commentators went after President Clinton for 8 years, you were all for it! Interestingly, when the economy was strong, the federal deficit beginning to decline, interest rates low and people were making a fortune in the stock market, pundits went after "that" President on a "Character" level. Yes... they attacked him "below the belt" so to speak.

But although I voted for him, and believe that as an administrator and leader of the country, he did a good job (and all in all - was "good" President), it was fair game to expose him for the Cad that he was. Sorry... but he exposed a weakness and a personal shortcoming with a lack of personal control regarding his sexual urges - and he paid the price for it.

I could not and would not defend him on this front and to this day I think less of him and feel sorry for him that his record, as a President, was tarnished in this way.

But "this President"!!!??? I also voted for him - once. But I am convinced by his performance that I made a mistake. I took his good ol' boy country charm for a real down to earth-i-ness - and not his being just "plain dumb". I think he has made a mess of things and I feel sorry for all Americans who will now pay the price for his ineptness and global blunders for generations.

History will undoubtedly view him as one of, if not "the worst" of all American Presidents!

**RICHARD** · 09-13-2006, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by LilacDragon

Sorry, but if we can consider impeaching a President for a stupid stain on a dress, why is it that a man who lies to Congress to follow a personal agenda that gets thousands of people killed is allowed to stand at a podium and tell me how much God loves me?

Because you could get the stain out with Permatex Hand Cleaner with Lanoline and Aloe!

Think of all the little "swimmers" that Clinton and Monica killed, and then Billy lied about it.

Since we argue about the 'beginning of life' let's take a mircroscopic look at it., eh?

LH, the sky is GRAY!

That's what Al Gore said, and he's not the prez....

**Edwina's Secretary** · 09-13-2006, 10:09 PM

On September 11, 2001, a group of horrible men...most from Saudi Arabia, planned and executed a terrible attack on buildings in New York and Washington. A horrible, horrible tragedy in which nearly 3,000 innocent people were killed.

Shortly afterwards, the current administration made the decision to invade one of the many countries in the world ruled by a despicable dictator.

George Bush has acknowledge on many occasions that there was NOT any connection between the Iraqi government nor Saddam Hussein and the men who committed the horrible crime of 9/11.

George Bush's speech of 9/11/06 was mostly devoted to justifying his decision to invade Iraq, a war which has cost almost 3,000 American soldiers' lives and the lives of tens of thousands Iraqis -- to date.

And THAT is politicizing a national tragedy....and THAT is self-serving. And THAT is turning this speech into a soap box for the administration's unpopular war.

**Lady's Human** · 09-13-2006, 11:29 PM

The Pres can't win. If he mentions Iraq at all, the speech is all about justifying Iraq. If he doens't mention Iraq, he's avoiding the subject.

**LilacDragon** · 09-14-2006, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

The Pres can't win. If he mentions Iraq at all, the speech is all about justifying Iraq. If he doens't mention Iraq, he's avoiding the subject.

LOL!!

That probably wouldn't be a problem if he had had a legitimate reason to go in in the first place.

**Edwina's Secretary** · 09-14-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

The Pres can't win.

And it has become painfully obvious he has no plan for winning in Iraq!

**momoffuzzyfaces** · 09-14-2006, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

The Pres can't win. If he mentions Iraq at all, the speech is all about justifying Iraq. If he doens't mention Iraq, he's avoiding the subject.

I've noticed that too. He can't win for losing.

Actually this is all Florida's fault!!! Because some of them messed up when they voted, Gore lost way back when and the Democrats have never gotten over it. Sometimes it seems like congress has been throwing a big temper tantrum for 6 years.

By the way, I am an Independent. I don't want to be affliated with either party.