President Bush News Conference 10 a.m. EST 12/20/06 Live Thread

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 | Kristinn

[maica]

Agreed - she also has a horrible voice - it is the proverbial finger nails on the chalk board.


^^^^

I have been reviewing videotapes of 1994 and I was surprised to hear Hillary's voice basically normal back then. I wonder if her 'facial work' has affected her vocal cords, or has it just been her personality as she ages?

[Eagle of Liberty]

I can say that Mary Chaney was selfish in forcing a child to be brought into the world without a loving biological family unit.

I have to agree with this. She can be a loving mother, but getting pregnant by either someone or by a test tube simply for the sake of avoiding having a father in the child's life is pure selfishness. Children need a mother figure and they need a father figure. Heterosexual couples that adopt are loving parents that are providing mother-father influences. Bisexual couples that have children in the way Mary is having one are depriving that child of the father influence. I see all the time what happens to young women and young men that have not had this influence and it is not good.

[Earthdweller]

The ladies kept saying we need a female President..well that might be, but I would prefer a real American to a commie elitist wannabe any day.

Did you catch the race baiting comments? Real Americans are not this divisive.

[maica]

It's not about intelligence, it's about delivery.

&&&&&

What I find interesting is how many writers/pundits have trouble with complete sentences when they do an interview on the radio. They really have no room to criticize the spontaneous delivery of anyone else's thoughts, including President Bush..

[MadIvan]

He's not up for re-election. He should use this time to basically give a two-fingered salute to the press.

Regards, Ivan

[Eagle of Liberty]

Your couterpoints are ridiculous. You cannot just say that since we backed him in the Iran-Iraq war that he was our guy. We allied ourselves with Stalin and then fought the Soviets everywhere in the world after WWII.

Here is the turning point, pure and simple. He invaded Kuwait with the goal of taking over that country and using the profits from Kuwaiti oil to pay off war debts. Then he was going after Saudi Arabia. We defeated him. He surrendered and agreed to surrender terms. He did not comply. We removed him from power. Now, we are rebuilding the country and we WILL be successful.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Agreed.

[lucysmom]

We thought the transition to democracy would be facilitated by the secularism. But now we are finding out that that "secular" image was largely false, and that the country - like all the other Muslim countries - is a hotbed of religious fanaticism, clericalism, sectarianism, and tribalism.

The "flypaper" theory would seem to contradict that.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

what part of 'they are trying to kill us all' don't you understand?

[maica]

I think he is going to work until Jan 20, 2009 to do the best his administration can do to set our country on the best course he can - while working with a media who have the upper hand in today's celebrity-obsessed, critical thinking-deprived world.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Tying another thread into this one, for years women married men they didn't love and had sex they didn't want simply so they could have a child.

Why should today's lesbians have it any different?

[lucysmom]

I hope we are successful.

[Alberta's Child]

So, you would then have had us look the other way in WWII when Hitler was gassing the Jews because he didn't like them?

That's basically what the U.S. did for quite a while, wasn't it? And we certainly didn't enhance our moral credibility by allying with Stalin -- who had killed 30 million people in Eastern Europe in the 1930s -- to defeat Hitler.

How can you call that government moderate when it tortured and killed thousands of its own people?

I didn't call the government "moderate" in general -- I called it "moderate" in comparison to other governments in the region. Every Islamic government in that region has engaged in the torture and death of its own people (do some research on Jordan's King Hussein -- that long-time champion of peace in the Middle East -- for a good lesson in this). So Saddam's crimes are really nothing special in that region.

When they were on their way (by all accounts at the time) to having nuclear weapons and refused, FOR YEARS, to allow the UN in to verify their compliance? When they stole aid for the welfare of their own people and used it to produce weapons? Maybe we should have just waited 'til they send a nuke into Israel?

None of these things are legitimate reasons for the U.S. to topple a government. In fact, for one of them -- telling the United Nations to "f#&% off!" -- he ought to get a medal.

[StarCMC]

Boy -- you ARE a mess. They were right.

[StarCMC]

Very succinct. Bravo.

[jackv]

I'm with you Chuck!!

[r9etb]

What part of "we are not like them" do you not understand?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

"this where I am taking this country - and this is why"

That would be TOO MACHO for many in this country and especially the Euroweenies....reminds them of Cowboys and John Wayne!!!

Who is my alltime favorite!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Part of that 65% are NOT against the war. They are against HOW the war is being fought. Many would like to see it fought to win without a lot of this PC crap.

So don't you need to see a much higher body count....?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

None of these things are legitimate reasons for the U.S. to topple a government.

Well how about the fact that he had intentions and was taking actions to topple the government of these united States....course you perhaps have not been following the translation of the Saddam documents....