Full Version: Stupid or Deliberatly Misleading?
I can't belive it, but it is from the AP.
AP News
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
QUOTE
WASHINGTON - President Bush might have been able to say it was simply a slip of the tongue when he confused two terrorists in a campaign speech Monday in New Hampshire. Trouble is, he's made the same misstatement at least 10 times before.
"Do you remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked the crowd. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organization."
Bush's mistake, overlooked for weeks, is buried in his stump speech - in the section where he makes a case that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorist groups. Indeed, Abu Nidal is believed to have had connections to the former Iraqi leader. But he didn't kill Klinghoffer.
"He had terrorist ties," Bush told an audience Sept. 16 in Blaine, Minn. "Remember Abu Nidal? He was the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. He was in Baghdad, and so was his organization."
"Do you remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked the crowd. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organization."
Bush's mistake, overlooked for weeks, is buried in his stump speech - in the section where he makes a case that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorist groups. Indeed, Abu Nidal is believed to have had connections to the former Iraqi leader. But he didn't kill Klinghoffer.
"He had terrorist ties," Bush told an audience Sept. 16 in Blaine, Minn. "Remember Abu Nidal? He was the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. He was in Baghdad, and so was his organization."
AP News
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
I have to say stupid. I forget the name myself, but the guy who was wanted for the Achille Largo hijacking was found in Iraq. Bush has already stated that he doesn't read the newspapers, there is good evidence that he doesn't read the P.D.B.s , why would he have his facts straight about the name of a particular terrorist.
Of course, by the Dan Rather standard, if the story is right then the supporting evidence is irrelevant.
The President is of course speaking about Abu Abbas, the ringleader of the Achille Lauro hijacking link and not Abu Nidal who is another terrorist thug.
Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were both harbored in Iraq during the Saddam years. link.
Abu Nidal died mysteriously and violently in Baghdad in 2002.
Abu Abbas was captured by US forces on the outskirts of Baghdad after the fall of Saddam.
The President has confused the names of these two terrorists (Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas). I don't see any attempt to blur the lines. Change Abu Nidal to Abu Abbas and what Bush said is correct.
Of course, someone should tell him that he has the names confused.
EDIT: added links.
The President is of course speaking about Abu Abbas, the ringleader of the Achille Lauro hijacking link and not Abu Nidal who is another terrorist thug.
Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were both harbored in Iraq during the Saddam years. link.
Abu Nidal died mysteriously and violently in Baghdad in 2002.
Abu Abbas was captured by US forces on the outskirts of Baghdad after the fall of Saddam.
The President has confused the names of these two terrorists (Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas). I don't see any attempt to blur the lines. Change Abu Nidal to Abu Abbas and what Bush said is correct.
Of course, someone should tell him that he has the names confused.
EDIT: added links.
Bush seemed to clarify today in his press conference, where he mentioned both Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas as having operated in Iraq. I think that it's worth George Bush's time to remind Americans that terrorists did indeed operate in and with support of Iraq. Especially since (on odd-numbered days and in blue states on Tuesdays) Kerry often remarks that there was no connection to the war on terror.
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Your questions make my point perfectly. I'd also like to know - Let's make up our minds - is Bush an evil genius or is he stupid. We seem to consistently be saying "both." Also, if he's unaware of the facts in Iraq, perhaps he could ask the General Abizeid or the Iraqi Prime Minister, since they are both in DC today...
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Your questions make my point perfectly. I'd also like to know - Let's make up our minds - is Bush an evil genius or is he stupid. We seem to consistently be saying "both." Also, if he's unaware of the facts in Iraq, perhaps he could ask the General Abizeid or the Iraqi Prime Minister, since they are both in DC today...
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
Deliberation implies that he cares; I don't think that's the case. It's just another example of Bush reciting canned speeches; maybe he just has unimaginative speech writers, or the speech writers know they can't overly tax the man's inability to speak or read. Bush has about a dozen pat statements that he uses in darned near every single speech. The only thing about Iraq that Bush is aware of is that it's part of the "Axis of Evil", we're "staying the course" and it has been a "catastrophic success" (strangely enough, one of his more honest statements).
As for the American Public...obviously at least half the population is willing to eagerly lap up what Bush regurgitates, regardless of its veracity, and the other half knows better but is drowned out by the bleating of the fat, happy sheep.
I'd never use the word "genius" and "Bush" in the same sentence (ack! I just did
) but stupid and evil are not mutually exclusive. Stupid people in power can be evil and are more dangerous because of it.
Edited to fix quote
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
Deliberation implies that he cares; I don't think that's the case. It's just another example of Bush reciting canned speeches; maybe he just has unimaginative speech writers, or the speech writers know they can't overly tax the man's inability to speak or read. Bush has about a dozen pat statements that he uses in darned near every single speech. The only thing about Iraq that Bush is aware of is that it's part of the "Axis of Evil", we're "staying the course" and it has been a "catastrophic success" (strangely enough, one of his more honest statements).
As for the American Public...obviously at least half the population is willing to eagerly lap up what Bush regurgitates, regardless of its veracity, and the other half knows better but is drowned out by the bleating of the fat, happy sheep.
QUOTE(carlitoswWhey)
I'd also like to know - Let's make up our minds - is Bush an evil genius or is he stupid.
I'd never use the word "genius" and "Bush" in the same sentence (ack! I just did
) but stupid and evil are not mutually exclusive. Stupid people in power can be evil and are more dangerous because of it.Edited to fix quote
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Sep 23 2004, 03:28 PM)
As for the American Public...obviously at least half the population is willing to eagerly lap up what Bush regurgitates, regardless of its veracity, and the other half knows better but is drowned out by the bleating of the fat, happy sheep.
Could we try and tone down the inflammatory language and be civil?
Now would also be a good time for all of us to reread this Announcement.
TOPICS:
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
Now would also be a good time for all of us to reread this Announcement.
TOPICS:
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Although I believe that the Bush administration has consistently been guilty of blurring the Iraq War with the War on Terror, I don't think that this is a prime example of that. I agree with Amlord here, that the name of the terrorist is unimportant to anyone who isn't an expert on the two terrorists he mixed up. Both were terrorists, both were found in Iraq, and neither is at large any longer. In fact, I'm surprised that Mr. Bush didn't include both men in his speech, in order to further bolster his case.
Mr. Bush's mistake in this case is not to mix up the terrorists' names, but to include either of them so prominently in his rationale for invasion in the first place. Although we are wise to hold nations accountable for harboring terrorists, we need more justification to invade a country than the mere presence in that country of two terrorists whose combined exploits have resulted in a total of one American death.
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
I'm pretty sure Mr. Bush knows a lot more than he's telling us (such as how well the insurgency is doing, and when he plans to risk more American lives in a powerful counteroffensive), and we opponents of the Iraq War accomplish little by quibbling over misnamed individuals.
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
Of course I feel the President should get his facts straight, but this is not a good example of his failure to do so. After all, John Kerry made a similar mistake last spring when on several occasions he referred to UN Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi as 'Mr. Brandini.' The 'Brandini' gaffe makes no difference to me, so neither does Mr. Bush's mix-up. Bush has made so many colossal blunders over the course of his term; this one doesn't merit a footnote on that list.
Although I believe that the Bush administration has consistently been guilty of blurring the Iraq War with the War on Terror, I don't think that this is a prime example of that. I agree with Amlord here, that the name of the terrorist is unimportant to anyone who isn't an expert on the two terrorists he mixed up. Both were terrorists, both were found in Iraq, and neither is at large any longer. In fact, I'm surprised that Mr. Bush didn't include both men in his speech, in order to further bolster his case.
Mr. Bush's mistake in this case is not to mix up the terrorists' names, but to include either of them so prominently in his rationale for invasion in the first place. Although we are wise to hold nations accountable for harboring terrorists, we need more justification to invade a country than the mere presence in that country of two terrorists whose combined exploits have resulted in a total of one American death.
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
I'm pretty sure Mr. Bush knows a lot more than he's telling us (such as how well the insurgency is doing, and when he plans to risk more American lives in a powerful counteroffensive), and we opponents of the Iraq War accomplish little by quibbling over misnamed individuals.
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
Of course I feel the President should get his facts straight, but this is not a good example of his failure to do so. After all, John Kerry made a similar mistake last spring when on several occasions he referred to UN Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi as 'Mr. Brandini.' The 'Brandini' gaffe makes no difference to me, so neither does Mr. Bush's mix-up. Bush has made so many colossal blunders over the course of his term; this one doesn't merit a footnote on that list.
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
I doubt it. Both Nidal and Abbas were murderers, most Americans would not know the difference unless you told them.
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
I'm sure he reads prepared statements at these rallies. So his writers are to blame. The press is to blame for nit picking something no average person would pick up
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public
No politician would ever be able to speak in front of anyone if they were held to that standard. This honestly sounds like nit picking he meant Abu Abbas not Abu Nidal, both were in iraq under the protection of the regime.
I doubt it. Both Nidal and Abbas were murderers, most Americans would not know the difference unless you told them.
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
I'm sure he reads prepared statements at these rallies. So his writers are to blame. The press is to blame for nit picking something no average person would pick up
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public
No politician would ever be able to speak in front of anyone if they were held to that standard. This honestly sounds like nit picking he meant Abu Abbas not Abu Nidal, both were in iraq under the protection of the regime.
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
The entire (resurrected from Reagan's administration) War on Terror has been in a real way defined by blurring facts, and by blurring the line between Iraq and International terrorism. All done quite obviously deliberately, since there is such a plethora of widely accepted facts to support this. I have to agree with Amlord on this, however. To me this smacks of a poorly written speech line, more than some deviousness. It does reflect badly on how well Bush's speeches are vetted, and means we should pay very close attention to everything he says, with an eye for similarly poorly researched tidbits.
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
As to whether or not the President has access to the wide array of facts - obviously he does. I think that politicians in general, and this president in particular, use selective sight and all will tend to use only the facts that make thier case.
Ideally, it would be nice to have a president whose grasp of the facts was such that he would notice such a mistake in a speech.
The entire (resurrected from Reagan's administration) War on Terror has been in a real way defined by blurring facts, and by blurring the line between Iraq and International terrorism. All done quite obviously deliberately, since there is such a plethora of widely accepted facts to support this. I have to agree with Amlord on this, however. To me this smacks of a poorly written speech line, more than some deviousness. It does reflect badly on how well Bush's speeches are vetted, and means we should pay very close attention to everything he says, with an eye for similarly poorly researched tidbits.
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
As to whether or not the President has access to the wide array of facts - obviously he does. I think that politicians in general, and this president in particular, use selective sight and all will tend to use only the facts that make thier case.
Ideally, it would be nice to have a president whose grasp of the facts was such that he would notice such a mistake in a speech.
QUOTE(Jefferson Smith @ Sep 23 2004, 01:41 PM)
Of course I feel the President should get his facts straight, but this is not a good example of his failure to do so. After all, John Kerry made a similar mistake last spring when on several occasions he referred to UN Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi as 'Mr. Brandini.' The 'Brandini' gaffe makes no difference to me, so neither does Mr. Bush's mix-up. Bush has made so many colossal blunders over the course of his term; this one doesn't merit a footnote on that list.
Honest mistake? Inability to notice mistakes in prepared speeches? Ok, I'll go along with that, but the main problem that I have with these comments is that the President does NOT have his facts straight while in the process of selling himself, his administration, and his war on Iraq to the gullible people of America.
The grandmother sitting on her front porch in Chilocothe MO is taking everything that the President says as absolute fact.
She is being fooled.
In my opinion, the President of the US should be held accountable for everything that he says. Bush has misspoke, changed his priorities, and lied, yes lied, enough times now with not one single apology or acknowledgment of his mistakes. He sets a horrible example as an American by refusing to acknowledge any mistake that he has made, and I have never seen a President make more mistakes than him.
Yes, I will continue to nit-pick Bush on every slight mistake. I expect more from my President, and everyone else should as well. Don't we expect the BEST? Is this the BEST? I am proud to feel otherwise.
QUOTE(Government Mule @ Sep 23 2004, 05:47 PM)
Yes, I will continue to nit-pick Bush on every slight mistake. I expect more from my President, and everyone else should as well. Don't we expect the BEST? Is this the BEST? I am proud to feel otherwise.
I am honestly not trying to be confrontational here, but based on what you just said, doesn't that open the challenger for President to the same sort of criticism? Do you really want me or the press to dwell on the fact that some candidate mis-spoke? That Kerry called Lambeau Field "Lambert Field", or that he said he's a Buckeye (Ohio State) football fan while standing in Michigan (honestly that one was good - ever see those Southwest commercials - "want to get away")
Seems dangerous to me to start picking at every word as if there is some sinister meaning behind it. Especially from a guy that can't say "nuclear" right or wants obgyn's to practice 'their love' on women without fear of lawsuits.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Sep 23 2004, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE(Government Mule @ Sep 23 2004, 05:47 PM)
Yes, I will continue to nit-pick Bush on every slight mistake. I expect more from my President, and everyone else should as well. Don't we expect the BEST? Is this the BEST? I am proud to feel otherwise.
I am honestly not trying to be confrontational here, but based on what you just said, doesn't that open the challenger for President to the same sort of criticism? Do you really want me or the press to dwell on the fact that some candidate mis-spoke? That Kerry called Lambeau Field "Lambert Field", or that he said he's a Buckeye (Ohio State) football fan while standing in Michigan (honestly that one was good - ever see those Southwest commercials - "want to get away")
Seems dangerous to me to start picking at every word as if there is some sinister meaning behind it. Especially from a guy that can't say "nuclear" right or wants obgyn's to practice 'their love' on women without fear of lawsuits.
Great, you see it differently........
QUOTE
Do you really want me or the press to dwell on the fact that some candidate mis-spoke?
In the middle of a sales pitch? ABSOLUTELY!!!!!
If he would have misspoke at a dinner party, or during an interview, than I think it would be different. He did this in a SALES PRESENTATION where everyone in attendance was taking his word as if it was gold. And he did it at least 10 times. Yes, I have a problem with that. When he speaks to the people that are deciding who will be our next President, he had better not misspeak, mislead or lie.
Edited to listen to my own suggestion
QUOTE
I'm sure he reads prepared statements at these rallies. So his writers are to blame. The press is to blame for nit picking something no average person would pick up
I completely understand your position, politicians make *stupid* statements all the time and get called on it. Evidently it's o.k. for George, but not o.k. for John. I honestly doubt it's a case of "nit-picking" The commander in chief should have a more able command of the facts than the average person and be able to make such mistakes between a Palestinian terrorist and an Iraqi one-big difference. If he doesn't have above average competence in understanding the people and the ideologies they represent in this war on terror, how is he to conduct it effectively??
QUOTE(Government Mule @ Sep 23 2004, 02:51 PM)
I can't belive it, but it is from the AP.
AP News
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
QUOTE
WASHINGTON - President Bush might have been able to say it was simply a slip of the tongue when he confused two terrorists in a campaign speech Monday in New Hampshire. Trouble is, he's made the same misstatement at least 10 times before.
"Do you remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked the crowd. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organization."
Bush's mistake, overlooked for weeks, is buried in his stump speech - in the section where he makes a case that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorist groups. Indeed, Abu Nidal is believed to have had connections to the former Iraqi leader. But he didn't kill Klinghoffer.
"He had terrorist ties," Bush told an audience Sept. 16 in Blaine, Minn. "Remember Abu Nidal? He was the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. He was in Baghdad, and so was his organization."
"Do you remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked the crowd. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organization."
Bush's mistake, overlooked for weeks, is buried in his stump speech - in the section where he makes a case that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorist groups. Indeed, Abu Nidal is believed to have had connections to the former Iraqi leader. But he didn't kill Klinghoffer.
"He had terrorist ties," Bush told an audience Sept. 16 in Blaine, Minn. "Remember Abu Nidal? He was the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. He was in Baghdad, and so was his organization."
AP News
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
Is this a deliberate, repeated attempt to blur the facts regarding the War on Terror and the War on Iraq?
Yes. He knows most Americans don't pay attention to world affairs beyond soundbytes. It's a clever, deceptive strategy to slip lies like these in.
Is the President of the United States simply unaware of the facts involving the situation in Iraq?
He might be, but his administration is not. I can't separate Bush from Bush administration. His brain is Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, and Rove.
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
I feel he should be impeached for lying to the public and to Congress.
Do you feel that the President of the United States should get his facts straight before preaching to the American Public?
Yes!
In this case, I think Bush got two similar names mixed up. His handlers should have told him to correct the matter, but they didn't. Perhaps Abu Nidal creates more emotion than Abul Abbas. I think it was an honest mistake on his part, but one his handlers may have let slide intentionally. Bush has trouble with the English language. He's dyslexic. Even friendly sources like Steven Mansfield's The Faith of George W. Bush, confirm this.
Chris Matthews kept referring to Kerry as Gore the night before the debate. This wasn't stupidity or dyslexia on Matthews part, just the capacity to be an unchecked motor mouth.
I don't like Bush, but I don't like the word "stupid" either. Maybe we could use that word a bit more sparingly.
Edited to correct a multitude of problems caused by trying to write and watch Capital Gang at the same time. lol
Yes!
In this case, I think Bush got two similar names mixed up. His handlers should have told him to correct the matter, but they didn't. Perhaps Abu Nidal creates more emotion than Abul Abbas. I think it was an honest mistake on his part, but one his handlers may have let slide intentionally. Bush has trouble with the English language. He's dyslexic. Even friendly sources like Steven Mansfield's The Faith of George W. Bush, confirm this.
Chris Matthews kept referring to Kerry as Gore the night before the debate. This wasn't stupidity or dyslexia on Matthews part, just the capacity to be an unchecked motor mouth.
I don't like Bush, but I don't like the word "stupid" either. Maybe we could use that word a bit more sparingly.
Edited to correct a multitude of problems caused by trying to write and watch Capital Gang at the same time. lol
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.