PeterDavid.net

How do you respond to accusations that you are the worst president in the entire history of the united states?

A follow up: There are rumors you resemble a chimpanzee in a suit. Your response?

yesss first post.
dont know much about american politics but check out alex jones at prisonplanet.com
Bill

damn, guess i'm just too slow. ahh well second post will have to do
Bill

Mr. President... A concerned tax payer here. Will you ever order the Government Accounting Office to do a full audit on the Pentagon's books to find out who has been profiteering illegally and immorally off of this war?

Mr President, Budgie Barnett from the Times of London. If the Republicans do badly in the coming mid-term elections, what do you think would the reason why?

How can you sleep?

Kathy Pearlman here. Can you explain why people in private planes, such as, say, Air Force One, do not have to go through any sort of security outside the one that surrounds them?

Mr. President: Your predecessor, Bill Clinton, was impeached for lying about a consensual sexual relationship. Your Republican colleagues, at that time, said that a president who lied was unworthy of office. You lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and in so doing led the country into a bloody and costly war that has made the U.S. less safe, not more. Isn't it, therefore, your moral duty as a Republican to resign?

Can you confirm the Vice President predict that changes to the Constitution will be greeted by voters as liberation?

Why do liberal activist bloggers insist protecting the Constitution? Haven't they been arguing for change for the past several months and years? If the Constitution isn't "upgraded" will the terrorists win?

-- Ken from Chicago

Mr. President, can you confirm you are enhancing your presidential powers after being inspired by the hexology novel series PSI-MAN?

-- Ken from Chicago

Mr. President, Aaron Thall from the Reynoldsburg Gazette... Your policy of "staying the course" in Iraq is clear, but I was wondering if it extends to the soldiers on the ground walking directly into mine fields.

If that is the case, is there anything you wish to say to the families of soldiers kileld ina ction, or are you merely waiting for their extra lives to kick in so they can fight once again?

Well, for starters, the President is the Chief Executive. "Activist President" is actually a pretty fair description.

Next up, the WMDs: 1) Many have been found -- poison gas artillery shells have been found by the hundreds, if not thousands. And if you don't count those, then there's the argument that a lie presumes intent, and right up until the invasion EVERYONE said Saddam had WMDs -- Democrats, Republicans, and other nations. Saddam was playing his little bluff, and had it called.

The meeting with the families: Bush has been doing that right along, including Cindy Sheehan. She's so pissed because she can't have a second one where she'll tell him she wishes she could go back in time and kill him while he was an infant.

Air Force One is NOT a private plane. It is owned and operated by the United States Air Force. Their security is considerably HIGHER than civilian planes.

I'm no Bush shill, but those three points annoyed me.

J.

Mr. President, could you please define "freedom?"

Mr. President. Miles Vorkosigan, Vorbarr Sultana Star-Tribune. You have recently stated that you will stay in Iraq as long as you have any support at all. I believe you said that as long as your wife and your dog supported you, you would keep troops in Iraq.

Isn't the support of the people more important to your decision, and aren't you really keeping those troops in place to defend the property of the oil barons who bought you the Presidency in the first place?

And why did you invade Iraq when 18 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudis? Shouldn't we have declared war on Saudi Arabia?

Hello, Mr. President. Luigi Novi, Union City Reporter. Given your stated disdain for books, and the fact that you married a librarian, how exactly did you conceive two children without bursting into flame?

Mr. Bush,

Why should we care what you say in answer to any of our questions anymore when you answer by:

A) Answering the questions you wish we had asked rather then the ones we have actually asked you.

B) Answering with pre-scripted non-answers designed to further White House talking point propaganda more then enlighten or inform the public or actually answer the question.

or

C) Answering by flat out lying to the questioner, the press and the American people on a regular bases?

Idiotpresidentsays"what"??

Mr. President, what exactly is your secret that has made it so easy to pull the wool over the eyes of so many, such as Mr. Jay Tea above?

Mr.Bush, El Hombre Malo from some-foreighn-media-you-will-surely-label-as-AlJazeera...:

How do you justify european countries with skimpier security budget are able to detain terror suspects before and after their attacks, and still grant them their civil rights?

How do you justify the state department blockade to every request from terror case judges in europe to interrogate terror suspects held in Guantanamo? Is that your idea of cooperation?

Mr. President: Tim Lynch, formerly of Usenet Press. Can you name three rights enshrined in the Constitution that you would consider TRULY inviolable, even if they happened to be inconvenient in terms of you being able to get what you want?

TWL

What have I got in my pocket?

Mr President, Dick Fitzwell, Albuquerque Daily Fishwrap, how far do you really think you would have gone if you didn't have the preturnatural ability to turn so many of your opponents into raving kooks? Is it some kind of mutant power or just a voodoo spell? Did you steal it from Bill Clinton?

Follow up question: Helen Thomas or Madeleine Albright? Death is not an option.

Mr. David, humor is all well and good, but what are you, personally, doing to help take back Congress in next month's elections? You do a lot of kvetching about politics but I can't recall that you've ever directed readers toward a candidate's website, encouraged them to register to vote, offered to match their contributions to a particular campaign, etc.

Mr. President, what will be the first thing you do to further advance your conservative agenda when, in spite of repeated lies and biased reporting, the Republicans maintain their control over both houses of Congress?

Iowa Jim

Jess Willey, The Gaithersburg Gazette,: Did you advocate 'No Child Left Behind' because of how obviously your own childhood education failed you? I was watching the Daily Show a few weeks ago and I need an explaination on how the President of Pakistan having a better command of the English language than you do.

mr bush,
when i drink beer and eat curry i pass wind more powerful than any wmd known. should i expect to be invaded or hired?

Craig, I can cite sources for all three items I mentioned. If you are rejecting those fundamental realities (700+ poison gas artillery shells found, Cindy Sheehan met with President Bush in June 2004 (after which she said he was ". . .sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. . . I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith,"), and Air Force One is a United States Air Force VC-25A assigned to the Presidential Airlift Group of the 89th Airlift Wing), then you're pulling wool over your own eyes.

There's enough crap to slam Bush over without just making crap up.

J.

I've never heard the 700 shells figure before. Is this the Santorum 500 plus a couple of a hundred? The general, almost immediate consensus was that the Santorum 500 were old shells from the Iraq/Iran war, and not weapons of mass destruction being held for use of the kind that the Bush admininstration built its claims around.

It's sort of like University Security crashing a dorm room hoping to find big bags of dope and discovering some THC had soaked into the wood of the window frame 10 years ago.

Or, as President Bush himself put it in 2004:

"The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

Jay Tea: Next up, the WMDs: 1) Many have been found -- poison gas artillery shells have been found by the hundreds, if not thousands.
Luigi Novi: We don't go to war over gas shells. We went to war over allegations that he was developing nuclear weapons to use against the U.S.

Jay Tea: And if you don't count those, then there's the argument that a lie presumes intent, and right up until the invasion EVERYONE said Saddam had WMDs -- Democrats, Republicans, and other nations. Saddam was playing his little bluff, and had it called.
Luigi Novi: Based on questionable intelligence that the Bush administration presented as legitimate.

Pontifex: Mr. David, humor is all well and good, but what are you, personally, doing to help take back Congress in next month's elections? You do a lot of kvetching about politics but I can't recall that you've ever directed readers toward a candidate's website, encouraged them to register to vote, offered to match their contributions to a particular campaign, etc.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps Mr. David sees not directing people toward a particular candidate as a good thing, since that's never been the role of this blog, which is for him to voice his feelings and opinions, and not as a shill for politicians. As for registering to vote, perhaps he knows that those interesting enough to read his political blog entries are already registered to vote and do vote.

Mr. President, Bill Myers, former professional journalist. Most questions asked of you thus far (not all, but most) have been based on the over-the-top premise that you are more evil than the Anti-Christ, and have inadvertantly drowned out the tough questions that people should be asking.

A couple of people have attempted to provide balance. Unfortunately, they unwittingly acted in the role of apologist instead, tossing you softball questions. They apparently believe that if over-the-top liberals criticize you, all criticisms of you are over-the-top. This is called the fallacy of the syllogism. Another example of the syllogism is the erroneous assertion that if all apples are red, all things that are red are apples.

I am afraid I am going to inconvenience you by asking you a truly difficult question.

Mr. President, every assumption and prediction you've made thus far about Iraq has turned out to be wrong. Iraq did not have a stockpile of WMDs large enough to be a credible threat, we have not been welcomed as liberators, the newly created Iraqi government is not by any objective measure making substantial progress towards taking responsibility for its own national security, and Iraq has descended into civil war. In light of the failure of your policies thus far, how do you justify your continued resolve to "stay the course?"

Moreover, Mr. President, would you clarify what it means to "stay the course?" In other words, does your over-arching strategy of democratizing Iraq allow for adjustments in tactics to reflect the reality on the ground? Or are you asserting that you will continue to employ the same tactics, even if those tactics have by every objective measure failed to achieve the results you've promised they would?

If you are going to stick with current tactics, what gives you reason to believe those tactics will ultimately succeed? Why have you ignored the advice of military experts? Do you believe historical precedent and military doctrines are inapplicable to Iraq? If so, why?

(Stepping outside of the hypothetical game for the moment, I was a journalist for two years, in case anyone is wondering. I'm not saying that in any way gives me a leg up on anyone here. It's been more than ten years since I was a paid professional reporter. Just thought some of you might be curious.

(And yes, I know, I'd never get the chance to ask George W. Bush such a long, multi-part question with such a verbose pre-amble. But, y'know, it's a "fantasy press conference," so I went to town.)

Mr. President, Bill Myers, former journalist, here again. I forgot to ask you the toughest and most pressing question of all: what the hell happened to my other blue sock? I've looked everywhere and can't find it.

Mr. President, what exactly is a "cotton-pickin minute"?

Mr President, if the US legal system is the best in the world, can you tell us why it can't cater for people you allege to be terrorists but then can't seem to find any evidence that would stand up in your own continental courts? Oh, and a supplementary, will you instruct the military to help find the US soldiers accused of deliberately killing UK journalist Terry Lloyd and hand them over to UK jurisdiction for trial?

In the past you have repeatedly criticized "activist judges" who have been, in your opinion, playing fast and loose with the Constitution in order to further their own agendas. Yet you, who twice took an oath to protect the Constitution, signed into law a historic curtailing of habeas corpus that many are decrying as blatantly unconstitutional. Would it therefore be reasonable to accuse you of being an "activist president?"

Well, for starters, the President is the Chief Executive. "Activist President" is actually a pretty fair description.

A fair description... of hypocrisy.

Next up, the WMDs: 1) Many have been found -- poison gas artillery shells have been found by the hundreds, if not thousands.

Yes, expired, from before 1991, when Saddam Hussein ended his WMD program.

And if you don't count those, then there's the argument that a lie presumes intent, and right up until the invasion EVERYONE said Saddam had WMDs -- Democrats, Republicans, and other nations. Saddam was playing his little bluff, and had it called.

What bluff? Bush insisted Saddam allow inspectors, Saddam relented, and Bush turns around and says that isn't good enough anymore, we're invading.

As for "EVERYONE said Saddam had WMDs" -- WTF is that? Judy Miller of the NY Times cites the White House that Saddam has a nukular weapons program, and Sunday morning Dick Cheney is citing the NYT Saddam has a program.

When it is revealed that you LIED, saying "you believed it!" is quite the chickensh-t.

The meeting with the families...

Families... like Pat Tillman's? Who found out after the 2004 election he wasn't killed fighting insurgents as the army reported? But was instead killed by the American soldiers he was waving to?

Air Force One is NOT a private plane. It is owned and operated by the United States Air Force. Their security is considerably HIGHER than civilian planes.

I'm no Bush shill, but those three points annoyed me.

Oh, damn, we almost had Jay Tea. We almost pulled the wool over his eyes. W-T-F-ever. Tell it to the George Bush portrait tattooed on your ass.

Oh, wait, the thread is questions to Bush: "Mr President, your supporters remind me of a hooker stabbing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her. It makes bystanders wonder, 'why protect the scumbag?' Mr President, why do these people persist in defending you?

It's pronounced nuclear. Noo-klee-er. Not nookyaler. ... Say it with me now, "Nu-cle-ar".

... In light of the failure of your policies thus far, how do you justify your continued resolve to "stay the course?"

This one has an answer! bush now claims that "We've never been stay the course"

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/bush-lied-today-saying-weve-never-been.html

Posted by: Mike at October 22, 2006 08:38 PM

Oh, wait, the thread is questions to Bush: "Mr President, your supporters remind me of a hooker stabbing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her. It makes bystanders wonder, 'why protect the scumbag?' Mr President, why do these people persist in defending you?

Mike, as my girlfriend's father likes to say, "Often it is your allies who embarrass you the most."

I believe George W. Bush is an appallingly awful president. Comparing him to a pimp beating up a hooker, however, is an analogy without substance.

Moreover, comparing George W. Bush's supporters to a hooker stabbing someone is simply inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory. If you have a specific criticism to make -- preferably one that can be backed up by logic -- then make it. If not, don't try to cover it up with over-the-top insults, because that's not that hard to see through.

And yeah, I did lecture a couple of Bush supporters about what I perceived to be a flaw in their logic. If they believe it is my logic that is flawed and they want to say so, I welcome their response. I'll engage them in a rational debate rather than just hurling insults at them, because doing the latter is tantamount to saying, "I got nothin' so I'm just going to shout at you."

Paper or plastic?

Mr. President: people have accused you of being electronically wired during debates and press conferences.

I have the magician James "The Amazing" Randi here. Will you grant him full access to your debate and press preparation, so that those charges can be evaluated by a professional?

Jon, would that be the same debate where John Kerry was caught on film taking notes out of his pocket, in direct violation of the agreed-upon debate rules? (http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001054.php).

And I gotta wonder about that picture -- there have been other pictures showing Bush with a similar bulge in his back. (See http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/standards/) I'm thinking body armor.

If I was in charge of wiring Bush for the debate, I sure as hell wouldn't put the receiver between his shoulder blades, the part of the back that sticks out the most. I'd tuck it in the hollow of his back, where his coat would help conceal it.

J.

It makes bystanders wonder, 'why protect the scumbag?'

If you have a specific criticism to make -- preferably one that can be backed up by logic -- then make it. If not, don't try to cover it up with over-the-top insults, because that's not that hard to see through.

I'm not covering anything up. Peter can pull up my email anytime he wants, so I'm not living in hiding.

When I was a kid, the smurfs were a popular cartoon. They used the word "smurfy" as a multiple-meaning adjective. It was annoying.

No, what I'm saying isn't open to multiple interpretations, and I'm sorry I'm not "smurfy" enough for you.

Just because you don't like my logic, that doesn't mean I'm not logical.

Mike: Under the terms of Saddam's 1991 surrender, he had to account for and destroy all his existing stocks of WMDs. He didn't. Not abiding by the terms of one's surrender is grounds for resuming hostilities.

J.

Not abiding by the terms of one's surrender is grounds for resuming hostilities.

I was wondering how long it would take for this one to be pulled from out of the compost pile.

The thing is: Bush has used any dozen reasons as to why we went to war in Iraq.

The original one? Saddam had WMD that he had been building SINCE 1991, including nukes.

Not before 1991. You know, the ones we gave him to fight Iran and all.

Since 1991.

Saddam did not build them. He didn't ship them over the border to Syria. He. Did. Not. Have. Them.

Don't give us this "resuming hostilities" bs. Talk about a joke of an excuse. You've still got some layers of wool to remove.

Posted by: Mike at October 22, 2006 09:31 PM

I'm not covering anything up. Peter can pull up my email anytime he wants, so I'm not living in hiding.

I didn't say you were covering up your locale, nor did I exhort you to reveal it. I was simply saying that an inflammatory remark is not good enough to cover up the lack of a logical argument.

Posted by: Mike at October 22, 2006 09:31 PM

No, what I'm saying isn't open to multiple interpretations, and I'm sorry I'm not "smurfy" enough for you.

Mike, what you said lacked any substantive, interpretable content whatsoever. If you want to discuss it, please explain exactly how George W. Bush is analagous to a pimp beating up a hooker, and how Bush's supporters are analagous to said hooker stabbing a would-be savior. If you can't lend substance to the analogy then it is by definition a substanceless analogy. I didn't invent that problem any more than I invented the rain or the sky.

And there was nothing "Smurfy" about my response to you. My criticisms of your argument were more than adequate in their specificity. It is your response that has lacked substance. You can "Smurf" me all you want but it will not change that simple fact.

Posted by: Mike at October 22, 2006 09:31 PM

Just because you don't like my logic, that doesn't mean I'm not logical.

Mike, that is an utterly vapid defense, because I did far more than say, "I don't like your logic." I pointed out the incontrovertible fact that you have not backed up your inflammatory analogy with one iota of substance. That is by definition illogical. I didn't invent that problem any more than I invented rain or the sky.

If you want to be acknowledged as being a rational and logical person, simply provide some substance. Explain your premises and how you feel they lead to your conclusions. That is the essence of logic.

Mr. Bush, Bill Myers, former journalist, yet again.

During the 2000 campaign, you told Americans you wanted to help "put food on your family."

So, I ask you: where the hell is that capicola on wheat bread sub with provolone, Italian dressing, sweet peppers, lettuce, tomato, and onions that I asked you to put on my head? I'm still waiting, you know.

In 2004 you & your supporters kept saying "you don't change presidents during a war", you you & your administration keep telling us that the war will last years, even (to quote Cheney) generations. Since your term is due to end in 2 years, how do you plan to resolve this contradiction?

Craig: Kindly cite specific examples to back up your point. I actually went back to Bush's speeches and statements, and the actual focus of them were freeing the Iraqi people, bringing democracy to the Middle East, and ending Saddam's support for terrorism (recall the 25K the families of Palestinian suicide bombers were getting from the Iraqi government).

Also, on the WMDs, the burden of proof was NOT on Bush. It was on Saddam, to PROVE that he had no WMDs, no WMD programs, no WMD materials. He reapeatedly cheated and lied and evaded on that.

Bill Myers: I'd either missed or forgotten that one. But I'm still giggling over his lamenting that thousands of OB-GYNs can no longer "practice their love with their patients."

As far as "nuculer" goes... that one drives me nuts, too. But Jimmy Carter says it that way, too, and he really was a nuculer engineer in the Navy. If a guy who used to run nuculer reactors says it that way, I guess it ain't that bad...

J.

Jon, I have an answer for you and Mr. Randi, but it's stuck in moderation limbo.

J.

I'm sorry, Jay, but what was the point of you saying you aren't a Bush shill?

I'm not even saying you are a Bush shill. But when you say statements that no weapons were found bother you, and Luigi says "We don't go to war over gas shells," and then you come back and reserve our right to invade Iraq over gas shells -- when Bush trades away the integrity of the US for pennies (gas shells!) on the dollar (feeding the insurgency by invading an oil-rich Muslim country that was no threat to the US) -- why shill for Bush then say you aren't a Bush shill?

"Mr President, your supporters remind me of a hooker stabbing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her. It makes bystanders wonder, 'why protect the scumbag?' Mr President, why do these people persist in defending you?["]

Mike, what you said lacked any substantive, interpretable content whatsoever. If you want to discuss it, please explain exactly how George W. Bush is analagous to a pimp beating up a hooker...

I haven't been following the pattern of your political statements, Bill, but now I'm thinking I touched a nerve with you. I mean, I still think you like things all nuanced and smurfy, but now I think I've touched a nerve. But if you want me to expand on my analogy:

Well, there was the support from the middle class Bush received in the last election. Bush's record in his first term was to trade away middle-class saving, by cutting taxes for the rich during wartime.

There was retooling medicare to give away $1.2 trillion to drug companies by lying about the cost -- going so far as to count the years the plan would not be implemented in averaging its cost.

There's pretending to be a good-old-boy when he was born and educated a yankee (Connecticut, Philips in Andover, Yale, Harvard).

Who's being incendiary, the guy liquidating middle-class savings to give to the rich, or the guy driving the point home that poor people who support him are being cheated? Is "scumbag" not strong enough a word for you?

Mike, it is silly to assume that merely because someone disagrees with you, or criticizes your logic (or lack thereof), you have "touched a nerve" with that person. Sometimes people disagree with you because, well, they don't agree with you.

I think you have done a slightly better job of fleshing out your argument. I agree with you that many of Bush's policies have favored the rich at the expense of the middle class.

You are, however, making a somewhat simplistic argument that omits certain key facts. The Tax Relief Act of 2001 increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a refundable tax credit for low-income wage earners. (A "refundable tax credit" is, in IRS parlance, a tax credit that can exceed the amount of tax you actually paid. It is referred to as a "refund" but this is deceptive. Typically, anyone benefiting from the Earned Income Tax Credit receives a "refund" that exceeds their Federal withholdings.)

In addition, the act increased the Child Tax Credit from $500 to $600 in 2001, and will increase it to $1,000 in 2010. The Child Tax Credit benefits the middle class as much as it does anyone else.

On the whole, I believe Bush's fiscal policies provide more benefit to the rich than they do to anyone else. But to call him a "scumbag" when he has indeed provided tax relief to the poor and middle class is a bit over-the-top. He may have provided more relief to the rich than to anyone else, but that's in no way analogous to a hooker-beating pimp.

What's truly irresponsible is that he's cut taxes on anyone during war-time. A ballooning national debt is bad for the overall economy because it means the government is competing with private industry for capital. Moreover, the interest on our public debt eats up domestic productivity.

Also, on the WMDs, the burden of proof was NOT on Bush.

Excuse me?

Bush starts a war on lies, for war profit, and at the cost of taxpayer dollars, and the onus is on Saddam?

What a complete joke.

Next you'll be telling me that when a murder goes on trial, it's the dead person who has to prove they weren't a victim.

It was on Saddam, to PROVE that he had no WMDs, no WMD programs, no WMD materials

Which Saddam tried to do, did do, and Bush ignored it, just so he could have his little war.

Facts are never good enough for Bush; only political propoganda and innuendo.

There was no way, in Bush's eyes, that Saddam could prove had no WMD, even though he'd proven it to the inspectors, both before our invasion and after.

I truly find it hard to believe that people such as yourself, Jay Tea, think the way you do.

The burden is not on Bush? God, that'll keep me laughing for a week or more.

Mr. President,

Can you please explain to me, with very specific examples, how I am indeed safer than I was before 9/11/01? Because when I look at all the evidence, I come to the opposite conclusion.

Declassify the informatoin and be specific. I want names, dates, places, and objectives...LOTS of them.

After all, when you've got a credibility problem, you've just got to provide some evidence. I'm skeptical, and I'm asking you to convince me you're right. I've got an open mind here. Bring it on.

Kawherp

Mike, it is silly to assume that merely because someone disagrees with you, or criticizes your logic (or lack thereof), you have "touched a nerve" with that person. Sometimes people disagree with you because, well, they don't agree with you.

Unh, hunh.

You are, however, making a somewhat simplistic argument that omits certain key facts.

Mmm, hmmm.

The Tax Relief Act of 2001 increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a refundable tax credit for low-income wage earners. (A "refundable tax credit" is, in IRS parlance, a tax credit that can exceed the amount of tax you actually paid. It is referred to as a "refund" but this is deceptive. Typically, anyone benefiting from the Earned Income Tax Credit receives a "refund" that exceeds their Federal withholdings.)

Nerve, meet finger. Finger, meet nerve.

When it comes time to pay for the debts Bush is racking up, where do you think those "refunds" will go?

But to call him a "scumbag" when he has indeed provided tax relief to the poor and middle class is a bit over-the-top. He may have provided more relief to the rich than to anyone else, but that's in no way analogous to a hooker-beating pimp.

Let me guess: it's a "death tax," not the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut."

Dude, even Warren Buffet (WFB!) is attacking the fiscal agenda of a Republican president. An heir pays no taxes while taxi drivers continue paying the taxes? If my analogy does anyone a disservice, I'm guessing it's the pimp.

An heir living off of interest, that is.

Mr. President, Tom Galloway of the Asker Of Inconvient Questions Press. A multi-parter if you please; first, could you define haebius corpus and explain its significance when it was first installed in government via the Magna Carta. Second, why do you consider it undesirable to the point where, under extremely vaguely defined circumstances which you could potentially apply to everyone in this room, you choose to advocate for and sign a bill denying it perpetuity to some?

Personally, I'd bet he couldn't make it past the first part.

Also, on the WMDs, the burden of proof was NOT on Bush. It was on Saddam, to PROVE that he had no WMDs, no WMD programs, no WMD materials. He reapeatedly cheated and lied and evaded on that.

1) How does someone prove a negative? For example, I say you have 6 shirts that are green, purple & orange. You say you don't. Prove you don't.

2) The bush administration made the accusations with no proof. It should then be up to them to provide proof of their claims.

3) The U.N. weapons inspecters were in Iraq for months until bush pulled them out.

I actually went back to Bush's speeches and statements, and the actual focus of them were freeing the Iraqi people, bringing democracy to the Middle East, and ending Saddam's support for terrorism

The original drive for the invasion was WMDs. Saddam had them, was going to use them on us, there would be mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, etc.

Sadddams support for terrorism was the non-existant link between Iraq & Al-Quieda, a link that had no basis in reality.

Freeing the Iraqi people was, at best, a secondary reason for the invasion; & bringing democracy to the mideast was added when it became obvious that Saddam didn't have the WMDs that he was accused of having.

=====
Also, if we're invading to bring democracy to the mideast, why start with the area's only secular government? Why not with Saudi Arabia which is a monarchy and not a democracy? Or Pakistan which has a military government instead of a democracy?

And After we invaded to bring democracy, why did we stop the Iraqi people from organizing elections until we were decided to allow them to do so?

Mr. President, Sean Scullion from the Nightblade Productions News, two questions:
First, how do you respond to the reports that your administration was seeking to go after Iraq and Hussein from the moment you got into office, along with the documentation saying this? And second, how do you jusitfy building all new schools for children in Iraq when many children in this country are badly in need of new schools right here?

Haven't we read most of the posts on this thread dozens of times over and over again? Couldn't this time be dedicated to something important like wondering why Chevorlet is using the song "American Pie" in their commercials. Sure, the song mentions a chevy, but the song is about murdering the current flame of your ex. No, these aren't questions for the President.

...why Chevorlet is using the song "American Pie" in their commercials. Sure, the song mentions a chevy, but the song is about murdering the current flame of your ex.

Wha-huh? Is that true? I'd always heard it was about Buddy Holly. Explain, good sir. I'm all about learning the deeper meaning about song lyrics. hey, did you know that "Shannon" is about a freaking dog???

Ok, ok, I know, it's obvious when you read the lyrics MAYBE SHE'LL FIND AN ISLAND WITH A SHADY TREE
JUST LIKE THE ONE IN OUR BACKYARD
but I'll be damned if I didn't sing those words about 100 times without ever once picking up on the whole "We're singing about our dog" message.

And don't get me started on "the Night the Lights went out in Georgia". Makes NO freaking sense, at all.

Haven't we read most of the posts on this thread dozens of times over and over again? Couldn't this time be dedicated to something important like wondering why Chevorlet is using the song "American Pie" in their commercials. Sure, the song mentions a chevy, but the song is about murdering the current flame of your ex. No, these aren't questions for the President.

Wha-huh? Is that true? I'd always heard it was about Buddy Holly. Explain, good sir. I'm all about learning the deeper meaning about song lyrics. hey, did you know that "Shannon" is about a freaking dog???

Peter's liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.

First Bill gets all formal in my face, asking me to substantiate my nerve-striking analogy. Which is fine until I flabbergast him by introducing the logic he asked for but doesn't even know he's starving for in his own life. Then they begin introducing nonsense of their own. "Logic" is all the rage... until it starts telling them stuff they don't want to hear.

Mr. President - You returned from a vacation on your ranch to be in Washington in case your signature was needed on legislation regarding the fate of Terry Shiavo but, when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans you felt it appropriate to delegate responsiblity for federal response to others - what message are you sending to the American people by such behavior? Do you think it is an emblematic of the skewed priorities of your administration? How can you justify your decision when the two are compared side by side?

Mr. President, Glenn Hauman here from the Purple Parrot.

Can you explain how our nation's standing in world opinion went from 90% in the wake of 9/11 to below 30% today?

Similarly, can you explain how your own personal popularity as President has gone from 92% to 32% in the same time period? And do you believe there is any connection between the two?

"Also, on the WMDs, the burden of proof was NOT on Bush."

No. Bush does not get a free pass on having to show proof of facts before STARTING A WAR.

Not that facts mattered to him. Bush had Powell and others, pre-invasion, play heavily on the disclosure of Iraq's unconventional weapons programs by defector Hussein Kamel to support the claim that Iraq was just floating in WMDs. This was, so they went on, "case closed" type of stuff. Funny, but he failed to tell anyone to point out that Kamel had also said, when asked where the stuff was, that those same weapons had been destroyed. Case re-opened.

But does truth matter in Bush's "proof"?

"For Bush, Facts Are Malleable"
Washington Post, 10/22/02.
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank noted two dubious Bush claims about Iraq: his citing of a United Nations International Atomic Energy report alleging that Iraq was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon; and that Iraq maintained a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used, in Bush's words, "for missions targeting the United States."

Those assertions were dubious, if not outright wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lacked the range to come anywhere close to reaching the United States and that there was no such report by the IAEA.

But, hey, Saddam could have avoided all this by showing us his hand, folding his cards and leaving. He was told by Bush & Co. that his stepping down and leaving the country would put an end to our invasion plans. Right?

Pre-War speech:
George W. Bush, March 17:

"Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing."

So, Saddam could have just left and none of this would have happened.

March 18, New York Times:
"Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out" by Michael Gordon.

"Even if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours, as President Bush demanded, allied forces plan to move north into Iraqi territory, American officials said today."

Well, oops. Maybe not.

And you want Bush to get a free pass?

"Sure, the song mentions a chevy, but the song is about murdering the current flame of your ex."

Huh????????

Peter's liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.

What the flying @#$% are you talking about, Mike?

Jeff in NC made a comment that was a little off topic, Bill responded. It has jack squat to do with denial or anything else. Between this comment, and the stuff with Bill Myers (another liberal), I'm beginning to wonder if you're a bit off your rocker atm.

As another liberal, I'm supporting Bill here: since when is "American Pie" about "murdering the current flame of your ex", as Jeff in NC stated?

Mr. President.
Lee Houston, Junior; Editor-In-Chief, News for the e-zine The Free Choice at www.thefreechoice.info.
You've stated on several occassions that this country never need be fearful of anything ever again. Yet several Republican candidates in the upcoming elections are using this very platform to make voters think voting Republican is the only option open to them. How do you explain that, sir?

Mike,

I'm no conservative. I've argued points with you. I've argued points with Bill.

"Peter's liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.

First Bill gets all formal in my face, asking me to substantiate my nerve-striking analogy. Which is fine until I flabbergast him by introducing the logic he asked for but doesn't even know he's starving for in his own life. Then they begin introducing nonsense of their own. "Logic" is all the rage... until it starts telling them stuff they don't want to hear."

So..... You're out logicing Bill and flabbergasting him with your arguments thus far.

:)

Bwaaaaahaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa

:l

No.... really.... heh... Bwaaahaahahaaa

;p

... gasp... ribs hurt....

:D

Funniest thing I've read on the site all week.

Every day Former Gov. Gray Davis looks up Bush's approval rate online and mutters "It's just not fair."

Mr. President, how long until you appoint your limo to the Senate?

Mr. President, the Other Jonathan, Lakewood Weekly Shopper.

You are repeatedly described as "conservative", yet you support policies that massively expand our government (the new Department of Homeland Defense, for instance), propose heavier spending than your liberal predecessor, and favor government intrusion into Americans' private lives, even going so far as to push a Constitutional amendment to alter the Constitution's Article IV. How do you reconcile these?

(As an aside, the song "American Pie" is indeed about the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. "the Big Bopper" Richardson. That's why the lyrics repeatedly reference "the day the music died".)

Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 10:53 PM

Nerve, meet finger. Finger, meet nerve.

No, you still haven't touched a nerve. I've cited verifiable facts (the Tax Relief Act of 2001 is a matter of public record) that refute your argument. The only one getting hot under the collar here is you, because you're losing the argument.

Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 10:53 PM

When it comes time to pay for the debts Bush is racking up, where do you think those "refunds" will go?

Some of them will go out the window, I'm sure. Who said otherwise? Although I think any president, Republican or Democrat, will have trouble rolling back the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion. Too many people will cry, "War on the poor!"

Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 10:53 PM

Let me guess: it's a "death tax," not the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut."

The "death tax" is a slang term for the estate tax. Totally separate issue. Try to focus, Mike.

Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 10:53 PM

Dude, even Warren Buffet (WFB!) is attacking the fiscal agenda of a Republican president.

So have I. As I said, it's moronic to be cutting taxes during wartime. And I've already acknowledged that Bush's policies favor the rich more than anyone else.

Nevertheless, you have yet to refute any of the facts I've cited -- facts that tear your argument to shreds.

By the way, Mikey, I wish people like you would stop exaggerating Bush's misdeeds. It forces people like me to spend time correcting you for the sake of logic. It's unfortunate, because all that does is help steer the argument away from the truly shitty things Bush has actually done.

Posted by Mike at October 22, 2006 11:48 PM

Peter's liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.

First Bill gets all formal in my face, asking me to substantiate my nerve-striking analogy. Which is fine until I flabbergast him by introducing the logic he asked for but doesn't even know he's starving for in his own life. Then they begin introducing nonsense of their own. "Logic" is all the rage... until it starts telling them stuff they don't want to hear.

Mikey, you seem to be confusing me with Bill Mulligan. Go back and read our respective posts. Mine have my name in the header. Bill Mulligan's have his name in the header. Our last names are different because we are different people. The differences in our last names should make it easy to differentiate us. If not, I suggest you start hitting "Hooked on Phonics" in a hurry.

Bill Mulligan is a smart man. I've lost arguments with him as a result of that. He's not afraid to address these issues, he's just having fun. If he wanted to argue with you, he'd tear you to shreds. The fact that he hasn't leads me to suspect he has come to the conclusion that you're not worth his time. Proving, perhaps, that Mr. Mulligan is smarter than me as well.

By the way, Mikey, I am a liberal who has never voted for Bush. This must confuse the living hell out of you.

Please continue to post your nonsense, though. I need a good laugh every now and again.

Re: Saddam's obligation to prove he didn't have WMDs.

After his surrender in the first Gulf War, Saddam agreed to publicly account for and destroy all his WMDs, WMD material, and WMD research. A fair analogy would be a parolee having to frequently submit to drug tests -- in both cases, the person has been already judged guilty of a crime, and a condition of their freedom is to continually "prove" their innocence through testing. Saddam reported whole bunches of WMDs were destroyed, but he "lost/misplaced/his camel ate" the required proof. He repeatedly blocked the inspections, leading to repeated confrontations and demands that he comply with the agreement -- or else. Kindly recall numerous attacks on Iraqi assets during the Clinton administration. (Including one missile attack on the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence, timed to happen at night so the only people who might be killed would be the cleaning staff -- real effective, that one.)

Saddam also had committed numerous acts of war against the United States, including firing on our aircraft and attempting to assassinate a former US president as revenge for actions said president had taken in office.

BTW, there WERE documented links between Saddam an Al Qaeda, meetings and letters and the like, working towards a common goal. There was absolutely NO linkage between Saddam and 9/11, of course, but that can easily be explained by operational security on Al Qaeda's part -- there was no good reason to let him know it was coming, and plenty of reason to keep the knowledge to as few people as possible.

Finally, let's also remember that in 1998, Congress passed and the president signed a bill calling for the overthrow of the Iraqi government. Regime change was OFFICIAL US POLICY for roughly 5 years before we invaded.

Apart from all the other reasons, our invasion of Iraq gave us a foothold right between two other major players in the terrorist world (Iran and Syria) and gave us a chance to introduce the most dangerous known virus to tyranny -- democracy. Iraq has had three significant elections since then, with voter turnouts higher than we in the US have had in a long time.

It is in the interest of every dictatorship in the Middle East (which is nearly every nation) for the US to fail in Iraq. OF COURSE it's going to be difficult. It might even be impossible. But I, personally, think it's worth trying. God knows doing nothing, or "doing business" with the tyrants simply because that was the easiest thing to do at the time, hasn't achieved a tinker's damn towards actually HELPING the average person in the Middle East.

Hey, I managed to avoid using the B-guy's name all through that. That's because I don't give a faded fart about him or who is in the office -- just the policies matter to me. He's right on some, wrong on others. But the sheer factual errors in some of the loaded questions drove me nuts.

I've been a PAD fan for years, have said so several times on my own blog (even proudly posting the picture of me with PAD while he's waving MY copy of "Writing For Comics With Peter David, at http://wizbangblog.com/2006/07/10/padding-my-resume.php ), but his politics drive me bonkers. As long as you keep your politics out of your writing, I'll keep buying your stuff.

I'm not worried, though. Above all else, PAD is a professional.

J.

No, you still haven't touched a nerve. I've cited verifiable facts (the Tax Relief Act of 2001 is a matter of public record) that refute your argument.

Wait...

1. I say Bush is harvesting middle class savings
2. you come back with the EIC, for people who are so poor they pay no taxes and get a hand-out

...and I'm the one avoiding facts?

I'm sorry Bill, but when I said 'When it comes time to pay for the debts Bush is racking up, where do you think those "refunds" will go?' I thought we were still talking about the middle class. I'm sorry I gave you more credit for sticking to the topic than you deserve.

Or is the "key fact" that was lost on me that recipients of the EIC are middle class?

The Child Tax Credit benefits the middle class as much as it does anyone else.

Oh, I guess you were saying families earning $18,000 a year are middle class. It's worse than I thought. You sure you still want to nominate yourself as the poster boy for logic?

Mikey, you seem to be confusing me with Bill Mulligan.

No Billy. Notice this little bit of logic: What I wrote is true knowing you and Bill Mulligan aren't the same person.

By the way, Mikey, I wish people like you would stop exaggerating Bush's misdeeds. It forces people like me to spend time correcting you for the sake of logic. It's unfortunate, because all that does is help steer the argument away from the truly shitty things Bush has actually done.

And I'm stopping you... how? 1) Jay Tea comes here claiming to not shill for Bush while demonstrably shilling for Bush, 2) I reply,

And Jay Tea's dollar of inconsistency (demonstrably shilling for Bush while takng credit for not being a Bush shill) gets a pass, while my not-even-an-inconsistency gets the Vulcan Bad Housekeeping Seal of Disapproval from you and your girlfriend's father? Who told you to attack me?

Let me guess Bill Myers (so you know I haven't stopped talking to you, since a second Bill in the room seems to confuse you): you stopped being a journalist 10 years ago to make more money.

Which is fine, but then you come to places like here, which is also fine, and tell people you were a journalist. So you can get credit for the expertise without having to continue to produce that pesky dedication.

And now you tell people who aren't journalists that you used to be a journalist to cause people to place your "logic" above all the other smurfy talk.

Think about the key facts you cite to "refute" me. You know, for the sake of logic. Make it a first.

Posted by Jonathan (the other one)

(As an aside, the song "American Pie" is indeed about the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. "the Big Bopper" Richardson. That's why the lyrics repeatedly reference "the day the music died".)

Well, it's about rather more than that; it's about the entire history of music (and its place n history) in the Sixties. "The day the music died" is also Altamont ("No Angel born in Hell could break that Satan's spell"), the '68 Democratic convention, the deaths of Janis ("I met a girl who sang the blues and i asked her for some happy news...") and Jimi, and a lot of other sthings as well. ("I went down to the sacred store, where i heard the music play before..." is about the ending of tours at Sun Studios, for instance...)

It's sort of like Lennon's remark "...all rock stars die in plane crashes..." -- even when they don't, they do.

Could we please have less arguing and more questions now?

Please?

Posted by: Mike at October 23, 2006 05:50 AM

Oh, I guess you were saying families earning $18,000 a year are middle class. It's worse than I thought. You sure you still want to nominate yourself as the poster boy for logic?

Well, I'm sure as hell not going to get any competition from you. I don't know where you pulled that $18,000 figure from, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the Child Tax Credit. Income doesn't become a factor unless you are: a married couple filing jointly with a combined Adjusted Gross Income of $110,000 or more; single, head of household, or qualifying widow(er) with an AGI of at least $75,000; or a married person filing separately from his/her spouse with an AGI of at least $55,000.

It's all right here in this publication from the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p972.pdf

So, yeah, the Child Tax Credit benefits the middle class. By expanding it as he did, George W. Bush provided tax breaks to the middle class.

Posted by: Mike at October 23, 2006 05:50 AM

No Billy. Notice this little bit of logic: What I wrote is true knowing you and Bill Mulligan aren't the same person.

Mikey, look at what you wrote: "First Bill gets all formal in my face, asking me to substantiate my nerve-striking analogy. Which is fine until I flabbergast him by introducing the logic he asked for but doesn't even know he's starving for in his own life. Then they begin introducing nonsense of their own. "Logic" is all the rage... until it starts telling them stuff they don't want to hear."

You start complaining about how "Bill" (that is, me) introduced "logic" into the argument, and then start ranting about what "they" do, without specifying who "they" are. Either you were indeed confused by the fact that Mulligan and I share the same first name, or you can't write a coherent paragraph to save your life. Neither's worth bragging about.

Posted by: Mike at October 23, 2006 05:50 AM

Let me guess Bill Myers (so you know I haven't stopped talking to you, since a second Bill in the room seems to confuse you): you stopped being a journalist 10 years ago to make more money.

Which is fine, but then you come to places like here, which is also fine, and tell people you were a journalist. So you can get credit for the expertise without having to continue to produce that pesky dedication.

And now you tell people who aren't journalists that you used to be a journalist to cause people to place your "logic" above all the other smurfy talk.

No, I mentioned it because I thought people might find it interesting. I acknowledged that it's been, y'know, over ten years since I was a professional journalist and that I don't have a "leg up" on anyone else here.

I am sorry you feel threatened by the revelation that I was a journalist. That was not my intention, and there is no need for you to feel that way.

Posted by: Mike at October 23, 2006 05:50 AM

Think about the key facts you cite to "refute" me. You know, for the sake of logic. Make it a first.

Well, kiddo, I've already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong about the facts. I can't wait to hear what you have to say about that. I expect it to be "Smurfy."

Posted by: Aaron Thall at October 23, 2006 07:07 AM

Could we please have less arguing and more questions now?

Please?

I'd been wrestling with this myself. The main post did ask for questions, after all. But, Aaron, it's Peter's call.

Peter, I will refrain from any more debating in this thread 'til you settle this. Is debating OK in this thread, or would you prefer we restrict our posts to asking "fantasy press conference" questions for the president? It's your blog, and therefore I'll respect your wishes.

Bill (Myers)--what was that old line about never trying to teach a pig to dance? It wastes your time and annoys the pig...

Mike-
Peter's liberal readership: notice how the conservatives start playing tag-team to preserve their own denial.

Sadly, Peter's liberal readership probably doesn’t take itself as deadly seriously as you do. Yeah, it's a vast rightwing conspiracy by Jeff in NC and I to hijack this thread before it manages to single-handedly make the Republicans lose the upcoming election--which, btw, is something I think I've mentioned they richly deserve.

In fact, the only thing that might possibly save the GOP is if the voters get turned off by seeing too many humorless, snide, not nearly as smart as they think they are liberals. You know the type.

As for your argument with Bill Myers...Mike summed it up fairly well. You're annoying liberals and amusing conservatives (a little). Keep it up and people will start to think you're a Republican plant. When in a hole, stop digging.

"Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work – you've said you are going to reach out to these people – how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Mr. President, in April of this year you unveiled a plan that was designed, in part, to ultimately reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. As part of this plan, you proposed an increased reliance on coal.

President Bush, where in hell do you think coal comes from?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 23, 2006 07:15 AM

Bill (Myers)--what was that old line about never trying to teach a pig to dance? It wastes your time and annoys the pig...

Point taken, my friend.

Could we please have less arguing and more questions now?

I'd been wrestling with this myself...

Well, I should hope so, considering you started this.

I said:

• I say Bush is harvesting middle class savings


• you come back with the EIC, for people who are so poor they pay no taxes and get a hand-out

..and, yes, I should have left it there.

But just because I didn't leave it there, that doesn't mean your citation of the EIC wasn't as much a flub as anything I've said.

I've been at least been trying to quote you. But I didn't pull a non-sequitor like the EIC out of my ass like you did.

As for the Child Tax Credit: give back a month's rent to a family, give a mansion back to Donald Trump. Pump up the national debt so that -- with the tax moving from progressive to flat -- the family pay their month's rent in taxes anyway but Trump doesn't even lose all of his mansion while he still has 3 others?

And poor Republicans who defend Bush aren't like a prostuitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her... how?

Mikey, look at what you wrote: "First Bill gets all formal in my face, asking me to substantiate my nerve-striking analogy. Which is fine until I flabbergast him by introducing the logic he asked for but doesn't even know he's starving for in his own life. Then they begin introducing nonsense of their own. "Logic" is all the rage... until it starts telling them stuff they don't want to hear."

You start complaining about how "Bill" (that is, me) introduced "logic" into the argument, and then start ranting about what "they" do, without specifying who "they" are. Either you were indeed confused by the fact that Mulligan and I share the same first name, or you can't write a coherent paragraph to save your life. Neither's worth bragging about.

You heard it here folks: pronouns are illogical. Thanks for clearing that up, Billy.

Mike, if I'm "demonstrably" shilling for Bush, would you care to "demonstrate" an example?

I've defended policies and challenged misstatements. I've cited facts and evidence. You seem to believe that once you've called me a "shill," you need not bother with such niceties as actual points.

And just to rub salt in your wounds, Mike, I've got PAD's autograph on TWO books. Opportunity willing, I'm going to get him to sign my hardcover version of Dark Mirror again, but this time I'm going to get him to sign page 339 as "David Peters." I was a fan of his before I knew who he was, and will stay so. I admire and respect him both as a writer and as an individual -- but NOT as a political analyst.

There's no "tag-team" going on here, just that PAD's writing attracts a LOT of people from all over the political spectrum.

J.

Jay Tea -
BTW, there WERE documented links between Saddam an Al Qaeda

*shakes head* Even your worthless president has finally said there were no such links.

But, not surprisingly, most of the brainwashed missed that.

Saddam also had committed numerous acts of war against the United States, including firing on our aircraft

If that's 'numerous acts of war', then surely Clinton could've convinced the Republican Congress to go to war 10 years ago?

But then, we continued to force ourselves over Iraqi airspace long after the Gulf War ended. Sounds more like continual acts of war on our part.

and attempting to assassinate a former US president as revenge for actions said president had taken in office.

Ahh, revenge is now apparently the correct political response. Just like forcing Powell and several other highly decorated generals out of the military was the propert political response (ie, revenge) for their disagreeing with the war in Iraq.

Again, what a joke of an argument on your part, Jay.

Mr. President, what have you to say about the fact that, after 9/11, your Administration constantly insinuated that there was a link between Hussein and Al Qaeda and that, long after you yourself finally admitted no such link existed, an unhealthy percentage of Americans still believe it?

Mr. President, isn't it true that your policies have made your neocon more Democrat than those Democrats you constantly rail against?

Mr. President, since you've now reduced the Bill of Rights to the Bill of Right, what are the chances that you'll finally remove the last bastion of the conservative voter, out of fear that said voter will finally revolt against the outrageous government you've lead these last six years?

And, Mr. President, since you so "gallantly" side-stepped the question earlier, it should probably be asked again: how DO you sleep at night?

our invasion of Iraq gave us a foothold right between two other major players in the terrorist world (Iran and Syria)

Yeah, because fighting a war on 2 fronts is such a good idea.

Mike, if I'm "demonstrably" shilling for Bush, would you care to "demonstrate" an example?

2004: 9/11 Commission says no link existed

2005: CIA says no link existed

1/2003: Bush himself says he cannot claim to make such a link

Two months ago: Bush in his own words

How much more evidence do you need? Not how much do you want - do you need - to show that Bush was lying through his teeth on this issue, and every other during his Administration?

Mr President, what made you decide to become a traitor?

Mike, if I'm "demonstrably" shilling for Bush, would you care to "demonstrate" an example?

I had a nice post typed up, with links and all, to demonstrate just that. Alas, spammers have all but made it impossible to post comments with links in them (most times I've tried lately, they've been lost to the void).

So, I'll just say it again: Bush himself has said there was never a link. The CIA has said it. The 9/11 Commission said it.

I'm just wondering what it takes to reverse the Bush brainwashing.

Taking on your only points of substance, Craig:

Clinton contented himself with little token gestures that made him look tough and boost his polls (and, occasionally, drew attention from his own problems). But this little thing called "9/11" happened and changed the world. The old rules of favoring "stability" and "preserving the status quo" and "don't rock the boat" went right out the window.

The "attempted assassination of a former president" isn't about revenge. It's about making sure that future presidents don't have to weigh their own personal safety (and that of their families) once they leave office against the duties of the presidency. We can not and will not tolerate another nation threatening the life of a president -- past or present -- for their conduct while in office. Their actions are not their own, but done in the name of and on behalf of entire nation, and we need to preserve that principle. It is an act of war, plain and simple, and the fact that Bill Clinton shrugged it off at the time is a black mark on his record. Hell, simply on the basis of his own self-preservation, he should have taken it far more seriously.

As far as "force ourselves over Iraqi airspace" -- that was part of the terms of his surrender, the No-Fly Zones and the enforcement thereof. Is that another part of Saddam's surrender from the first Gulf War that you choose to ignore?

Michael: yes, fighting a two-front war is often stupid. But sometimes it's the right move. We fought a two-front war in World War II, and that worked out all right.

Also, notice we're not AT WAR with Iran and Syria right now. Nor are we about to any time soon -- they are NOT about to attack us directly in Iraq. And Iran itself has the US on both sides, with Afghanistan to their east, so the "two-front war" rule applies to them as well. (Three sides, if you also include the Persian Gulf, where we maintain a very sizable naval force.)

Hmm... I never got around to asking my own question. I should do that.

"Mr. President, Jay Tea of www.wizbangblog.com. In regards to the Harriet Myers nomination to the United States Supreme Court, I have to ask this:

"What the hell were you thinking?

"And if I'm allowed a followup, sir, what is the story with Vicente Fox? Does he have pictures of you with a sheep or something?"

J.

Geez, and I thought the real press corps were a bloodthirsty bunch.

If a train left New York at 300 miles per hour, and accelerated in speed 15 miles per hour, and traveled a distance of 683 miles, tell me sir: what time would that train reach Chicago?!

Clinton contented himself with little token gestures that made him look tough and boost his polls

Well, guess what, the burden is now on you to prove your statement.

Clinton has said he did more than Bush ever did to get bin Laden, and all things considered, I'll take his word over yours or Bush's.

The old rules of favoring "stability" and "preserving the status quo" and "don't rock the boat" went right out the window.

As did logic, reason, and any goodwill this country had received freely after 9/11.

Particularly since IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

Thank you, Mr. Bush.

It's about making sure that future presidents don't have to weigh their own personal safety (and that of their families) once they leave office against the duties of the presidency.

You're kidding, right?

I guess we should prepare to invade US states then, seeing as how most US presidential assassinations and attempts were made by US citizens.

Is that another part of Saddam's surrender from the first Gulf War that you choose to ignore?

The No-Fly zones were a joke.

We promised to aid the Kurds, and then turned our backs on them. Saddam didn't suffer. His government didn't suffer. Hell, we surely didn't suffer from those mythical lines in the sand.

The people of Iraq suffered.

And nobody in this country gave a damn. Bush certainly didn't give a damn when he came up with the crap about WMD.

And Iran itself has the US on both sides, with Afghanistan to their east

Another laughable notion. We have more troops in South Korea than we do in Afghanistan, last I knew. And, as Al Qaeda has shown, Afghanistan has a far more porous border, both with Iran and Pakistan.

We can't control Iraq or Afghanistan, yet you think we could do anything about Iran?

Mr. President, with all do respect, how can you and your administration be so f***ing stupid?

Jay Tea -
BTW, there WERE documented links between Saddam an Al Qaeda

*shakes head* Even your worthless president has finally said there were no such links.

But, not surprisingly, most of the brainwashed missed that.

Craig, not that I necessarily doubt you but can you point to where he said that? I remember him saying there were no 9/11--Iraq links but not anything about Iraq/Al Qaeda. That would contradict several accounts I've seen from sources far removed from the usual Karl Rove crowd.

You heard it here folks: pronouns are illogical. Thanks for clearing that up, Billy.

Wow, it's almost like having John Byrne on the board...SOMEONE sure touched a nerve but it doesn't seem like it's the guy who's claiming he did it...

Bill Mulligan -
Craig, not that I necessarily doubt you but can you point to where he said that?

*sigh* The site isn't letting me post links right now without my comments going for approval - and, for whatever reason, I've never had such a post approved. :(

So, the one video I found of Bush was at Think Progress. It is dated 8/21/2006, and it titled "Bush Now Says What He Wouldn't Say Before War: Iraq Had 'Nothing' To Do With 9/11"

In that video, Bush was asked what Iraq had to do with 9/11. His response? "Nothing."

Yet, the whole war was based on the insinuation that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, and, by logical extension, Al Qaeda. After all, if Saddam really wanted to get at us, wouldn't he be involved in their attacks? Yet, Saddam wasn't.

There's also the small (and apparently unimportant) fact that bin Laden wanted nothing to do with Saddam.

There's a great writeup on Wikipedia under "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda".

In fact, that article has a hilarious quote from bin Laden: "Bin Laden told his biographer that "the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother."

Not the quote of somebody you're inviting over for dinner. :)

Yo Bush! Um, sorry, I mean "Mr. President"...you see, I just assumed that if that were an acceptable way to address the Prime Minister of England, it was an acceptable way to address the President of the United States of America.

Rob Brown, Toronto Star. Could you please explain exactly what you've meant when you've "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?" Maybe this is an intellectual failing on my part *cough*doubt it*cough*, but I fail to understand how a military presence in Iraq can possibly prevent a handful of Al-Qaeda members from catching a plane to the U.S. and wreaking havoc, particularly when their base of operations isn't even in Iraq. We already know that it doesn't take very many people to do this; we saw them do it in London, and in Spain. Operatives planting bombs in Europe while other operatives were harassing troops in Iraq. Even though they were being fought "over there", they still managed to launch attacks elsewhere.

Tell me, Mr. President, does the U.S. troop presence in Iraq actually do anything to reduce the chances of another attack on American soil? If so, what?

Anybody else suprised there haven't been any questions about placing pretzel companies on watch lists? And forget about asking him to define habius corpus, I want to see him pronounce it.
And Jay--two things, one of which I've said here before.(Though not to you) If you are not personal friends with the former ruler of Iraq, please don't act as though you're on a first name basis with him. And second, how do you define "token gestures?"

Mr. President: Who would win in a 4 way knife fight: The Smurfs, the Snorks, the Fraggles, and the Littles?

Mr. President would you like a pretzel?

Craig, yeah, I knew about the "no 9/11--Iraq link" but you specifically said Iraq/al qaeda connection (and were none too kind to anyone who didn't accept it as absolute fact).

If one can prove ANY prior to 9/11 links between Al Qeada and Iraq it would not, to my mind, be the same as proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

But it makes no sense to me to categorically deny the possibility that Saddam and Bin Laden managed to overcome their dislike for each other in the face of a commen foe (ie, us.) Hitler and Stalin managed to get along for a while (to the utter shock of those who foolishly thought it could never happen). Keep another thing in mind--after killing a million or so Iranians Saddam actually sent his Air Force to safety in Iran during the first Gulf war. Circumstances can make the bitterest enemies partners.

Or to put it another way--if you believe that saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 means that they had nothing to do with Al Qeada, does that mean if it ever is shown that they DID have something to do with Al Qeada you will then HAVE to accept that they did have something to do with 9/11?

Yo, Craig J. Ries -- seriously, you're starting to sound like Mikey. I'm not trying to insult you, by the way. I'm just letting you know how you're coming off. If you were Mikey, I wouldn't bother. But you're an intelligent guy and I believe you're better than that.

Just because you disagree with Jay Tea doesn't mean he's been "brainwashed."

And... to ensure that this post stays relevant to the thread topic:

Mr. President, Bill Myers, former journalist. Yeah, I'm still here. During the 2000 campaign, you said you were "...a uniter, not a divider..." but you have proven to be one of the most divisive presidents in recent memory, rivaling if not exceeding Bill Clinton in this regard. To what do you attribute your remarkable inability to live up to your own hype?

Second, recent polls are showing that you have lost the support of many Republicans and/or conservatives. How can you expect to govern for another two years when you cannot even inspire confidence in people who should, by rights, be your supporters?

Mr. President,

You continue to state that Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war. Would you please give us your specific definition of what would constitute a civil war in that country? After doing so, if at some time in the future civil war does break out in Iraq per your definition, would you now swear not to:

a) deny it being a civil war and claim you never said it, chalking it up to being one of those “exaggerations”?

b) say that everyone, Republicans and Democrats, subscribed to your definition, leaving you faultless in having said it?

c) mention “September the 11th” even once?

But sometimes it's the right move. We fought a two-front war in World War II, and that worked out all right

Yes, but then we had allies not a coalation where we provide 90% of the troops, equipment, & expense. We also had a President & administration who listened to the generals & admirals, and didn't fire the ones who disagreed.

Mr. President:

Is your real name Baltar, and can you address the rumors that the Vice-President is actually a Cylon?

does that mean if it ever is shown that they DID have something to do with Al Qeada you will then HAVE to accept that they did have something to do with 9/11?

I would certainly consider the possibility.

But, after 5 years of attempts, no such proof has been found whatsoever. No connection to 9/11, and no connection to Al Qaeda.

Just like no massive amounts of WMD and nukes that were going to be used on the US and our allies at a moment's notice.

And on the topic of brainwashing, I'm not even going to attempt to mince words on this.

At one point, 70% of the people in this country said that they thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11. On insinuations, lies, and half-truths that dumped us in Iraq with no way out.

That, folks, is brainwashing. To continue to believe in that complete falsehood is to admit you've been brainwashed by Bush's propoganda.

Mr. President, Paul B from PeterDavid.net here. During the 2004 Presidential debates, you kept hammering away at John Kerry's use of the phrase "global test" in relation to the decision to use military force against another nation. Since Senator Kerry's meaning in using that phrase was very different from the meaning that you kept ascribing to it, I wondered at the time whether the problem was that you yourself were too stupid to understand what he really meant, or if you just believed that everyone watching the debates was too stupid to understand what he really meant. Tell me, Mr. President, which was it?
And as a followup, how exactly do you reconcile your sworn oath to uphold the United States Constitution with your administration's continued efforts to gut most of the provisions of that document, most recently the repeal of the right of Habeas Corpus, one of the oldest principals of Western democracy?

And, conversely, an astounding 30something percent believe that the USA government had something to do with 9/11. Which, I submit, is several order of magnitudes more insane than thinking that Iraq had something to do with it. Both are probably wrong but if thinking Iraq was involved indicates brainwashing I can only wonder what it is to think our own government brought down the towers--a brain enema?

(If anyone out there is seriously into the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, please just ignore me. Don't send me emails showing me how if you squint just right it kinds sorta looks like a rocket coming out of the escape hatch or whatever the wacky idea du jour is. I spent a year of my life arguing with Creationists and I have no intention of repeating it with their intellectual equals on the far left. Just assume I'm part of the Big Conspiracy and move on...)

But, after 5 years of attempts, no such proof has been found whatsoever. No connection to 9/11, and no connection to Al Qaeda.

I'm not sure that's accurate. The 9/11 part yes but not the rest. To mention just one example--in 1998 Bin Laden was indicted in the USA for, among other listed crimes, "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

the indictment can be read at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

Obviously, Bush was not president at the time this was written, if that gives it any more legitimacy in anyone's eyes.

In fairness to Craig, I note that he did say "proof". I don't think a link has been "proven". Witnesses are not proof. Written records are not proof. Evidence yes, proof no.

Mr President...

What do you know and when will you know it?

a brain enema?

Something along those lines, yes. :)

In some cases, I think people do a good job of brainwashing themselves into believing something that has no basis in reality. Believing our government would want 9/11 would be one of those times. 9/11 was a matter of convience for Bush in terms of having an excuse for the Iraq war; if it wasn't 9/11, he would've found another excuse.

But when it comes to the (many) reasons we went to Iraq over the last few years, Bush continues to trot out things like the 9/11 connection, or Al Qaeda connection, or WMD. He's preaching to the choir, because the rest of us woke up long ago.

Obviously, Bush was not president at the time this was written, if that gives it any more legitimacy in anyone's eyes.

Well, just so we're clear: yes, I know that much of this intelligence with Saddam goes back to Clinton's days.

Which just means Clinton's assessment of Iraq was as wrong as Bush's assessment; Clinton just never tried to take us to war over it.

Evidence yes, proof no.

And evidence, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder.

To some, 20 year old shells are the smoking gun of Saddam's ready-to-destroy-the-US arsenal.

To me? Well it's proof of the fact we shouldn't be giving WMD's to foreign powers ruled by unstable dictators.

But at every step of the way, somebody has been out there saying "umm, you know, that's not been substantiated" or something along those lines.

What's also been shown, in all of this, is how bad our intelligence network is, regardless of whether some Administration plans to ignore the intelligence from that network.

Mr. Bush - Luke K. Walsh, SUNY Oswego Oswegonian. Why do you consider it so preferable to throw leftover materials from in-vitro fertilization into the trash, rather than use them for stem cell research, that you exercised your veto power for the first and only time in over six years in office to preserve that status quo?

Luke K. Walsh -- my beautiful girlfriend, Jeannie, is an Oswego alum! Go Oswegonians! Or something like that.

Oops, I said I would only post questions to President Bush in this blog. I broke my vow and now I will burn in hell forever.

Drat.

Mr. President: Having just delivered yet another Special Comment aimed directly at the tragedy that has been your administration, do you think Keith Olbermann is the Murrow of our time?

American's gave Small Pox-laden blankets to the Indians.
The CIA provided drugs to the inner city residents.
The US secretly worked with Noriega for years before they arrested him.
The US provided guns and training to Osama.
And so many other things.

Is it any wonder that over 25% of today's American populace believes that the US government had some involvement in 9/11?
-----------------------
Mr. President, where do you find all these people who are so willing to blindly repeat your despicable lies?

Mr. President, Allyn Gibson of the Reality-Based Community here.

Reading Bob Woodward's latest book and reviewing Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission, I am struck by the multiple chances your Administration had in the months leading up to 9-11 to deliver a blow to Al-Qaeda, from implementing the Clinton Administration's late plan to retaliate for the USS Cole bombing to George Tenet's panicked meetings with Condi Rice and John Ashcroft in early July 2001, but these were all chances that were missed, chances that allowed the 9-11 plot to continue and ultimately execute. Had Al Gore become President in 2001, these chances to thwart Al-Qaeda would not have been missed--the Cole retaliation would have gone forward, the information that led to John Ashcroft avoiding public air transportation post-July 2001 might have had traction beyond a few Cabinet secretaries. It's conceivable, Mr. President, that the events of 9-11 would have have happened.

Had you known at the time what you know now, would you have held off on your lawsuit to prevent the Florida recount in the full knowledge that Al Gore, not you, would become President in January 2001 if that meant that three thousand Americans would not have died in September 2001 because of your Administration's incompetance?

You heard it here folks: pronouns are illogical. Thanks for clearing that up, Billy.

Wow, it's almost like having John Byrne on the board...SOMEONE sure touched a nerve but it doesn't seem like it's the guy who's claiming he did it...

Bill Mulligan,

In as much as I'm replying in a debate, yes, my nerves are touched. Debating, meet Bill Mulligan. Bill Mulligan, meet debating. I believe you are acquainted with De's cousin, Mastur.

1. I made an analogy.
2. Bill Myers tells me my analogy is without substance.
3. I give a curt reply, because I'm only interested in demonstrating that I'm making the analogy deliberately.
4. Bill Myers calls me vapid -- I think, "oh, we're debating. I must have struck a nerve." and say so.

Now, you were first drawn in on this because I made a specious statement concerning you and Jerry C. I'm embarrassed. I now apologize for that. I don't reserve the right to continue to mischaracterize your intentions again.

How do you make your point that I made a specious statement? Referring to me you said:

what was that old line about never trying to teach a pig to dance? It wastes your time and annoys the pig...

Bill Mulligan, you are no less "humorless, snide, not nearly as smart as [you] think [you] are" than anyone you care to criticize. In the future, please try to use analogies that don't also apply to yourself.

Sigh... I had really hoped Peter would settle the whole "to debate or not to debate in this thread issue." But, y'know, I bet he's got better things to do and we're all adults here. If I stray a bit from the original intent of this thread -- well, there are far worse transgressions.

Mikey, I think I speak for a number of posters here when I say: bored now. You're one for the "ignore pile."

Mikey, I think I speak for a number of posters here when I say: bored now.

Bill Myers, just because I was referring to you, that doesn't mean I was talking to you. What's your problem?

You were the one who imposed the standard of substance and logic into this who deal. Are you also speaking for other posters when you withdraw the application of your stated principles for your own convenience, Billy? (Which rhymes with hypocrisy.)

Wow, Peter David doesn't know that judge and president are two different jobs and that one of those is *gasp* supposed to be 'activist'. What a surprise! (Hint: it's not the judge.)

(Hint: it's not the judge.)

Hint: activist is not synonymous with "decisions I don't like."

What measure of activist would exclude decisions like LOVING v. VIRGINIA?

Jon Meltzer: I have the magician James "The Amazing" Randi here. Will you grant him full access to your debate and press preparation, so that those charges can be evaluated by a professional?
Luigi Novi: Hmph. That’s the least of the things about Bush that Randi could debunk.

Me, I wanna see Randi debunk the trick Bush does where he takes the Iraq-shaped spoon and bends it until it looks like a pile of WMD’s.

American's gave Small Pox-laden blankets to the Indians.
The CIA provided drugs to the inner city residents.
The US secretly worked with Noriega for years before they arrested him.
The US provided guns and training to Osama.
And so many other things.

Is it any wonder that over 25% of today's American populace believes that the US government had some involvement in 9/11?

Well, yes. Those other facts, while interesting, have nothing to do with it. One could just as easily list a bunch of Saddam atrocities and claim it makes it no surprise that he was behind 9/11. Illogical.

Besides, I though the smallpox blanket bit was not entirely certain. It's well known but not well documented. And has it been proven that the CIA gave drugs to inner city residents? I remember the accusation but not any proof of such.

In as much as I'm replying in a debate, yes, my nerves are touched. Debating, meet Bill Mulligan. Bill Mulligan, meet debating. I believe you are acquainted with De's cousin, Mastur.

Whoo hoo! Oh my sides! (wipes a tear of mirth from eye).

Bill Mulligan, you are no less "humorless, snide, not nearly as smart as [you] think [you] are" than anyone you care to criticize. In the future, please try to use analogies that don't also apply to yourself.

Wow, that's the best comeback since I heard one kid say to the other "No, YOU suck." See, he turned it right around on the guy! And it was the emphasis on the "you" that really sold it.

But you've certainly put the lie to any accusations that you are "humorless". I expect there's a lot of us laughing right now.

Billy? (Which rhymes with hypocrisy.)

ZING! In your face Myers! Back away, friend, this guy is more than we can handle...

Wow, Peter David doesn't know that judge and president are two different jobs and that one of those is *gasp* supposed to be 'activist'. What a surprise!

The president's job is to sign bills into law, or to veto them.

Unfortunately, Bush had decided to hijack the legislature (who's job it really is to make laws) by using signing statements to ignore the law. The president does not make law, yet that is what Bush's signing statements do.

Bush is, indeed, an 'activist' in the worst way with his abuses of the signing statements.

And, yeah, I'd say even the legislative branch can be 'activist' as well if their only response to a situation is entirely and utterly knee-jerk, like what happened with Terry Schiavo, where they attempted to take what a was a state matter and hijack it for their own political agenda on the federal level.

Oh, man, the Terry Schiavo comment reminded me of a question I'd like to ask:

President Bush, you have in the past stated that you believe in the sanctity of marriage, and yet you (and your brother Jeb) attempted to step in and overturn that sanctity in the case of Terry Schiavo. Are you, yourself, willing to allow Congress to overturn any decisions that you or your wife might make in similar situations?

Mr. President,

Is Jenna currently unattached?

"Also, on the WMDs, the burden of proof was NOT on Bush. It was on Saddam, to PROVE that he had no WMDs, no WMD programs, no WMD materials. He reapeatedly cheated and lied and evaded on that. "

So much for that old 'innocent until proven guilty' nonsense then....

Cheers

Craig, that's a fair description of the President's legislative duties. But he is mainly responsible for EXECUTING the laws. The government agencies that carry out and enforce the law are all under the Executive Branch, and that is headed up by the President.

Peter, Saddam was not entitled to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. For one, that is just in relation to civilian law, not international. For another, he had admitted guilt and agreed to certain conditions in exchange for the end of hostilities. To complete the metaphor, he was a convicted felon on parole, and had to continually re-establish his "innocence."

Are you arguing that requiring parolees to submit to drug testing and other conditions is also unfair? Do you really want to give felons "the presumption of innocence" while they are still serving their sentence?

J.

Mr. President, I still can't find my other blue sock. Where is it, Mr. President? Like Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet representative to the U.N. on Oct. 25, 1962, "I am prepared to wait for my answer until Hell freezes over!"

Or until this thread is bumped off the front page by newer threads. One or the other.

Bill Mulligan, you are no less "humorless, snide, not nearly as smart as [you] think [you] are" than anyone you care to criticize. In the future, please try to use analogies that don't also apply to yourself.

But you've certainly put the lie to any accusations that you are "humorless".

Bill Mulligan,

I never said I wasn't humorless. You're the one who turned all humor-police in this thread, not me. You tell me I'm not funny, it sucks to be me. You tell me I'm not funny when you aren't funny yourself -- that's sheltering a predatory agenda. What defense is there against that?

"sheltering a predatory agenda"???

You are taking this WAY too seriously. Really.

But feel free to get the last word in, though I don't think there's anything of much value left to say in this exchange.

"Wow, Peter David doesn't know that judge and president are two different jobs and that one of those is *gasp* supposed to be 'activist'. What a surprise! (Hint: it's not the judge.)"

Mr. President, a follow up: I'm specifically referencing the oath of office which reads, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Since the authors of the oath of office felt so strongly about the constitution that they used three words (preserve, protect, defend) that mean pretty much the same thing, would you say they were trying to convey the notion that the LAST thing a president should be doing is being an activist vis a vis constitutional change or undermining the Bill of Rights?

PAD

You tell me I'm not funny, it sucks to be me. You tell me I'm not funny when you aren't funny yourself -- that's sheltering a predatory agenda.

"sheltering a predatory agenda"???

You are taking this WAY too seriously. Really.

That is my understanding of why it's bad to hold people to principles you don't live by yourself: because it shelters predatory agendas.

If you don't like that explanation, give us something else to think. If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be too hard. Or give us the virtues of hypocrisy. You can save Mark Foley's political career.

Mr President, how many finger am I holding up?

Mr. President, if the institution of marriage is so sacred that we need a constitutional amendment to make it illegal for homosexuals to be married, how do you explain the staggering number of marriages that end in divorce? And why has more not been done to either change the divorce laws to make it more difficult to get a divorce, or else attempt to create a constitutional amendment to make it illegal to get a divorce?

Yo Bush, I mean, Mr. President! Rob Brown again. Mr. David there reminded me of another question that had somehow slipped my mind.

You've gone on the record as being against "activist judges" who seek to change the law as it's currently written. But you have also made no secret of the fact that in your ideal world, the Roe v. Wade decision would be overturned and abortions would be illegal. I ask you now sir, if the Supreme Court one day overturns Roe v. Wade, will you publicly denounce and criticize them as "activist judges"?

(One more thing, to "Jay Tea". You say Peter, Saddam was not entitled to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. For one, that is just in relation to civilian law, not international. Listen pal. The idea behind "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is to make ABSOLUTELY sure that an innocent person doesn't suffer for a crime they didn't commit. Now, if the life of one person is important enough to use that standard, then surely the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are also important enough. Because when war is declared, we are not talking about the fate of one person, we are talking about the fate of a whole COUNTRY full of people! Understand?)

Posted by: Rob Brown at October 24, 2006 10:06 AM

(One more thing, to "Jay Tea". You say Peter, Saddam was not entitled to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. For one, that is just in relation to civilian law, not international. Listen pal. The idea behind "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is to make ABSOLUTELY sure that an innocent person doesn't suffer for a crime they didn't commit. Now, if the life of one person is important enough to use that standard, then surely the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are also important enough. Because when war is declared, we are not talking about the fate of one person, we are talking about the fate of a whole COUNTRY full of people! Understand?)

I was, and continue to be, as opposed to the ill-advised invasion of Iraq as anyone. Your premise, however, is incorrect. As Jay Tea correctly pointed out, Iraq was indeed in violation of the terms of its 1991 surrender to the United States, and also in violation of U.N. resolutions. Therefore, Jay Tea's parolee analogy is apt: Iraq was not entitled to a "presumption of innocence."

By the way, I'm sure Jay Tea understands you, as do I. You're conflating disagreement with a lack of understanding.

Mind you, just because we had the legal authority to invade Iraq doesn't mean we were required to do so, and I still believe the invasion was ill-advised. While it is true that the "international community" by and large also believed Saddam had WMDs, that same community by and large also wanted to allow more time for inspections to work. Moreover, members of the U.S. intelligence community complained that Bush had politicized intelligence, and ignored intelligence that cast significant doubt on the existence of WMDs. He also ignored the advice of many experienced, high-ranking military leaders, such as Gen. Colin Powell -- one of the architects of the first Gulf War. Powell is no "dove," and if he had misgivings about a second invasion of Iraq, that should've given Bush pause.

We are not talking about 20-20 hindsight. There were plenty of clear reasons not to invade Iraq again, and they were apparent before the decision was made.

Rob, there were many reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. "Presumption of innocence," however, was not one of them.

I was all set to argue with Jay about drug testing parolees until I read the post AGAIN and realized that we would be arguing the same point.

Bill Myers--I have your other blue sock! I will hold it in custody until it tells me what I want to know! Don't bother trying to find my secret lair, unless you're on I-95 and you see the exit ramp to my secret lair. Gotta get that thing taken down.

Mr. President, I saw in an interview recently that you use your faith to make decisions. It's also been well-documented that you pay little to no attention to newspapers or broadcast journalism. My question is why is it that you can jusitfy making decisons based on your faith and your faith in your advisors and place so LITTLE faith in they who observe and report on the events around you?

Sean Scullion, the only thing that sock will tell you is that my feet stink. If you value your health, burn that damn thing.

Mr. President, Den Wilson, taxpayer and voter here, given that the past six years of near-total Republican dominance of the federal government has resulted in a new round of exploding deficits, does your party have any credibility left as the party of fiscal conservatism?

As a follow-up, your supporters continue to blame every mistep and disaster of the past six years on the Clinton administration, how do you square that with your party's traditional view of itself as the party of personal responsibility?

Also, how do you square your recent statements that our troops will be in Iraq well into the next administration with pre-invasion statements by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfovitz, and Donald Rumsfeld that the invasion and occupation would be over in less that six months?

I am holding a map