Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
nakedemperor said:http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=572481§ion=news
Bush: "I don't think you give timetables to dictators."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."
Bush told the Times he would continue diplomatic pressure. It said he gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.
"I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does," the newspaper quoted Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach.
dilloduck said:Quote it corrrectly!!!----it's "timelines" ! I would assume this to mean that you don't tell them when you are going to do certain things. Sounds wise to me!
nakedemperor said:I would what Bush meant by "timeline" was either deadline or timetable, because giving a "timeline" to a dictator doesn't really make any sense. You can't GIVE a chronology to a person. Unless he mean he doesn't think you should speculate as to when the dictator is going to die.
Hmmm... anyone remember the LAST time time we gave a dictator a timeline and told him when we were going to do something?
But I guess you have to be more *sensitive* and you have a lot more to lose when a dictator actually HAS nuclear capabilities. But now he just looks like such a flaming hyprocrite. Bring 'em on! Let's try democracy... Shock and awe! We shouldn't give him a timeline...
Kind of like an overzealous Yale frat boy amped about beating Harvard and then going mute when the Michigan front five walk by. :whip3:
nakedemperor said:...Yale frat boy...
insein said:Now we begin the process a new with Iran and NK. We've been talking to them. We will go through the diplomatic process with a dictator despite the fact that we all know where we will end up with a dicatator, invasion. Dictators live by their own set of rules. UN sanctions might as well be toilet paper with writing on it to them.
dilloduck said:damn your getting desperate here-----are you saying Bush is a hypocrite for not attacking NK NOW ?
nakedemperor said:No, I'm saying he's being a hyprocite for being a LAMB in the face of a dictator who ACTUALLY has nuclear capabilities. "Bring it on!!" when attacking the Iraqi regime that did NOT have WMD (makes you wonder why they felt secure being so gung-ho)...and "Wait! Diplomacy!" when dealing with another BRUTAL dictator with WMD.
nakedemperor said:No, I'm saying he's being a hyprocite for being a LAMB in the face of a dictator who ACTUALLY has nuclear capabilities. "Bring it on!!" when attacking the Iraqi regime that did NOT have WMD (makes you wonder why they felt secure being so gung-ho)...and "Wait! Diplomacy!" when dealing with another BRUTAL dictator with WMD.
Merlin1047 said:This is getting tiresome. Your obviously partisan attacks on Pres. Bush are completely lacking in credibility. It is readily apparent that your criticism is not motivated by any rational assessment of facts but simply by petty partisan propoganda.
If this were Slick Willie, you'd be waving the flag and cheering about what a wonderful person he was to admit a mistake and that he had the courage to take a new approach to a problem.
The disgusting part of liberal bitching is that it is motivated exclusively by your desire to denigrate the President. Nowhere in your shrivelled little souls do you find room to consider what is best for your country. Or perhaps you simply don't give a damn.
tim_duncan2000 said:nakedemperor
So I guess you'd be for an ultimatum and possible invasion of Iran and/or NK? And if not, then what are you trying to say?
nakedemperor said:No, I'm not saying we should invade North Korea, I'm merely commenting on the double-standard of Bush tolerance/intolerance of dictators. It begs questions about the motivations involved in going to Iraq. Why have we not invaded North Korea? It is a dictatorship with nuclear capabilities and a leader with a proven track record of aggressiveness. Doesn't this sound like Iraq was made to sound like 2 years ago?
So why does he believe we shouldn't give this dictatorship a timeline, just like he did with Iraq?
nakedemperor said:And no, this does NOT stem from Farenheit 9/11. Michael Moore doesn't warm my loins anymore than the President does.
nakedemperor said:Moreover, Merlin, Bush never admitted he'd made a mistake, he said he'd MISCALCULATED. Iraq WAS a mistake, but the president would never admit it. The lack of WMD and a substantive link to al Qaeda leave liberating Iraqis as the only real benefit of the war, which begs the question, WHY NOT OTHER DICTATORSHIPS? It's shortsighted to think that liberals denigrate the president merely because we hate him for no good reason and we hate America. We try to point out why we were mislead and misguided. Pointing out the similarities between Iraq and North Korea is just another way of trying to explain why Bush *should* admit a mistake, and not stubbornly cling to idealogue theology as he has done so brashly and uncomprimisingly.
1) Many Democrats said Saddam had WMD and I don't see you saying that they should apologize.The lack of WMD and a substantive link to al Qaeda leave liberating Iraqis as the only real benefit of the war, which begs the question, WHY NOT OTHER DICTATORSHIPS? It's shortsighted to think that liberals denigrate the president merely because we hate him for no good reason and we hate America. We try to point out why we were mislead and misguided.
