Here I am

Swampland

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

My wife's car wreck!

Ebay scam artist.

Behind Bush's Speech at U. N. Today, a White House on Edge

By ELISABETH BUMILLER





ASHINGTON, Sept. 22 — When George W. Bush addresses the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday as the unapologetic commander in chief, administration officials acknowledge, behind the proud words will be a president in a less potent political position than a year ago because of setbacks in Iraq and the loss of jobs at home.



People close to the president say that as the 2004 campaign approaches, the mood at the White House is not one of panic, but that Mr. Bush is worried and his top officials are on edge, particularly about the nearly three million jobs lost since Mr. Bush became president and about the so-far jobless recovery.



At the same time, Bush advisers acknowledge a high level of anxiety among House Republicans over what they perceive as the White House's inability to communicate its policies on Iraq effectively.



The problems have led to a new sense of urgency at the White House, Republicans say, with much riding on the president's speech to the General Assembly. In words written as much for a domestic audience as for an international one, Mr. Bush is expected to make limited concessions giving the United Nations more control in Baghdad, as the allies would like. But he will keep real authority in American hands.



"There's a feeling that you have to assert that the United States is still in control, if nothing else for domestic concerns," said a senior administration official, who, like most of those interviewed, requested anonymity.



"We're going into an election year and the president has to project an image of power and authority," the official added. "There will be a lot of language implying that we're not going anywhere. We're asking for help, but not for anyone to take over. "



Mr. Bush's speech will also serve as a central thrust of a White House communications push intended to show the president as proactive on Iraq and the economy, the areas where White House officials readily concede he is most vulnerable politically. Mr. Bush will continue to travel the nation promoting his tax cuts as a way to create jobs.



"They understand they need to be aggressive in defining the Iraq policy, and they need to show that they have a focus on job creation, and then they need to be forceful in communicating both," said David Winston, a Republican pollster close to the White House. "There's a sense of urgency that things need to be done, and done quickly. "



William Kristol, a conservative publisher with close ties to the administration, said that White House officials understood they had made mistakes, and that they had switched tactics.



"Until about two weeks ago they believed their own propaganda that all was well in Iraq and at home," Mr. Kristol said. "But reality has set in, and they're hard-headed in dealing with the problems they face. "



Several nationwide polls show support for Mr. Bush and his policies dropping in important areas. A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, conducted over the weekend and released today, found that 50 percent of the public said the war in Iraq was worthwhile, while 48 percent said it was not. In August, the poll found 63 percent of Americans backing the war.



The poll also found that Mr. Bush's overall approval rating was the lowest since he became president, falling to 50 percent. In August, the poll found that 59 percent of American's approved of his job performance, and in April the figure was 71 percent.



Officially, administration officials say that they had expected the drop in support for the president, and that they were not concerned about the turn of events. "We put out a memo three months ago predicting that this was going to happen," Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said.



But unofficially, some administration officials say they are experiencing the unpleasant sensation of not feeling in control of events. "I think there is a sense of being under assault and not being able to reclaim the upper hand in a way that seemed so effortless in the past," said one Bush adviser.



The new concern began in the summer, one official said, when L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator in Iraq, traveled to Washington to tell Mr. Bush, among others, that the situation was bleak in Baghdad and that he needed billions of additional dollars for the kind of security and reconstruction that would let the administration begin a significant troop withdrawal within a year. Although no administration official says so explicitly, the White House goal is to show substantial improvement in Iraq before next fall's re-election campaign.



For now, Mr. Bush's political aides are largely dismissive of the Democratic presidential candidates, although some Republicans say the White House is more worried than it lets on about the ability of Howard Dean to energize the Democrats. Mr. Bush, in an interview with Fox News broadcast today, said he was playing little attention to the rise of Dr. Dean.



"Occasionally it blips on my radar screen, but not nearly as much as you would think," he said.



All is well in Iraq, men are still dying, resistance is growing, the oil isn't flowing, and we are broke and broker.....





:(
 
A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll




We can sure take a lot of stock in their UNBIASED POLL!



I don't give a flying flip what the left in this country thinks. I just wonder where the heck we would be if AL GORE had been president.



If the left had their way -



You wouldn't own guns.



You wouldn't drive a diesel.



You probably wouldn't even be driving.



Your taxes would exceed your net income.



Your income would be a handout from the government that you were 'working' for.



You couldn't mention God in public.



You couldn't wear a cross necklace in a library.



Champane Flight would be in charge of all our thoughts!
 
The Left expends great amounts of energy telling us how much we should hate George W. , how stupid he is, how wrong his foreign policy is and why more take home pay in the form of less taxes is a bad, bad idea. Yet I hear very, very little about why I should vote for a Dem.



Indeed WHY SHOULD I VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT?



Ain't a man among the Dem Presidential candidates. Not a one of 'em and yes, that includes General Clark.



Tim
 
I am waiting for a Democratic candidate to come out and tell me HOW they will fix -



1) the high unemployment



2) terrorism against the US



3) high taxes



4) huge trade deficit



5) energy self sufficiency



6) a sluggish economy



7) Etc.



So far, all they have done in their debates is to conduct a BASH Bush pep rally. WHERE'S THE BEEF?



... and if Hillary runs, I am voting for her. I am ready for the revolution to begin to put a stop to some of this nonsense! For example - the ACLU challenging every moral principle in America!
 
Last edited:
Jumbo, I'm waiting for the President to tell me how HE'S gonna fix the same things on your list. His answer seems to be: Attack Iraq. The answer of the right seems to be: Blame Clinton. Now where's that beef you mention?

The GOP has both houses of Congress and the White House. That'll make it easier to fix blame come the '04 elections.
 
Maybe if Bush was getting blow jobs in the Oval Office he would be more appealing to you.



Maybe if Bush didn't have any balls to deal with real issues he would be more appealing to you.



Maybe if Bush didn't know what the definition of 'IS' is he would be more appealing to you.



Maybe if he leaned more towards a Communistic philosophy he would be more appealing to you.



Maybe if Laura Bush kicked his a$$ every morning to give him some initiative he would be more appealing to you - a direct quote from Hillary - she said she had to kick BC a$$ every morning to get him headed in the right direction.



Maybe if Bush didn't have any morals, religious conviction, backbone, stamina, genuine feelings and concern for others, he would be more appealing to you.



Maybe if he took credit for other people's success he would be more appealing to you.



He might not be the best president, by guess what, he is the PRESIDENT and commands a whole lot more respect than Bill Clinton ever did or ever will!



... and lastly, maybe if he wasn't from TEXAS, he'd be more appealing to you.



Go suck a tit!
 
Jumbo, go take your blood pressure meds - your veins are sticking out of your forehead now. If you can't stay calm, perhaps forums like this aren't your thing.

Maybe if Bush wasn't lying to the people, or launching preemptive strikes, or getting American soldiers killed by having no peace plan - then maybe he'd appeal more to me. I don't care about him being from Texas, what does that have to do with anything? Where did I say I supported communism? I do wish Bush had more of the spine etc things and less of HIS religious convictions.

He's losing a lot of the respect of the American people - he lost all respect of the rest of the world long ago.
 
Bush is held in pretty high regard in the circles I run in. Granted I live in rural Nebraska where there isn't enough cynicism in any one county to consider the likes of Bill Clinton "good enough. " I don't know enough to think BC was a good President. I know enough to know that we can do better. Much better.



I don't mind Bush's religious convictions at all. It's good for man to know that there are bigger things in the universe than us mortal beings. Genuine humility is a rare commodity nowadays and is truly refreshing whenever one encounters it. I don't think Bush has the ability to fake it. It's real.



Our country is based on Christian principles and I dare say that is one reason why this country has prospered as it has. I just don't understand why Christianity is under constant attack and is abhorred by so many.



The ACLU wants the steel I-beams that formed a cross in the ruins of one of the Towers taken down. Why? Is it hurting anyone? Oh well, I guess it's further evidence of how intolerant the "tolerant" are.



War is ugly and it never goes as planned. There's a reason that we haven't been attacked again. Maybe it's because a lot of bad guys are meeting Allah every day in Iraq.



Screw the rest of the world's opinion. They weren't attacked.



Tim
 
Last edited:
Adaptability

I hate to think where we would be without the things that have been done since Dubwa has been in the White House. Biggest problem we have right now is we are better at kicking ass than we are at kissing ass. bg
 
I agree that the conservatives in this country hold President Bush in high regard. He walks the walk better'n his father ever did. I believe his religious convictions are honestly held, I just wish he wasn't willing (like many evangelical Christians) to run those convictions roughshod over those who don't share them.

Depending on who you believe, the Founding Fathers may have been Christian or they may have been Deist. I leave it to everyone to make their own decision on that. But they certainly were NOT evangelical Christians, and they saw the dangers of religion in government - the Church of England. The Taliban today should be an object lesson on government leaders being true believers! I don't think it's Christianity that's under attack, it's the evangelicals who are following their church's call to go and convert everybody else. Those who believe it's okay to shoot abortion doctors. That sort of people is no different from Islamic extremists, and they deserve to be constantly attacked.

I can't speak to the ACLU and the WTC, I don't know the story.

War is hell, no doubt about that, and we did just fine in our attack on Iraq. Of course, we were doing fine in Viet Nam too - and in neither case did we have any thinking about what to do after the fight! Our troops are paying the price for this lack of foresight every day now.

We have to live in this world. There have been terrorist attacks in Europe and Russia and the Middle East for decades now, so no, we are NOT the only ones who have been attacked. And telling the rest of the world they can go screw themselves, then asking for troops to help with the war that we started (and they opposed) is really awful hypocrisy.
 
Ok - blood pressure has returned to it's normal high.



Remember Pearl Harbor - it was probably a bunch of Republicans blocking Roosevelt from making a preemptive strike against the Japanese.



War is never good, but it is useful in solving some problems.



This world will never see a world at peace.



BTW - OPEC is cutting production again. You suspect they are doing this because oil is too cheap or there is too much of it??
 
Hope you feel better now! Jumbo, I suspect you and I probably agree on more'n we know. It's those few disagreements that make for better forum fodder though.

The US Navy in 1941 could never have pulled off an attack on the Japanese - other'n the Shangri-La mission in 1942, it was a few years before we really started being able to fight back in the Pacific, and the battleships at Pearl wouldn't have been able to help a lot in a preemptive strike anyhow.

I agree about war solving problems - and that we're never going to see world-wide peace.

As to OPEC - they have to look out for OPEC. If you think about it, there's not a lot of other economic opportunities in the Middle East outside of oil, so they have to get what they can for it while they have it. That said, the US and Europe are getting oil relatively cheaply right now - I'm not sure we can complain too loudly. It will be interesting to see what will happen if and when we get the Iraqi fields operating again.
 
Originally posted by loncray

Hope you feel better now! Jumbo, I suspect you and I probably agree on more'n we know. It's those few disagreements that make for better forum fodder though.

The US Navy in 1941 could never have pulled off an attack on the Japanese - other'n the Shangri-La mission in 1942, it was a few years before we really started being able to fight back in the Pacific, and the battleships at Pearl wouldn't have been able to help a lot in a preemptive strike anyhow.

I agree about war solving problems - and that we're never going to see world-wide peace.

As to OPEC - they have to look out for OPEC. If you think about it, there's not a lot of other economic opportunities in the Middle East outside of oil, so they have to get what they can for it while they have it. That said, the US and Europe are getting oil relatively cheaply right now - I'm not sure we can complain too loudly. It will be interesting to see what will happen if and when we get the Iraqi fields operating again.



yeah interesting if your an executive of a major petro company :D
 
Uh huh

Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U. N.

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN





NITED NATIONS, Sept. 23 — A president who has led his forces to victory, ostensibly on behalf of the United Nations, would in theory deserve a hero's welcome. But that was not what President Bush encountered in an icy chamber here today, almost five months after he declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq.



Without apology, Mr. Bush declared that the Security Council had been "right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so" and "right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply. " The United States, he said, had not only unseated Saddam Hussein but also defended "the credibility of the United Nations. "



But that was not how others, from the secretary general of the United Nations to the French president, saw it. The invasion of Iraq, to them, remained a dangerous act of unilateralism now beset by intractable problems.



The audience of world leaders seemed to perceive an American president weakened by plunging approval ratings at home, facing a tough security situation in Iraq where American soldiers are dying every week, and confronted by the beginnings of a revolt against the American timetable for self-rule by several Iraqi leaders installed by the United States.



Nor did they seem eager to help. If anything, they appeared more skeptical than ever of Mr. Bush's assertions, including his promise to "reveal the full extent" of illegal weapons programs he says exist in Iraq, and unforthcoming, at least for now, in their response to his appeal for help with the Iraq occupation and reconstruction.



Despite good marks from many for his performance, Mr. Bush did not seem to have advanced his administration toward broadening support for a Security Council resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, a step intended to get more foreign troops and more foreign money for rebuilding.



"He gave a very sincere speech, but I don't think there was anything new," said a diplomat here. "The situation in Iraq is getting more difficult every day, and so is the atmosphere at the United Nations. "



But today it was more obvious than ever that the key to getting troops and money for Iraq was in the hands of nations that, like France, opposed the war or were uneasy about it.



President Jacques Chirac of France, appearing shortly after Mr. Bush at the General Assembly, was no less apologetic opposing the war than Mr. Bush had been in urging it. He called the divisions over the war one of the gravest threats to multilateral institutions like the United Nations in modern times.



There was another grim reality here today. Even if the United States gets the resolution it desires, the money and troops may not be forthcoming in a way that the Bush administration had hoped. If the goal today was to cajole other countries and persuade them to be more forthcoming with their assistance, it failed to produce any immediate results.



A month ago, administration officials said they wanted billions of dollars pledged for Iraq at a meeting of donor nations in Madrid next month. It now appears they will have to settle for a fraction of that, which will complicate efforts to get the rest from Congress.



Increasingly, as well, the nations that have been asked to send forces to Iraq are not coming through. India and Pakistan now seem to be long shots. South Korea says it cannot decide until the end of October.



Turkey is being asked to send 10,000 troops, but "several thousand might be more realistic," a Turkish official said.



Mr. Bush's performance today seemed to reflect the precarious situation.



Fidgeting in an almost eerily silent hall — where the audience observed a tradition of not applauding before or during a speech and offered only perfunctory applause at the end — the president spoke in an even tone, occasionally smiling but rarely becoming passionate.



In the corridors all day, diplomats were intensely discussing the recent decline in Mr. Bush's popularity at home and wondering if his troubles would make it easier for countries around the world to oppose the United States on Iraq.



The speech was built around the theme that the war in Iraq was a chapter in the campaign against terrorism being waged to avenge the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and similar attacks in Mombasa, Kenya; Casablanca, Morocco; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Jakarta and Bali in Indonesia; and Jerusalem.



To this list he added the attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad last month that killed the United Nations special envoy in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, praised by Mr. Bush as "this good and brave man from Brazil. "



Without going so far as to say the United States needed the United Nations in Iraq, Mr. Bush said it was the fledgling government in Baghdad that needed United Nations assistance in developing a constitution, democratic institutions, and holding elections.



But Mr. Bush's vision of the United Nations role continued to be less than the one desired by France, Germany and many others skeptical of the sweeping powers of the American-led occupation, which is called the Coalition Provision Authority. "He said he wanted the United Nations to assist," declared a diplomat here. "But assist what? Assist who? The Coalition Provisional Authority? Please. "



A rainstorm lashed the United Nations buildings this morning, while inside another illustration of the tempests over the war emerged in the address by Secretary General Kofi Annan, who deplored the administration doctrine of pre-emptive action epitomized by the Iraqi war.



As if in counterpoint, Mr. Bush defiantly repeated the doctrine, saying that "nations of the world must have the wisdom and the will to stop grave threats before they arrive. "



American officials are working to try to broker a compromise on a new resolution that would get French support, but Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, are making clear there will be no early turning over of sovereignty to the Iraqi Governing Council, as France wants.



The main grounds for compromise appear to lie in the possibility of a fixed timetable for the transition to self-rule. Americans said they were cheered by Mr. Chirac's endorsement of what he said was a "realistic timetable" — words that, to some ears, left room for something taking place over time.



"We will make enough changes in the resolution to get others on board," said an administration official. "If it turns out that France is on board, so be it. But we're not jumping over hurdles to try to get France into this. "
 
I don't think Bush is losing the respect of a lot of Americans, job performance is not respect.





I don't like Bush's stance on Imigration. California is a prime example of that. If you are not going to enforce the law get rid of it save some money, do away with the INS/Border Patrol and all the rest.



Or enforce the laws, build a fence(good fences make better neighbors).





















Memo to self: Buy more Ammo!
 
Well, since only job performace is measured, how would you determine that 'respect' is a different number? Or even an important one? Fewer folks think the President is doing a good job on Iraq or the economy than did a few months ago. If fewer folks think President Bush will help them than the winner of the Democratic primaries in 2004, there will be another one-term Bush presidency. No amount of respect will change that. A lot of folks didn't 'respect' President Clinton, but enough voters thought enough of his job performance in 1996 to reelect him - and the conservatives never did figure out how that happened.
 
loncray

He's losing a lot of the respect of the American people - he lost all respect of the rest of the world long ago.



I was simply responding to your post. If someone thinks Bush can do a better job, does that mean they have no respect for him?



I was trying to point out subtly that, none of us can say for certain whether people have lost that respect.



And as far as the election goes, it always comes down to the same thing 'The Lessor of Two Evils"
 
Originally posted by CFAR





And as far as the election goes, it always comes down to the same thing 'The Lessor of Two Evils"
Except in the next election, there's the chance to can a guy who has proven he can't handle the job. No evil or respect needed for that one.
 
Ya gotta love those polls;



The major media is unwaivering in their opposition to Bush. They bash him everyday all day. Then after a year or so they say, umm, lets seem if we have been successfull in our Bush bashing. Lets take a poll to see if we have hoodwinked very many into buying the garbage we have been feeding the yokels all year.

Heck, we have had the French, the Germans, nearly all the major news papers and TV networks, and why we have even had illflem,CF, and much of the UN helping us. We just might have been able with all the underhanded misreporting to hurt Bush a little.

SSOOO

They do a poll, well, would ya look at that: Bush's numbers are down and it only took us a couple million anti-Bush headlines, articles, op ed pieces, etc to bring it about. Now we can carp on these new numbers, and bash Bush somemore, why, if we keep it up strongly enough, we might be able to slip another libberal into the White house in '04 afterall, and here we thought that was a lost cause. Never under estimate the power of the press to lead the unthinking around by their noses.



Note; Even as ardent a Clinton supporter as Heraldo Ravera, in an interview two weeks ago on returning from a visit to Iraq, made the brilliant observation that the American people were not getting a true picture of what was going on in Iraq. He said things there are much better than is being reported. No one ever could accuse him of being a conservative, or a Bush supporter.

Part of it is Bush bashing, but he also mentioned that the house that is NOT burning does not get the news coverage that the burning house gets, even if the burning houses are far fewer than the non-burning houses.



Vaughn
 
Back
Top