Bush Has a(nother) Bad Day

[Guest American Woman]

President Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the Sydney Opera House.

He'd only reached the third sentence of Friday's speech to business leaders, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, when he committed his first gaffe.

"Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit," Bush said to Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Oops. That would be APEC, the annual meeting of leaders from 21 Pacific Rim nations, not OPEC, the cartel of 12 major oil producers.

Bush quickly corrected himself. "APEC summit," he said forcefully, joking that Howard had invited him to the OPEC summit next year (for the record, an impossibility, since neither Australia nor the U.S. are OPEC members).

The president's next goof went uncorrected — by him anyway. Talking about Howard's visit to Iraq last year to thank his country's soldiers serving there, Bush called them "Austrian troops."

That one was fixed for him. Though tapes of the speech clearly show Bush saying "Austrian," the official text released by the White House switched it to "Australian."

Then, speech done, Bush confidently headed out — the wrong way.

Just another day in the life of the POTUS.

thirteen months until he becomes a Lame Duck (let the Countdown begin!), and it can't happen fast enough for me. I don't think there's ever been a public figure who messes things up as badly, or as often, as Bush does. I think he's managed to insult bascially the whole planet by now. I know he's been an embarrassment to me for some time now. It'll be sooo nice to have a Democrat in power again.

[geoffrey]

I know, I mean Clinton or Nixon never had any mistakes in speeches!

The reason the a Democrat won't be elected is just because of your focus here, all style, no substance (not that Bush has much substance... and I am, by the way, much more likely to support the Democrats).

[AndrewL]

President Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the Sydney Opera House.

Just another day in the life of the POTUS.

thirteen months until he becomes a Lame Duck (let the Countdown begin!), and it can't happen fast enough for me. I don't think there's ever been a public figure who messes things up as badly, or as often, as Bush does. I think he's managed to insult bascially the whole planet by now. I know he's been an embarrassment to me for some time now. It'll be sooo nice to have a Democrat in power again.

It will just be a relief to have anybody else in power.... but the relief will only be temporary.

The crappy thing is that if it is a democrat the partisans will be out in full force trying to make whoever it is look stupid and awful.... it will be payback. The divisive nature of american politics will only get worse.

Andrew

Edited September 7, 2007 by AndrewL

[jdobbin]

The reason the a Democrat won't be elected is just because of your focus here, all style, no substance (not that Bush has much substance... and I am, by the way, much more likely to support the Democrats).

You think the U.S. is going to elect a Republican? Who?

[bush_cheney2004]

It will just be a relief to have anybody else in power.... but the relief will only be temporary.

That's right...whoever wins the next election will still be an American. Let the international whining begin.....

[guyser]

That's right...whoever wins the next election will still be an American. Let the international whining begin.....

Why would you say that? (aside from editting the post to mis-direct the intent?)

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would you say that? (aside from editting the post to mis-direct the intent?)

Because it's true....the next US president will be an American (of this I'm sure), and he/she will execute the duties of office. Then the international whining will resume continue, just as it has for presidents past and present.

Do you think criticism of American domestic and foreign policy only started in January 2001?

[Guest American Woman]

Do you think criticism of American domestic and foreign policy only started in January 2001?

Do you think the degree of criticism of American domestic and foreign policy has always been the same? Because that's the issue here; the degree of criticism, not to mention disdain.

[Guest American Woman]

I know, I mean Clinton or Nixon never had any mistakes in speeches!

The reason the a Democrat won't be elected is just because of your focus here, all style, no substance (not that Bush has much substance... and I am, by the way, much more likely to support the Democrats).

I'm completely lost as to your comment regarding style and substance, and Nixon was a Republican so I'm not sure what you're saying about that either, but 'making a mistake in a speech' is a whole lot different from Bush's legendary screw ups.

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you think the degree of criticism of American domestic and foreign policy has always been the same? Because that's the issue here; the degree of criticism, not to mention disdain.

All good signs...much more disconcerting is a "leader" (wink wink) with the habit of kissing the world's ass. Now that would be un-American!

Edited September 8, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

It will just be a relief to have anybody else in power.... but the relief will only be temporary.

The crappy thing is that if it is a democrat the partisans will be out in full force trying to make whoever it is look stupid and awful.... it will be payback. The divisive nature of american politics will only get worse.

Andrew

I couldn't agree with you more; it will just be a relief to have anyone else in power. I'm not so sure the relief will be temporary, though. America is ready for a change. I'm pretty sure the Republicans will be putting the blame for Iraq on the Democrats, though, as in 'see! you can't fix it!' when they created a virtually un-fixable mess over there.

[guyser]

Because it's true....the next US president will be an American (of this I'm sure), and he/she will execute the duties of office. Then the international whining will resume continue, just as it has for presidents past and present.

Do you think criticism of American domestic and foreign policy only started in January 2001?

No it did not start on Jan 2001. Where does that come from?

I take you enjoy having a persecution complex?

You are aware of the whining that the US govt does ad naseum? The proliferation of false info that gets sent out by politicos?

Hardly any country/people that are not guilty of that , so lets not go there.

You were being selective on the content of his post and in fact you changed it to fit your whine, thats all.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are aware of the whining that the US govt does ad naseum? The proliferation of false info that gets sent out by politicos?

Yes..isn't it grand?

Hardly any country/people that are not guilty of that , so lets not go there.

Bull puckey...let's go there by all means.

You were being selective on the content of his post and in fact you changed it to fit your whine, thats all.

And you snapped it up like caviar....want some more?

[Guest American Woman]

No it did not start on Jan 2001. Where does that come from?

I take you [bush_cheney2004] enjoy having a persecution complex?

You were being selective on the content of his post and in fact you changed it to fit your whine, thats all.

I think some Americans, like those who think legitimate criticism and concern amounts to "whining," need to believe that the "whining" is due to some sort of jealousy of America, or some such thing. Ignoring/dismissing the fact that some leaders elicit a helluva lot more criticism (or in their words, "whining") than others seems to be a characteristic of such 'thinking.' People like that do seem to have some sort of 'need' to keep the persecution complex going, even where it doesn't exist. I think it fills a need to remain the center of attention.

You are aware of the whining that the US govt does ad naseum? The proliferation of false info that gets sent out by politicos?

Hardly any country/people that are not guilty of that , so lets not go there.

And yes, hardly any country/person is not guilty of that, but again, it's a matter of degree-- which, as I said, is apparently a non-issue with some.

Edited September 8, 2007 by American Woman

[margrace]

All good signs...much more disconcerting is a "leader" (wink wink) with the habit of kissing the world's ass. Now that would be un-American!

Exactly it would be nice to have a leader who treats the world with some respect, but is that possible? I would hope so.

[Guest American Woman]

(bush_cheney2004 @ Sep 7 2007, 09:39 PM) *

All good signs...much more disconcerting is a "leader" (wink wink) with the habit of kissing the world's ass. Now that would be un-American!

Exactly it would be nice to have a leader who treats the world with some respect, but is that possible? I would hope so.

Just because bush_cheney thinks treating the world with respect is "kissing the world's ass" and "un-American" doesn't make it so. We've had plenty of presidents who treat the world with respect and have garnered world respect in return. I would hope you, and others, recognize that. Bush really is in a catagory all his own. He has done more to cause ill will towards America than any other president I can think of; sadly, at a time when we really need world support.

Edited September 8, 2007 by American Woman

[xul]

I guess Mr. Bush's mind has just been overwhelmed by oil ,of course and Iraq, perhaps and Russia or Iran.

I use VOA news programs to improve my English abilities. VOA makes their program in CDs selling in Chinese bookstores as the English textbooks and listening materials. By this way, VOA serves their purpose, introducing American value and politics to those countries that American public media can not reach, very well.

But only one thing is wrong. If I buy CD, I will buy not only those released in 2007, but alos those released in 2005. Everyday then I listened what good plans of American Mideast policy Mr. Bush talked about in 2005 from my MP3 player in the morning, I would watch the bad results happened now from TV in the evening, so I deeply found how naive he was. I just quote one for instances:

(After Abbas was elected)President Bush ask congress for three hundred fifty million dolars for the Palestanians.... in his words:"The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace is within reach--and America will help them achieve that goal."

Now, both those democratic demonstrations are shelling each other from border side by side....and if both North and South American states could not negotiate a peace in American Civil War, why did he think Israeli and Palestinian could make peace only by one vote?

Edited September 8, 2007 by xul

[margrace]

Exactly it would be nice to have a leader who treats the world with some respect, but is that possible? I would hope so.

Just because bush_cheney thinks treating the world with respect is "kissing the world's ass" and "un-American" doesn't make it so. We've had plenty of presidents who treat the world with respect and have garnered world respect in return. I would hope you, and others, recognize that. Bush really is in a catagory all his own. He has done more to cause ill will towards America than any other president I can think of; sadly, at a time when we really need world support.

Yes American Woman I didn't mean to demean your other presidents. I think the Roosevelts and Kennedys were well respected by the world as were others.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes American Woman I didn't mean to demean your other presidents. I think the Roosevelts and Kennedys were well respected by the world as were others.

I didn't really think you meant all of our presidents, but one gets to feeling a bit defensive these days since Americans have so much to be defensive about. -- Those who didn't vote for Bush, or support the Iraq war, etc., that is, since too often Americans are all painted with the same brush. So thank you for taking the time to clarify. It's appreciated.

[Higgly]

I was relieved to see that Steve wore a suit to the meeting, even if it was a beige suit. But I had to laugh when he emerged from the plane at the airport, though. That belly was out a good full second before the rest of him. Jezz, Steve. Ever heard of Weight Watchers?

[Higgly]

Yes American Woman I didn't mean to demean your other presidents. I think the Roosevelts and Kennedys were well respected by the world as were others.

Are you familar with Mr. Kenedy's record on Cuba and Vietnam? Sure he a was a cute guy who got to do Marilyn Monroe, but he was no sweetheart and gets better press than he deserves.

[sharkman]

I didn't really think you meant all of our presidents, but one gets to feeling a bit defensive these days since Americans have so much to be defensive about. -- Those who didn't vote for Bush, or support the Iraq war, etc., that is, since too often Americans are all painted with the same brush. So thank you for taking the time to clarify. It's appreciated.

When you start a thread to bash your own president, how can you be surprised when some posters respond with bashing Americans in general?

[sharkman]

I was relieved to see that Steve wore a suit to the meeting, even if it was a beige suit. But I had to laugh when he emerged from the plane at the airport, though. That belly was out a good full second before the rest of him. Jezz, Steve. Ever heard of Weight Watchers?

I see you haven't resolved your weight issue, please don't let it get to a point where you cross the line again and the mods have to (gasp) delete the namecalling and then the rest of us have to put up with another tantrum thread.

But what's with this obsession with fat? You're not compensating, are you?

[Guest American Woman]

When you start a thread to bash your own president, how can you be surprised when some posters respond with bashing Americans in general?

Because there's a huge difference between Americans, the individuals, and Bush. And I was giving posters on this forum enough credit to know that; and as margrace has shown, my credit was well deserved -- for some, anyway.

Now I have a question for you. If someone were to start a thread bashing communism, would that not surprisingly lead to bashing Cubans and/or the Chinese in general, while a thread bashing Saddam would not surprisingly lead to bashing Iraqis in general?

[sharkman]

Because there's a huge difference between Americans, the individuals, and Bush. And I was giving posters on this forum enough credit to know that; and as margrace has shown, my credit was well deserved -- for some, anyway.

Now I have a question for you. If someone were to start a thread bashing communism, would that not surprisingly lead to bashing Cubans and/or the Chinese in general, while a thread bashing Saddam would not surprisingly lead to bashing Iraqis in general?

Are you sure you understand me? Your response is puzzling since you support my underlying point about bashing Bush leading to bashing americans, and then ask me about communism as if you are proving a point I haven't just made.