Coward chickens out of speech to PARLIAMENT

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
In my opinion, your comment is "mindless". Mine were certainly derogatory, disagreeable to many, inflammatory to some, but they are on-topic and far from mindless. I am absolutely disgusted at the spectacle of Bush-lite avoiding any possible exposure to dissenting opinion. It is cowardly; name one other American president who so doggedly insulated himself from dissent. Even the rabid right's favorite whipping boy, Bill Clinton, wasn't afraid to go out in public, answer questions, and face people who disagreed with him.

Never mind Presidents, name any other world leader who has acted like this. The only comparable examples I can come up with are totalitarian leaders who suppressed all dissent, leaders in countries like the USSR and China and Iraq. I cannot think of any democratic leaders who behaved like this.


The rest of my comments follow from this observation. Bush is not showing the integrity to accept challenges to his actions. He is certainly not willing to be held accountable for them. This behavior is contrary to the principles and values of open, participative democracy. Given that the United States has always held itself to be world's role model for freedom and democracy, Bush's shunning of these principles and values is an embarassment.

My comments were short. They were pointed. They were highly critical. They were anything but mindless. If you disagree with my thoughts, at least offer credible criticisms instead of mindless attacks.

Thanks
Wow. None of the Bushies willing to step up and defend their boy? No one can offer examples of other "great leaders" who so thoroughly insulated themselves from dissent? Why is this, I wonder?

Come on, guys, I need your help on this list. All the names that pop to mind were dictators. Surely I am missing dozens of sterling examples.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Thirdly....prove in any way shape or form that the war in Iraq was about oil. Either do that or STFU.
How about you prove that Bush-lite's invasion of Iraq was NOT about oil. Either do that or STFU.

See, isn't that fun when we try to shout each other down instead of having a discussion?

You sure like to attack people you disagree with. It doesn't say much for the basis of your convictions when you prefer to attack others rather than defend your beliefs.
It's because I'm sick and tired of all the Iraq was for the oil references. Just once....only once I would like someone to prove that was the case instead of just stating it as fact. The burden is on your side my friend....not mine.
We have stated that it was in our strategic interests to oust Saddam as leader of Iraq for being an aggressor in the area. The oil is there, We are there and the Iraqi is there... not much else there.

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Wow. None of the Bushies willing to step up and defend their boy? No one can offer examples of other "great leaders" who so thoroughly insulated themselves from dissent? Why is this, I wonder?
I would believe that "protests" like the following examples of typical liberal behavior have something to do with Bush wishing to keep protesters away from his motorcade:

Mob disrupted an entire city.

Protestors throw bottles, tomatos, and an egg at inaugural motorcade.

Evidently you "enlightened" progressive types need to grow up a bit before you're allowed anywhere near the President.

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Szy:

You gotta' stop listening to talk radio 'cause you sound like Rush during an overdose.

Anyway, Karl Rove is managing this debacle and one thing he doesn't want is a picture on the front page of 10,000 newspapers and all over the other major media showing Bush getting stung by very public rebukes. Politics as usual. I have no doubt Bush would be man enough to handle the criticism, but why should he? He's a terrible speaker and would probably get flustered and red in the face. In England they regularly call MPs and other "dignitaries" nasty names, but Bush isn't accustomed to it. Too many hard questions would be raised. That's one of the reasons Arnold didn't debate. He controlled the media. Politics isn't about honesty-just in case someone thought otherwise-or about "being a man". It's about control.

-Robert
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Could you imagine Bush addressing those from the land where the English Language originated?
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Zebo
PS shinner/// The "Shell Oil" comes from her "Shell Transport and Trading Company" while the Royal Dutch comes from her cousins stake in the netherlands. They merged a long time ago..
Ok....first off....Shell was founded in London, but was a private venture, not owned or controlled by the Royal Family. In the early 1900's Shell and Royal Dutch merged with Royal Dutch being the majority partner. If you want the full history just let me know. My mother worked for Shell from 1965 until her retirement in 1994. I can give you all sorts of fun facts about the company if you REALLY want to know.

Secondly....prove to me that the Royal Family owns 1/2 of Shell. Or were you just talking out of your ass?

Thirdly....prove in any way shape or form that the war in Iraq was about oil. Either do that or STFU.
How can anyone prove the war was about oil when the president can't even prove there are WMD, which was the orginal reason for going to war. How about you prove there were WMD, or STFU.
You do realize how large Iraq is right? You also realize they had over a decade to hide the weapons right? You realize that the country still isn't 100% secure right?

The war for oil cry from the left was BS before the war, it's BS now, and it will continue to be BS. It's a nice slogan....just isn't true.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Could you imagine Bush addressing those from the land where the English Language originated?
Germany?
No Britian. English is a cross between Frankish and Germanic.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Could you imagine Bush addressing those from the land where the English Language originated?
Germany?
No Britian. English is a cross between Frankish and Germanic.
And people wonder why English is such a F'd up language....

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Wow. None of the Bushies willing to step up and defend their boy? No one can offer examples of other "great leaders" who so thoroughly insulated themselves from dissent? Why is this, I wonder?
I would believe that "protests" like the following examples of typical liberal behavior have something to do with Bush wishing to keep protesters away from his motorcade:

Mob disrupted an entire city.

Protestors throw bottles, tomatos, and an egg at inaugural motorcade.

Evidently you "enlightened" progressive types need to grow up a bit before you're allowed anywhere near the President.
Boo hoo hoo. Man, it really sucks to be President of the United States. How could anyone be expected to tolerate such disrespect?



And yet somehow, up until a yellow-bellied coward from Texas took office, they did. They accepted exposure to the public as part of the job. As I pointed out before -- and you conveniently ignored -- even your favorite whipping boy William Jefferson Clinton had the character, the integrity, the courage to face dissent. Bush-lite does not. He is contemptible.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Bush-lite is contemptible, cowardly slime. He lacks the integrity to be challenged about his actions, let alone be held accountable for them. He is the antithesis of open, participative, free democracy. George W. Bush is an embarrassment to the United States of America and to all Americans.
George W. Bush has provided strong leadership and taken decisive action in the age of terrorism. He is the elected President and will be til 2004 or maybe 2008. The United States is a republic and as such we elect a leader and he then makes the decision.

It makes me proud that we have such a President that doesn't coward to the opinions of other nations but instead leads a battle agianst tryanny.


The president was supposed to be a figure head with some power but the true power was supposed to be in Congress. Our founding fathers saw the flaws in Rome, in giving one person or a group of people to much power. They saw the results from such power and the abuses that brings down great nations. Power should never be concentrated in one area of government. It should be spread out so no one man or group can horde it for themselves.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Bush-lite is contemptible, cowardly slime. He lacks the integrity to be challenged about his actions, let alone be held accountable for them. He is the antithesis of open, participative, free democracy. George W. Bush is an embarrassment to the United States of America and to all Americans.
George W. Bush has provided strong leadership and taken decisive action in the age of terrorism. He is the elected President and will be til 2004 or maybe 2008. The United States is a republic and as such we elect a leader and he then makes the decision.

It makes me proud that we have such a President that doesn't coward to the opinions of other nations but instead leads a battle agianst tryanny.
i agree with your opinion, ofcourse, but i would add that i still envy the british for putting their leaders on the public grill. watching tony
blair field and parry all those questions on cspan is very exciting. he can't hide. he's forced to develop and defend his reasoning against
open rhetorical bombardment.

I Tony at least get's respect because he has to answer real hardline questions and not softball'd questions from a few hand picked reporters. I also watched parliment in action as well as Tony Blair and you got to admire the guy for being smart and sharp enough to hold his own. I doubt Bush Jr. could last 1 minute in a session of parliment without being reduced to tears and falling off the wagon right after the whole ordeal is over with.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
And yet somehow, up until a yellow-bellied coward from Texas took office, they did. They accepted exposure to the public as part of the job. As I pointed out before -- and you conveniently ignored -- even your favorite whipping boy William Jefferson Clinton had the character, the integrity, the courage to face dissent. Bush-lite does not. He is contemptible.
Oh looky another low SNR, red faced rant by leader of YACS. Using the words integrity and character in the same sentence as his hero Clinton. Still got that blue dress? Figured you did. Clinton was afraid to get too close to his own .mil in for fear someone might ask him a tough question. You might also want to look at Clinton trips to places like India and Greece before you start running your 'holster about things you obviously know nothing about.

BTW feel free to prove your point about Bush being the most insulated. Just because you're spewing it doesn't mean it's true.

Rant on, sister. RANT ON!
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
How could anyone be expected to tolerate such disrespect?
Give me a break, it has nothing to do with "disrepsect". Evidently you "peaceful" progressive types turn violent at the sight of stretch limos.

That's right, violent. Moron "progressive" demonstrators get whipped up into a violent frenzy, hurl projectiles at Bush, shut down cities, then whine about being kept at arms length?

Boo fscking hoo. You act like spoiled psychotic children, you go to bed with no dinner.

even your favorite whipping boy William Jefferson Clinton had the character, the integrity, the courage to face dissent.
LOL, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". How much integrity and courage did it take to face that question and then give that answer? How many other couragous lies did he tell?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Drift3r
I Tony at least get's respect because he has to answer real hardline questions and not softball'd questions from a few hand picked reporters. I also watched parliment in action as well as Tony Blair and you got to admire the guy for being smart and sharp enough to hold his own. I doubt Bush Jr. could last 1 minute in a session of parliment without being reduced to tears and falling off the wagon right after the whole ordeal is over with.
Agreed re. Blair. I watched a long interview with Blair a couple of months ago (don't remember if it was BBC or somewhere else). This wasn't your standard, conservative American media puff piece; this was a grilling. Blair could be a poster child for grace under pressure. Obviously very smart, articulate, almost even convincing as he patiently and passionately explained why he felt the Iraq invasion was necessary. I don't agree with him, but I can respect someone who will stand up and defend his convictions like that.

Bush-lite is Blair's opposite. Cowardly, evasive, secretive, unable to defend his own position effectively so he slurs his opposition instead.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
...so he slurs his opposition instead.
Interesting, seems like you've taken a page right out of Clinton's playbook.

Do tell, whom has Bush personally slurred?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Corn
How could anyone be expected to tolerate such disrespect?
Give me a break, it has nothing to do with "disrepsect". Evidently you "peaceful" progressive types turn violent at the sight of stretch limos.

That's right, violent. Moron "progressive" demonstrators get whipped up into a violent frenzy, hurl projectiles at Bush, shut down cities, then whine about being kept at arms length?

Boo fscking hoo. You act like spoiled psychotic children, you go to bed with no dinner.
Noting that you again avoid the point: Bush-lite's predecessors have been willing to face the public while your Coward in Chief is not.

And for the record, your description of the two protests is a ridiculous caricature, typical sky-is-falling YABA distort and distract tactics whenever someone questions your boy in D.C.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Noting that you again avoid the point: Bush-lite's predecessors have been willing to face the public while your Coward in Chief is not.
Check my edit. LOL
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
With such carefully managed public appearances by Bush's handlers, it makes sense that dubya wouldn't dare subject himself to England's Parliament. Bush doesn't do unscripted events. Could you imagine? He already looks bad enough showing up to a London under virtual seige, creaking under unprecedented security along with massive protests in the streets. Wow, and you would think he would be greeted by smiling Londoners throwing flowers in his path as the "great liberator" of Iraq that he is.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Noting that you again avoid the point: Bush-lite's predecessors have been willing to face the public while your Coward in Chief is not.
Check my edit. LOL
Your edit only reinforces my point. The "lie" was only one of hundreds of issues Clinton faced* head-on. Yes, he lied about it . . . but he faced his opposition. Bush lacks even that level of integrity.

(*And so did Bush Sr. And so did Reagan. And so did Carter. And so did Ford. And Nixon. And Johnson, and Kennedy . . . )

Bush-lite, on the other hand, would be joined by names like Hussein, Jong-il, Mao, Stalin, and the leaders of uncounted other totalitarian regimes where dissent is suppressed to avoid embarassing the throne. (At least I assume that's the correct list since you Bushies failed to offer the name of even one democratic leader who so thoroughly insulated himself from dissent.)
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Your edit only reinforces my point. The "lie" was only one of hundreds of issues Clinton faced* head-on. Yes, he lied about it . . . but he faced his opposition. Bush lacks even that level of integrity
Yeah he faced them head on all right. Right after the subpoena was served. Well not right after and certainly not on the first try.

Still waiting on the proof that he has insulated himself, press conferences were scripted, etc.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
UltraQuiet:

Last time I checked, Clinton was our last elected President. He isn't President now. He is gone. He ain't there anymore. He's almost retired. His day has passed. Get over Clinton. You gotta' stop listening to the Fox Cartoon Network and come up with some original material. That means your brain, not O'Reilly's Freedom Fries "I had a pre-frontal lobotomy" brain. Sheesh....

Bush isn't a coward, he's just a dumb b****** who is easily led around by guys with at least two firing brain neurons. Just going over there shows Bush has cujones, or isn't totally connected to reality, or both. Or something....

-Robert
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
Back to the usual defense of the Bushies- "But Clinton!" and "Blue dress!" At least Clinton honored our dead, Dubya likes to pretend that there aren't any...

Dubya has admitted that he doesn't read newspapers, just scans the headlines, that he lets his unbiased handlers filter his info...

As for the scipting part, there have been numerous references, and even a couple of gaffes, where he read the "this is a scripted question" intro along with the answer...

http://search.netscape.com/ns/search?query=scripted+questions+bush&fromPage=nsBrowserRoll

The British press would tear him to pieces, revealing the fraud of his presidency. Even his ultraslick mouthpiece, McClellan, would be eaten alive...
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
UltraQuiet:

Last time I checked, Clinton was our last elected President. He isn't President now. He is gone. He ain't there anymore. He's almost retired. His day has passed. Get over Clinton. You gotta' stop listening to the Fox Cartoon Network and come up with some original material. That means your brain, not O'Reilly's Freedom Fries "I had a pre-frontal lobotomy" brain. Sheesh....

Bush isn't a coward, he's just a dumb b****** who is easily led around by guys with at least two firing brain neurons. Just going over there shows Bush has cujones, or isn't totally connected to reality, or both. Or something....

-Robert
Last time I checked I'm not the one that brought up Clinton but I wouldn't expect you to see that. As far as the Fox News, O'Reilly, blah, blah, blah, sorry wrong tree. Your ignorance betrays you, so stick it.

Having a preselected list of reporters does not equal scripted press conferences. It's been done before, will be done again. Show me where some reporter has admitted to asking a question given to him by the White House and I'll concede the point.

Bush had a press conference with the British press yesterday. Did he get eaten alive? Or maybe it was scripted too.



 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
From the previously linked page-

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/07_bush.html

No reporter is going to admit to any such thing, not while Dubya sits in the big chair, and can deny access, cut off their air supply...

Last I checked, Dubya didn't do a press conference, it was an interview, and a pretty soft one, too... big difference....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY