Just an article that got my attention...

gtb

A lot of people think that the president is emotionless (I did at one point), but he's human. I think people forget that sometimes (Not critisizing anyone, I do too).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8941525/site/newsweek/

Did that post make you feel any different about the president or anything? I'm curious as to what you think. For me, I knew he had feelings, but this is the first time I've really seen them since 9/11.

CrimsonStrange

Well, sure; he's got feelings.
You'd literally need to be completely immoral & emotionless not to feel the weight of a decision
that was responsible for countless numbers of lives lost everyday.
But he's also got a reputation to think about.

I mean, I'm no expert when it comes to politics or gov't procedures.
There's a definite reason for everything that the US gov't does.

Tears and sympathy look good in print, and they make the President seem more... approachable; more relatable to the common man.

I think meeting with the families of those soldiers was more of a placating gesture
than a showing of actual heartfelt sentiment.

Why would there be a photographer present at these "private" meetings,
unless those pictures taken will be used later on to make him look good, perhaps around election time?

shr3dd

didnt the article just say the meetings were closed? meaning closed to the press including photograhpers.

CrimsonStrange

Why don't you join the Army, so you'll have a chance to do something meaningful and patriotic, whilst getting out all of that pent-up aggression? Rolling Eyes

shr3dd

if i could, i would man...

tidruG

ekingisrael

the president is not emotionless,he must remain strong at any condition-the president is a symbol-he can't show his feelings most of the time-emotions make you weak in a battle-you may become predicted and that will give a boost to terror.

Exclamation

I have great respect for the president because of his hard desicions-its not easy to open up a war against terror and send thousands of soldiers to distent countries-but he did the right thing,someone must bring it to an End. Exclamation

S3nd K3ys

tidruG

tidruG

Oh, just another article that caught my attention.

A couple of paragraphs I'm pasting from the article which will surely tick s3nd k3ys off:

The failed political leadership that pulled out all the stops to start this war is finding that it's a lot harder to distort reality once boots hit the ground.

They said we had to go to war because Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were a threat to us. There were no WMDs. They said we had to go to war because of September 11, but there was no connection between Iraq and those horrific attacks. They said we had to go to war to free the Iraqi people, but they've turned the country into the world's most dangerous terrorist training ground and a cradle of civil strife.

Yes, I got this off the Democrats official website, so it's obvious they'd blast Bush. But like I said in another post, you posted Bush's achievements from the official White House website, which will obviously justify Bush.

S3nd K3ys

tidruG

Oh Jesus Christ!

The shit you got off the White House website... I didn't say it was lies or unjustified. I only said that it's expected that the White House will make a big hue and cry about their smallest achievements.

WMDs got shipped out of Iraq? I'm sure you're going to tell me that they got shipped into the next country Bush is planning on invading... that way you justify both the Iraq war and the war on the next country... wow Rolling Eyes

And I knew you'd write that about the Democrats. Of course, you've made it plenty clear that you've got your eyes, ears, brain shut to anything anyone can say that's anti-Bush. Well, the Democrats have got as much credibility as the Republicans, seeing as how Bush only just won the elections this time around... if it hadn't been for that handful of idiots who voted for him, the world would have been a better place by now... heh heh... and this statement, I am sure, has lit a fire under your ass.

S3nd K3ys

Billy Hill

tidrug, I, for one, would like to see more substance in your posts. It seams you have a deep hatred for America and it also seems you are seriously mis-informed. You are making claims you can't possibly expect anyone with a somewhat level head to take seriously. I urge you to try to forget everything you know about America and it's politics and start again with an open mind and at least one open eye. Look at things from both sides and I assure you that you will see a very definate pattern of deception from the so-called left-wing extremists. (I'm not saying the 'right' doesn't have a radical side, but they do tend to portray the truth more clearly than the 'left'). And finally, please do not try to tell S3nd K3ys to be 'civil' when you are clearly trying to annoy him to get such reactions. I have a feeling he would eat you alive in any debate with not only facts, but by using your blatently antagonistic personality against you.

S3nd K3ys, you obviously have an attitude problem when it comes to the opinions of others who don't see the 'whole picture' like you do. While I admire your knowledge, the research you've done, and the fact that you're not afraid to speak your mind, I wish you would settle down a bit and try not to take it so personally. I can understand your frustration, but it won't do you any good. You've got plenty of material to back up (most) of your statements lately, so use that instead of taking yourself down a level.

Now for a brief reply to the thread's subject. Wink

Mr. Bush has a lot on his plate. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. No matter what you do, half of America, and in fact the world, will be against you. Do I think it's guilt that he's feeling? No way. It's compassion plain and simple. I respect what he is doing and where he is going, in most areas. Nobody before him has had the balls to take on terrorists the way he has. Of course, there hasn't been an attack such as 9/11 either, so necessity is probably key. Of course, I still don't think Clinton would have had the fortitude to make a stance and stick with it given the same circumstances.

S3nd K3ys

tidruG

Heh heh heh... more misunderstandings...

1. I don't hate America. I, in fact, like it for a lot of things it's given to the world.

2. Yes, it's really easy to annoy someone who gets so worked up. See, the whole American political picture matters to me as much as who wins a Grammy (which is pretty less, because I think they're a big sham... only the real big names get the awards), but it's something that probably means a lot to s3nd k3ys, and I do hate his attitude ((shrug))

3. I can't back up most of what I'm saying because like I say in most of my posts, it's my opinion. I generally don't claim everything I type to be true. All I want is for you (for s3nd k3ys, actually) to think that there could be more than meets the eye... Why did it take Bush 9/11 to react to global terrorism? Islamic extremists have been around for ages, and tortured loads of countries... this whole "War against terror" after 9/11 seems a tad hypocritical. (Now, don't twist my words... I condemn the 9/11 attacks... I condemn all terrorist activities)

4. If (please note again that I'm using IF) there were other reasons Bush attacked Iraq, or if there was something that the givernment was doing wrong, it would do anythig possible to cover it up... I suppose that IF there was something the government's not telling us now, it'll probably be out 50-60 years later, when classified documents get de-classified... like how we found out that Nixon and JFK frequently referred to the Indians as "those bastards"... I can't give you the link to this story right now... I'll do that first thing tomorrow.

5. I'm all for a proper debate. A forum is all about different opinions and hearing what everyone e;se has got to say. But the idea is to be civil (yes, dammit, I'll use the word, because I don't flame... but I have been flamed at by s3nd k3ys, who pretty much seems to flame up whenever anyone says "Bush sucks", and sh3dd, who didn't mind using profanity...)

Some arab

hehe....
Anyway I mean call me ignorant and stubborn if you can prove me wrong but I think that Bush invaded Iraq on slim evidence more as a political move. I mean come on he invaded Iraq he got so involved in to it that it would not be smart to hand it over to someone else. That is why Bush won by a slim margin. We were pretty much debating weather we save our troops and ****** up Iraq or let our troops die while trying to improve it. Look there were no evidence of WMD's Iraq. There was no connection as far as i know to Iraq being involved in the 9/11 attacks. So i really saw the invasion of Iraq as a political move. We didn't find WMD's so we decide "afterwards" to take down Saddam for his crime by taking him out of power. Now we have to protect Iraq which I am not against because if we didnt protect them after taking out Saddam things would be worse in Iraq then it was when he was in power. But i wouldn't hand Iraq over to some loser who keeps saying he won 3 purple hearts in times of need. I mean the election was pretty much choosing who would ****** Iraq in the ass more brutally. Even though i hate bush more i think that he would use lube instead of Kerry who would jump on him with no lube. lol

gonzo

I don't feel my ideology; I reason it. While Bush is not the ideal president, nor apparently capable of sticking to his ideals (endorsing gay unions), he's a bazillion times better than any mostly liberalist. It's not time for the American experiment to end.