Why Bush is in Chicago

Come on Frankie, give it a rest!! Why must the president give press conferences only from Washington? Are you and the rest of your hateful, liberal Washington Tribune cohorts so short on stuff to criticize the president, you have to question why a press conference in Chicago? You're getting desperate, man, very desperate!!

ok - so we couldn't enter or leave our building until Bush was done eating breakfast this morning, he waved to the few people amassed on the sidewalks, there only because they couldn't walk down the streets, from a car with windows tinted darker than is legally allowed (understandable) so you could barely see him. I felt closer to the snipers on the roof.

"....while spending more quality time out among voters in the hope of changing the nature of the coverage."

Quality time? Where? Can we go or do we have to stand a block away? Can we ask questions or do we have to silently listen to the message? Is this more invitation only private/public quality time or is anyone from the public allowed to attend?

The President is stomping for the crook J Dennis Hastert. Sure Hastert did not show at every event in the public July 4TH he is running from the people who want anwsers on his land deals,$1000.00 day fishing trips paid for by lobbyist. He Knows being with the President on pre-arrange political events he will be protected from the people.Just like most Republicans who cut an ran from the service. They need to hide behind protection an not face the real people.

I wonder if the media will report on how Bush is in hostile territory. As a global city that prides itself on being tolerant and respectful of all of its residents, Chicago doesn't represent Bush's policies of intolerance and hate.

Ah, Dale, what are your thoughts on the corruption in the Daley administration, the Stroger administration and the Boy Governor administration? How many investigations are going on into City Hall and this governor? 4, 5, 6, 7, more? And the mess that is Cook County government?

Bush is here because is cannot offer anything new about everything that he has screwed up so far to the Washington press corp: Iraq/Afghanistan, responses to Katrina, torturing detainees; the list can go on forever. Coming here to visit a soon to be indicted mayor is just the type of diversion Bush needs, right before he takes is usual three month summer vacation.

John D-
We liberals are by no means short of things with which to criticize Bush. We are short on things with which to praise him.

Dubya and his entourage tied up rush hour traffic for at least an hour this morning. If that's his idea of spending quality time with voters, it's not about to help raise his numbers.

to dale peters:

The President is here to help Topinka. If Dennis Hastert is a crook, then what are Mayor Daley, Dick Durbin,Rod Blago and the rest of the recently convicted Chicago Political Mafia. Your opinions are just plain warped.

hey what will it take to bring this clown up on war crimes? right now we have the worst president of all time at the helm. just look at at this guy-what a joke. every day brings a new surprise no one has any idea what he may do next. lets get him and his regime out of there asap. let us save the united states and the rest of the world.PLEASE!!!

The President came here for only one reason - to try to pump up his slumping approval ratings. It won't work in Washington and it certainly won't work in Chicago.

What Bush and his misanthropic band of puppeteers haven’t figured out yet is that the people of this country are tired of being misled – misled about the war in Iraq, misled about the war on terrorism (going about as well as the war on drugs) and misled about the economy (read as free money for those who already have it).

Maybe Bush ought to free himself of his insular world and actually listen, stop talking to just to hear himself talk, and listen to his constituents. They are saying he’s doing a bad job and here he is just promoting the bad job he’s doing.

Go home Bush.

Any way you cut it, manure smells the same if it's in the barn or laying out in a field.

I guess convicted felon George Soros pumping $23 MILLION into JUST the democrat party for election 2004 is OKIE DOKIE and doesn't make Democrats 'crooks' with the extreme left. Soros makes Abramoff look like a tightwad AND he did donate to BOTH parties. You can check that figure with the FEC if you'd like.

George really needs a new team of advisors. Why on Earth would he visit a large city when it's arguable that most of his "patriotic" constituents live in the corn fields and, sorry, swamps? Most of the large cities hopefully have people who are reasonable and intelligent enough to be offended by the triple-processed, steadfast, vigilant, and enduring sewage that stumbles and falls out of his mouth. We have enough to deal with regarding local policians with whom we can at least get into contact with and possibly make changes in our communities. The rest of the world hates us enough and laughs, and cries, with us and our unending war with Oceania... I mean, "tearists." The imaginary war is one thing, but now they've (the puppetmasters) declared war on the average citizen with Total Information Awareness. If this was really a visit with the people, I'd have had quite a few questions to ask. I wonder how he would react in a heated argument with one of us who doesn't need a teleprompter.

Why? Because it’s warm enough in Chicago today for an emperor without clothes.

The real reason that nothing will ever get done in this country is because there are actually people who defend Bush and whatever it is he is doing. It will take 15 years to diplomatically recover from his Presidency.

He's here because he has nothing left to say in Washington. There is one topic on most minds-Iraq. He has no solution and therefore it is simply time to change the subject.

Dear President Bush,

No one is buying this song and dance you've taken on tour.

Love,
Megan

John D,
Corrupt local government is an issue of importance,
and I for one applaud the conviction of anyone that violates the law, but these issuess are totally irrelevant to the topic of discussion.
I believe the term ad hominem to quoque applies to your post.

Hey Tom and Ginny, don't you know confronting hysterical lefties with facts is just plain mean? They can't take it. They whine like little children and plead for more Kool-Aide to make the truth go away.

War on terror going badly? You see, killing Zaqawi, nabbing suspects who wanted to blow up the Sears Tower or New York tunnels, a democratically elected government in Iraq and Afghanistan are all bad things.

Sort of like the economy. A 4.6 percent unemployment rate is bad, not good.

Global warming? The fact that CHicago is on its way to a fifth cooler-than-average summer in the past six years means there is global warming.

To lefties, everything right in the world is bad and everything bad in the world is good. They want us to lose the war on terror. They want Iraq to fail. They want the economy to go sour. All they want is bad things.

But just give them more Kool-Aide and they'll feel a little better.

The reason for getting away from the D.C. press corps is simple--the D.C. press corps votes 85-90% Democrat, they have voted that way for at least the last 20 years, and their coverage reflect their bias. The press is in one aspect nonpartisan: they criticize both Republican Presidents and Democrat Presidents for not being Liberal enough.

I wonder is Mr. Bush knows what state Chicago is in. I wonder if he knows anything about Abraham Lincoln.
Go back to Crawford Texas Bush. We don't need you here.

The comments on this board remind me why my wife and I are glad we moved from the city.... so intolerant and negative most of the so-called "liberals" there are with other worldviews.

Life must be miserable when all the great recent economic and world news is met with scorn, and their every thought is about the days of yore when gas was cheaper, 9/11 hadn't happened yet, and the President was winked at for his indiscretions in the White House and indiscriminate bombings outside the White House.

When will the Democrats see the bigger picture of what is happening in the world? Do they really want to give up their Freedom of religion? Freedom of thought? Freedom to bear arms? Freedom to protest? Freedom to whine! Do they not get it? It is the survival of the fittest? Yes, it would be wonderful if man could stop the struggle for Land, Power, and Religious Dominance, but the basic fact is that pecking order is programmed into our DNA. So which DNA would you rather have lead the world? Call President Bush what you want, but he and his puppeteers positioned our Military strategically. It was time to get out of Germany. Now the question is: Is the military in CA, WA, OR, AK and HI ready for Chinese, Russian and North Korean missiles? And by the way, all you Democrats take your heads out of the sand and start reading the Chinese Plan!

[[Re: Why on Earth would he visit a large city when it's arguable that most of his "patriotic" constituents live in the corn fields and, sorry, swamps? -J. Evans Pritchard]]

We live in large cities, too. There's not much to say to those who criticize a dysfuctional political party all while supporting another that consistently loses to it.

...And as far as intelligence goes, your right. We must not be as intelligent because I don't know what a polician is.

Amazing how much denial and lack of accountability is part of this new press conference strategy. They still don't get it. Its the Washington press' fault, yes. Its not that this administration made a decision to go to war that is now very unpopular with no end in site. Its not that its economic, environmental and social policies are so blantantly politically driven, divisive and show little regard or connection with the average person's needs or experience. Its just all about how its spun. The gay marriage and flag burning crusade wimpered out, but that was not enough, now they are trying to "go populist" in their own detached and empty way. Super.

It is terrible to hear fellow Chicagoans complain about being tied up in traffic or having to stay in their building while the President visits us. Their frustrations show their unfamiliarity with high profile visits from dignitaries. We shouldn't show our confusion and anger with the hold-up as it ultimately makes us look like the second city we hate to be described as. I enjoyed the hold up, and I enjoyed a longer than normal Friday morning, where the President of the United States visiting made for a welcome addition to an otherwise routine morning. Stop being amateurs!

I agree with Joe above. Bush is still clueless about his mistakes because there are many, many people out there defending him. In my opinion, they are the true enemies destroying what America has always stood for. They refer to themselves as "Americans".

Liberals would like win the was on terror...but just not while President Bush is in office. They want lower umemployment...but just not while President Bush in in office.
They dont want to see Iran or N. Korea become any more of a threat.....but the previous administration SOLD them the technology and now President Bush is left to clean up the mess.
I don't like everything about President Bush either but he's a welcome change from the alternative!

John D,
Your post implies that the grotesque federal budget deficit(a bad thing),created by a Republican controlled legislative and executive branch, is viewed as a good thing by lefties. Hardly.
Why have the "small" government righties who are in CONTROL,looted the Treasury, and sunk us into debtor nation status?
I'd even be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about the necessity of the Iraq conflict by saying it is a good thing ( I strongly disagree with that, however), but do you realize to date our government has spent approximately $19,250.00 for each and every Iraqi citizen on this conflict?
Does that sobering figure ever make you ask yourself if this conflict is being competently executed by the Bush administration?
I'm sorry, but lefties ask these necessary questions, and rightly so.

Sandy,
If you are confident in your characterization of the Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans, how can you defend the stubborn insistence of the Bush administration to include Russia and China in talks that seek to neutralize North Korea?
Isn't that as perverse as holding talks with Osama bin Laden, and including al-Zarqawi on the
U.S panel ?

As I listened to my President's speech and press conference today, I was both flustered and sad on the message being delivered.

To me, it was readily apparent that the President had memorized a list of "talking points" that he could interject and recite when the subject matter permitted an insert. His answers were vague, immature, and repetitious. Please don't call it a news conference; call it a policy review. There was no news today. My President, who could speak no better than I could in front of a national audience, was trying to "act" like a world leader. He was a huge disappointment! He had ample opportunities to "say what he means" rather than deflect answers to hard questions by implying diplomatic excuses or United Nations' negotiations as an answer. I want a leader that can readily respond to a hypothetical scenario rather than a spoiled rich kid who got the job as President because he had a famous and rich father. At least Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton knew how to act Presidential!

I can't wait to hear the whining from the left when they lose yet another election.

all the great recent economic and world news is met with scorn.

God we radical Bush-hatin' lefties must be insanely stupid not to realize that ever-mounting death tolls of American soldiers and Iraqui civilians, escalating mortgage foreclosures, weak job-creation numbers, mounting energy costs and terrorist attacks in multiple nations on an almost daily basis are GREAT NEWS!

Silly us.

This was a great opportunity for the corrupt Bush administration officials to spend some time with the corrupt city of Chicago officials and compare notes on Patrick Fitzgerald. In the spirit of bi-partisan corruption, perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald could be traded to some Fed post in Montana for a favor to be named later.

George Bush will certainly be remembered as one of the most inept, blundering Presidents in United States history. Why anyone would want to either dine with or vote for him is truly remarkable. Beyond Christian supremacists and GOP lackeys, are there any reputable Americans still supporting Mr. Bush?

All of you people that are so critical of Bush are in truth - merely HYPOcritical - you criticize him for everything that he does, yet if he didn't do some of the kinds of things you criticized him for today - you would slam him for not doing them - he just cannot win. If he did not visit Chicago or any other cities - you would mercilessly attack him as you did his father for being out of touch because he did not "get around with the folks enough." Granted - you are livid that President Bush visited Chicago today for some very valid reasons, e.g.: "my traffic was delayed for an hour" (gee sorry that he, the PRESIDENT, has secret service cars around him and has to keep other cars at a safe distance); "he has windows on his car darker than legally allowable" (how DARE he darken his windows so terrorists and sharp shooters can't get a clean shot into his car); "we couldn't even enter our building until he was done with breakfast" - yes, let's let anyone just meander up into the building the President of the United States is visiting. Well, since in this global war against terror which most of the dems/liberals still do not fully understand or acknowledge -- would you really expect him not to take extraordinary measures for his safety - and if he didn't - you would be the first ones to call him stupid for not taking the requisite precautions. Even Pope John Paul was forced into the "Popemobile" due to safety concerns and we now know was shot by a man put up to the task by the Soviet Union - lest I remind you about the the liberal media castigating another Republican President - Ronald Reagan - for just about everything, including being a stupid actor with no qualifications for the job, and for having the unmitigated gall to call the Soviet Union "the evil empire". That "stupid" President also had the courage of his convictions and just happened to bring down that "evil empire" because of it. According to J. Evans Pritchard, this is an "imaginary war" - try asking the people of London today if they believe it's an "imaginary war" on the one year anniversary of the bombings there. And, according to Enrique - "Chicago is a city of such tolerance and respects all of its residents" - doesn't that really mean "Chicago is a city of such tolerance and respectful of all of its citizens -EXCEPT GEORGE BUSH"??????
You're right - give me the good old days of Presidents that didn't mislead the public - "I did not have physical relations with that woman"; "Paula Jones - never heard of her" "Rose Law Firm records - oh...these...well, my maid just found them on the coffee table - what a stroke of luck."

The worst thing about it was the setting. Bush blasphemed the Museum of Science and Industry - no other president ever has been as destructive to the mission of science than he has. More appropriate questions given this noble proud Chicago venue would have been about Global Warming and Intelligent Design.

Given the talking points, a better setting would have been the Women's Christian Temperance Union in Evanston. Perhaps there he would have received applause when he ended instead of crickets as anyone who listened live heard quite clearly.

He may be remembered more for cherry-picking his science data than his WMD data.

I hope Dubya does a press conference every week until the November election, and that he is just as cocky, arrogant, and clueless as he was in Chicago. The more his face is on TV smirking and sneering, the better it is for Democrats running for office.

You liberals drive me crazy! You all should be thankful that we have a President that is willing to defend our country! The liberals would like nothing more than to have another terrorist attack so they can blame President Bush. We Republicans have something to stand for and that is why we will win the Senate and House in 2008!

Funny...I moved from an extremely enlightened,educated north shore suburb. Liberal, too.I am delighted now to be a resident of Chicago. I've been through everything I can find online at the trib.I thought the news column was excellent and unbiased (I await yhe editorial) and slowly checked out every photo. Where were the crowds of adoring Repubs? I saw less than ten at the airport, I saw Judy Barr Topinka looking lovingly into George's eyes. Hey, if he handed me over a million bucks, I'd smile too. It won't make her any new friends.

And a question for all you loyal Repubs. Our Mayor's staff is battered all the time with the cries os "favoritism". The Governor is dealing with the decrease in Federal funding since it's costing over a million a day to remain in Iraq.

Where are the shouts of "cronyism" about the whitehouse, K Street...everywhere? The Fema dork comes to mind (thank you Joe Allbaugh)and all the sons and daughters and wives who are on our Federal payroll, and that's our tax money, folks.

So welcome to a bright blue state, Prez. Hold back the mobs! Do you think Lou Mitchell's made George a peanut butter and jelly or a taco? How about a cheeseburger?

Bush probably wanted good food for his birthday, and I can't fault a man for that (even if his administration is a full-fledged disaster). Also, he knew he could count on a warm reception from Mayor Daley, who is such a DINO (Democrat In Name Only) that his face should be included in a bottle of Flintstones Vitamins!

Of course, now with the Sorich verdict Daley will be even more subservient to Bush and his wonderful Pardoning Pen!

Dear J. Evans Pritchard (anyone that uses their first initial and then middle name thinks he is mor important than he actually is). Not all of us bumpkins in the suburbs and beyond are stupid. Get yourself out of Lincoln Park or the Drive and visit the other parts of your well educated city. The CPS produces such enlighted people.

Sandy - the democrats heads are not in the sand, their heads are elsewhere. Give you a hint, they have to be very flexible to put them there.

I guess we forgot about the president that tied up an entire airport for a couple of hours while he got a haircut on the runway.

Cory - if you took an economics class, please go get a refund from that institution.

Dear Randall: I think if Mr. Bush has any intention of using it - he would have to call Bill Clinton to get that "pardoning pen" back - I believe it went the way of all of the other things the Clintons "removed" from the White House when they left.

Dear John D,

Tell the 4.6% who are unemployed that it's not a bad thing.

Warp huh well if you read what I said in the trib about Chicago you might have a point, I said IL is the most corrupt in the states. City Hall is being look at Judy Barr is being looked at by Feds the Gov. is being looked at by feds. Hastert has been caught thats the point he is a crook. So no its you that only see 's one side Republican Talking point don't work on me I am the Republican Head of Veterans For Progress IL. Hastert and his son belong in Jail . And if the case against any Democrat they go there too. Don't talk about one side talk about both or your the warped one

Just keep on blathering away, both sides of the debate. To much of the left, Bush and the GOP are embodiments of pure evil (of the Christian kind) and can't do anything right or pure. To much of the right, as evidenced by all the posters here, Bush has done nothing but good, like:
> Consistently raise all government spending, including outrageous entitlements that we can't afford
> Allow and, through his subordinates, encourage the use of torture (let's not play around -- it's the same crap the Soviets did) on suspected terrorists (doesn't matter if we think they're bad guys -- do you think Jesus would torture someone?)
> Expand executive power above and beyond the constitutionally acceptable through the usage of his signing statements. Can you image the outrage of the fatty Hastert if Fast Willy pulled the signing statements stunt? Oh wait, you don't know about it? Try reading a newspaper instead of listening to Limbaugh.
> Allow the unprecedented influence of powerful lobbyists in drafting key national policies, like energy. It's funny that they White House wouldn't even acknowledge Ken Lay as a friend of the president, even though Bush wrote a letter to his "Dear Friend" Ken.
> Display a complete disregard for international law and standards for military detainee treatment.
The truth is, Bush isn't 100% bad, but he has to rank as one of the worst presidents. I am marginally a democrat, but I could support someone with at least some competence and integrity in the GOP, like McCain. Bush just doesn't get it. Anyone who supports him is doing so for either blind faith to a political party or because they love and trust photo-ops. True conservatives are disgusted with his expansion of government power, his lack of spending control and his abandonment of core conservative principles (like rationality, small gov't, fact-based decision making). Liberals often get hysterical, it's true. But they're much more right than any of his supporters.
Bush is a hollow joke at this point. If Iraq is such a good cause, why doesn't he send the twins to go fight? It's as simple as that. Send the twins. Instead, he'd rather send YOUR kids -- the kids of the working class blue collar folks who are working their asses off for a living. Bush and his buddies laugh their asses off at you people. And then they get you to vote for them because they promise to keep gays from marrying and promise to promote a culture of life. Too bad he made fun of a born-again Christian woman on death row pleading for her life while governor of Texas.

"The reason for getting away from the D.C. press corps is simple--the D.C. press corps votes 85-90% Democrat, they have voted that way for at least the last 20 years, and their coverage reflect their bias. The press is in one aspect nonpartisan: they criticize both Republican Presidents and Democrat Presidents for not being Liberal enough.
Posted by: Bruce | Jul 7, 2006 2:35:47 PM"

You are truly an idiot. It's amazing.

To PS, Diana, JD and others,
Nary a mention or response from all of you about the
real cost in dollars associated with Bushs' convictions. Just the same old hackneyed republican political catch phrases defending him from the weakest arguments made against him in the comments section.
None of you could stand up and successfully defend Bushs' competence in a substantive,analytical debate.
You just continue to defend the indefensible with
slogans.

Hey, his visit is Just a coincidence.....

Is it coincidence that the White house 2001, especially summer: US officials were warned of imminent major attack by terrorists, by Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Afghanistan, Argentina, and Russia. Specifically named were on the FBI’s hijacker list of 19: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, Mohamed Atta and nothing happened?

Is it a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers got visas through Saudi Arabia, when the documents were not completed correctly and should have been rejected?

Is it a coincidence that all the hijackers smuggled box cutters on each flight that day without 1 being detected?

Is it a coincidence that the FAA failed in Procedure and Protocol that day?

Is it a coincidence that NORAD failed to track and shoot down even 1 plane that day?

Is it a coincidence that the Fighter Jets failed to use Maximum speed to intercept that day?

Is it a coincidence that the Patriot Missile System failed to shoot down Flight 77 that day?

Is it a coincidence that all of military command and control failed that day?

Is it coincidence that the CIA failed to discover this conspiracy?

Is it coincidence that the FBI failed to discover this conspiracy?

Is it coincidence that the Secret Service failed to move the President to safety when they knew the Country was under attack?

Is it coincidence that at every level of the Federal Government Procedure and Protocol failed that day?

Is it coincidence that not one person that broke procedure and protocol has been held accountable?

Is it coincidence that both of the Twin Towers fell that day? (When a steel and concrete structure has never fallen in the history of steel buildings.)

Is it a coincidence that WTC #7 fell 5 hours later that day even though it was not struck by a plane and had only 2 fires?

Is it coincidence that all 3 buildings broke Newton’s laws of motion while falling that day?

Is it coincidence that all 3 building broke the law of gravity and fell at near free fall speed in a vacuum?

Is it a coincidence that molten steel was found in the sub-basements 6 weeks later?

Is it a coincidence that the rubble was taken away to Asia and destroyed before an investigation?

Is it a coincidence that an investigation was not initiated until 411 days after and did not convene until 434 days after that day?

Is it a coincidence that the entire commission was Bush insiders?

Is it a coincidence that in closed meeting before being released, the Official Keen Commission Report was approved by the White House?

Is it a coincidence that none of the firefighters were allowed to testify at the commission about the multiple explosions they witnessed?

On and On and On…

All these things are statistically impossible in the real world. Unless guided by an outside force.

I have a question for some of you thinkers, what is going on here? First we have Bush giving intelligence czar John Negroponte the authority to exempt businesses from reporting requirements to the SEC in the interest of national security. Then on the other hand we have a cease-and-desist order against Los Angeles brokerage firm Crowell, Weedon, in its first action under the USA Patriot Act. The law was enacted in 2001 to crack down on money laundering.

Does that make any sense? On the one hand if you do the (dirty?) deeds of the Administration “ For National Security”, they get paid with our tax dollar, they do not have to report it to share holders or even keep valid records which allows a company to do other things outside of the initially paid function from the administration such as money laundering. Now, on the other hand you do not do business with this administration, you are then taken to task under the Patriot Act to crack down on money laundering. Huh?

And through all this, not one media outlet has done a full in-depth analysis of 9-11 in a time line fashion for the non-thinking, non-reading public who are addicted to that boob tube.

Madness

Joe, if you're idea of saving is the world is letting evil dictators rampage their countries in favor of weak diplomatics by democratics we need to get your regime out of hear ASAP. You spit on everything America was built on and the sacrifice of the American troops by calling what they have accomplished "war crimes". If you want to get a view of what we have accomplished in Iraq/Afghanistan, ask an American Soldier. The American Armed Forces want to complete the mission. Sometimes you have to fight for peace. America was built on sacrifice. Thats a word that liberals like you have no concept of. You want everything cheap but sometimes you have to pay the price. As a Soldier in the US Army, your comments make me sick. Thanks for visiting Chicago President Bush.

MAKE NO MISTAKE-DUBYA's visit to Chicgo is a DIVERSION..BUSH HAS A MONEY ON HIS BACK--It is IRAQ...He will do NOTHING to deal & solve that problem...Do you really think he can help Judy Barr Topinka? She needs to RUN AWAY from Bush..he is BAD NEWS!!!!

Political stunts and rehashing dead issues is the Republican theme for trying to keep control of Congress. The one thing I’ve noticed in the majority of postings here, by the Bushie crowd, is the use of pointless partisan political bashing. No objective view on the issues, only the adolescent name calling and finger pointing that seems to be the other Republican strategy.

Earth to Iggy: do the words "conspiracy theories" and "twilight zone" mean anything to you? John F: Did you ever stop to think that the world, the terrorists, Osama, et al., had 8 long years under Clinton to build up to the point of attack, which occurred only a few months into the Bush Presidency? While Clinton was playing find the cobra in the oval office ala Jack Kennedy, Osama and company were gearing up because because they already knew from world trade center bombing number 1 that they had nothing to fear - they were merely testing the waters for the "big one" however; they misjudged this President's willingness to defend the country unlike his partying predecessor. Also - thank you for proving my point about Bush getting criticized no matter which position he takes - he is still being criticized for NOT trying to diplomatically handle world events AND for his so-called "alienation" of our so-called "allies" mainly France, Germany, Russia, etc. (who by the way did not disagree about Iraq due to philosophical reasons - far from it - we now know from papers found in Iraq that they would have lost too much money if they supported us in Iraq due to the fact those countries were selling armaments to Saddam before and even AFTER our troops were already in Iraq - if that is an ally -we are in trouble if we have to depend on that kind of treachery. Conversely, you are now criticizing Bush for TRYING to engage China and Russia in diplomatic talks regarding North Korea -see - Bush took the position you liberals espoused regarding diplomacy with other countries - and now he's wrong to take THAT position - no matter what he does - he will always be wrong to you. And here's Foreign Policy 101: the ONLY two countries on the face of the planet who could possibly have any influence or sway with North Korea ARE China and Russia - get it? THAT'S why he's trying to engage them in discussions. If he DIDN'T try to work this out diplomatically by engaging the two biggest allies of North Korea to assist us in our efforts to stop N. Korea's nuclear proliferation, you people would be jumping all over him for NOT engaging those countries - just more hypocrisy on your part. And, we are not defending the indefensible - we are trying to defend us - this country - from another attack - that is the "real cost in dollars" - so if the cost of trying to overhaul the many years of mismanagement of the FBI, CIA, etc. by others including Democrats and Republicans alike in order to thwart future attacks bothers you, do you have any other solutions for our defense that would maybe be free? Lastly, look carefully on this page and on your own postings - there you will find most of the slogans being spewn, e.g. "manure is manure - no matter where it is...." To Blah Blah: entitlements??? sorry - those were created and lovingly tweaked by the dems for years to the detriment of many lives caught up in the welfare system - so PLEASE take the entitlements - they're all yours - we don't want them.

Mark you have just brought up the Troops an their sacrifice. Your right they are sacificing they are not being taken care of when they come home.They are being sent back to Iraq on meds like Prozac an sleeping pills.What sacifice did any of the leadership both Republican an Democrat do. Most did not serve. Hastert Rove Cheney and most in the White House cut an ran when they where asked to serve.

"Joe, if you're idea of saving is the world is letting evil dictators rampage their countries in favor of weak diplomatics by democratics we need to get your regime out of hear ASAP. You spit on everything America was built on and the sacrifice of the American troops by calling what they have accomplished "war crimes". If you want to get a view of what we have accomplished in Iraq/Afghanistan, ask an American Soldier. The American Armed Forces want to complete the mission. Sometimes you have to fight for peace. America was built on sacrifice. Thats a word that liberals like you have no concept of. You want everything cheap but sometimes you have to pay the price. As a Soldier in the US Army, your comments make me sick. Thanks for visiting Chicago President Bush."

Posted by: Mark H | Jul 8, 2006 1:56:31 AM

+++

Mark H.:

You're a soldier. You're also a semi-literate babbling moron. I thank you for your service but do not give any credence to your spew.

Liberals do not "spit" on the troops by calling war crimes war crimes. Even someone like you can agree that not everything every solidier does is automatically warranted. Some people find it ok to consider shades of gray.

There's a difference between "sacrifice" and salvage. The former gives something up in order to help a better cause. The latter is just throwing something away. We are not sacrificing lives -- we are throwing them away. We are not sacrificing money -- we are throwing it away. It may make you feel better to think there's a purpose to this, but that's just fantasyland.

As for "completing the mission," I'd be interested to know just what you think that means. Especially since W told you the mission was accomplished three years ago.

And by the way: it's difficult to equate tax cuts with sacrifice, yet that's never stopped your AWOL hero from calling for more "sacrifice."

Instead of just repeating all the propoganda you're fed, trying thinking for yourself. And read a book now and then, so you can advance your literacy beyond a third grade level, 'cause you won't be soldiering forever.

Yes,Mark H....I'd like to ask an American soldier, but I would choose one who of the many who are running as DEMOCRATS in this year's elections.

I believe there is one ex-soldier running as a repub. I wonder why that is.

How MANY "EVIL DICTATORS" are we taking on?I love the line.."America was built on sacrifice". Who is really making those sacrifices ? I remember the sacrifices we made during WW2 (yes, I'm that old), but the only sacrifices I hear about are our kids in IRAQ with insufficient armor, unprotected vehicles and inedible food and not enough water.

Oh yes...we are sacrificing....our dead sons and grandsons fighting for WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN?

Chicago Democrats calling George Bush corrupt - amusing

Any Democrat calling George Bush stupid (unless they have figured out how to beat him in an election or, at least, how to fly a jet fighter) - hilarious

Anyone thinking "he should send the twins" is an argument that proves anything other than the writer is brainless - sidesplitting

Any liberal who sees a post from someone like IggyD and does not immediately wonder if they are on the wrong side - Makes me wonder if I'll ever watch the Comedy Channel again, as long as the left keeps writing such great stuff on The Swamp

The evidence of left-wing press bias is overwhelming. Hence any Republican president will try and take his/her case directly to the people. A quick search on the internet shows that the national press voted, per the Lichter-Rothman study, 91% Dem, 9% GOP in the 1964 presidential election (Versus American voters 61% Dem, 38% GOP); 87% Dem, 13% GOP in 1968 (public 42% Dem, 43% GOP, 15% other); 81% Dem, 19% GOP in 1972 (public 38% Dem, 60% GOP); 81% Dem, 19% GOP in 1976 (public 50% Dem, 48% GOP). A Business Forum poll of national reporters showed that in 1980 they voted 51% Dem, 24% left-wing independent, 25% GOP (versus actual voters 43% Dem, 7% Ind, 51% GOP). A 1985 LA Times poll found that 55% of journalists describe themselves as liberal, compared to 24% of the general population. For a summary of more recent polls, including ones by the Center for Media Researh, the Pew Foundation, the Roper Center and the Princeton Survey, see http://www.mediaresearch.org/mainsearch/search.html

IGGY D......EXCELLENT POST ! Some righty will answer by talking about Clinton's haircut or by following the Party line as written by Karl Rove.

Democrats still can not get over their 2000, 2002 and 2004 lost. Democrats are really losers.

mg

While I personally doubt that Bruce is "an idiot," I do not know him, so I cannot prove my assumption (a concept you would be well advised to consider). However, it is apparent that Bruce has knowledge that you clearly do not. Please consider the following:

"New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry’s election by a 12-to-1 ratio."

and

"In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted."

I just love that last part. In any case, mg, in a world where voters favored Bush 51 to 48 and reporters favored Kerry somewhere between 3 and 12 to 1, what kind of person would doubt that there is some level of bias?

RRD

PS to johnf

While I was impressed with your familiarity with ad hominem tu quoque, I am afraid you are also guilty of a red herring. The cost per Iraqi citizen liberated by the Coalition is not proof of anything and is therefore irrelevant. You apparently think it is too much, I do not and unless you can find some standardized acceptable cost for liberating people from Mideastern dictators and cultivating a democratic nation in the 21st century, it remains a completely subjective position. Perhaps, you got no response because it was not necessary. By the way, the rest of your last reply ("Just the same old hackneyed republican political catch phrases...") is part ad hominem and part ad nauseum.

John D hate an I mean hate this bot Judy raised 1.2 million of his visit. Republicans most wear blinders on what she stand for. She back his budget 100% That means again one more Republican who say they support the Troops and Veterans. The Dam 2007 Veterans budget is based on phony numbers provided by the VA an they know it. All GAO reports tell the truth.

Bruce, Kind of hard to see your point, when you sight old informaton, and paste a link to a web site that sends you to a search engine. What article are you referencing? I'll even ignore the fact that your site is a right wing news site. Talk about biased media!

RRD, Where are you getting your information? Anyone can put stuff in quotes, and make it look "official." Just because they liked Kerry better than Bush does not mean they're liberals. Even if they are, what are you afraid of? Repubs hold both branches of government. So what's the point you're making? As for your reply to John F, I think his point was how much longer must we waste lives and tax payer's money on a vaque exit strategy of "Stay the course" because we don't want to "cut and run?" Don't we, the American People, deserve better than that?

"Dear John D,

Tell the 4.6% who are unemployed that it's not a bad thing."

I'll do it.

Dear 4.6% of unemployed. While it's impossible to know each an every circumstance as to why you are unemployed whether it be a "seasonal" unemployment or a standard layoff, there is a great upside. You see, in today's economy 95.4% of the country is working. The other 4.6% is at Wrigley Field watching day baseball! It's a playground for the c--su-kers." A bunch of nickel and dimers........
Oh wait that was Lee Elia in 1983. I disgress.

OK, considering 95.4% of America is working, there is a much better chance of you finding a job because the economy is doing well adding jobs every month.

In some states the unemployment rate is as low as 3%. In this great country of ours you have the freedom to move, pursue higher education, or start your own business. Sometimes with the help of local or federal govts. ( ask Kresko )

Unless you're a lunatic, your chances of finding a job somewhere in the U.S. are better than just about anywhere else in the world. Just ask an illegal alien!

Thanks,

JD, standing in for John D.

zazupitts

I cannot tell you how many candidates for congressional office are or are not veterans (and neither can you – with some primaries still underway) but I can tell you that of the 157 members of Congress with military service, 90 are Republican. So unless there are a whole lot of Republicans deciding to give up their seats, your belief that “there is one ex-soldier running as a repub” says more about your lack of information than anything else. (Your compliment to Iggy D. makes an even more definitive statement about your positions – you support someone who is apparently accusing the Bush administration of breaking “Newton’s laws of motion” and the “laws of gravity” – I cannot wait for the hearings on these accusations).

There is a related fallacy in your position on the relative levels of military service – there seems to be a recurring theme from liberals on The Swamp (hmmm, it couldn’t be that they are reading “talking points” somewhere – of course not, its clear from their many posts on the subject that liberals consider that a bad thing) of claiming that because some White House officials did not serve in the military that they are unqualified to serve in their current positions. First of all, if you think we should limit high office to former members of the military, be careful what you wish for – the current professional military votes overwhelmingly Republican and even I would not want a political system as completely lopsided as that. More to the point, you would be leaving out about 94% of the population that was of military age during the Viet Nam era and close to 99% of those in the current generation. The expectation of military service as a precursor to public service was a brief generational aberration caused by WWII and the vast proportion of the population which was needed for that war.

Put another way, if you wish to require military service of all who hold high political rank, then let’s fire Barack Obama and disavow everything Bill Clinton did (by the way, as much as I would like to do the latter, I would be completely opposed to the former).

Rory M - Although some conservatives have broken decorum, a careful review of this thread will show that liberals have been using terms such as “semi-literate babbling moron” and other such pejoratives on about a 3 to 1 basis. Nice glass house you have there.

JK - If you do not see the link between the evidence provided by Bruce and I and a strong liberal bias in the mainstream media as a whole and an even stronger bias within the Beltway press in particular, well, there isn’t much we (or anybody else) can do to help you. mg responded to a post that originally made that point by claiming that the poster was “an idiot” so we simply provided data that showed that mg was way off base. (As to your question about where did I get my information, my post specifies that the original sources are “New York Times columnist John Tierney” and “the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy” – look it up if you doubt it, you have your own internet access). Finally, regarding John F, that may or may not have been his intended point but his post failed to make any point.

RRD

ps,
My comment regarding the group of six talks was in response to Sandys' comments that reminded us of the threat that Russia and China pose to U.S security.
Your note that Russia sold arms to Iraq while the U.S was attempting to democratize it, is a perfect example of why Russia should be considered a disigenuous party at the very best.
Why would you seek to put the security of our nation into the hands of Russia,a country that committed a subversive act that put our troops in Iraq in danger?
RRD,
The amount of money spent on a mission like Iraq is directly relevant to a discussion about Bushs competence.
Let's say your home has been burglarized repeatedly, and you hire me to construct a fence around your home to protect it.
You dont have the money right now, but you will borrow it because your family and home do need to be protected, and your wife agrees to your plan.
It should be a fairly quick and easy job,and will not cost too much either. I start building a fence, and by my own admission, make many gross mistakes while constructing it. I'm about 50% of the way finished, and I come to you and ask for
$150,000.00. Right now. Sure it sounds like way too much money, but your families security is at risk and you really want that fence, so you pay me.
I'm not quite sure when the fence will be completed, and I really cant tell you how much more it will cost. It could be $100,000.00 more to complete the task, but it may be $300,000.00
more. I just dont know.
Would you tell me to go on and complete the fence, or would you take a close and hard look at your decision to hire me in the first place?
After all, there is more than one fence maker in the world, and more than one way to build a fence.
Also, when engaging in a dialogue with Republicans, I attempt to speak their native tongues which are ad hominem, ad nauseum, and we can never forget the mother tongue of all of Republicans,logical fallacy.

Iggy - you have to take that act on the road. That was hillarious or get back on your meds and shut-off Air America.

a blinkin - I'll take the "semi-literate babbling moron" Mark H. over you any day of the week. Mark, thank you for your service.

johnf

The example you give is invalid on a multitude of levels. Building a fence is something that occurs frequently, is comparatively simple, has clear industry standards, is highly predictable, many people can do it, and you have a reasonable expectation of no one actively attempting to stop you from building the fence. None of this applies to this war or any war. Again, if you can find any comparable precedent, I am willing to listen but you know there is none.

Just as you know your posts are easily dissected and refuted. It’s really disappointing - you started out with ad hominem tu quoque and in just 3 or 4 posts descended to the equivalent of "I'm rubber and you're glue." How pathetic.

RRD

RRD,

In your post above you were merely extrapolating your opinion over some raw numbers. In my book, that doesn't mean squat.

Let's apply some of the same logic differently and see how it sticks: Gee, 52% of all machinists prefer John Kerry to George Bush. That means there must be a liberal bias to every automobile engine manufactured in the USA.

Here's an older study regarding "liberal media bias" taken during the height of feigned Republican persecution, otherwise known as the Clinton years. I'm sure you could pick out a nugget or two there and spin it any way you like.

Enjoy.

I still stand by my opinion of Bruce by the way.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

There seems to be a fake John D in here. This John D has been posting for some time, and will tell you that a 4.6 percent unemployment rate is a GOOD thing. Geez, unemplpoyment in many countries has been in the 10 percent-plus range, such as France.

The economy is strong.
The U.S. is strong.

What is mucking everything up are the loonies like Iggie D, Jen D (who I'm sure celebrated the 4.6 percent unemployment rate under Clinton as a good thing, but bad under Bush), John F, Dale Peters and the rest of the liberals who truly are the weak link in this country's greatness.

Finding a comparable precedent is impossible, since the U.S does not make it a habit of invading soverign nations.
My assertion is still the same.
$500,000,000,000.00 spent and no end in sight deserves a long and hard look. The numerous abuses
in the federal conract awarding system, with the preponderance involving Halliburton/KBR , are alarming and not without warrant.It is stupifying why anyone would ignore these abuses, in light of the fact our government is deeply in debt.

To Terry: Thank you for taking a blinkin to task for his/her outrageous treatment of a true American Hero - Mark H. Mark H.: I thank you on behalf of all Americans for your courage and bravery - we can never thank you enough. For a blinkin to grudgingly thank you and then to criticize you, take pot shots at you and call you names is unconscionable and speaks volumes about him/her.
Earth to Zazupitts: Thanking Iggy d for his/her EXCELLENT POST???? That also speaks volumes - it's pretty obvious Iggy D is seriously demented and since you failed to pick up on that blantly obvious fact.....enough said.

mg

We could do dueling surveys. Here is a website full of data that contradicts yours

http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp

but I will admit that it is an openly conservative site (just as your Noam Chomsky and Phil Donahue endorsed site is openly liberal). I could also just borrow language from your study (not spin - just quotes) to explain why it is not in line with the others.

"On select issues ... journalists are actually more conservative than the general public."

(They)"are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues"

The website goes on to explain that this dichotomy of thought: "...the relative economic privilege of the Washington press corps may partly explain this contrast with the public."

According to the survey - in 1998 - over half of those polled made over $100,000 annually and 31% made more than $150,000. In short, when it comes to their money, they suddenly develop a conservative streak.

But instead, perhaps we could just ask someone prominent in the mainstream media. Perhaps an editor from Newsweek:

“There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, July 10, 2004

Admittedly, Thomas recanted and (reduced his estimate to 5 points) later but imagine the pressure he must have felt after letting the cat out of the bag.

There is a strong liberal bias (if you prefer, we can call it Democratic bias instead) in the mainstream media and has been for forty years. Going back to Pauline Kael's quote (the real one, not the paraphrased version that is running around), they periodically slip and confirm it and the vast majority of surveys provide strong evidence to support this position.

By the way, if reporters produced a product that was subject to measurable and objective quality standards (such as the work product of a machinist) then your analogy might have some validity. They don't and it doesn't.

RRD

Your opinion of Bruce is as unsubstantiated as your political opinions.

RRD said: "We could do dueling surveys. Here is a website full of data that contradicts yours

http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp

but I will admit that it is an openly conservative site (just as your Noam Chomsky and Phil Donahue endorsed site is openly liberal). I could also just borrow language from your study (not spin - just quotes) to explain why it is not in line with the others."

Openly conservative? Or do you mean openly crazy like Brent Bozell?

Keith Olbermann: “But the winner, Brent Bozell. Red Beard. Again. From the rabid right spin machine, the Media Research Council. He has targeted this show now for his latest 'MRC Action Alert.' You know, sending us impotent emails that make everybody here laugh. Our inbox now has literally dozens of them demanding that we, quote, 'tell the truth about the WMD that were found in Iraq.' Okay, we'll do it again. There weren't any, Rick Santorum tried to pretend there were, and if you believed him, you may actually be a sheep. Thanks for writing! Brent Bozell of the Media Research Council, today's 'Worst Person in the World'!"
-- Keith Olbermann, Countdown, MSNBC, June 28, 2006

RRD said:
"By the way, if reporters produced a product that was subject to measurable and objective quality standards (such as the work product of a machinist) then your analogy might have some validity. They don't and it doesn't."

Ahem... You wouldn't know good journalism if it bit you on the ass judging from that link you posted.

RRD said:
"Your opinion of Bruce is as unsubstantiated as your political opinions."

My opinion of you is about the same as I have for Bruce. You just use better English.

HMMMM, Keith Olbermann, Keith Olbermann? Seems I know that name from somewhere. Oh, he was the brilliant radio correspondent who thrilled us with his live reports from London…. No, wait that was Edward R. Murrow. OK, he must be the one who was United Press’s Moscow correspondent and then…no, that was Walter Cronkite. Is that the former Sun-Times reporter who went to Voice of America and then…no, that’s John Chancellor. Certainly, you cannot be talking about that guy who got fired from ESPN. No reputable news organization would hire a former straight man from a SportsCenter comedy duo to present real news.

I actually could not have come up with a better way to make my case than for you to turn to Countdown as an example of “good journalism.”

RRD

RRD said:

"I actually could not have come up with a better way to make my case than for you to turn to Countdown as an example of “good journalism."

"Good journalism" to you I suppose is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, right?

By the way, that quote wasn't provided for you to hold up as an example of good or bad journalism. Far from it. Even if it was, you still wouldn't know the difference if it bit you on the ass.

Actually, that quote was lifted off Wingnut Bozell's that site you provided a link for. I thought it nicely summed up the character of the rabid republican loyalist mentality of the man behind the site. I guess Bozell posted it up there to prove what a martyr he is to the cause, and to work up a little sexual war froth amongst the unwashed and closeted militia.

So are you ready to run off now and execute the editorial staff of the New York Times yet like the rest of your wingnut buddies?

mg

You can take this or leave this as you wish but I have posted before that I watch no television news and only listen to radio news for traffic and sports. The feeble drivel run constantly on television is simply too lightweight.

Soundbites (such as the one you posted, regardless of the source you copied it from) and unqualified twits (such as Mr. Olbermann, whom you seem to think has an opinion worth listening to, regardless of the source you copied it from) are classic examples of why too many people in this country are so badly uninformed and misinformed.

You are also a classic example - both in terms of the shortcomings of your ideas and your inablity to express them. Your last two posts have consisted of nothing but you running from your own selected resources and tossing in a few personal (and pathetically weak) personal attacks. You should have a wonderful career facilitating losing campaigns for the DNC.

RRD

"You are also a classic example - both in terms of the shortcomings of your ideas and your inablity to express them. Your last two posts have consisted of nothing but you running from your own selected resources and tossing in a few personal (and pathetically weak) personal attacks. You should have a wonderful career facilitating losing campaigns for the DNC."

And your posts are nothing more than reconstituted wingnut boilerplate mixed with a heavy dose of personal conjecture into a nauseating pseudo-intellectual blend of worthless blather. Despite your attempts to claim superiority through condescension, you personify the worst of the closed minded mentality currently ripping this country apart. Is this the best you can do? Referencing extreme right-wing sources for validation? Please don’t bother to comment on my ability to express myself when yours is simply a repetition of long discredited talking points. You emulate the very thing you claim to be above, a lightweight source of feeble drivel.

You and your kind must derive great comfort knowing that your lives will always be secure and comfortable, yet you continue live in an illusion of affluence and moral superiority. You don’t see what the real problems are in this country. You have been conditioned to focus in on a central enemy defined by your leadership and enforced by your collective ignorance. It does not matter if the enemy of the day is called a Liberal, a Democrat, Gay, Black, or a Mexican immigrant. When the general order goes out from wingnut command, the Keyboard Minutemen are ready and able to take on any task.

Only history will clearly illustrate the profoundly bad choices you “conservatives” are making for this country as you are currently deaf and blind to reason.

mg

Following is the list of sources I quoted or referred to in this thread:

New York Times columnist John Tierney

The University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy

http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, July 10, 2004

One is a conservative website, which I identified as such and which is as legitimate as the liberal website you cited (without admitting its credentials). Which of the other four is an “extreme right-wing source?" Newsweek, the NY Times, UConn? Or the website you provided?

The enemies of the day are ignorance and irrational thought and I will attack it whenever you exhibit it. I will do so to keep my life secure and comfortable and the best way to do that is to make sure people who think like you do not run our governments.

RRD