English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

But he may have been too blotto to read the teleprompter.

2007-01-31 12:57:37 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

24 answers

Your kidding , right

2007-01-31 13:54:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Sometimes we say what is the truth when we are talking about something else. I don't know if Bush meant to say "I am the deceiver". The only person for sure that would know is Bush.

2007-01-31 13:05:47 · answer #2 · answered by Terry Z 4 · 0 0

I'm so tired of Bush. Nothing he says has any meaning anymore.
He says the same thing over and over again. Sometimes I wonder if he even pays attention to himself.
If he said he was the 'decider' - well, if that is what he believes, so be it. He's still a Lame Duck, even as he will give himself more and more executive powers as his days wind down...

2007-01-31 13:24:15 · answer #3 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 2 0

Well I'm sorry I missed that! I do believe at one time or another he said " Mom I'm on the receiver" was that last week when he had his hand on the button in a panic attack because his supply of paxil had run out and his Medicaid wasn't going to pay for it without yet another visit to the DFC to sign fifty million papers that all have the same information the first ones had on it, No that was average Joe the blue collar guy that couldn't afford to make it so he shot himself and a bunch of customers up at Burger King cause he really wanted to have it his way and he had heard a rumor that you could still get that there. No none of this is deceitful.

2007-01-31 13:19:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

The United States today spends approximately as much as the rest of the world combined on its military establishment. So it is worth pondering why it is that, after nearly four years of effort, the loss of thousands of American lives, and an outlay of perhaps half-a-trillion dollars, the US has not succeeded in pacifying a small country of some 24 million people, much less in leading it to anything that looks remotely like a successful democracy.

One answer is that the nature of global politics in the first decade of the 21st century has changed in important ways. Today's world, at least in that band of instability that runs from north Africa and through the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and central Asia, is characterised by numerous weak and sometimes failed states, and by transnational actors who are able to move fluidly across international borders, abetted by the same technological capabilities that produced globalisation. States such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Palestine and a host of others are not able to exercise sovereign control over their territory, ceding power and influence to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, political parties-***-militias such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, or various ethnic and sectarian factions elsewhere.

American military doctrine has emphasised the use of overwhelming force, applied suddenly and decisively, to defeat the enemy. But in a world where insurgents and militias deploy invisibly among civilian populations, overwhelming force is almost always counterproductive: it alienates precisely those people who have to make a break with the hardcore fighters and deny them the ability to operate freely. The kind of counterinsurgency campaign needed to defeat transnational militias and terrorists puts political goals ahead of military ones, and emphasises hearts and minds over shock and awe.

2007-01-31 13:11:53 · answer #5 · answered by FOX NEWS WATCHER 1 · 3 1

Has George Bush ever said anything that he means? He is not only the deceiver but the Great Deceiver. To many gin and tonics may have been a contributing factor, maybe it might have been those few lines he did before the lines he read also.

2007-01-31 13:05:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

I didn't listen--Did he honest to God say that!!!???
If so, that was a Freudian slip. Maybe the tele-
prompter person wrote that in on purpose. That's
the first honest remark I have ever heard him say.

2007-01-31 14:48:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Every time I listen to Bush all I hear is "I am the Alpha and the Omega... I will rape and kill your children... Drink the blood of foreigners... Anoint myself in holy crisco..."

So, "I am the deceiver" actually sounds about right coming out of him.

2007-01-31 13:27:28 · answer #8 · answered by ck4829 7 · 1 1

To state he is the deciever would consitutue an act of honesty - therefore he is incapable of making such a statement.

2007-01-31 13:46:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think it was what we call a "Freudian Slip".

He mean to say "The Decider", but he slipped and said "The Deceiver".

:-)

2007-01-31 13:58:07 · answer #10 · answered by Deana 4 · 0 0

No. You must have misheard his plans the first time. Libs are always expecting him to be lying. He talks to us on the level and is not trying to deceive Americans. Its pretty clear cut to the party members.

2007-01-31 13:35:40 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers