Bush: Seeking new ways to harm the country

[craichead 0]

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?tl=1&display=rednews/2004/08/05/build/nation/36-bushism.inc

Bush misspeaks, says his administration seeking 'new ways to harm our country'

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.

The president was working his way toward a larger point. "We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country. We must always be forward-thinking," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush's misstatement "just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak."

"But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it," McClellan said.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press.

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[Jib 0]

Tee Hee

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[PhillyKev 0]

Note to self...don't miss Daily Show tonight.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

Isn't it the purpose of those appointed to defend to think about new ways of causing harm?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[markd_nscr986 0]

D'OH!

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Kennedy 0]

Obviously they've never been blue team or red team.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[skydivegirl 0]

Quote

Quote

They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

Isn't it the purpose of those appointed to defend to think about new ways of causing harm?

Yea... it doesn't sound like he mis-spoke. How are you going to defend our counrty if you can't think about new ways they could harm our country?

Pink Mafia Sis #26

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

"But the American people know this president speaks with clarity...

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHA! HAHAHA!

(gasp gasp)

MAHAHAHAHA!

Regardless of whom you support that's just damn funny! Did he say that with a straight face?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[TomAiello 26]

I keep reading the headline:

Quote

...seeking 'new ways to harm our country'

And the actual quote:

Quote

They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

And I just don't see how those two things are equivalent at all.

Thinking _about_ new ways that terrorists (or whoever) could harm our country is a necessary pre-requisite to defending from such harm.

He didn't say he was "seeking" new ways to harm the country. He said he was "thinking about" them.

If I want to prevent my home from being burglarized, you can bet I'm going to think about how it might be burglarized.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[craichead 0]

No, I don't think he actually mis-spoke, either. It was just poorly phrased--comparable to a dangling participle. As the article said, Bush was working his way to a larger point that we have to be forward-thinking about how best to defend the country.

The article is just a funny spin on how people might hear and interpret it.

Lighten up, people!

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[Kennedy 0]

I have to go with you there; McClellan is an asshat of the highest order.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Have I asked who is GWB's speech writer lately?

I think it was just a -very- poorly written sentance and he read it as written.

Here's the video.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0805042bush1.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[craichead 0]

Quote

I think it was just a -very- poorly written sentance and he read it as written.

Sentence?



_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[quade 4]

Do'h!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[base283 0]

It's not misspoken - it's actually the first time he's uttered the truth..... BEER!!!!!
take care,
space

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

He didn't say he was "seeking" new ways to harm the country. He said he was "thinking about" them.

I see your point. But I'd really be encouraged if he showed some inkling of thinking of new ways to HELP the country for a change.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I see your point. But I'd really be encouraged if he showed some inkling of thinking of new ways to HELP the country for a change.

Honestly, I'd prefer that the politicians just stop trying to help or harm. I'd be pretty happy if they realized that I don't want their help--I just want the government to (what was it Jefferson said?) "leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I just want the government to (what was it Jefferson said?) "leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."

Agreed, I would consider that helping. You think George is thinking that way, too?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You think George is thinking that way, too?

Not really. But I think he's significantly more likely to be sympathetic to my position, on a broader range of issues, than is John Kerry.

I also think that the political climate makes it less likely that a Republican government would be able to restrict freedom more than a democratic one. The Republicans, on many issues (Homeland Security being a notable exception, but I'm not sure the Democrats would be any better on that) want to restrict freedom in ways that are either obviously unconstitutional or widely unpopular. On the other hand, the Democrats tend to support infringements of liberty that are more slippery, more "palatable" and easier to implement. Of the two, I find the gradual encroachment more threatening to my long term happiness.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[PhillyKev 0]

Again, I agree with your general sentiment. However, with a republicans controlling all three branches of gov't, it makes it a lot easier for them to get their even more insiduous restrictions passed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

controlling all three branches of gov't

exactly... what is scarry is that one side has nearly complete control, and if they win again they will take it as a mandate from "God and the people" (in that order) that they are following the right path..... that bothers me more than whichever bobblehead is actually in office....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[dbattman 0]

Why is this even news? Geez, we need another major scandal to take up all the 'dead air.'

As far Bush or Kerry, I don't think there's going to be a big difference overall. They're all part of the rich guy network. They all have a bunch of money and they're not going to do anything to jepordize the bank accounts. It just depends- which rich guy network do you want? You have the Bush/Cheney big oil big business network or the Kerry/Edwards trial lawyers/gold diggers network.

[Kennedy 0]

We have a huge shortage of judges at the federal level (thanks so much, dems), and basically none have been appointed due to filibustering.

Somebody tell me how the Republicans have "control" of the judicairy.

Senate
Republicans: 51
Democrats: 48
Independents: 1 (Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont)
Vacant Seats: 0
Total: 100

a 3% R lead

House
Republicans: 228
Democrats: 205
Independents: 1
Vacant Seats:1
Total: 435

a 5% R lead
(enough to overcome a filibuster, but the Rs haven't really block voted in a long time)

They have a simple majority in the Legislative branch, but nothing definitve.

Yes, they control the Executive branch.

---

If socialists don't control the government, blame the electorate.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Harksaw 0]

Has anyone heard Kerry's speech slipup during his acceptance speech?

Quote

"We will double our special forces to conduct terrorist operations.

He corrected himself shortly after.

__________________________________________________
I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

We have a huge shortage of judges at the federal level (thanks so much, dems), and basically none have been appointed due to filibustering.

Until either party is able to have enough votes to closure (sp?) a filibuster, you can't really say they have control of the legislative branch. On the point of the judiciary though, the Ds learned how to block judicial nominees from the Rs during the Clinton years.

BTW, you need 60 votes to block a filibuster; so the Rs don't "control" the legislature and just because Al Gore lost in the Supreme Court doesn't mean the Rs "control" the judiciary.