Czuch: I'd rather explore the 41% of Fox viewers who wish your President to not succeed

I have been wondering.... Obama wants to spend our way our of this recession, and I havent heard any libs complaining about this plan, but I have often heard liberals complain about "trickle down economics", a staple of conservative policy....

But isnt this proposed government spending spree really just a form of trickle down economic policy?

I havent thought this through yet, and its not anything I have heard anywhere, just a thought I had recently, that I would like to discuss and explore a bit...

Czuch: For a President to "succeed" he would be doing well.Hannity himself says he hopes Obama "succeeds" There is no way Fox would get a 59% Yes vote if it meant his agenda

Jim Dandy:

I'm a little shocked that so many Fox viewers hope Obama does not right the ship.

See, thats the problem..... you see "succeed" as righting the ship

But my guess is that out of those 44% who dont want Obama to succeed they have different views of what success means.

Since Obama was the most liberal senator, my guess is that conservatives look at Success for Obama to mean that he succeeds in making this country more socialist, or more liberal in nature!

So if you are a conservative of course you would not want to see him succeed at making this country more liberal in nature, right?

Czuch: It doesn't sound that complicated.To succeed is to do well for the country,I'm a little shocked that so many Fox viewers hope Obama does not right the ship.Now if it was asking "Do you approve of Obama?" that would be a different story,and different stats I would think coming from Fox

Jim Dandy:

Do you want Obama to succeed


The thing with polls is they just dont really tell us anything.

What does success mean?

Its like asking if you like Bush..... when Bushs popularity was at all time lows it wasnt because we all hated him for the same reasons..... some of us hated him because he lost some of his conservative ways, which you would think would make liberals like him a bit more, but liberals hate him so much that even when he acted like a liber they wouldnt admit to liking him!!!

Charles Martel:

Well after all that's been done, I'd still take Bush over gore and Kerry


Uhmmm... can you give us a spread sheet to back that up please? ;)

Q: Do you want Obama to succeed

Yes 59%
No 41%

Well after all that's been done, I'd still take Bush over gore and Kerry

***Sometimes you misunderestimated me***


or is that a "Bushism" and only to be understood by americans?

Czuch: I thought it more of a case that she made Bush squirm, not many politicians like to be on the spot.

Jim Dandy: Yeah, credit for being a biased news reporter with an agenda....

You have to give her credit,well into her 80's she was one of the few White House reporters not willing to give GW a free ride

Jim Dandy: Not true... she asked and he tried to answer, she just doesnt like the answer she was getting...


Reporters also lose sight of the fact that they are there to REPORT, not make the news, she is a typical "left wing biased news media" referred to often here, who is first and foremost a Bush hater! She asked then interrupted him.. he is the president for christ sakes, she is the one showing absolutly no respect, why should he let her even in the room?

Jim Dandy: Helen Thomas Asks President Bush Why He Went to War
Thomash3-22

At the White House Tuesday, veteran correspondent Helen Thomas took President Bush to task on his reasons for invading Iraq. It was the first time Bush had called on Thomas, known as the "First Lady of the American Press", in three years. [includes rush transcript]

* >Share
o delicio.us
o digg
o facebook
o newsvine
o reddit
o slashdot
o stumbleupon


Email to a friend

Help

Printer-friendly version

Purchase DVD/CD
LISTEN
WATCH


Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

MP3 Download

More…

* White House press conference, March 21, 2006

Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

AMY GOODMAN: We return to President Bush's news conference. Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas asked President Bush what some analysts called the most direct questioning he's ever received on his reasons for invading Iraq.

HELEN THOMAS: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet—your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth—what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil—quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist, is that, you know, I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect—

HELEN THOMAS: Everything—

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Hold on for a second, please.

HELEN THOMAS:—everything I've heard—

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Excuse me, excuse me. No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We—when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy, but we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq—hold on for a second—

HELEN THOMAS: They didn't do anything to you or to our country.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Look—excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al-Qaeda. That's where al-Qaeda trained—

HELEN THOMAS: I'm talking about Iraq—

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Helen, excuse me. That's where—Afghanistan provided safe haven for al-Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, 'Disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences'—

HELEN THOMAS:—go to war—

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH:—and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

AMY GOODMAN: That was President Bush answering Helen Thomas at the White House on Tuesday. Commonly referred to as the "First Lady of the Press, Helen Thomas is the most senior member of the White House Press Corps. She has served as a White House correspondent for some 57 years and has covered every president since John F. Kennedy. It was the fist time President Bush has called on Helen Thomas in three years.

Czuch: It's sad when politicians lose sight of the fact reporters are there to report to the people.Thomas asked him questions he didn't like,so Bush basically thumbed his nose to the people wanting those answers.

Jim Dandy: There is a history there, between the two of them, and she blew it awhile ago as far as getting him to answer any of her questions, it all her own fault and it has more to do with her class than his.....

Czuch: I thought it was pretty classless for Bush to snub Helen Thomas in his final press conf today.At 88 she is the dean of White House reporters,he ignored her raised hand,.........stay classy GW

Czuch: ah ha but you called us all doubters......hence the reaction you got.........LOL

(V): You guys asked for a list... didnt say it had to come from someone who hates bush?

Czuch: Wow... enhanced interrorgation (sp) of prisoners is an achievement.... Rejecting a treaty that pretty much now he and his admin say is correct in terms that they are 90%+ sure that the reasons behind the treaty were well founded now.

.... What a great Republican site you found Czuch, but can you find a neutral one, not Repub or Liberal?

Czuch: who determines if it is a **valid opinion**

and I want factual evidence to back up your answer please LOL

Im doing an AD

Czuch: Barnes is known for his loyalty to Bush

Jim Dandy: Well, are liberals the only ones to have valid opinions of Bush then?

Czuch: Barnes has a show on Fox News also,go figure

Czuch: yeah right

Bernice: Like we have been talking about lately... its all opinion, I dont see any lies in his opinions, but at least if you read in here you are not one of the unsuspecting anymore!

Czuch: ah....a journalist....one who tells lies and tries to force their opinion onto the unsuspecting ROFLMBO

Bernice: Fred Barnes is a conservative leaning political columnists.... Having helped relations with your country doesnt depend on his popularity there.

He isnt very popular here right now either, but he still has done things that have helped our country.

Popularity changes a lot... remember Bush approval rating at one time was something like 93%?

exactly who is Fred Barnes?

Czuch: whos opinion was that? He is NOT a liked man. Little Johhny Howard (the man who took Obamas bed) was a man who cow-towed down to Bush and his stupid ideas. Even the British prime minister had more sense than that.

Bernice: One on the list even describes Bushs enhancing relations with your country!

Artful Dodger: yes he sure will, and time will tell. I sure as hell wouldnt like his job.

Dear old G Dubya practically apologised for living the last 8 years....it seems even he knows what a knob he made of himself. Well he can go back to making Laura her morning coffee (his words not mine)

Czuch: It was Papa Bush. After the Kuwait business, those who didn't like Saddam were encouraged to uprise by Papa Bush's admin , but at the time they needed outside help they got none. So Saddam went around and slaughtered them all.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/49864/?page=entire

(V): See if you can find it, I probably remember it wrong, but it seems like it was something either with Clinton, or maybe papa George?

Czuch: You mean the uprising that was called for by Bush in 1991 and when it came to actual foreign support was cancelled the Intifada were left to Saddam's *cough* mercy.

it has just been announced here that our troops in afghanistan WILL ALL be home by 2012...whoopee doodle and the fight goes on...........................

(V): There was a history of people from inside Iraq trying to organize help to oust saddam, we were actually all set up for one under Clinton, and he backed out at the last minute, leaving the insiders hung out in the wind!

After that it was hard for them to trust any help would be available, and without help, nothing they could do alone.

(V): Oh okay.... all Bushs fault but not all the glory? hehehe well for sure its not all about Bush, of course you all were great allies among others, and any credit for any success there will obviously be spread about, but this is inevitably going to be Bushs blunder or good achievement, either way!

I really never understood what we all were thinking by not completely shutting down the Iraqi boarders after the initial fall? If not for the foreign insurgency coming in, I think we would have been gone long ago!

Vikings: Mmmm If Bush had rolled up with a convoy of stuff and men at the state line and asked the people if they wanted help, or asked the Gov to get and explain to him why he should turn around the convoy on public TV....

.... It's called politics and the appliance of.

Czuch: If.... yes the word is If......... And forgive me for stating some of the obvious, but would Bush have gone in if it wasn't for his support from our UK Gov? And 'If' Iraq is stable, it'll be noted that Bush had no plan for the aftermath of the invasion and that many ripped off the American tax payer through charging over the odds.

It'll be noted that the presidents after cleaned up the mess.

anastasia: I can sense and understand your frustration.... opinions are just that opinions... but heres the point, If you say you dont like Bush because he never signed a law protecting albino wambats, then that is your opinion and i might not agree but thats that.

But lets say Bush had signed that law, and your opinion of Bush was based on wrong intel?

Your gonna tell us you werent one to hate Bush from day one, that your hatred for him is based on certain things he did or did not do?

he handled Katrina poorly you say? Well even though he stayed away at the request of the governor of that state, your opinion is that he should have done something more anyway, and that is totally legit opinion, yeah he should have broken the law and helped these people anyway. That works for me!

But if you say he handled Katrina wrong because he did not follow some specific guidelines set forth in the constitution or set forth by whomever, well that is an opinion based on false information, and is therefore less legitimate.

See you cannot have an opinion about facts, facts and opinions are two different things! Also if your opinions are based on facts that arent really factual, well that brings those opinions into debate as well.

But in a discussion board format you either need to keep your opinions more open and vague, IE I dont care what the laws were, he should have done more anyway, or you have to be able to defend them when they are not, IE he broke the law so I dont like him!

coan.net: I see a point there.... but what was the option then? Before the oil embargo Saddam was selling oil and using the cash to make weapons to kill his own people with.

Its great to say just stay out of their affairs, let them be, but someday their mess will become our mess, and then its a way bigger mess.... there are no easy solutions, and I dont know what the best ones are or arent, but nobody does. We just do the best we can with what we have and sometimes histroy proves what we did to be the right thing sometimes it shows that maybe something else is better.

But you cannot tell me that for sure what we did in Iraq was wrong and for sure not doing something would have been better in the long term.

Czuch: why you say how we were feeding the people in Iraq - was that because we made it impossible for the people of Iraq to sell oil and buy feed themselves?

I mean I understand the need of the emargo against Iraq - but to try to use the result of that (no money for food) as a reason to do more.... Sorry, fail.

Charles Martel: the USA in my opinion has no business forcing their "model" or ideals on other countries.........true....I ahve always thgouht that way


here is the problem i have with this kind of thought.... I can agree on one level that we should not force anyone to do anything, but I also do think these countries can have it both ways. What I mean is that here we are paying to feed their people (in Iraq) ...Saddam is stealing the money for the food we are supposed to be buying them,... we are spending countless amounts of time energy and money to monitor them and to sanction them and to monitor the sanction then tohave them broken anyway.... okay fine with me, dont go in and help the Iraqi people have hope for their futures, but dont give them anything at all!! We arent allowed to help them by getting rid of their tyrant leader, well we arent going to spend another dime on them at all!


See, when it comes right down to it, we did not force anything on anybody, they forced it upon themselves, really!!!

Its the same ol liberal garbage.... dont teach them to fish just give them fish. At some point if you are responsible to feed the people because their leader wont do it, then you have the responsibility to help them become more self sufficiant, the best long term way to make them more self sufficient is to give them a stable democratic society.


We are not going into any country we dont like their government and forcing democracy down their throats.... but Iraq was obviously not working, and you libs out there keep whining about how much the war costs, but what would it cost us to feed and monitor Iraq generation after generation? Or even worse, wait 10 years and then have to go in and help out?

I think it was inevitable what was going to happen in Iraq, it was just a matter of when and how..... the stars just lined up right for us to go in when we did, and I am glad for it!

Vikings: do YOU understand the meaning of helping others?
doesn't really matter...like I said said agian and again..we will never agree on this stuff,so be it,whatever.
Bush had a few good things while in office...I think he had more negative..MY OPINION.
your is that..what he was wonderful?? ok,cool,glad ya feel that way..glad ya feel which ever way ya wanna feel...I'm done with this whole thing...I don;t care what I say,what I don't say...what you say,what you don't say.....we disagree...THAT I think is something we can agree on!

coan.net: I can tell you from inside information that FEMA is much better now

anastasia: Do you understand that we live in the UNITED STATES of America? Not the Dictator ship of America