CJ: Please address your facts and logic to the rest of us. I have seen none so far, only juvenile, emotional gibberish. I give Rick credit for even responding. We care dearly for our soldiers. We want 'em back alive with their families and ready to fight a real war if needed. There is no "weapons of mass destruction" or "Al Qaeda" reason to be in Iraq, to die in Iraq. We will NEVER win their hearts and minds over there, and that's why we are there... to bring democracy to oppressed Iraqis. Where in the Constitution or oath of office does it say that one of the president's duties is to wield our military to bring democracy to the oppressed countries? This is not where the bulk of "the terrorists" are from, although we are making many more of them each day. It sounded good one time, but it just didn't pan out that way. Did you miss that? Terrorists are from Canada, England, Pakistan, Morocco, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Indonesia, Chechnya, Bosnia, West Bank and Gaza, other African countries, and others I can't think of. Any non-democratic countries that opress their people in there? What should we do with those countries? Invade? By the way, you may have missed this one, too, or you just couldn't believe it. News! The Bush plan now is to get the U.N. more involved as quickly as possible with a new "resolution" on Iraq. Hello? Now you can begin LYAO!

Another fine post from you AJ, thanks for thinking of me. Yes, we're trying to get the UN back into Iraq. We wanted them there originally. THEY are the ones who fled the country. Or is this more emotional lies coming from me? Maybe so, but I really thought the UN had been there and then left (after the terrorists bombed the UN hq, maybe it was a dream, I don't know). Please correct me, seeing as how you know a lot about what's going on in Iraq too I obviously have a lot to learn.

We obviously share different political opinions and I'm not going to continue arguing. We both feel we're right and that's where I'll leave it. I only hope this wasn't too emotional for you (no emotion in Ricks response either, I just asked for clarifications of what he meant by some seemingly anti-US military comments). Honestly I have no further interest in arguing facts with you on this topic, neither of us are going to agree with the other. Again, nothing emotional, just lack of interest (I've seen what you can do in other posts and I'm not going to get into it with you like that, I have no need or desire for it).

428cj

having too much fun in vegas. we are staying an extra week

may i please remind you. i am not a liberal. i have in fact declared myself a
RACHMONES CONSERVATIVE.

I'm a Bush supporter, but there is one little thing that does bother me. When the President of The United States does not pronounce the word nuclear correctly & says "nucular", that makes me a bit nervous.
I think you missed that one.
And by the way, I thought of something nasty to say about you, but decided to keep it to myself.

Good to hear it Rick, hope you have more fun and win lots of money!

$10.00 Red 23 (10 1 dollar bets... one will hit)

Rick....
Isn't it amazing hot many GW supporters discount his innability to communicate effectively in press conferences, field unrehearsed questions and deal with interviews in a natural way. They simply forgive his shortcomings here as just something "he's just not good at"

So why is he not good at these things?
One can choose from the following
1) he is not verbally intelligent.
2) He trying to hide something
3) He's afraid about lying in public to cover up something
4) He is simply not intellegent

The first 3 are very plausable. The last conclusion depends on your perspective

His lack of verbal intelligence may very well be an asset to his rural supporters. After all, its proof that you don't have to be a fancy talker to make it to the top. Funny how this "dumbed down talk" may be the only thing this constiuency has in common with Bush, himself since they have nothing in common with his priveleged upringing.

The fact that hes trying to hide something and that he fears having to be caught in a cover-up is a point that can't be argured. This is the most secretive administration ever. The executive branch operates strictly on the "need to know" basis all the way up to Bush himself. Even he admits not needing to understand details so that his mind can remain uncluttered to make the big decisions. Delegate the details. So he is vulnerable to questions of important details that are foundations to his big decisions.

Finally, Is he simply unintelligent?? Well obviously, he's no Rhodes Scholar like the last president and his daughter. Some of his opponents think he's sneaky smart. I personally think that comes from his advisors. He simply has choosen not communicate with the country in the way Reagan, Clinton or even his father did. IMHO he simply doesn't have the intelligence to deal with impromptu communications effectively. All his public communications is so rehearsed.

Rick's comments at the beginning may nit pick a bit, but you do get scared when you start putting the Bush Administration policy pieces together.

dbguru

sorry i don't have time for a lengthy answer. we ae off to the piaute reservation to buy cigs for toby and cigars for me. then to sit outside under the freemont light show, smoke a monte #5 and people watch.

re little w.

he is just plain dumb.....

dbguru,

I have a good friend who stutters… I’ll be sure to tell him he’s either a liar or an idiot.

The strange thing is that I’d trust him with my life and have in the past… and he is going to the University of Arizona for a Masters degree. What am I confused about here?

dbguru,

Your points are well taken. The President does sometimes suffer from an inability to communicate; he makes mistakes. He is definitely not the most eloquent speaker. President Clinton and President Regan were both better communicators. One could infer that this indicates President Bush is not intelligent. On the other hand; you seem very intelligent. And yet, if you read your own post, it is filled with spelling and grammatical errors. Should we draw the same conclusions about you that you have drawn about our current President? My point is that WE ALL make verbal and written mistakes. This is especially true when we are communicating “unrehearsed” or under pressure. Would you do any better carrying the weight that ANY American President has carried? I know I would not.

Regards,

Yo dbguru: How dumb is clinton, he doesn't even know a bj is having sex. Why is it some people choose to point out other peoples mistakes and not their own, perhaps so they may seem less stupid? LMAO JonR