I said it was the most important? Most of the important questions are already being discussed above. I was merely curious about why he kept losing eye contact with the reporters and camera.
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: DigitalLove
Did anyone notice his eyes kept wondering down as if he was looking at a cheat sheet?
I noticed he skipped a reporter, saying that he'll get back to him and had to go to another reporter first because it was in the "script." WTF?!?! So the whole press conference was scripted?
Dang man, of all the burning and important questions to be discussed about the possible entry of the US into a war and you find that the most important.
Originally posted by: DaiShan[/i
The argument here lies in the fact that while saddam is pushing the limits (and breaking) UN resolution 1441, Bush has said if the Security Council does not back us we will do it any way, in effect this removes the power from the security council and places it in the hands of a sole hegemon: The United States.
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: hagbard
"Get out journalists...we don't want you to report what you see". I paraphrase here a bit.
Hagbard, why don't you actually try to learn something before about the situation before you open your mouth and stick your foot in. Wait, I'm forgetting whom I am talking to.
Pentagon Releases Reporters' Iraq Slots
News organizations slated to have journalists embedded with military units heading to Iraq were told Wednesday and Thursday morning how many slots they would get and, in many cases, to which units they would be assigned, according to a Pentagon official. He told E&P that U.S. troops expected to see combat would get the most reporters.
"We've tried to ensure coverage in-depth, which means units that are most likely to see combat get good, meaningful newspaper coverage, TV coverage, and other broadcast coverage," said Col. Jay DeFrank, director of press operations for the U.S. Department of Defense . "It is not based on the safety of the units." Journalists will not be allowed to carry firearms.
DeFrank confirmed Thursday that more than 500 journalists will be embedded with troops involved in the expected invasion of Iraq. DeFrank declined to reveal the exact number of embedded slots being assigned. He said the number could fluctuate as units are deployed and as access for reporters in different countries changes. "The journalists still have to get approval [to enter] the countries," he said. "Some may shut them out."
...
___________
Once again Hagbard got it completely wrong and tried to put his anti-American spin on something he knows nothing about. It's getting rather old.
We have a winner!!!Originally posted by: LandRover
I'd absolutely love to see anyone here stand up in front of the nation for nearly an hour and make a 100% flawless speech. The fact is that none of you could do much better. It's all too easy to sit behind your computer screen and tear apart everything someone says.
We also aren't the Leader of the Free World Either.Originally posted by: LandRover
I'd absolutely love to see anyone here stand up in front of the nation for nearly an hour and make a 100% flawless speech. The fact is that none of you could do much better. It's all too easy to sit behind your computer screen and tear apart everything someone says.
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: hagbard
"Get out journalists...we don't want you to report what you see". I paraphrase here a bit.
Hagbard, why don't you actually try to learn something before about the situation before you open your mouth and stick your foot in. Wait, I'm forgetting whom I am talking to.
Pentagon Releases Reporters' Iraq Slots
News organizations slated to have journalists embedded with military units heading to Iraq were told Wednesday and Thursday morning how many slots they would get and, in many cases, to which units they would be assigned, according to a Pentagon official. He told E&P that U.S. troops expected to see combat would get the most reporters.
"We've tried to ensure coverage in-depth, which means units that are most likely to see combat get good, meaningful newspaper coverage, TV coverage, and other broadcast coverage," said Col. Jay DeFrank, director of press operations for the U.S. Department of Defense . "It is not based on the safety of the units." Journalists will not be allowed to carry firearms.
DeFrank confirmed Thursday that more than 500 journalists will be embedded with troops involved in the expected invasion of Iraq. DeFrank declined to reveal the exact number of embedded slots being assigned. He said the number could fluctuate as units are deployed and as access for reporters in different countries changes. "The journalists still have to get approval [to enter] the countries," he said. "Some may shut them out."
...
___________
Once again Hagbard got it completely wrong and tried to put his anti-American spin on something he knows nothing about. It's getting rather old.
That proves nothing. If they report what the military doesn't want them to report, they'll be out of there and their reports dealt with.
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
We have a winner!!!Originally posted by: LandRover
I'd absolutely love to see anyone here stand up in front of the nation for nearly an hour and make a 100% flawless speech. The fact is that none of you could do much better. It's all too easy to sit behind your computer screen and tear apart everything someone says.
: ) Hopper
Originally posted by: MrChicken
I watched the whole thing. What I saw was a President that stands firm in his belief that he is going to protect the US. It was obvious that he was upset personally over 9/11, not just lip biting for votes. He doesnt care about polls, he doesnt care about getting re-elected, what he cares about is protecting the US from having an Iraqi made WMD going off in the US. The guy you call a moron answered more hard line hostile questions about a situation tougher to handle, in one night, than any other President I can remember. The safety of the US and maybe the world is at stake, he really cares about the troops he is sending into combat and the civilians in Iraq, and he does not care what millions of protestors say against it. He only flat refused to answer 1 question the whole night, about whether the war would be a failure with the capture of Saddam. He didnt answer a couple of questions because some of the reporters tried ask several questions at one time, which they all know is a no-no because it takes time away from the other reporters. He made a great case for the UN. Plainly put, he said they must back up their resolutions. He is giving the UN a chance to regain a position of authority by following through on their resolution(s). The US does not need the UN for this, but Bush wants the UN to step up. he knows that if they dont act now, nobody will ever listen to them ever again simply because they lack the resolve to do anything. Bosnia ring a bell? Has not anybody out there noticed how Bush flatly refuses to insult those that disagree with him? He doesnt sling mud at the Democrats, certainly not we are used to. He refused to be engaged in denigrating our "Allies" such as France and Germany for their opposition. He stated that he likes that people are free to protest, and did not belittle the people that protest him. He politely pointed out, several times, that the cost of a WMD attack in the US unacceptable. This was his answer to why their was a need for the US to disarm Iraq, if the UN failed to do so, of what an attack on Iraq will cost in dollars, and to the question how the economy will be affected. He was much nicer than i would have been. How hard is it for a guy to see that if 9/11 did what it did to the economy, what would a Nuke in LA or smallpox in NY do? Also he repeatedly said, and appearantly the reporters werent listening, that he is the last phase of diplomacy and that he hopes it works as he does not want war. It should be clear to everyone by now that he doesnt want war, if he did we would gone in before now.
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Oh, but not EVERYONE get's to get the president of the US, if one does one should be able to handle pressure, just like every damn leader in the world?Originally posted by: Grasshopper27We have a winner!!! : ) HopperOriginally posted by: LandRover I'd absolutely love to see anyone here stand up in front of the nation for nearly an hour and make a 100% flawless speech. The fact is that none of you could do much better. It's all too easy to sit behind your computer screen and tear apart everything someone says.
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
It made me sick how he kept tring to link the horrors of 911 with saddam. Even the CIA says they can't find a link but he goes on mouthing away with it knowing full well it will gain public support for it's false link
In related news Saddam Destroyed 6 missles out of the suspected 30 or so al rassams he has today. I told this was'nt about WMD. Never has been. We need a base in the middle east and Saddam needs to go.
---Disclaimer-not aimed at Carbonyl, but using his first sentence for a point.
What follows is a general rant.---
The rest of his argument is as fallacious as the link to 9/11
Saddam IS an SOB. If you want to go after him because of his treatment of his people, then you have an argument. If it is because of the "threat" of Saddam, then no you do not. Saddam has not been a threat since the Gulf War, and I want to see solid, evidence to that effect if you disagree. But, but he has WMD's! Hells bells, Bush people practically invented that phrase. A helluva lot of people around the region do too. Think Iran doesn't? I have news for you, Iran has had more terrorists in it than Iraq ever had. Saddam wants to stay in power, but to do that he knew he would have to stay put or get ousted. Someone prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on you, because you have the more serious position of supporting the killing of Iraqis.
But, but 9/11!! I say, But but the Easter Bunny! Saddam has as much to do with one as another. The politicians have played the USA like an violin. The tune they use is fear, and so many desparately want to dance to that tune.
I am not proud of my leadership. I am ashamed of them.
Will backing down, dropping the sanctions and letting Saddam continue in his defiance of the UN make things better? Before you say more inspections be prepared to tell me why they will work now when they have not worked for the past twelve years.
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
We have a winner!!!Originally posted by: LandRover
I'd absolutely love to see anyone here stand up in front of the nation for nearly an hour and make a 100% flawless speech. The fact is that none of you could do much better. It's all too easy to sit behind your computer screen and tear apart everything someone says.
: ) Hopper
Oh, but not EVERYONE get's to get the president of the US, if one does one should be able to handle pressure, just like every damn leader in the world?
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Oh, but not EVERYONE get's to get the president of the US, if one does one should be able to handle pressure, just like every damn leader in the world?Originally posted by: Grasshopper27We have a winner!!! : ) HopperOriginally posted by: LandRover I'd absolutely love to see anyone here stand up in front of the nation for nearly an hour and make a 100% flawless speech. The fact is that none of you could do much better. It's all too easy to sit behind your computer screen and tear apart everything someone says.
Do you ever go away? I thought you were on your way to Iraq? You know, the sooner you leave the better.
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
It made me sick how he kept tring to link the horrors of 911 with saddam. Even the CIA says they can't find a link but he goes on mouthing away with it knowing full well it will gain public support for it's false link
In related news Saddam Destroyed 6 missles out of the suspected 30 or so al rassams he has today. I told this was'nt about WMD. Never has been. We need a base in the middle east and Saddam needs to go.
---Disclaimer-not aimed at Carbonyl, but using his first sentence for a point.
What follows is a general rant.---
The rest of his argument is as fallacious as the link to 9/11
Saddam IS an SOB. If you want to go after him because of his treatment of his people, then you have an argument. If it is because of the "threat" of Saddam, then no you do not. Saddam has not been a threat since the Gulf War, and I want to see solid, evidence to that effect if you disagree. But, but he has WMD's! Hells bells, Bush people practically invented that phrase. A helluva lot of people around the region do too. Think Iran doesn't? I have news for you, Iran has had more terrorists in it than Iraq ever had. Saddam wants to stay in power, but to do that he knew he would have to stay put or get ousted. Someone prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on you, because you have the more serious position of supporting the killing of Iraqis.
But, but 9/11!! I say, But but the Easter Bunny! Saddam has as much to do with one as another. The politicians have played the USA like an violin. The tune they use is fear, and so many desparately want to dance to that tune.
I am not proud of my leadership. I am ashamed of them.
Will backing down, dropping the sanctions and letting Saddam continue in his defiance of the UN make things better? Before you say more inspections be prepared to tell me why they will work now when they have not worked for the past twelve years.
At this point we have screwed the pooch so badly that I do not think anything will fix it. If Bush had been a doctor and hacked off the limbs of a person and someone came to me and asked "well what can YOU do about it" I would say "nothing". If that person then said "well if you cant fix it, then you have to accept it" Nonsense. The point isn't about my acceptance of mutilation, but about the hack job to begin with.
About inspections - they are irrelevent now. IMO inspections were there as a mechanism for hope. Hope is gone. Bush wanted Saddam dead, but managed to convince some people he never meant what he in fact said and many people bought it. I read his lips the first time. He is going to get his great white whale.
Only after 9/11 has Saddam suddenly become a danger, but no one can demonstrate IN FACT that he is. Assume he has banned weapons. Prove conclusively that Saddam intended to attack the US, or another invasion of a neighboring country. If you want to make an argument for his removal based on the treatment of his people, you would have a better chance of convincing me. No, Saddam has been many things, but most recently he seems to me more of a scapegoat than anything else.
Bush selected a path that almost certainly will lead to war. If Bush wished, even now he could approach the UN with a plan to forcefully disarm Iraq without full scale war. If he had approached France, Russia, Germany, China with something other than a club purposfully poorly disguised as diplomacy a la Rumsfeld, something might have been accomplished, since Bush determined he must make an issue of Iraq. Then again, he never wanted disarmanemt, he wanted Saddams head on a platter.
Bottom line is I have no practical solutions, since practical solutions were never wanted. Rational suggestions are not taken up by irrational people (Bush). No, the pooch is indeed screwed.
At this point we have screwed the pooch so badly that I do not think anything will fix it. If Bush had been a doctor and hacked off the limbs of a person and someone came to me and asked "well what can YOU do about it" I would say "nothing". If that person then said "well if you cant fix it, then you have to accept it" Nonsense. The point isn't about my acceptance of mutilation, but about the hack job to begin with.
About inspections - they are irrelevent now. IMO inspections were there as a mechanism for hope. Hope is gone. Bush wanted Saddam dead, but managed to convince some people he never meant what he in fact said and many people bought it. I read his lips the first time. He is going to get his great white whale.
Only after 9/11 has Saddam suddenly become a danger, but no one can demonstrate IN FACT that he is. Assume he has banned weapons. Prove conclusively that Saddam intended to attack the US, or another invasion of a neighboring country. If you want to make an argument for his removal based on the treatment of his people, you would have a better chance of convincing me. No, Saddam has been many things, but most recently he seems to me more of a scapegoat than anything else.
Bush selected a path that almost certainly will lead to war. If Bush wished, even now he could approach the UN with a plan to forcefully disarm Iraq without full scale war. If he had approached France, Russia, Germany, China with something other than a club purposfully poorly disguised as diplomacy a la Rumsfeld, something might have been accomplished, since Bush determined he must make an issue of Iraq. Then again, he never wanted disarmanemt, he wanted Saddams head on a platter.
Bottom line is I have no practical solutions, since practical solutions were never wanted. Rational suggestions are not taken up by irrational people (Bush). No, the pooch is indeed screwed.
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Bush selected a path that almost certainly will lead to war. If Bush wished, even now he could approach the UN with a plan to forcefully disarm Iraq without full scale war.
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Bush selected a path that almost certainly will lead to war. If Bush wished, even now he could approach the UN with a plan to forcefully disarm Iraq without full scale war.
We can forcefully disarm them without troops?
A rose by any other name......
If it makes you feel any better, don't call it a war. But all your handwringing aside, your solution is to go in and club the guy...just like Bush.
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Bush selected a path that almost certainly will lead to war. If Bush wished, even now he could approach the UN with a plan to forcefully disarm Iraq without full scale war.
We can forcefully disarm them without troops?
A rose by any other name......
If it makes you feel any better, don't call it a war. But all your handwringing aside, your solution is to go in and club the guy...just like Bush.
European women have started to shave off their pubic hair, they are all saying... NO MORE BUSH!
Originally posted by: Bluga
Bush is just a warhog. There's no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Reply- In Vietnam, when Johnson sent troops in under false pretenses, and things were going to hell in a handbasket, being at z offered little consolation. Johnson and Bush have a great deal in common it seems.Originally posted by: etech
At this point we have screwed the pooch so badly that I do not think anything will fix it. If Bush had been a doctor and hacked off the limbs of a person and someone came to me and asked "well what can YOU do about it" I would say "nothing". If that person then said "well if you cant fix it, then you have to accept it" Nonsense. The point isn't about my acceptance of mutilation, but about the hack job to begin with.
Q:Exactly who screwed the pooch? You have to rember that pooch had puppies and they are twelve years old now.
A: Twelve years ago Saddam learned the consequences of attacking another country. Those puppies are dead of old age now and had none if their own. The current ones look just like their father. GWB
About inspections - they are irrelevent now. IMO inspections were there as a mechanism for hope. Hope is gone. Bush wanted Saddam dead, but managed to convince some people he never meant what he in fact said and many people bought it. I read his lips the first time. He is going to get his great white whale.
Q:Why are inspections irrelevent starting now? Why not back in 1998 when the inspectors left Iraq. I would say that is when they really became irrelevent.
A: I answered that above. I have found you an answer, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. If you choose not to accept the statement in context so be it.
Only after 9/11 has Saddam suddenly become a danger, but no one can demonstrate IN FACT that he is. Assume he has banned weapons. Prove conclusively that Saddam intended to attack the US, or another invasion of a neighboring country. If you want to make an argument for his removal based on the treatment of his people, you would have a better chance of convincing me. No, Saddam has been many things, but most recently he seems to me more of a scapegoat than anything else.
Statement-That is why in 1998 Congress passed and Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act because they knew in 2001 that the US would be attacked. Read it and see what it says about Saddam. Read John McCains reasons for voting for it.
Reply- They did not know it then. Clinton did not know it then. Bush does not know it now. Congress could make a law saying Martians cannot invade the US. They see it coming too. Yeah. I was no great fan of Clinton, and just about everything he did was politically motivated. Curious name, the Iraqi Liberation Act. Too bad they did not come up with a damned Rwanda Liberation Act. Saddam pissed people off, which is a far greater crime that what happened there, at least by what I see on OT.
Bush selected a path that almost certainly will lead to war. If Bush wished, even now he could approach the UN with a plan to forcefully disarm Iraq without full scale war. If he had approached France, Russia, Germany, China with something other than a club purposfully poorly disguised as diplomacy a la Rumsfeld, something might have been accomplished, since Bush determined he must make an issue of Iraq. Then again, he never wanted disarmanemt, he wanted Saddams head on a platter.
Statement-Pres. Bush picked the path to force Saddam to disarm or to remove the problem. Saddam had the choice and oppurtunity to disam. He didn' take it.
Reply-When did Bush offer to removed himself? That is the problem. Do I want Saddam to have these weapons? No. I do not want a lot of things. What am I prepared to do to get rid of those things I do not like? Well what I don't choose is this bloody war to be. Diplomatically, this was handled in an astoundingly bad way.
Bottom line is I have no practical solutions, since practical solutions were never wanted. Rational suggestions are not taken up by irrational people (Bush). No, the pooch is indeed screwed.
Statement-Rational solutions are sometimes not wanted by some but they are still rational. If not x then z. We are at z.
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Do I want Saddam to have these weapons? No. I do not want a lot of things. What am I prepared to do to get rid of those things I do not like? Well what I don't choose is this bloody war to be. Diplomatically, this was handled in an astoundingly bad way.