You'll be sorry....it's nothing but <a href="http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22the+president%22%3A+%22hard+work%22&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=whitehouse.gov&as_rights=&safe=images">hard work.</>

Glad you're here abaya - it's always nice to have different faces.

Well, to be fair he didn't JUST say "I also saw a threat in Iraq." There was some other stuff about weapons and resistance to international inspections that characterized the threat he thought he saw. And that's actually how I remember the run-up to the Iraq war. Lots of talk about 9/11, Afghanistan, and terrorism. Next to that, lots of talk about Iraq and the somewhat valid issue of non-compliance with security council resolutions. I heard lots of people arguing that the administration claimed Iraq was linked to 9/11, but I never actually heard that claim from the administration outside of speculative contexts. [I'm now preparing myself for an onslaught of transcripts from host. Host, if that's going to happen, let me know and let's have it in a thread devoted to that topic.]

And that brings me to the reason that I don't think Helen Thomas' question was actually all that insightful. All those things she mentions turning out to not be true doesn't mean they weren't the reason we invaded Iraq. It just means that they weren't true. I think President Bush really believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, and I think he may have held this belief in contradiction to the hard evidence (or that the evidence was already skewed before it reached him because people were telling him what they thought he wanted to hear). I think he really believed that Saddam Hussein was looking for ways to foment terrorism in the Middle East and abroad. I think Bush was really wrong on the first count and possibly wrong on the second. However, I'm still not conviced that those reasons were PRETEXTS for the real reasons.

Hell, people believe stuff everyday in the face of contradictory evidence. Happens all the time.

There are grains of truth in all good satire, but rarely does it tell a whole story, and its often more akin to taking a quote out of context. Such is what is always at those white house roasts. Anyone looking for serious political debate in this can't see a red wagon for what it is.

http://www.umass.edu/theater/images/...ed%20wagon.jpg

(For uber :D )

ubertuber wrote:
ubertuber, I replied here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=1#post2055700

Here's a tease:

hee hee. :D Well, unfortunately I don't have much time for posting more right now, since it's Finals week for me and I've gotta grade undergrad papers, do a GIS project, and write a long paper by Friday (just turned in a long paper yesterday, too). But I will be dropping in from time to time, once summer semester begins. :)

Thanks for the welcome, Uber. Hope to see you in NYC this weekend!

Btw, are there any frequent female TFP'ers in here? Seems like a sausage party...

Bush looked as uncomfortable listening to Colbert as he did listening to the speakers at Coretta King's funeral. What with Bush's "free-speech" zones or his carefully packed townhall meetings, it's almost impossible for anyone to tell him to his face what they think of his policies unless he is a captive listener. He only hears what he wants to hear and the truth hurts when it hits his ears.

I think Colbert's show is pretty funny and I like his style, but his satire at the ceremony simply didn't fit. The audience was laughing at his bravery, not at the actual speech. By the end, no one was laughing.

Bush's skit before Colbert's was definitely the highlight of the show with the impersonator. It shows that even through extreme criticism and mockery, the President is still able to make jokes at himself and take the idiotic criticism lightheartedly (most notably the public speaking). If Colbert had followed up on the tone of Bush's skit then I would have enjoyed the speech much more.

I won't make any hugely detailed political posts, but while I disagree with the actions taken of our President, I still believe in supporting the President. Also -- Helen's question was pretty obvious, as aforementioned in this thread. The reason for invading Iraq is simple -- Bush thought Iraq was a threat. Was it a mistake? Probably, but you don't wait on terrorists to act, you take preventive measures. If anyone here can prove that Hussein wasn't a terrorist, be my guest.

They shouldn't have been laughing as the "jokes" he was telling were serious issues. Hopefully the silence was from people actually thinking about these things and snapping out of sheep-mode. I really don't think Colbert was there to make many friends. He got his shot and he took it.

Elph waves her hand

A most enthusiastic welcome, abaya. I have felt so ... marginalized and alone. :) :icare: