cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
A keeper! This lady reporter didn't stand a chance.
Video: Bush erupts against attention-deficit media
Video: Bush erupts against attention-deficit media
Bush erupts against attention-deficit media
- Thread starter cwo_ghwebb
- Start date
Whoa- she kept pushing her question & looking oh, so coy & sweet. Dubya humored her only so far - and then gave her the smackdown.
Watch the reporter's face at 00:55 when he talks about having already given her this answer at her "exclusive at the ranch". Funny how these reporters love showing off on camera. I'll bet that question didn't make HER nightly newscast.
Dumb ole' Dubya - crazy like a fox.
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
The President did try to be polite. But she kept being rude. She got spanked like a small child. Bann was right, the look on her face was priceless!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I watched...
...this and He drives me to distraction. He is sooooo frustrating.
...this and He drives me to distraction. He is sooooo frustrating.
Really? Why?
I thought it was great! It's not even so much the obnoxious reporter but ALL the little lefties who think Islamic crazies aren't a threat to us and the war should have lasted less than 30 days.
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
I liked how he said this was a war and not a police investigation every time a terrorist attack occurs.
I admit his delivery during speeches suck. Clinton could talk well but never knew when to shut up.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Listen...
...to it;
"Are we wining in Afghanistan?"
"BRAAACCKKK!!!! Wining? Listen, we face a tough challenge and these jihadists and people who want to kill innocent people and use asymmetrical warfare to achieve their goals and this and that and the other and it's a long struggle and we gotta spread democracy to beat these people and yeah, we're winning..." WTF????
My position;
If this is soooooo important, if they are soooooo dangerous and we have to win or we'll be in great danger then why do we not use the full force and weight of the United States Armed forces and kill ALL of these mother####ers until no one wants to be killed anymore? If we have to WIN, let's godamn WIN.
Of course, the answer is, he is not tying to win with force. He is trying to use all sorts of deals and talk and intrigue and negotiations and this and that and the other thing INSTEAD of getting on with the killing making US troops into cops and social workers in the process.
He is nation building which we used to be opposed to this crap. He has opened us up to valid questions of "Well, aren't we just trying to get our way, too? Aren't we killing some innocents as well?" He, as an elected leader who has a defined term, has set off not on a limited, attainable mission that he believes in and wants to accomplish while he can. He has set us off on a crusade and is obligating this nation to HIS vision entirely outside the parameters of our constitution, our founding ideas and outside the limits of our political system for years to come.
He HAD to get on with this and get it done. He has NOT. It is a mess not because of them, but because of the way WE have chosen to go about this.
George W. Bush, for whatever reasons, has gone about this in a fashion guaranteed to fail in a free nation where not everyone gives a crap about Afghanistan or their people or Iraq or Iran or the Israeli's, who have done a fine job of minding their own business from day one.
Bush has a vision of nurturing Democracy in lands with people who don't even have a clue and he wants a nation with it's own problems with democracy, us, to support him out of some sort of blind obedience and reflexive patriotism, never mind we argue, endlessly, over our own ideas of freedom and democracy and what the constitution does or doesn't say.
In a question yesterday about Carter and Hama's he tore into that question raising all kinds of hell about how Hama's in the problem and we had elections and this is what they do and blah, blah, blah.
Right then and there he blew up his entire vision. Hamas won duly conducted and fair elections. Democracy worked. The exact same thing is happening in Iraq. The elections were free and fair and valid.
In both cases, what we're doing is saying "Well, it doesn't count unless WE like the results." he completely refuses to see or accept that these people are different from us. They just are. He is from the land of Cindy Sheehan, of Kennedy, of Goldwater, of Reagan, of Obama and yet, somehow, Iraq or the Palestinians or the Afghani's are going to be somehow, not only be more together in ideas of government than WE ARE and also going to be happy with us nursing them into it.
He's still trying to rebuild a house while it is still burning and he is trying to defeat a supposed mortal enemy who is this terrible threat by using process and ideas that BARELY work here at home.
And on top of that his faux angry cry about bad people means, by the very same argument, we got a list a mile long of nations that it is just as valid for us to invade, overthrow the government and grab ahold of yet another tar baby quagmire and, once stuck, go about making the same inane argument;
"Well, we can't leave now! This is important!"
...to it;
"Are we wining in Afghanistan?"
"BRAAACCKKK!!!! Wining? Listen, we face a tough challenge and these jihadists and people who want to kill innocent people and use asymmetrical warfare to achieve their goals and this and that and the other and it's a long struggle and we gotta spread democracy to beat these people and yeah, we're winning..." WTF????
My position;
If this is soooooo important, if they are soooooo dangerous and we have to win or we'll be in great danger then why do we not use the full force and weight of the United States Armed forces and kill ALL of these mother####ers until no one wants to be killed anymore? If we have to WIN, let's godamn WIN.
Of course, the answer is, he is not tying to win with force. He is trying to use all sorts of deals and talk and intrigue and negotiations and this and that and the other thing INSTEAD of getting on with the killing making US troops into cops and social workers in the process.
He is nation building which we used to be opposed to this crap. He has opened us up to valid questions of "Well, aren't we just trying to get our way, too? Aren't we killing some innocents as well?" He, as an elected leader who has a defined term, has set off not on a limited, attainable mission that he believes in and wants to accomplish while he can. He has set us off on a crusade and is obligating this nation to HIS vision entirely outside the parameters of our constitution, our founding ideas and outside the limits of our political system for years to come.
He HAD to get on with this and get it done. He has NOT. It is a mess not because of them, but because of the way WE have chosen to go about this.
George W. Bush, for whatever reasons, has gone about this in a fashion guaranteed to fail in a free nation where not everyone gives a crap about Afghanistan or their people or Iraq or Iran or the Israeli's, who have done a fine job of minding their own business from day one.
Bush has a vision of nurturing Democracy in lands with people who don't even have a clue and he wants a nation with it's own problems with democracy, us, to support him out of some sort of blind obedience and reflexive patriotism, never mind we argue, endlessly, over our own ideas of freedom and democracy and what the constitution does or doesn't say.
In a question yesterday about Carter and Hama's he tore into that question raising all kinds of hell about how Hama's in the problem and we had elections and this is what they do and blah, blah, blah.
Right then and there he blew up his entire vision. Hamas won duly conducted and fair elections. Democracy worked. The exact same thing is happening in Iraq. The elections were free and fair and valid.
In both cases, what we're doing is saying "Well, it doesn't count unless WE like the results." he completely refuses to see or accept that these people are different from us. They just are. He is from the land of Cindy Sheehan, of Kennedy, of Goldwater, of Reagan, of Obama and yet, somehow, Iraq or the Palestinians or the Afghani's are going to be somehow, not only be more together in ideas of government than WE ARE and also going to be happy with us nursing them into it.
He's still trying to rebuild a house while it is still burning and he is trying to defeat a supposed mortal enemy who is this terrible threat by using process and ideas that BARELY work here at home.
And on top of that his faux angry cry about bad people means, by the very same argument, we got a list a mile long of nations that it is just as valid for us to invade, overthrow the government and grab ahold of yet another tar baby quagmire and, once stuck, go about making the same inane argument;
"Well, we can't leave now! This is important!"
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Yeah...
...you'd think if he actually thought that he'd treat this like war instead of a police action.
...you'd think if he actually thought that he'd treat this like war instead of a police action.
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
A keeper! This lady reporter didn't stand a chance.
F'en Window Licker... trying to spin the interview
Nice to see Bush put the Biatch Slap on her ...........
Wasn't dissing president, just the reporter. Rarely are they (the fifth estate) on target when they should be and only go in when they know they can hide in a crowd and bite.
Yes she had an agenda, and it was great to see that the president hit back.