Bush press conference

Did anyone see it? (13th april, 2days ago). Im sorry, but i just cant understand why some of you you think he's fit to run the most powerful country in the world. I felt sorry for him when asked "What's the biggest mistake you made after 9/11". He literally stood there for 30 second completely speechless. I wanted him to say something simply to please his fans...after the 30 seconds he came out with: "I'm sure that something will pop into my head, I can't come up with something under the pressure of the press conference." He also gave absolutely no specifics to any questions, in fact he just ignored them and said what he wanted to get in. He has 'plans to fight terrorism', he's been saying that for 2 years!! How is he going to do it?! He just kept blabbling on about how Iraq is the centre of terrorism and that the Americans will not stand down. I dont mean to offend anyone here, and i myself am not American, but i am a keen news reader. I have nothing at all against Americans, im just concerned about how Bush is running country. Im living in London at the moment with terrorist threats every week almost, and i think im entitled to know how these threats will be stopped..

Cyb, first off.... I love ya, man. Okay, that said:

Go back and reread your post. First off, you're not an American (not that there's anything wrong with that), and you want to know what the American president is going to do to make you feel more secure against terrorist threats in the UK (which isn't your homeland).

Second, it's an assinine question. "What was the biggest mistake you made in the 9th grade?" Uhhh..... hmmm, let me think. It was a calculated, off the wall question to try and get a political candidate to admit fault and weakness. He was correct in not answering it. To say anything else would have just been fodder for the next umpteen months for the liberal media.

I don't know if you're anti-Iraq involvement in your views cyb; but I see the following contradiction alot. America is a bully, they had no right to intervene and depose Saddam. Oh, and what is America going to do to make the terrorist threat go away so I feel secure? America was wrong to step out of the Isreali / Palestinian talks; what does America think they are doing in Afghanistan? Other countries want America involved when it fits THEIR agenda; and condemn us when we have our OWN agenda. They want our millions in aid, our technology, and our jobs--but they don't want us to tell them what to do with any of it. The funny part is, our agenda is usually; 1) Freedom, 2) Human rights, 3) Prosperity (not necessarily in any particular order).

Not pickin' on you, cyb, you just jumped on a tight string.

Youre right malibu.

The following is all In my opinion. I stand by the last thing i said...just because the UK isnt my homeland doesn't mean im not in danger. Im afraid to take the underground! Im an Irish citizen, Ireland is completely neutral...but that doesnt mean i cant be killed in an underground bombing in london. America's stuck its fingers in lots of country's pies..and (in my opinion) only made things worse...if american hadn't involved themselves in other people's matters in the first place, the terrorist threats would not be made on america and england...its as simple as that. There's nothing we can do about the past anyway, so let's forget it. You're right, there's probably nothing america can do to stop terrorism now, but im sick of Bush saying that he's working on it...its about time to act, whatever that may mean.

I was just so suprised at the man's lack of knowledge of what's going on. Yeah, that question was pretty crappy but he completely avoided and bent the other (important) questions. You'd think someone intelligent would be given the title of most powerful man on the planet. Im trying to think what good he has done for the world..and i just cant see anything. Why would anyone want him to stay in office?

Voting in America is usually a choice of the 'lesser of two evils'. That said, I respect Bush's personal views. He is a man of conviction, moral fiber, and Christian values. He is the antithesis of Clinton (who had NONE of the above).

He is a man of conviction, moral fiber, and Christian values

Being a pig headed, bigoted, zealot, does not make his someone to be respected. Clinton may have been fallible but he was a greater statesman than Bush can ever hope to be.

malibu - you're still my boy, blue!

I loved your first post.

I didn't love your second post. Christian values aren't in the job description. Save that stuff.

My opinion of a President revolves around "what can he do for me and my loved ones." Clinton did much more for young Americans and their futures than Bush ever will. He didn't screw the youth out of future benefits by running up billions and billions in debt for them to pay. He didn't break ties with the United Nations. He didn't send my family members into a war for profit. He didn't ruin world-wide opinions of Americans. He didn't have hidden agendas driving his day to day operations like Bush does.

That said: We can't vote for Clinton again. Nor would I. That's over. We're in a different era. Kerry gets my vote this year, on the same premises that Bush may get yours, I suppose. I'm looking ahead, not back in time.

While I believe the afore mentioned question was unfair and unprofessional, that's the American media - our President should expect that at - OF ALL THINGS - A Press Conference!!! He simply does not have the public image or mental capacity to prepare and present a public message, let alone run the free world. That alone is reason to get the man out of public office. I wouldn't let him coach my kid's tee-ball team.

well I guess everyone is allowed to have their feelings, but personally judging someone on christitan values is pretty dumb in my opinion. Im more worried on keeping america running smoothly, especially the economy. Even though clinton did have some problems with his personal relationships, he did a pretty good job running the country. I dont want to start a debate on who's better but bush has had some problems during his four years keeping the country running as smoothly as clinton did, and I dont know if christian values should be a deciding factor. Religion and government dont mix. The nicest person in the world doesnt always mean a smart leader, but its amercia you can do what you please.

You guys are focusing a little too much on 'the man'. Our government has three branches, the Legistlative, the Judiciary, and... and... oh, yeah, the Executive. If you are unhappy with how smoothly the government is running, then you're blaming the wrong person.

One of the main areas of influence a President does have is on the budget, however his economic policies don't really affect the state of the union (economy) until the next presidents' tenure in office. If you enjoyed the relative economic prosperity (especially during Clinton's first term) then you need to be thanking Reganomics and Bush Sr.!!! You will notice the economy was much rockier by the end of Clinton's second term (as his economic policies from his first term were taking effect). We won't know if Dubya's policies are any good til into the next Presidential term.

but personally judging someone on christitan values is pretty dumb in my opinion

Ummmm, aren't you judging me and calling me dumb because of my Christian values? I thought so, and subsequently yourself, eh?

I didn't love your second post. Christian values aren't in the job description. Save that stuff.

Do I need to add you to my list of favorite atheists too? My favorite liberal atheist!!! :D ((I'll pray for you, brother)) ;)

I chose Christian values because I believe they're important. Moral fiber and conviction ARE undoubtably, indesputably prerequisites for the job. Clinton had neither. He spent more time waffling and trying to sway public opinion polls to save face than he did running the state. If he had more moral fiber, maybe he could have spent more time administrating the country and less time with his PR office spin-doctoring his sex drive.

I believe the greatest contribution Clinton gave us was 9-11. The single greatest contributor to the lack of good intel on the terrorists was because they were using U.S. military spec communications. The exact same military technology that the Clinton administration GAVE to Syria. Our intelligence community had become soooo dependant on electronic surveillence, that we have almost NO 1st hand intel gathering capability anymore. When terrorists started using this new communication technology, we lost the ability to accurately track and monitor their activities. Yeah, that's GREAT foriegn policy by Clinton if you ask me.

Ummmm, aren't you judging me and calling me dumb because of my Christian values? I thought so, and subsequently yourself, eh?

Im judging the idea as dumb, just because someone is christian and follows those "christian morals" they are good, and right. That is so untrue, and well dumb. A retarded person could follow those morals, but would that mean you would vote for them, I highly doubt it. If I was judging you id say you are dumb, as I did not. Sure you can look at is hypocrital, but i was talking about judging people's ability to do thier job. You were basing part of your approval of Bush on regilious beliefs, this should not be done. It should be based on how he can and will get the job done, not on who he prays to. That is what I am debating. Sure he can goto church every sunday and read the bible everynight, but that doesnt make him a good president, making good decisions and keeping the country on track does. I dont think you should base a good presidency on reading the bible.

I disagree with you.

If someone is a good Christian, they have the values I feel make a good leader. Are Christians the only ones who have these characteristics? No... don't be silly.

just because someone is christian and follows those "christian morals" they are good, and right. That is so untrue, and well dumb.

This tells me you have no understanding of what a good Christian is.

Let's do a case study (since you don't seem to be reading any of the other points in my posts--we'll go back to Clinton again):

1) If Bill Clinton had been a loving, faithful, devoted husband; do you believe he would have had an affair with Monica?

2) If he didn't have to spend 1 1/2 years of his presidency (or more) running around in circles lying and decieving about his affair with Monica, do you believe he would have been more focused on running the country?

3) If someone is more focused at their job, do you believe they perform said job better?

After having answered all the above questions with a 'obvious' answer, you will have to agree that someone who has the values to be a loving and faithful husband would make a better president than someone who has the integrity of a gnat. I know good Christians and they are good and faithful husbands. Hence, if I believe a candidate is a good Christian, I tend to believe they have values and characteristics which make them a good president. The above example is only one example of moral fiber, there are many, many more.

Now... do I believe Christians have a corner on the market for values, integrity, and conviction? No, absolutely not. HOWEVER, experience tells me that good character is VERY important in a leader--especially the president of the United States.