Free Republic

Is this so? This makes me happy. I have not read the book. Rather, I have been inudated by the accounts from the liberal press. I hope you are right. But still, I think President Bush should avoid the liberal press. Too much to be lost and too little to be gained, IMHO.

I thought I posted this to all, but maybe I just sent it privately to musical airman: http://www.onlineconcepts.com/pulitzer/yellow.htm

My bad about the title. I wanted to put an accurate title on the piece, but I now realize that I should have left the actual title.

As to your other comment, I simply posted the garbage that was written. I realize the content is all lies or taken out of context.

Why would President Bush talk to this yellow journalist? Trust no one!

I cannot beleive what the Bush camp is putting up with. He never should have talked to this traitor, yellow jounalist. President Bush should demand the release of the purported tapes of the conversations with him and his people. I am always amazed at the patience that President Bush exhibits when pestered by the lies. I do not beleive that he or his camp said any of the things being claimed by Woodward.

Bring on McCain. This man has depth and intelligence (and integrity). Why he chose Washington (and how he survives in that forum) amazes me.

How soon before we will have suicide bombers in our own midst?

This is incredible. Tell them to keep their religion inside their homes and mosques. Why do we need to be subjected to this offensive practice? Is there anyone who does not agree that the immigration policies have gone over the edge? We are destroying the fabric of America, be it in Southern States where English has become the second language, Kalifornia and the liberal Eastern States where gay marriage is being brewed up, and now this influx of Islam. If we must bring in more, can't we at least bring in more Christians?

As it should be. To the victors go the spoils. They messed with Israel, and Israel kept taking more land to which it is entitled. Israel is within its rights to take the entire country. Without meaning to offend some on this forum, this is Biblically ordained. President Bush should be applauded for his courage and conviction in taking a stand.

When do I become a non-newbie? Not that I have a problem with the term. Just wondering. Although after my latests postings I may not be veiwed as "conservative" and "righteous", I have been a loyal Republican since I was old enough to think.

<<"If you were on the witness stand, I'd have a fun time grilling your credibility.">>
I'm shaking Mr. (Ms.?) xJones. But, I will try to address your questions. One example of a question that was dodged by President Bush: The committee wants to talk with you and Vice president Chaney seperately. Why don't you agree to this? (and this is a paraphrasing, which the questioner followed up on after a non-responsive answer). Why is he not answering the question? And, I welcome any attack or disapproval in this regard, but shouldn't we be ready to address things like this?

<<"We see it two different ways, trial lawyer. Bush was facing a hostile Democratic press corps, loaded with landmine questions and he knew it because that's how it's been for umpteen decades.">>

Have I accepted the wrong gaunlet, or what? Okay, I realize that being a trial lawyer is bad, but they kicked me out of the church, and ENRON was not hiring. I made reference to being a trial lawyer because that is my life -- I deal with witnesses all of the time, day in and day out. Whether it is fair is not the issue. The way that witnesses answer (or don't answer) the questions are viewed with high scrutiny.

Nor do I accept your position that he is facing a democratic press corp. While I do not know their political affiliations (and I am sure that a fair number are register democrats), I think that matters for squat. They would pose questions to make their own mothers squirm -- it is their nature. They grilled Klinton, Bush I, Reagan and Carter. They did it to democratic nominee want-a-bee's, they did it to past presidents of both parties, and they will do it to whomever is the topic of the day. They would eat their own young.

My folks believe that all secular news is biased and evil, including Fox and NBC (CNN is over the edge, for them). This may be true. Regardless, our politicians must be prepared to answer their questions -- maybe show them to be biased or based upon false postions -- but they must be answered. If the questions are "land mines", show them to be such, and still answer them.

".. and my opinion is the President did very good at tonight's briefing .. he wasn't trying to explain away anything. He stated the facts over and over and over."

But he did not directly answer the questions. These "facts" thus will be construed by the opposite side as being evasive tactics of a President who wishes to avoid answering the questions.

While I am a devout supporter (and will obviously not only vote for Bush, but will also bend the arms of the family and reasonable friends to do so), I also like to look at things objectively. Being a cheerleader does no good except at pep rallys and games.

Of course, even if I am right, and Bush did have problems tonight, it does not matter, as this is a forum of supporters who have the right cause. Like I wrote before, I (a newbie), just was venting. But, that aside, let's beat Kerry (and give me a pom pom).

He specifically did not apoligize, although that was one of the questions to him. Instead, he answered his questions in a fashion of one who was trying to avoid the question -- one who was trying to make excuses, without making excuses. This, I view, as one who is trying to explain away blame. This was the reason for my statement (to which I think you refer): "He has been doing the right thing, and he has nothing for which he should apologize apologize. Thus, he should answer the questions being asked. Instead, he dodged them and gave sound bites from past statements."

Now, I ask that you not be a "democrat" and twist my words. I am unhappy with what happened tonight. I want President Bush to win in November. I voiced my opinions as to what has happened, and how I feel about these events. If you have comment to that, I welcome such. I can take it. But please don't put spin on what I have said.

I hope you are right, Eddie. This is an important time in history, and we desperately need a Republican based government to deal with the variety of issues. I want President Bush in Office for four more years (and I would really like his brother in for the next eight years, too). Right after this news conference I was called and cajoled by some democratic friends (yes, I do have mis-guided friends), who know my thoughts about America nad politics. They were gloating.

Let me start out by saying that I am the Republicans' Number One supporter. My greatest fear is have Kerry make it in office. That being said, I was deeply disappointed in President Bush's presentation tonight. He was not prepared, and he did not answer questions in a forthright manner.

He has been doing the right thing, and he has nothing for which he should apologize. Thus, he should answer the questions being asked. Instead, he dodged them and gave sound bites from past statements.

The problem is now the democrats will attack him on what was said (and what was not said -- skirted). I base this impression on being a trial attorney of 19+ years, but I do not think anyone needs courtroom experience to see the problems with his delivery. Jurors tend not to believe witnesses that don't directly answer the questions -- even if the witness is telling the truth.

His message is pure and right. Everything he has done has been for the right cause. He has the support of the heart of America. These are his strong suits. Instead of him sticking to these strong points, he acted like a unprepared first year college student in Speech 101. He said that he wished that he had a question provided to him in advance so he could have prepared an answer. He repeatedly failed to directly answer the direct (albeit loaded, at times) questioned posed.

The damamge of his performance is not with the loss of Republican votes -- for we supporters will obviously vote the right way. And the liberal zannies will obviously vote the wrong way. But for those fence-sitting go-with-the-wind-types, this press conference will be trouble.

I understand that our group is supportive of the Administration, as we should be. I am just unhappy, and I choose this a place to vent.

Mea Culpa Admin Moderator. I have been listening references to this topic on the radio of late. I went to Google, passed up http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-03/29/content_1390321.htm -- don't know why -- saw BBC, and I assumed it was current. I have learned, but I will assuredly need reminders in the future.

We don't need this, now.

If it were not for politics, we should take this to the next level. The Middle East is a mere inch or two from where the Soviet Union was before Reagan toppled it. In 2005, we should "encourage" reform throughout the region. This is true, even if the "encouragement" involved some American Forces.

With the Middle East's resources and size, they could become more profitable and powerful than the European Union (if they were all truely democratic). Until we resolve their general discontent we will have no rest. Just humble little me offering advice (muttering to myself).

I don't know about Mel Gibson, but I think Howard Stern is of no consequence. While I am sure he bashed W, I think only a small portion of his listers actually vote.

With Gibson, it surprises me that he would bash W. WHat was his complaint with W? They both stand for family values, are deeply religious and they both like to kick bu** on the bad guys.