blogic blogic

The Ugly Bush: He Smirks As He Wrongly Smears Kerry

▼

The Ugly Bush: He Smirks As He Wrongly Smears Kerry

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=9&u=/latimests/bushnotconcernedaboutbinladenin02
from JoeUser Forums
A moment where we learned something troubling about Bush:
Sen. John F. Kerry caught President Bush off guard during their final debate Wednesday night, asserting that the president once said he was "not that concerned" about hunting down Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

In one of the testiest moments of the evening, Bush protested, "I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those exaggerations."

But during a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, Bush said something close to what Kerry quoted. "I truly am not that concerned about him," the president said, according to the official White House transcript.
Last week, I talked about how the problem with Bush's claim that he wasn't an owner of a timber company isn't that he made a mistake, it's that Bush made a theatrical production of buffooning Kerry as Bush made that mistake. He pandered to the audience and the camera, climaxing in the bizarre moment where he said to the moderator: "need wood?"

If you watched last night, you know Bush made a show of the word "exaggeration," drawing out each syllable, while he grinned at the camera.

Too bad Kerry was right.

The problem here isn't that Bush makes mistakes, it's that he belittles his opponent with showy antics, even when he has no idea if his opponent has actually made a mistake. He's done this same behavior in two debates. Once might have been an unpleasant aberration, but we now know this is an ugly part of Bush's fundamental character.
politics
19,221 views 55 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #25 By: blogic - 10/15/2004 12:38:02 PM
you are the only one that I have erally called a name. So what does that say about you?

Talk about blaming the victim.

drmiller, I have often enjoyed your comments -- even though I do disagree with some of them -- but I'm not sure this is the only time you've done this, and I see neither are you. Maybe you could check and let us know?


I would but not really sure how? With almost 500 posts it would take forever to go one by one.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is a lying fool. Eat your words Drmiller, because every time anything comes up about Kerry you profoundly support it and everytime anything is said about Bush you act like a jerk and start calling people names, flapping your arms about and using mixed up thinking to try to prove to yourself that you are right.


That is the pot calling the kettle black Sandy.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
worried and concerned are syns.


Sandy, sometimes I wonder if you can read. The key word is THAT - as well as the remainder of his comments that conveniently got lopped off in the replay of the sound bite.

Not that any of this would influence you.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
" worried and concerned are syns."


*boggle*

The key word was THAT, sandy2. Bush said that he was not THAT concerned, meaning he is SOMEWHAT concerned, but not OVERLY concerned. So when Kerry said that Bush had said he WASN'T concerned, he lied. You and blogic and the rest, being what you are, like to perpetuate lies...

This election has really brought out the worst in people. Said people should consider the fact that the election will be over soon, but the taint on them will remain...
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi everyone, I hope you don't mind if I interrupt the effort to prove Sandy2, do you?

FactCheck says that Kerry was right on this.

Here's what Kerry said:
Kerry: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
This is how Bush responded:
Bush: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.
Here's FactCheck's confirmation that Kerry was right:
Bush stumbled when he denied making some remarks about Osama bin Laden that Kerry had accurately paraphrased. Bush accused Kerry of "one of those exaggerations."

In fact, Bush said almost exactly what Kerry quoted him as saying. It was in a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, after US forces had overturned the Taliban regime in Afghanistan:

Q (March 13, 2002): Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? . . .

Bush: So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . . .

Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

Bush: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
Now, I see how you can argue that Bush didn't say he was "not worried" about Osama bin Laden, but Kerry didn't accuse him of that, and of course, Sandy2 is right that those are synonyms. Kerry said that Bush stated he was "not that concerned" about bin Laden. Bush had said that, but made a production of it as he told America that Kerry's claim was an example of a Kerry exaggeration. That's either a Bush lie or a Bush mistake.

Sandy2 was right.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again... the key word is THAT. He said he was not THAT concerned.

Osama bin Laden is NOT strapping on a bomb vest. He isn't flying airplanes into buildings. If you are so pig ignorant that you can't understand what the President was saying there, then honestly I don't see how you navigate to JU and get this stuff posted. He was saying that there is much more to worry about than a smelly, impotent Arab squatting in a cave in the mountains. These cells aren't directly tied to him, and never have been. He winds them up and lets them go. To shift all your concern to bin Laden and ignore the people activly seeking to commit terrorist acts would be stupid. Poor reflection on Kerry.

I'm tired of arguing with morons. If you think, for half a second, that your transparent, idiotic, lying garbage is influencing anyone that wasn't already anti-Bush, then you are even worse than you appear.

When, oh WHEN, will we get a filter so that we don't have to see some people's posts?
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

More blogic propaganda. Bush wasn't wrong, Kerry was wrong. Bush DIDN'T say he wasn't worried, he said he wasn't "that concerned", which, to anyone with a slight grasp of "Ingritch", means he is concerned, but not to an extreme degree.
Nuance reply?


Frankly, I'm not concerned either and I wince everytime Kerry brings up Tora Bora. For all we know Osama could have died from kidney failure, and if he is alive he's a lame duck. Kerry should be more concerned, in spite of Afg. elections, with the warlords hostility to national improvemnet. 

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again... the key word is THAT. He said he was not THAT concerned.

Osama bin Laden is NOT strapping on a bomb vest. He isn't flying airplanes into buildings. If you are so pig ignorant that you can't understand what the President was saying there, then honestly I don't see how you navigate to JU and get this stuff posted. He was saying that there is much more to worry about than a smelly, impotent Arab squatting in a cave in the mountains. These cells aren't directly tied to him, and never have been. He winds them up and lets them go. To shift all your concern to bin Laden and ignore the people activly seeking to commit terrorist acts would be stupid. Poor reflection on Kerry.

I'm tired of arguing with morons. If you think, for half a second, that your transparent, idiotic, lying garbage is influencing anyone that wasn't already anti-Bush, then you are even worse than you appear.

When, oh WHEN, will we get a filter so that we don't have to see some people's posts?


Drmiller, incase you didnt see the word moron in there, I have bolded it.

Bakerstreet, who is the moron here? Kerry said that bush wasn't THAT concerned,
Kerry: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet, I enjoy your comments, but I'm more impressed when they're not so belligerent.

Here are the quotes:

Kerry claims that Bush said "I'm not that concerned". At the press conference, Bush said "I truly am not that concerned about him".

At the debate, Bush claimed that this was "one of those exaggerations."

Both Kerry and Bush used "that", so why are you focusing on it? Kerry's description was accurate, and Bush either lied or made a mistake when he said Kerry exaggerated.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the difference between what they are saying and what Bush really said goes beyond nuance.

You can say:

"I have never done anything illegal"

and you can say

"I have never done anything that illegal".

Sure, it is a stupid arguement, and I agree with you, steve, I think everyone has been Osama crazy. When we do catch him, he is going to be dead. We can't afford the "human rights" furor, and I can't believe we'd ever make an OJ trial out of it, civilian or military.

The point remains, though, Bush didn't say he wasn't concerned, it was a statement of relavance. Osama squatting in a hole is much, much less relavant than a 19 wanna-bes with box cutters.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet, Kerry never said Bush said he was "not concerned". He said Bush said he was "not that concerned". Bush did say that, so Kerry was right, and Bush either lied or made a mistake when he said Kerry exaggerated about that.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up "that". I understand the distinction you're making, but Kerry included "that" in in his description of what Bush said.

That means Sandy2 was right.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
blogic: Your accusastions are belligerent, your articles are belligerent. The droning, pounding tone of your discourse is like an assault. Every stinkin day I can count on coming to JU and seeing more stuff like this from you. So, as long as you are going to post more and more antagonistic, low-brow items, expect antagonistic, low-brow responses.

You posted above that Kerry said:

"asserting that the president once said he was "not concerned" about hunting down Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden."


If Kerry said something different, then you should change your original article to reflect what he really said. Either way, Bush didn't lie. Kerry was exagerating Bush's opinion.

"Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror."


If Kerry thinks spending billions and tens of thousands of personnel scouring podunk Afghanistan for one man, bin Laden, when the real threat are the cells already here and around the world, then I think Kerry has displayed his own "lack of focus" concerning the war on terror...

Here's Bush's full statement from 2002. Take it how you like, though when you pan stuff like this it just shows how hard you and the other Dem drones are straining to find fault:

""We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is," Bush said during the 2002 news conference. "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.

"I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country," Bush continued. "I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became - we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaeda killers anymore.""


Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've never personally attacked you. As I said, I enjoy your posts.

Yahoo News paraphrased Kerry -- leaving out the "that" -- so I'm sorry for the confusion on that. I never noticed it was missing. The FactCheck article correctly quotes Kerry as saying "not that concerned."

That means Kerry's quote of Bush was accurate and Bush lied or made a mistake when he said Kerry exaggerated.

Thanks for pointing out the missing "that" in Yahoo's quote; I'll fix it now.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, Kerry WAS exaggerating Bush's position, as I said. He took the very sensible position of focusing on enabled terrorists and depicted it as a lack of interest in terrorism. That's a solid misrepresentation on Kerry's part, and if he really feels that way, then he showed a total lack of capability for fighting terrorism.

The fact is, had we killed bin Laden a month or more BEFORE 9/11, it still would have happened. When Bush said he wasn't that concerned, he meant that bin laden running for his life in rural afghanistan isn't on the top of the list of terrorist threats. If you read the entire quote from 2002, it makes perfect sense.

Not that sense matters. Articles like this go for instant outrage, the bubble-headed who read the title and a few lines, say "hell yeah" and never question the material itself.

"I've never personally attacked you. As I said, I enjoy your posts."


Your articles ARE attacks. You are fighting a war of attrition, apparently, and you are going to hammer home every tidbit of silliness you can twist into something that might appear reasonable. You aren't talking about issues, you are making lies where there are none, talking about "smirks".

No, to a Bush supporter this constant stream of stuff is very antagonistic. At this point it is like some guy yammering at the top of his lungs in a restaurant. If you are going to scattergun half-truths and misrepresented facts you should expect people to react the way we do.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay conservatives, concede that Kerry quoted Bush correctly.  Libs, concede that it was taken out of context because the rest of what he said was that he was concerned when OBL was still calling the shots for the Taliban.  If you want to pick nits, Bush said "I don't think I ever said.....".  He didn't explicitly say "I never said that!"  If anyone thinks this is "smearing" Kerry, you haven't been paying attention to politics for the last couple of decades.  Come on people, you can rise above this stuff.  Take the high road even if your candidate won't.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #33 By: sandy2 - 10/15/2004 3:12:33 PM
Again... the key word is THAT. He said he was not THAT concerned.

Osama bin Laden is NOT strapping on a bomb vest. He isn't flying airplanes into buildings. If you are so pig ignorant that you can't understand what the President was saying there, then honestly I don't see how you navigate to JU and get this stuff posted. He was saying that there is much more to worry about than a smelly, impotent Arab squatting in a cave in the mountains. These cells aren't directly tied to him, and never have been. He winds them up and lets them go. To shift all your concern to bin Laden and ignore the people activly seeking to commit terrorist acts would be stupid. Poor reflection on Kerry.

I'm tired of arguing with morons. If you think, for half a second, that your transparent, idiotic, lying garbage is influencing anyone that wasn't already anti-Bush, then you are even worse than you appear.

When, oh WHEN, will we get a filter so that we don't have to see some people's posts?


Drmiller, incase you didnt see the word moron in there, I have bolded it.


Now, you want to offer an apology? Most especially since it was "bakerstreet" that said that not me.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
I stand by the "morons" statement. If it quacks like a duck...

You guys spent months banging away about "issues" when Swift Boat Vets were challenging Kerry's stream of military self-love. Now, you want to take a long debate and talk about a smirk and the word 'concerned' that Bush said two years ago. Credibility, anyone?

You guys are smarter than this. Like I said, you are just mass posting "hell yeah" articles now for people to get their quick outrage fix. These posts have as much to do with the election as a fashion critique...
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
JillUser, I appreciate your effort to mediate. I invite you to look at the FactCheck quote I posted above. I read it twice before writing this response, and have checked it periodically as I've been writing.

I've consistently focused on Bush's "exaggeration" line, and the way he drew it out -- and he did dramatize it -- as the smear. Bush didn't say "it might be one of those exaggerations," -- he said it was one. Bush left himself a way out on the "I just don't think I ever said" line, but he didn't leave himself a similar exist on the "exaggeration" line. He either lied or made a mistake on that.

I don't think Kerry implied that Bush wasn't concerned about Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks and before the fall of the Taliban. I've never seen Kerry claim this, and I don't know any liberals who claim it. So, I'm not sure how the quote was taken out of context, since to take something out of context is to try to imply something different that one would think had one heard the whole quote. I don't think Kerry was trying to convince anyone that Bush wasn't concerned about bin Laden in the months immediately following 9/11.

Kerry was telling the audience that Bush said he was "not that concerned" about bin Laden six months later. Kerry was implying that he believes the president should have been more concerned than "not that" concerned. You can disagree with Kerry about that, but that doesn't have to do with the question of whether Kerry exaggerated (he didn't), whether Bush's claim it was "one of those exaggerations" was accurate (it wasn't) or whether Kerry implied Bush didn't worry about bin Laden in the months immediately after 9/11 (Kerry didn't imply that, and I've never seen any evidence that he or any other mainstream Democrat has claimed it).

Once again, thanks for bringing some rationality back to this discussion.
Reply #44 from PolMach Forums Top
Awesome reply Helix.

Insightful coming your way from myself.

- Grim X
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Once again, thanks for bringing some rationality back to this discussion."


That's the problem, these petty harrowing articles aren't rational in the first place. You would be hard to lower the level of discourse the original article sets.

Kerry needs to be bafooned, and frankly so do you at this point. This is knee-jerk, preaching to the choir. Pretty irrelvant stuff, just like the timber company accusation. Had I been Bush, I would have thought it strange too. God only knows what Mr. Heinz's wife is hiding in her financial statements. Probably a lot more interesting stuff than timber.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #44 By: Helix the II - 10/15/2004 5:40:44 PM
First of all, when it comes down to it.. Kerry gets nailed for something, then to keep things fair, I guess, Bush has to be nailed for something.. Even if it is a stretch, indeed it happens.


Well put Helix an insightful from me too.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sen. Kerry is a great man with an uncanny ability to chose men, his running mate, for thier honor and character.......unfortunatly thats not at all true. Kerry was, and is, a pathetic anit-war, anti-militay, belief -changing-to-suit-whichever-his-target-audience-happens-to-be-at-that-time, fool. And what a great choice in a potential VP. EDWARDS? Basicly new to the game and regardles of his, im a great guy smile, he is ugly inside. The greatest example is his recent, non-applicable, attack on Cheny's daughter.
What a fine bunch those two would make in office. A two faced president and a back stabbing VP.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh man. My reply goes against my objective blog concerning those two......mabye IM two faced.....nahh, id venture multi personalities instead.
Reply #49 from PolMach Forums Top
Geez... 50 posts of mostly drivel. All in response to whether or not a debate question/answer was in context or not? On who smiles or smirks? How about exerting more energy on becoming informed? Any reasonable person that has followed politics for some time KNOWS the spin machine on both sides of the aisle is chugging along as always. Even FactCheck spins at times. The Republicans are spinning Kerry's votes against tax-cuts (though they're still too many for me) and the Democrats are spinning job loss figures, ad infinitum. Try researching actuals so you can make an informed decision instead of regurgitating some partisan talking points.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
The real problem with George W. is his policies and what they have and will do to this country. My book, Four More For George W? documents the Bush policies. Look at what readers are saying about this book by going to www.amazon.com.