While watching Bush last night I tried to imagine Bill Clinton saying the same things as Bush said. Clinton would have been a laughing stock had he answered questions in the same way, rambling - not really getting to the point of the question.

Why are we letting W get away with being an imbecile? They should have laughed him out of there, like they did Ari Fleisher last week! It's time.

Now I'm even more worried about how this mess is going to play itself out. He really HAS to go to war or he loses face. He's got himself into a corner.

God help us.

JB - is there an actual transcript of the Q&A? I was confused reading the excerpt you posted: was that verbatim rambling? Surely a prime factor in selecting a Dem candidate for 2004 has to be: which one will best unsettle Bush and expose his incoherence in the Pres. debates? On present form, that has to be Dean.

Intellectual performance/appearance on is very overrated in terms of popular appeal. We Democrats appreciate intellectualism and critical inquiry; most of the country doesn't rate it that highly; polls show this, past elections show this, regional culture shows this.

You always have to keep that in mind, it goes against the instinct of many who are left of center. In other words, yelling "Bush is dumb!" (though he's merely childishly shallow) is not a winning strategy.

FLPeach,

It's not that "we are allowing W get away with being an inbecile." The American people (not all of us) are permitting the media to allow W to get away with being an inbecile.

I watched the whole thing last night.

First off, there was no news, except he made the effort not to smirk (I for one HATE the way he leans on the podium like he's about to tell ME something just for my ears on.y) and kept the stupid bellicose remarks down.

But he never answered any questions. Or he kept repeating the same answers.

Next, I thought there was going to be some NEWS in this; I was scared we were going to immediate war.

I know the PRESS has been yelling that there have been NO news conferences (only ONE solo, and SEVEN w/other leaders //and most of those were on the trip to Europe wherein he yelled at David Gregory for being able to speak French to President Chirac// in over TWO years) so he called their bluff and they had to show it. But there was no news.

And this crap about HIS religion...I don't remember Jesus talking about killing ANYBODY...Live by the sword, die by the sword was what he said when they came to crucify him...that sure sounds like pacifism to me.

He just sounded somnolent to me.

He snubbed Helen Thomas and threw her in the third row because she has dared to take him on over the past few months. This should be a BIG story by the media because if you are critical of Bush Inc they will shut you up one way or the other

Scripted indeed! Notice how this non-news blasted the increase in unemployment off the tube?

I was disappointed in Bush's performance last night. He seemed hardly attentive enough to lead a nation to war. Even conservative Andrew Sullivan said Bush appeared fatigued and inattentive. Bush's long pauses were supposed to convey a sense of deliberation, but they only conveyed confusion. Bush appeared to be medicated or just not "in the zone".

Remember after 9/11/01, columnists used the term "eloquent" to describe Bush speeches...such as "Bush was 'eloquent' at the National Cathedral"...or, Bush was "eloquent" during his State of the Union...it's interesting that we've returned to pre-9/11/01. I haven't seen the words "Bush" and "eloquent" in the same sentence in months. Frankly, I was hoping Bush would be "eloquent" last night. Tim Russert critiqued Bush's press conference, and he never used the word "eloquent".

The bush speech last night was great. He spelled it out. He is doing the job he must to protect the American people. Is some other countries don’t like it, tough shit. His first concern is the United States. He may not look and talk like the slick southern used car salesman (con man Clinton), but that’s a good thing. I got the feeling that Bush was being honest with us in a way I never felt with Clinton. It’s nice to have a genuinely good man in the White House for a change. I guess MyDD had to come up with some attack on Bush, but that quote is not much of a gaff. Especially when the press conference that lasted almost an hour. You’re grasping at straws.

I think Gephardt is now the frontrunner because Kerry seems to have faded the past few weeks and not just because of the cancer thing

I read some articles about today's testiminy by the weapon's inspectors. Apparently their testimony will not be very helpful to the US and UK plans for getting a new UN resolution passed. From what I read they are reporting increased Iraqi cooperation and still no "smoking gun" ie existence of weapons of mass destruction.

Father of Six,

"Bush appeared to be medicated or just not "in the zone"."

Try "drunk". I've seen executives like this before. Once a boozer, always a boozer.
When they are under pressure, they always retreat to the bottle.

Niki, if you're going to see Bush as more "honest" or "genuinely good" than Clinton, can you at least agree to pay attention to what Bush says, and how things turn out?
I'm not going to dispute that Bush tries to give an impression of being "good" or "honest" or "compassionate" or "humble" or whatever else he keeps talking about being, but it's about as useful as all this attention being paid to his religious beliefs, or intelligence, or anything else that's not readily quantifiable. It's not easy to judge the sincerity of someone's religious beliefs, but you *can* look at a pattern of what they do, and what they say, and you can draw conclusions from that. For example, you can listen to Bush talking about how our nation must be humble when it's powerful (as he said during the debates), and you can see how a couple years later, he's leading us into war with few allies (Britain, Estonia, Qatar, etc.) over the vociferous (if partially self-interested) objections of some more important countries that we traditionally work with. Maybe this means he's being an arrogant leader and indifferent to what anyone else thinks; maybe this means that a lot of other people are uninformed and biased and that's why they are disputing the need to go to war with Iraq this month. And it could be a little of both.
But my point is, there are things that Bush talks about and there are things that he does, and when people try to change the subject from accountability and analyzing what kinds of policies are effective to things like whether leaders are "good" or what kinds of things "might" happen, we've got a right to be suspicious, and no amount of self-congratulatory references to his character by Bush or any of his friends will, or should, change anyone's mind about what his policies do.

Niki writes:

"I got the feeling that Bush was being honest with us..."

You've got to be kidding.

He didn't answer a SINGLE QUESTION!

How anyone could characterize that as "honesty" is beyond me. You've got to be really blind to come up with that as a takeaway from last night's performance.

Even many of Bush's supporters are flummoxed over this one.

Good post Chris. As Emerson once said, Sir, your actions speak so loudly, I can't hear what you say!

Thank you, Chris.

"Watch what they do, not what they say," really needs to be the mantra of those opposed to this fundamentally dishonest president, his administration, and pretty much every single GOP member of Congress.

A press conference that lasted an hour! Ha ha, that'll be the day that Bush does one of those.

The script lasted about 15 minutes, he used the word "peace" a load of times (guess the polls spike with that one), and that is stretching it, as the space between the words was sometimes more than the actual words. It seemed a lot longer, because it was so void of content amidst the lost space.

There were 4-5 questions, none of which he answered-- Bush just repeated the script ad nauseam, it was a not an inspiring performance.

Niki, I agree with Chris, after you've seen a few administrations come and go you begin to stop listening to the "spin" of their words (because they all have huge PR Firms) and you start looking at what they DO, not what they say. And you start accessing other expertise, how do they see things (they usually don't have PR Firms) This is why older Americans are predominately against George Bush, they've been led down the primrose path through the "words" of past administrations. They have started looking at the "deeds."

Saying you are honest and Christian and for freedom and democracy, even going to church and waving the flag does not make a patriot or Christian. Saying you are for peace doesn't make a person for peace. I expect, like other generations you will learn this in time.

Bush has a full plate and seems to be showing some signs of stress. He does seem to be handling it well under the circumstances. He does what he says and he does not use semantics to twist his answers into a wishy washy blurb that really has no meaning like many of the career politicians. You know how he feels and his actions match exactly to what he says.

Several of the Democrats try to have it both ways, but I will give credit to Dean, Gephardt, Lieberman, Biden and a few others for being clear and steadfast on their positions. Kerry, Daschle, and many others have absolutely no spine and will make totally contradicting statements depending on the crowd and the direction of the polls.

Yes Bush is very refreshing change from our past President. I like him. Even though the press asked basically the same question over and over again, Bush patiently explained it over and over again to them. - He will do what he believes he has to do to protect the U.S. from a clear and present threat from Saddam.

Our protection is his first and most important job. Even if it does not meet the approval of some in the U.N., it is the American people who he has a responsibility to defend.

I watched the press conference last night, and took notes, but was glad to find THERE IS A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT ON THE WEB. It is at the site for the Guardian newspaper in Britian (www.guardian.co.uk). I will try to type in links but found it from today's main page.When you get to bottom of the page, click on part two.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,9909399,00.html

I think that the pauses etc. were because Bush had been advised to take it slow to (a) stay on message and (b) avoid his frequent word bloopers.

However, there were some major logic bloopers of which the most singular were (and in transcript).

1. Something like "I've seen" or "there have been a lot of protests since I've been president."

2. Re. North Korea, Bush admitted that Kim Jong Il might proliferate his nuclear weapons and that they "may end up in the hands of dictators." (!!!)

3. Bush referred to Sadaam Hussein as "a dictator who has tried to invade Kuwait."

4. Regarding the UN Security Council he said "No matter what the whip count is we're calling for a vote." (There is no whip process at the UN. He might have picked up this phrase from Blair?)

As far as scripting goes. It looked to me as if he was looking at a list of reporters he was going to call on and in what order. At one point he called out the name "Robin" who apparently didn't at that time have her hand up, some laughter, Bush said, "I assume you HAVE a question?" She did and it was really soft and loopy lob about his faith and whatnot.

More important at this point, the guardian also has a list of main points of the UNMOVIC presentation today.

SAMM,

Your very condescending response to my post is laughable. You don’t know my age or my life experience. Although I understand your lack of trust for any President after the Clinton years, it is not justified with Bush. I judge him by his actions and on what he says as well as his demeanor. That’s why I support him. He is an honest man not because he has said it, but because he has shown it.

terry g.,

"You know how he feels and his actions match to exactly what he says".

George W. Bush:

* Failed to fully fund the Leave No
Child Behind Education Act two years
in a row, by his own admission.
* Failed to fund the $3.5 billion
authorized for Homeland Security, but
can afford to bribe Turkey with $30
billion.
* Failed to spur the economy with his
$1.3 trillion tax cut passed in May
2001, now proposes another multi-
billion dollar tax cut to spur the
economy.
* Delivered a record $307 billion
budget deficit two short years after
Clinton delivered a budget surplus.
* Let 2 million private sector jobs
vanish on his watch.
* Promised to "change the tone" in
Washington.

George W. Bush: Not your average Joe -- he says one thing and does another.

Niki:

If you'd like to compare Clinton and GWB, I say bring it on. Better yet, let's compare their presidencies and the nation's progress on their watch. I know we're only halfway through GWB's first (hopefully only) term, so he has plenty more time to do even more damage to America's economy, morale and standing in the world community--but I'd be happy to make a list or two and compare them. Clinton may have been a sleazeball in his personal life and Bush may be a saint, but they each were voted into office (well, at least one of them was actually voted into office) to lead the country to a better place. Compared to the Clinton years, these are the dark days indeed...

acorn, you are a nut. Who among us can speak for an hour without flubbing up a few words? Its really a cheap shot to throw a few small grammatical mistakes up in a hope they will prove anything.

Even the professional talking heads often use the wrong word or phrase. You elitists are showing how desperate you are to knock Bush. Everybody understood what he said and most people believe he is passionate and acting in a principled way.

Your (the left) continued cheap shots are petty and tern off the very people you are trying to convince.

niki,
you are nuts if you think bush is anything but a lying weasle wind-up doll for the likes of cheyney, grover "drown the gubmint" norquist, and assorted members of the carlyle group. certainly anything you say should be viewed as the ramblings of an ignoramus. that was perhasp the worst performance of a president since at least one of his last outings, and back in 84 when reagan did an early alzheimers and got his clock cleaned by mondale. trust him? he can barely read the correct lies from a script without screwing up!

Father of Six, you are really fast with those Democratic propaganda lines. You must have them right next to your Democratic talking points. Neither holds any water.

trrWV, crawl back into your hole.

PhillyGuy,

Yes Clinton was the President during an economic boom. Fate has given Bush quite a bit more to deal with. From the bad economy he inherited, to the war that was thrust on us, to our rainy day friends in the world community that stab us in the back. To blame Bush for any of this is stupid and a blatant partisan attack. That is just one more obstacle that Bush will get over. I think that most people will understand that Bush has done a good job for them under the tough circumstances.

Dear (too chicken to sign name):

Those are MY talking points, not Democratic talking points. I simply hear what my president says and then look at his actions, and they don't match up. I'm lookin' for a president who will match words with action. Someone who'll match policy with performance--and George W. Bush ain't that guy.

tin bot, don’t forget that the Senate Democrats had been sabotaging all attempts to help the economy for 2 years.

Tin Bot:

I'm SURE you would have said the same if this huge mess was happening while Clinton was president.

Please, you're like those conservatives who are trying now to make the case that deficits are actually good for the economy and the nation (after years of whining about "tax and spend" democrats). You can rationalize all you want, but Bush picked this fight with Saddam Hussein and the recession started (and may have never ended) completely on his watch. Will he turn things around? Perhaps, but based on the last two years, I'm not counting on it.

"Mondull cleaned Reagan's clock?"
trrWV,
What are you smokinking?

Like you did not paste those points from a Democratic website, Father of Six. HA! Who do you think your fooling.

Niki, I am so glad you can recognize a "condesending" tone in the written word, because it was there. Perhaps if you "read" the transcripts of George Bush's speeches you would "hear" the tone millions of us hear.

Our Republican posters just do not want to face up to the fact that Bush has largely failed so far in his presidency. I ask they please try and seperate their intense love of him and look at his actual record and then maybe they will see what many Democrats and independents have...Bush has failed on the economy and the budget, he is assulting our envirnomental laws, and is wreckless in his foreign policy. The facts are there if you want to look at them.

I know you all like to bring up Clinton's bad points, but that seems to be just a ploy to distract from the record of President Bush. If you are going to defend him then talk about him and not about Clinton who has been out of office for over 2 years.

PhillyGuy,

If Gore were the President, the economy would have been at least as bad. It is a worldwide economic phenomenon that started in the 1990s. Gore would have probably lobbed a few cruise missiles in response to the 9/11 attacks just as the Clinton administration did when we were attacked several times under his time. This would have emboldened the terrorists even more just like it had after their previous attacks. Gore would have continues the appeasement of Saddam and Kim just like Clinton did. He would just pass on the problem to the next guy.

Gore would also have the deficits to deal with because they are a direct result of the bad economy and 9/11 attacks. But they would be worse in the long term because Gore would not have cut taxes. Even Democrat Bill Richardson knows that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy. I AM sure that the partisan Republicans would be hammering Gore about the deficit issue just like the partisan Democrats are now hammering Bush. But just like Bush has said, Gore would say that deficits are sometimes necessary in times of crisis.

tin bot - what makes you so sure 9/11 would have happened if Gore were POTUS?

Plus you have no idea how the economy would have fared under Gore because that didn't happen. Only one thing for sure would have been different and that is that FERC would have stepped into the CA energy situation when Enron etal were stealing billions.

Joe:

Though history is written by the "winners", it's easy to go back and research first-hand accounts of events such as the first Mondale-Reagan debate. The nation was abuzz for days that Reagan had gotten so feable-minded he couldn't complete a sentence that night. Understanding that doesn't require "smokinking" anything, just a good memory or a little research.

tin bot writes:
"Fate has given Bush quite a bit more to deal with. From the bad economy he inherited, to the war that was thrust on us, to our rainy day friends in the world community that stab us in the back."
Actually, if you look carefully, George W. Bush deserves at least as much credit as "Fate" and probably the lion's share.
Bush inherited an economy that was probably winding down, but still managed to produce a budget surplus of $150-200 billion and unemployment around 4%, not to mention enough black ink (projected annual surpluses) as far as the eye could see, which is why Bush was able to claim that we could afford his tax cut, that it wouldn't put us into a deficit. Now, 2 1/2 years later, we've got a deficit that's skyrocketed to $300 billion, unemployment around 5.5-6%, and red, not black, ink, as far as anyone can see. Sure, we've had the 9/11 attacks, and the ensuing uncertainty of rebuilding and fears of future attacks, but that hasn't siphoned HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS out of the economy.
As for war being "thrust on us", yes, the war on terrorism was thrust on us, and when we announced plans to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan as retribution and to prevent further terrorism, most of the rest of the world sided with us. For some reason though, when we announced that we were going to attack Iraq, which hadn't actually done much lately, or posed a substantial threat beyond the contrived "well, Saddam and Osama both hate us, so maybe they'd team up!" logic that Bush has been pushing, people weren't as supportive. Sure, part of that's because people like the French and Russians and Germans and Chinese have their own agendas when it comes to dealing with Iraq, but to most of the world, and quite a few Americans, there just isn't the same sense of urgency about invading a country that hasn't shown signs of actually endangering us, no matter how big of an asshole he's been to his own people.
And finally, about our "rainy day friends" who "stab us in the back", I can't imagine why anyone in another country would look at the number of international treaties or organizations that we've undermined or disregarded or vitiated when it was convenient for us and gotten the impression that we believe there's one set of rules for Americans, and one set for everyone else, or that we try to buy our way out of awkward situations. Actually, in case you missed it, that was sarcasm. It's not hard at all to figure out why people in other countries would see us as a completely independent superpower, because that's the exact image that the Bush Administration wants to cultivate in the rest of the world. And when that's your attitude, you don't have the right to complain about the fickleness of your friends, because you've already shown them how much you value their friendship.

"To blame Bush for any of this is stupid and a blatant partisan attack."
No, what's stupid is believing him when he talks about how he's going to get us out of any of this.
Maybe it's a blatant partisan attack, but it's deserved. It's not the fault of Democrats that Republicans have screwed so much stuff up, and it's about time people stopped pretending that it's a good idea to play nice, especially after Republicans spent most of the Clinton years actively sandbagging and opposing productive policies. It's like when conservatives propose regressive tax policies, and then claim that Democrats are waging "class warfare" by saying the policies favor the rich. Sure, in some sense, maybe the Ds are engaging in class warfare, but the Rs are just whining about being exposed for what they're doing, which is class warfare. Just because it's a blatant partisan attack doesn't mean it's wrong.

"I think that most people will understand that Bush has done a good job for them under the tough circumstances."
Well, I'll give Bush some points for difficulty, because it would be a lot easier to be president under different circumstances, but when Bush aggravates those circumstances (e.g., including North Korea in an "axis of evil" as a mere "rhetorical flourish" and calling Kim Jong-Il a loathful pygmy), it's hard to feel like he deserves much credit for getting out of a hole he dug himself. Of course, if most people listen to Bush, they'll probably be awed by the sheer number of times he refers to himself as a good, honest, religious, thoughtful person who's trying to do what he thinks is best for the country. And maybe all of that's true; it's just that there are plenty of reasons to think that what he's doing is *NOT* helpful or productive or likely to make us safer, and no matter how much he and Karl Rove try to hype Bush's character, it won't put food on tables, or keep us safe.
And he's got no idea what makes the country's economy run.

Ced,

I agree the anti-Clinton rhetoric is getting pretty stale. It's lost resonance. So many in the GOP can't leave Clinton alone. Sean Hannity and so many others love to drudge up the Clinton bogeyman. But he's been out of office for 26 months.

I suppose Sen. Hillary Clinton reminds people of Clinton's legacy, but she's a legislator in her own right. The Clinton Administration is long over.

Even Reagan quit blaming everything on Carter after about a year-and-a-half. Let's face it, after Bush signed his major tax cut in May 2001, it's Bush's economy. He's got his signature on it.

Chris Chris Chris, where do I start. "Bush inherited an economy that was probably winding down, but still managed to produce a budget surplus of $150-200 billion and unemployment around 4%, not to mention enough black ink (projected annual surpluses) as far as the eye could see"

This makes no sense. You admit the economy was going down and then you hold up the "(projected annual surpluses) as far as the eye could see”. That number was based on a good economy that had disappeared. It is not a reliable number. The short budget surplus was caused by the economic bubble that had burst before Bush took office. The economy is the ONLY factor in determining the amount of surplus or deficit we have. The unemployment rate also relates to the dropping economy that Bush inherited.

"It's not the fault of Democrats that Republicans have screwed so much stuff up"

Once again you try to place blame that is not deserved. It’s just a lie.

"Bush aggravates those circumstances (e.g., including North Korea in an "axis of evil" as a mere "rhetorical flourish" and calling Kim Jong-Il a loathful pygmy)"

Another Democratic myth that is nonsense. If you believe those things hurt the feelings of the sick psychopathic killers and then made them uncooperative with us, you are nuts.

That post above was mine.

The hypocrisy is incredible. The UN and the liberal media have been attacking Bush because he does not let the UN solve the world’s problems. He is called a cowboy because he has taken the lead in enforcing the 12 old Iraqi agreements.

***** At the same time, several of these same UN members are telling Bush that HE needs to do something about North Korea. Bush should deal with North Korea unilaterally because China and Russia want no part of it. We are damned whatever we do. This is more evidence that the UN is a joke.

Roosevelt was re-elected even though the depression got worse during his first term. The American people likewise do not blame Republicans for the current economic situation. This was proven in the 2002 election.

Niki,

Bush is a proven liar. Has he proven any link between Al Qaeda and Saddam? No.

He accused Iraq of trying to make nuclear weapon. No such evidence exists.

Back stabbing allies? In what world do you live? The French and Germans don't see any evidence needed for war. The Germans sent 10,000 troops to Afghanistan. How is that backstabbing?

Mexico disagrees with a war and Bush threatens them. Turkey refuses a bribe. These are no back stabbing anything. They are our allies and have been for decades. There wouldn't be a US without the French.

Bush punishes old women and bullies people to get his way. That's a plan.

Wow, the spoils are already being dished out even though we technically aren't the victor yet.

HOUSTON, March 6 (Reuters) - A Halliburton Co. (nyse: HAL - news - people) subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) has won the contract to oversee any firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any U.S.-led invasion, a Defense Department source said on Thursday.

KBR was widely viewed by many in the oilfield services industry as the likely candidate to oversee firefighting in Iraq's oilfields. Halliburton does extensive logistic support work for the U.S. military.

Vice President Dick Cheney served as Halliburton's chief executive officer from 1995 to 2000,

A possible beneficiary of Thursday's deal is oilwell firefighting company Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc., with which Halliburton has had an alliance since 1995.

A Halliburton spokeswoman declined comment and referred all questions to the Defense Department.

Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service

This begs the question, is Halliburton going to get money whether or not actual oilwells are set on fire? Cause if they only get paid if there are fires set, what's to stop American troops from setting the fires Halliburton gets paid to put out?

You would think that this kind of contract could have waited until after the invasion was, er, won. And, what, there's no Iraqui oilwell firefighting company available to give a contract to post-war (you know, as a means of promoting democracy there and not looking as if we were set on conquering)?

And if someone can convince me that oilwell firefighting in Iraq needs to be done by an American company and its business ally (the aptly-named Boots & Coots) for military & political reasons (I admit I'm no expert on war strategy), can they please explain why a company currently under SEC investigation for accounting irregularities gets the reward?

And while we're at it, can ANYone convince me the Iraq invasion is not at all about money, first and foremost?

Tin Bot: Pleeeeeeeeeeeeese. You may be able to say "liberal media" to non-political junkies and have them nod their sheeplike heads in agreement, but it isn't going to wash here. Anyone who rationally and objectively analyzes media content knows it is overwhelmingly moderate to conservative. Republicans are quoted 75 percent of the time. CNN isn't liberal -- it's been cheerleading for war for months. Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, the networks, the editorial boards of the major dailies -- conservative, conservative, conservative. All have corporate/right-of-center slants. So spare us the ridiculous characterization of the media as "liberal."

Hey (blank), this is a test: you're a loathful pygmy, and if you were on fire, I wouldn't piss on you to put it out.

Cut Niki some slack. Niki has gotten a little lightheaded from participating in the "Fast for George W. Bush."

http://www.heartlight.org/fast/"

Besides, if he's so honest, why did he say this at last night's "press conference?"

"Don't believe anything I say, because I'm lying."

You have to take the man at his word.

tin bot,

The Bush administration dropped the ball on counter-terrorism upon taking office in 2000:

-->Rumsfeld suspended Predator drone tracking of bin Laden,

-->Condoleezza Rice lied about having no prior warning that terrorists might use planes as missiles,

-->Ashcroft shut down FBI wiretaps of al Qaeda-related suspects in the 1998 African embassy bombing investigation,

-->Rumsfeld vetoed a request to divert $800 million from space-based missile defense to counter-terrorism.

I suppose you can label Newsweek as "liberal media" to try to discount this stuff but the information is there for anyone willing to find it.

How ironic that you paint the UN as hypocrites for pointing out the stupidity of the US putting all of its diplomatic eggs in one basket for Iraq while ignoring an arguably greater threat in North Korea.

I wasn't worried about anybody getting their feelings hurt when Bush started labeling countries as "evil." I worried that it was a stupidly incompetent thing to broadcast to the rest of the world without having any other contact with (or even a discernable policy towards) the North Koreans.

Someone in the Bush administration must have understood the implications of these actions. Either they have an ulterior motive which makes them liars or they really are that incompetent.

At this point, the Republican party can take full credit for the failing economy. Bush and Cheney are guilty of the same kinds of unethical business practices (insider trading and "creative" accounting) as their corporate overseers. The toothless reforms they enacted in response to Enron, Tyco, etc, are wholly inadequate to stabilize the market. Enron's scam in California didn't work out, so now they've got to play the military card to pump cash into Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, CSC/Dyncorp, and all the other corporate cash cows they can soak for campaign cash in the next presidential election.

Tax cuts didn't work as a stimulus package for Reagan and it hasn't worked so far for Bush, why do you expect anyone to believe tax cuts will jump start the economy now?

Stocks will remain weak and probably drop further in the atmosphere of chaos generated by Bush's incompetent foreign policy f(l)ailings.

And as an added bonus, since we've alienated most of our allies, you an I will be footing the entire bill for this little adventure in Iraq.

...let's also not forget the one-note lack of mental depth W's guys have. This Iraq thing was advocated in 1998 by the same guys, and has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

Let's also not forget the new guys simply ignored CIA and Clinton WH briefings on al Qaeda. They didn't pay nearly as much attention to it as their much more competent predecessors did.

The real proof of incompetence is the very real shock the Chimpy and the boys have that 9/11 could happen! Fucking morons. What did they think the rest of us meant when we said conventional terrorism was much more of a threat than ballistic missiles? I feel like banging my head against the wall that Condi Rice had never heard of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad or his plan to use planes as bombs, when most competent read of this site had.

Like Josh Marshall said, "We’re all hostage to the Bush administration’s incompetence, whether we like it or not."

What a bunch of left wing loonies.

No wonder you guys lost the election, you’re morons.

After reading the crap here about the Bush/Cheney conspiracies it is apparent that you are probably waiting for the mothership to take you back to the home planet. I thought the right wing nuts were bad with all the Clinton conspiracies, but you guys take the cake.

Hey anon genius:

Do you have any evidence that Team Chimpy placed higher priority on conventional terrorism than ballistic missile defense? How about evidence that they spent nearly as much time on al Qaeda than did Sandy Berger's shop? How about evidence that current ideas on Iraq are any different than in 1998? How about evidence that on 9/11 Condi knew more about about al Qaeda's activities in the Phillipines than the average voter did?

albert:

For it to be a conspiracy, it has to be a secret. Team Chimpy is completely clear about their plans and ideas.

Clinton was too busy chasing a fat clerk around the office to take Osama when he was offered to him for free. The Democrat foreign policy was an abomination and that’s why we are in this situation now. Just like Reagan had to clean up the Carter mess, Bush has to clean up after Clinton. 3,000 Americans paid the price for the Clinton malfeasance. Clinton let the terrorists grow and fester for 8 years and then passed them, North Korea, and Iraq to Bush.

Surprise! It's all Clinton's fault!

How original. Did you hear that on Rush?

It's notable that "llk" references "Democrat foreign policy" in the post above.

It's derogatory to refer to Democratic programs as "Democrat programs", or "Democrat policies". It makes "Democrat" sound like "bureaucrat" or "Soviet plutocrat".

By saying "Democrat policy", you can lose the very audience you might persuade. Senator Dole made the same mistake in the '76 V.P. debate with Senator Mondale, when he referred to World Wars I & II and Korea as "Democrat Wars". As a wounded veteran, Dole had a right to strong feelings. But by using the derogatory "Democrat Wars" he sounded glib, crass and mean. Besides, it isn't a correct use of the word "Democrat".

"the same time, several of these same UN members are telling Bush that HE needs to do something about North Korea. "

I wonder if that's because N. Korea has nukes, has a motivation for selling them, and has a Plutonium extraction plant, none of which is true about Iraq? There's also the problem that compared to Saddam, the dear leader of N. Korea is certifiable.

Oh yean, they *insist* on dealing with America. Probably because Kim Jong Il knows Bush is a pussy.

Albert, Tin Bot, Ilk and the rest of you "double wide" repugs:

The man who "brought integrity to the White House" was stoned outta his kug the other night during a very important message to the world.

Infinately freep elsewhere.

War, recession, deficits, pollution, Bush...Hey, but Clinton got a BJ! Clinton got a BJ! {Pay no attention to the peace and prosperity and foreign policy successes of the Clinton administration.} Did I mention that Clinton got a BJ?

Chris Chris Chris, where do I start. "Bush inherited an economy that was probably winding down, but still managed to produce a budget surplus of $150-200 billion and unemployment around 4%, not to mention enough black ink (projected annual surpluses) as far as the eye could see"
This makes no sense. You admit the economy was going down and then you hold up the "(projected annual surpluses) as far as the eye could see”. That number was based on a good economy that had disappeared. It is not a reliable number. The short budget surplus was caused by the economic bubble that had burst before Bush took office. The economy is the ONLY factor in determining the amount of surplus or deficit we have. The unemployment rate also relates to the dropping economy that Bush inherited.

Hey Tinbot, *I* didn't make those numbers up. At the beginning of 2000, the economy was doing well -- Nasdaq was peaking (though most people didn't know it at the time), unemployment was low (around 4%), and Bush said we could afford a tax cut with a price tag of $1 trillion-plus because there was a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion dollars over the next ten years, and after all, it's our money (ignoring the part about how the national debt is also "ours"). I don't know what the surplus was that year, but the CBO and OMB projected surpluses for the near future. That's why Bush was able to hype his tax cut plan, an increase in defense spending, a bunch of other programs, and promise that it wouldn't bring us back into deficits. Just because the economy was cooling down at the end of 2000 doesn't mean that the surpluses would have to disappear; in fact, that's what Alan Greenspan endorsed -- do you remember the "soft landing" that people were talking about early in 2001? Whether we have a good economy or not is generally tied to GDP; whether we're in surplus is completely tied to government expenditures and revenues. The two can be related, obviously, but the budget surplus/deficit and GDP are not bound to each other to the point that you can claim that a good economy gone sour will destroy surpluses. You're just wrong. I'd suggest that if you don't like the numbers, or the economic facts of the past several years, that you either create a time machine or try to explain them in a book, but either way, you'd probably just wind up getting a job in the Bush Admininstration and making things even worse.
[and jesus, anyone who believes Bush when it comes to numbers and then wants to talk about what's "reliable" and what's not, has no credibility.]

"It's not the fault of Democrats that Republicans have screwed so much stuff up"
Once again you try to place blame that is not deserved. It’s just a lie.

Ah, Tinbot, illustrating the famous legal saying, "argue the law; when you can't argue the law, argue the facts; when you can't argue the facts, call your opponent names." It's really funny to watch conservatives get all agitated and huffy because people start talking about the way things actually are, whether it's waging class warfare, or trying to figure out who's responsible for any government screwups.
It was Republicans who wanted to slash taxes in a way that disproportionately benefits the wealthy; it was DEMOCRATS who insisted that Bush include the $300 tax rebate that got so much press. It's Bush who wants to reduce taxes even more, at the same time that the budget has dropped about half a trillion dollars, going from $200B in the black to $300 in the red (okay, technically, we haven't broken the $300B barrier yet, but you'd have to be Bill Gates, a member of the RNC, or unusually naive to believe we won't, especially if there's a war in Iraq or anywhere else this year). Strangely enough, at the same time, Bush complains how Congress (also run by Republicans, in case you haven't noticed) needs to restrain spending, even though he can't be bothered to submit a budget that a) restrains spending much itself, b) actually pays for all the stuff he tells people he wants (that was sheer genius, leaving out any cost of rebuilding Afghanistan this year; it makes me wonder if he forgot about it, or if he thought that we'd *make* money there by cutting their taxes, too), or c) mentions realistic costs of war or tax cuts. It was Democrats who came up with the idea of a Homeland Security Department; it was Bush and Republicans who stuffed the 9/11 commission. It's Bush, not Democrats, who said he understood why people didn't like HMOs, and then told seniors that if they wanted a prescription drug benefit, that they'd have to join one. It's the Bush Administration (and a few conservative Democrats) who have been letting lobbyists write legislation and then ramming it through Congress. Basically, the Republicans haven't come up with any particularly sophisticated or thoughtful ideas in the last ten years, aside from "Get Clinton!" "let's whack taxes and see what happens!" "States' rights rule, except on the things we want to impose on everyone (abortion limits, environmental rollbacks, loosening gun laws, national educational testing, etc.)" and "if we whine about the media long enough, pretty soon they'll start sucking up to us!"
When your guys stop screwing up, we'll stop complaining about it.

"Bush aggravates those circumstances (e.g., including North Korea in an "axis of evil" as a mere "rhetorical flourish" and calling Kim Jong-Il a loathful pygmy)"
Another Democratic myth that is nonsense. If you believe those things hurt the feelings of the sick psychopathic killers and then made them uncooperative with us, you are nuts.

Ah, that "democratic myth" that people in other countries, despite speaking unintelligible languages, having different social customs, having different political priorities, wanting to be politically autonomous (how many of your friends have you had to pay off to hang out with you?), just might like being treated with some modicum of respect. Here's a hint, Tinbot, when you're dealing with other people: sometimes, you *have* to deal with people you don't care much for, or wouldn't invite into your house, or have a drink with, or introduce to your family, etc. Or maybe you're like Donald Rumsfeld and you go hang out with Saddam Hussein in the early '80s while he's repressing/killing/etc. his own people and suck up to him, and that doesn't bother you.
My point is that just because you *think* someone's a sick psychopathic killer, or that they're being uncooperative, it doesn't mean that your actions towards them won't have consequences. Sure, maybe Kim Jong-Il *is* a loathful pygmy, or a sick psychopathic killer, or an uncooperative little bastard, but if *I* were the president of the most powerful country on the planet, that isn't the tack *I* would take if I wanted to convince him to do something. And if I knew that he was going to be MAKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS BEFORE SUMMER, I'd think a little harder about 1) not going out of my way to annoy him, and 2) actually getting off my ass and doing something, instead of acting like it doesn't matter. Of course, that's also assuming that Bush *doesn't* want North Korea to have nuclear weapons, which is probably a stretch -- after all, if North Korea gets the bomb, then he can use that as leverage to say, "Look how important our missile defense system is! North Korea has the bomb! We have to defend ourselves!"

I really don't care if you disagree with what I think; I don't have a lot of hope that I'd persuade you, just like I'm sure you don't have a lot of hope to persuade me. But I'd settle for having people like you stop being completely gullible and simple-minded when it comes to analyzing politics and our president.

Once again Chris you are totally wrong.
"the CBO and OMB projected surpluses for the near future"

The CBO uses the current economic numbers to make long term predictions. Those economic numbers are constantly changing and that’s why those predictions are worthless.

"whether we're in surplus is completely tied to government expenditures and revenues"

When the economy is good people make more money and pay more in taxes. Even Democrats like Bill Richardson understand that cutting taxes stimulates the economy. The taxes gained by the stimulate effect of the cuts outweighs the taxes lost because of the cuts. The government will have more money and the people will have more money. This is a proven fact. Of course the debate is how big can the tax cuts be until the gain is less than the loss. One fact is clear. The rich will pay more of the taxes after the Bush tax cuts go into effect.

As far as the cost of the war goes, like Bush said, the price is higher if we do nothing. I agree with him.

"Sure, maybe Kim Jong-Il *is* a loathful pygmy, or a sick psychopathic killer, or an uncooperative little bastard, but if *I* were the president of the most powerful country on the planet, that isn't the tack *I* would take if I wanted to convince him to do something. And if I knew that he was going to be MAKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS BEFORE SUMMER"

Codling Kim as Clinton did obviously did not work. Kim is reported to have made his first nukes during the Clinton administration. Its time to stop being the big Mr. Nice Guy when we are dealing with these very bad people. The North Koreans are expected to test a missile that can reach us in the next few weeks. Kim wants direct negotiations with us now. The last time we negotiated with Kim, we (Clinton Carter) agreed to give him food and heating oil for his people in return for Kim to stop developing his nukes. We know now that Kim can not be trusted in any deal that he agrees to. Bush will not reward a proven cheater with a new negotiation. If the UN is relevant (I don’t think they are) lets see them come up a solution. A predict that we will eventually take care of this problem as well. It will take a few months until the other countries in that area break down and beg us to do something about Kim when the UN has failed again.

I think you are assuming too much about me. I did not vote for Bush. In fact I never really cared about politics much until lately. I am generally a libertarian for the most part. I have looked objectively at the current situation. The Democratic leaders are not lined up against the war. They mostly voted for giving the president a free hand to attack. Now some are trying to play both sides of the fence for political reasons, but the vote is on record. It’s not a right-wing left-wing thing either. Several right-wingers are staunchly against the war, including Pat Buchanan and Bob Novack.

I see a lot of left-wing lunatic fringe wild claims flying around here. I saw exactly the same thing during the Clinton term from the right-wing nuts. Many of you are just the same as the ones you hate the most. There is no plan to steal the Iraqi oil. If we were going to go into the Middle East to grab oil, we would have done it in 1991. It’s ridiculous. Cheney is no longer an employee of Halliburton. All the Bush and Cheney assets are in a blind trust. Both Democrats and Republicans jump out of public office into big corporations that want an edge over their competitors because of political connections. It is wrong and both parties are guilty of it. I don’t see the Democrats introducing any bills to stop it.

Many people here are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they will oppose anything he does. You have lost your objectivity and thus your credibility.

How funny. Its Clinton's fault... from the same people in Congress that thought spending over $70M investigating lies about a BJ and 100K shady land deals. Maybe if Congress focused on something a bit more important we would have paid more attention to what was going on in the world. Oh, but then we couldn't go for moral outrage!

Helen Thomas had it right when she said that George W. Bush was the worst President we have ever had. His Administration will go down in history as a failed Presidency. This Country has never attacked another Country for no reason. And there is no reason. Iraq, and its people had NOTHING to do with Sept. 11th. I think that Bush is a sick person, who is leading this Country into further danger and hatred from our allies. How can any of us stop this madness? Can this guy be impeached - or sent before a war crimes tribunal himself?

Bush drank too much for too long and has brain damage. If you know about the folks like him who often land in our social services or criminal justice system, you know they have stunted emotional capacity and stunted maturity.

Why we allowed his family to socially promote this guy to the top is beyond me.

"The taxes gained by the stimulate effect of the cuts outweighs the taxes lost because of the cuts. The government will have more money and the people will have more money. This is a proven fact."

As far as I know, the only morons who still claim this widely discredited aspect of supply-side lunacy as "fact" are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity --oh, and tin bot...

These guys are so blinded by Clinton hatred that they will believe anything Rush, Hannity or Karl Rove say to them.

Tin bot, I think we're about to get booted off the front page (there are several blurbs above the Bellicose Bush one, and we're pretty far into the comment section), so I don't know if anyone is still even going to read this, but I gotta respond to your comments.

The CBO uses current economic numbers to make long term predictions, and that's what everyone in Washington uses when they try to figure out what kind of economic policies we can afford in the near future. I didn't say the numbers are right; I said that's the way it works. We KNOW they're going to be wrong. They're GUARANTEED to be inaccurate, because they're so big and depend on so many things that aren't susceptible to precise prediction -- it's like guessing how many cells are in your body at any given instant. But there's a huge difference between thinking that we'll have big deficits for the next ten years, and thinking we'll have big deficits for the next ten years. And it's not like Bush has been a model of responsibility here; his Administration wants to have the CBO NOT EVEN GUESS WHAT WE'LL HAVE MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OUT, BECAUSE THE NUMBERS ARE SO BAD. I'm not saying that the CBO is always on the money. I'm not saying that some of the things they use change abruptly (tax cuts, the effect of 9/11, costs of war, etc.). But I am saying that they tend to be in the ballpark, and it's not a bad idea, when you are trying to figure out how much money the government spends and takes in, to ACTUALLY COUNT IT, and make some kind of educated guesses about what's coming in, and what's going out, and what those patterns are going to look like in the future. You may not like it, or it may not strike you as sensible, or accurate enough, but tough shit. That's the way it is. It's not so much about whether one of us is wrong (if there is, it ain't me, though), but the way things work. Maybe you should try to reconcile the way you think with that.

Who gives a fuck about New Mexico state tax rates? Ooooh, look, it's a Democratic governor cutting taxes, they must be agreeing with everything I already believe. You like the supply-side gospel, fine. It's just that, well, most people who actually study this kind of stuff don't think it happens to ACTUALLY WORK IN THE REAL WORLD. It's like communism: it sort of makes sense in some ways in principle, and maybe, somewhere, sometime, someone might get some mileage out of it, but it DOESN'T WORK IN REAL LIFE. If you're rich, then I understand that it might make sense for you to believe this. But if you're not clearing six figures, it's your loss.

Another thing: if you cut tax rates as much as Bush wants to, there's NO FUCKING WAY you'll recoup that money in tax revenue. Let's say we cut taxes 10% for everyone. Now, in order to make up that lost ten percent of tax revenue, at the lower tax rate, you'd need to have an increase in the economy of 10%. Nobody, not even drunk conservative cabinet members, thinks that's actually going to happen.

"As far as the cost of the war goes, like Bush said, the price is higher if we do nothing. I agree with him."
Well, in that case, maybe you'd like to explain why he won't include it in his budget, or tell Congress how much he thinks it *MIGHT* be, or how much it'll cost to rebuild Iraq, or how long we'll be involved there, of if we're going to go win a war there and then ignore it, just like Afghanistan. Oh, that's right, because it's a big cost in the future, and we can't know exactly what it is, we might as well not bother counting it. Are you naturally that myopic, or are you employed by the Administration?

North Korea: what do you think we should do, threaten to nuke Pyongyang, and that'll solve everything? Can you entertain ideas that don't involve skipping straight to the dumbest, most violent, and deadly possible situation? I'm not saying that the UN has all, or many of the answers, but I'd have to imagine that they've got more than Bush, if BUSH WON'T EVEN *TALK* TO KIM. I mean, shit, you or I have more than Bush, in that case (though I'm not sure about you). At some point, if we want people to respect us as a country, instead of thinking we're just an international loose cannon, we ought to refrain from abusing the good/evil argument too much. Sure, Kim's a paranoid weirdo who's let millions of his own people die rather than acknowledge any fault or responsibility. We're supposed to be able to offer those people more than just the prospect of death by fire and explosives instead of hunger.

Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak are against the war for their own idiosyncratic freakish political reasons, and the only thing I care for about them is that at least they're not cheerleading for Bush on this one.

I agree with you about the oil obsession -- I think it might be plausible, but it doesn't feel right. Too messy, too obvious, and although it might tie into several other anti-Bush arguments (indifference to the environmental impact of air pollution, hooking up Halliburton and other similarly incestuous conservative/oil/whatever corporations with lucrative government contracts, etc.), I don't see it as the main goal, and it's more of a convenient distraction. Besides, I think the push for war would be as offensive if there wasn't oil in Iraq, because we're still sugarcoating our role, the cost, the impact on its neighbors, and how willing we'll be to stick around and actually enact any of the economic/political/etc. reforms that we're currently using as motivation for the war/invasion/rebuilding.

I'm glad you recognize a lot of the anti-Clinton stuff as right-wing goofiness; I'll concede that there's a fair amount of equally personal distaste for Bush that has the same kinds of roots. But when you say objectivity is a prerequisite for credibility, that's just wrong. I like to think I'm objective about a lot of things, but I'm not, really (obviously, I suppose). But it can't mean I'm not credible, it just means that you shouldn't take everything I say at face value, or what anyone else says (jeez, just be as skeptical of Bush as you are of us left-wing folks, that's all I ask...).

"I agree with you about the oil obsession -- I think it might be plausible, but it doesn't feel right."

WOW, a breakthrough for common sense. We will have to work on the rest.