[vmpaul]

That was one of the worst train-wrecks I've ever seen. He evaded, rambled and completely bypassed giving solid answers. Particularly the question about admitting mistakes when he completely dodged the question - 3 times!

I found this somewhere else but it fits my sentiments exactly:

"His responses seem somewhere between not knowing what the questions mean, not knowing the answers, or forgeting what the question was after he confuses himself with his nonsensical answers."

"Nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens. I don't." - George W. Bush on the casualties in Iraq.

Huh?

[hyteckit]

OT: Sixth Sense was a great movie. I see dead people. Woah!

[vmpaul]

How's this for a non-answer:

QUESTION: You've mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to obviously take hostages and to secure the release of extremists that are being held by the U.S.

Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?


BUSH: And I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And so, I -- part of it had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked at that point in time, let's make sure we are paying attention here at home, as well. And that's what triggered the report.

The report itself, I've characterized it as mainly history. And I think when you look at it, you'll see that it was talking about a '97 and '98 and '99.

It was also an indication, as you mentioned, that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane but, as you said, not to fly into a building, but perhaps to release a person in jail. In other words, he would serve it as a blackmail.

And of course that concerns me. All those reports concern me. As a matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the president when George Tenet came in to brief me. I mean, that's where I got my information.

I changed the way that the relationship between the president and the CIA director. And I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time. And we had briefings about terrorist threats. This was a summary.

Now, in the -- what's called the PDB, there was a warning about bin Laden's desires on America. But, frankly, I didn't think there was anything new. I mean, major newspapers had talked about bin Laden's desires on hurting America.

What was interesting in there was that there was a report that the FBI was conducting field investigations. And that was good news, that they were doing their job.

The way my administration worked, Ed, was that I met with Tenet all the time. I obviously met with my principals a lot. We talked about threats that had emerged. We have a counterterrorism group meeting on a regular basis to analyze the threats that came in. Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it.

[Wiskedjak]

Question: "Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?"

Translated Answer: "No"

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Question: "Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?"

Translated Answer: "No"

Hehe... I think he said more than that.

I think he said "No, it wasn't anything new."

[ghost_flash]

I thought it went over well..

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Hehe... I think he said more than that.

I think he said "No, it wasn't anything new."

So the answer to 'trigger some specific actions on your part' was the "No, it wasn't anything new." ?

He didn't answer the question. He evaded and rambled.

I guess it's OK for planes to be hijacked and put hundreds of lives at risk, but if he knew they also were going to fly them into buildings he would of done something? Why not take SOME action regarding airline security to prevent hijackings? An alert? Maybe a task force to eliminate boxcutters on flights? Anything. Or was that too much trouble?

[voyageur]

embarrassing performance.
He reminded me of a kid who hasn't done his homework, but tries to BS his way through anyway.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by voyageur:
embarrassing performance.
He reminded me of a kid who hasn't done his homework, but tries to BS his way through anyway.

I must have seen a different conference than you did. He answered every question quite well and referenced key materials when doing so. He did his homework, and it showed. I'm sorry you think he didn't do a good job, but I think the proof will be in the polls, that are so eagerly watched by the people seeking to unseat him. I say the polls go up after that speech / conference. Anyone want to take that bet?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by voyageur:
embarrassing performance.
He reminded me of a kid who hasn't done his homework, but tries to BS his way through anyway.

Well, it's not like he gets a lot of practice. This is his 3rd, I think, press conference in 3 years.

I know at least one of those were scripted. I haven't heard if this one was or not. If it was, then it makes it even more pathetic.

[hyteckit]

Donald Trump says:

You were terrible during the interview.
You rambled on and did not answer the questions directly.
You're Fired.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Hehe... I think he said more than that.

I think he said "No, it wasn't anything new."

Yes, you are right. Actually, I don't think the Bush admin could have done anything to prevent 9/11 (unless a memo turns up from Bin Laden saying "We will fly two passenger jets into the WTC towers on the morning of September 11, 2001"). I just don't like evasive and long winded answers.

[ghost_flash]

Didn't Clinton have to know all the questions before any conference or appearance?

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Well, it's not like he gets a lot of practice. This is his 3rd, I think, press conference in 3 years.

I know at least one of those were scripted. I haven't heard if this one was or not. If it was, then it makes it even more pathetic.

From the press conference:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet

Sounds like most of it was scripted to me.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Logic:
From the press conference:
<snip>...

Sounds like most of it was scripted to me.

Yeah, I think you can take that both ways.

1) I wish this was scripted so I could've had an answer all set.

or

2) I just got a question that I wasn't ready for because it wasn't it on the list.

I'm not sure which it is. I'm sure it'll come out in the next day or so.

[vmpaul]

correction: I just heard it was his 3rd nighttime press conference. I don't know how many total he's had. I would bet under two digits.

For reference, Roosevelt had 50 one year during WWII. They mentioned Kennedy averaged one every two weeks. I wonder if that's true.

[netgear]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
So the answer to 'trigger some specific actions on your part' was the "No, it wasn't anything new." ?

He didn't answer the question. He evaded and rambled.

I guess it's OK for planes to be hijacked and put hundreds of lives at risk, but if he knew they also were going to fly them into buildings he would of done something? Why not take SOME action regarding airline security to prevent hijackings? An alert? Maybe a task force to eliminate boxcutters on flights? Anything. Or was that too much trouble?

Easy to know that considering that we know now that they used boxcutters, isn't it?

Every time I fly overseas I look around and consider what could be made into a weapon. You'd be shocked at what is ALREADY on the inside of a plane that could be used to hijack it. It's not hard.

[zigzag]

I didn't watch the whole thing but it occurred to me that it's ironic that Kerry gets criticized (and deservedly so) for rambling, incoherent statements and Bush is the same or worse. However, what redeems Bush for a lot of people is when he gets into his down-home mode and makes simple, direct, forceful statements, and he can in fact be quite effective in that mode, unless of course you hate him altogether.

I thought his most effective moments were in talking about freeing Iraq and changing the world. Not exactly Churchill, but sincere. It occurred to me that that's how he should've presented the idea of invading in the first place instead of the phony WMD rhetoric.

The problem is that, while it's very noble to talk about freeing Iraq and changing the world, you still have to execute properly, which the administration has not done. My ma always told me: Don't go pre-emptively invading Iraq unless you have solid intelligence and are fully prepared. And I listened to her.

I thought his worst moment was when he was asked why he would only meet with the 9/11 commission with Cheney along. Instead of being honest and saying "Because he's the Vice President and I want him there," he made up some BS about what a great opportunity it will be for both of them to share their innermost feelings with the commission and maybe even have a group hug. A complete dodge. I mean, he was visibly squirming. Clinton was a much more convincing liar.

[dcolton]

I have to admit...eventhough President Bush is my man....I don't think he did a great job tonight. I never really thought he was the best public speaker in the world...and tonight didn't prove me wrong. Way too many "uhhs and ahhs" and some stammering.

As for what he said...true, he did ramble, but the substance of his answers satisfied me - especiallly with some of the questions asked,

[bewebste]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
correction: I just heard it was his 3rd nighttime press conference. I don't know how many total he's had. I would bet under two digits.

For reference, Roosevelt had 50 one year during WWII. They mentioned Kennedy averaged one every two weeks. I wonder if that's true.

This was his 12th press conference in his 3+ years in office, AFAIK. Clinton apparently had nearly 40 by a similar point in his presidency, and Bush Sr. had like 70 or so. There's a simple reason Dubya doesn't do many press conferences - he just isn't any good at them. They don't make him look good, so he avoids them.

I think the most blatant evasion of the evening came when one reporter asked him why he and Cheney were testifying together for the 9/11 commission instead of separately:

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.

Here's the full transcript if anyone's interested.

[netgear]

Press conferences aren't as important as they used to be. You guys act like POTUS is never seen except for these things. Just a bad reason to pre-empt TV shows. It's not like anyone goes "Honey, don't plan anything for the 13th! There's a press conference on TV that night!"

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by netgear:
Press conferences aren't as important as they used to be. You guys act like POTUS is never seen except for these things. Just a bad reason to pre-empt TV shows. It's not like anyone goes "Honey, don't plan anything for the 13th! There's a press conference on TV that night!"

But it pre-empted 24!!!!

That's actually okay, since I still need to watch last week's episode on tape.

[deedar]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
correction: I just heard it was his 3rd nighttime press conference. I don't know how many total he's had. I would bet under two digits.

For reference, Roosevelt had 50 one year during WWII. They mentioned Kennedy averaged one every two weeks. I wonder if that's true.

12 total to date.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I have to admit...eventhough President Bush is my man....I don't think he did a great job tonight. I never really thought he was the best public speaker in the world...and tonight didn't prove me wrong. Way too many "uhhs and ahhs" and some stammering.

As for what he said...true, he did ramble, but the substance of his answers satisfied me - especiallly with some of the questions asked,

A �great speaker� the man most certainly isn�t. I find Bush painful to listen to oftentimes; his detractors certainly have him pegged dead to rights on not being very well spoken.

Then again, I�m not impressed with politicians in general. The �slick talker� types I find even more annoying in their own way- it matters little if someone bullcraps with perfect delivery, poise and style, if once boiled down it�s still just bullcrap. That�s all most politicians spew, some variation of �Let me explain how I�m going to solve this, that and the other problem -which of course I won�t, but let me talk a good game about doing so anyway- so you can rate me on how well I come across yapping about it.� Basically a huge chunk of 'professional politics' in a nutshell.

Bush at least comes across to me as genuine in what he�s trying to put across, though I�d never accuse him of being graceful at it. Another thing I like about the guy is he doesn�t put on airs otherwise. He�d probably be the first one to joke about his own lack of oratory skills.

[Ayelbourne]

I stayed up to listen to it live on streaming audio. My impression: no real news. He said he'd provide more troops - that isn't much of a surprise. He said they won't move the handoff date, which is also expected. I don't think they should, for better or worse. Other than that, he just said things he's already said many, many times, like constantly equating Iraq with terrorism and September 11th. It was almost 100% re-iteration.

Interesting bits:

- a timetable for the Iraqi government that sounds like the Longhorn release schedule.

- question from reporter on how he recycles his public speeches (really obvious if you go through and read them sequencially). He was still recycling at the press conference - lots of phrases and terms he likes to hammer on...

- ballsy question from reporter on "not admitting mistakes", which unfortunately set him up for:

- the "what's your biggest mistake?" question (answer: taking that guy's question).

- the final question on skills as a communicator (which somehow Bush turned into "I'm ready for the election race!").

- I was surprised and disappointed that nobody asked if he has a plan to repair strained relations with estranged allies.


As expected, his scripted remarks were punchy and effective - he's got a great writing team. Also as expected, once the script runs out, he rambles and mangles.

In all, I have to say he gets points from me for willingness to field what were almost entirely really tough questions, questions I am sure he would rather not be asked without scripted answers (he even admitted that, albeit half-jokingly). However, he loses points from me for being obviously evasive on several answers. I thought all of the questions were legitimate - good questions that needed to be asked.

[Ayelbourne]

Favorite faux pas of the night:

"And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism."

[voodoo]

Well nothing new under the Sun then. I hope he provided some entertainment value to his audience because it doesn't sound like he gave us anything worth discussing.

[Troll]

"Our military commanders report that this violence is being instigated by three groups.

Some remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, along with Islamic militants, have attacked coalition forces in the city of Falluja.

Terrorists from other countries have infiltrated Iraq to incite and organise attacks.

In the south of Iraq, coalition forces face riots and attacks that are being incited by a radical cleric named al-Sadr...

If I were at the press conference I would have asked Bush which of those three groups the 141 children killed by US forces in Falluja fell into, or which of the three groups the civilians we saw mutilating the bodies of the US mercenaries fell into.

I'd remind him that he said before that the capture of Hussein would be a major blow to the insurgency since Hussein was controlling it and ask him whether the fact that the violence had INCREASED since Hussein's capture combined with the facts mentioned above didn't make him question whether perhaps his intelligence on who is behind these attacks isn't perhaps as good as the intelligence that said there were WMD under palm trees in Western Iraq!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Favorite faux pas of the night:

"And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism."

That reminds me of an interview I once saw with a celebrity do-gooder who was recounting her various activities. At one point she said "I'm definitely for AIDS."

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Didn't Clinton have to know all the questions before any conference or appearance?

Pathetic.

Either Bush stands on his own, or he falls apart.

If the only way you can make him stand is to prop him up with his predecessor, he's failing, and you're only making it more obvious.

-s*

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
If I were at the press conference I would have asked Bush which of those three groups the 141 children killed by US forces in Falluja fell into, or which of the three groups the civilians we saw mutilating the bodies of the US mercenaries fell into.

Oh, those are the kids the cowards used as human shields. It's a common practice for their type, and firing in anyway is the only viable answer. They use their kids as bombs, they use their kids as shields, you're right... nothing new.

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Oh, those are the kids the cowards used as human shields. It's a common practice for their type, and firing in anyway is the only viable answer. They use their kids as bombs, they use their kids as shields, you're right... nothing new.

Oh yes, I forgot, Palestinian, Iraqi, they're all the same. Bush could have saved a lot of time by saying:

"Our military commanders report that this violence is being instigated by one group: Arabs."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
If the only way you can make him stand is to prop him up with his predecessor, he's failing, and you're only making it more obvious.

-s*

Off topic, but speaking of propping politicians up . . .

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Pathetic.

Either Bush stands on his own, or he falls apart.

If the only way you can make him stand is to prop him up with his predecessor, he's failing, and you're only making it more obvious.

-s*

No, g_f is right, Clinton required all questions be made known before a conference. Bush is far from failing, but he's NOT a "great communicator". Though, he'll probably improve over the next few years.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh yes, I forgot, Palestinian, Iraqi, they're all the same. Bush could have saved a lot of time by saying:

"Our military commanders report that this violence is being instigated by one group: Arabs."

Correction, actually it's Arab terrorists. Just thought I'd help you out there.

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Correction, actually it's Arab terrorists.

Yes, but all Arabs are terrorists so it's the same thing really!

I mean all you need to do to become an Arab terrorist is be Arab and not like being slaughtered or occupied or denied your human rights (viz. Iraq, Palestine). Neat how this works in Iraq isn't it? We call the country that killed 10,000 innocent people for no valid reason "liberators" but we call the people that resist the slaughter "terrorists" and use that label as an excuse to kill some more of them.

[mike one]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Though, he'll probably improve over the next few years.

in the private sector!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Off topic, but speaking of propping politicians up . . .

Cameras are unforgiving.

There isn't a Hollywood movie made where one of the main characters isn't at some point propped up on a beer crate to get a better angle for the camera.

Dustin Hoffman, for one, is *small*.

-s*

[xi_hyperon]

I find it amazing that he had absolutely nothing to say when asked if any lessons had been taken away from the events of Sept. 11. How could he not even come up with one thing? I know many are convinced he is simply a bad orator, but I'm not so sure that is all. After seeing that, as well as his interview with Tim Russert, I'm increasingly of the opinion that there is simply not a whole lot going on upstairs.

[Ayelbourne]

I thought it was interesting how he stated his belief that the issue for re-election is who can best protect the US from "terror" and who can best sort out the mess in Iraq.

Nothing about the economy. It's all conveniently about "his" issue, regarding which his opponent is definitely untested and an unknown. The fact that the Iraq mess is of his own making aside, he seems to be openly pinning his re-election on the "don't switch horses midstream" argument. He said almost nothing about future plans for the country, other than continuing to be on the offensive in the world.

But then, the whole press meeting was clearly "damage control", to address the very drop in public support he claims doesn't drive him. He had a chance to really answer some of the many tough questions that are legitimately on people's minds right now, and I think he truly missed a genuine opportunity there.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
Yes, but all Arabs are terrorists so it's the same thing really!

I mean all you need to do to become an Arab terrorist is be Arab and not like being slaughtered or occupied or denied your human rights (viz. Iraq, Palestine). Neat how this works in Iraq isn't it? We call the country that killed 10,000 innocent people for no valid reason "liberators" but we call the people that resist the slaughter "terrorists" and use that label as an excuse to kill some more of them.

Precisely.

[UNTeMac]

The worst reply for me was this:

QUESTION: You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops -- then the next largest, perhaps even the second-largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired guns.

Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics?

ANSWER: Yes, John, my response is I don't think people ought to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq. People are sacrificing their lives in Iraq from different countries. We ought to honor that, and we ought to welcome that.

I'm proud of the coalition that is there. These are people that have got leaders that have made the decision to put people in harm's way for the good of the world. And we appreciate that sacrifice in America, and we appreciate that commitment.

I think that one of the things you're seeing is more involvement by the United Nations, in terms of the political process. That's helpful. I'd like to get another U.N. Security Council resolution out that will help other nations to decide to participate.

One of the things I've found, John, is that, in calling around, particularly during this week -- I spoke to [Italian] Prime Minister [Silvio] Berlusconi and [Polish] President [Aleksander] Kwasniewski -- there is a resolve by these leaders that is a heartening resolve. Tony Blair is the same way.

He understands, like I understand, that we cannot yield at this point in time, that we must remain steadfast and strong, that it's the intentions of the enemy to shake our will. That's what they want to do. They want us to leave. And we're not going to leave. We're going to do the job.

And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism. It'll change the world. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is vital to future peace and security.

Maybe I can best put it this way, why I feel so strongly about this historic moment.

blah blah blah..one of his longest answers of the night.

He doesn't even come close to directly answering the question but instead goes off on a tangent about how strongly he feels we should stay in Iraq. I yelled at my car radio.

I'm starting to get this helpless feeling of disbelief everytime I listen to him speak, knowing that there are still thousands of americans who listen and buy every word.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
I find it amazing that he had absolutely nothing to say when asked if any lessons had been taken away from the events of Sept. 11. How could he not even come up with one thing? I know many are convinced he is simply a bad orator, but I'm not so sure that is all. After seeing that, as well as his interview with Tim Russert, I'm increasingly of the opinion that there is simply not a whole lot going on upstairs.

I try to give him the benefit of the doubt but I've always had the same concern. I think he's a bright person, and he's certainly an affable person, but I see a lack of intellectual engagement. Indeed, part of his public appeal lies in representing the American anti-intellectual tradition. That doesn't disqualify him from being a good or even great President, but it can be disconcerting. I worry that he's too easily manipulated by the people around him, Cheney and Rove in particular. The image that Paul O'Neill presented of Cheney telling Bush to go with the additional tax cut is somewhat chilling - it's hard to tell if Cheney is just a trusted advisor or a Svengali. The thought that Bush can't speak for himself before the 9/11 Commission - and can't give a straight answer as to why - doesn't inspire confidence either.

His father wasn't a very good speaker but one at least had the feeling that he had a command of history and facts and policy and was in charge. Dubya too often gives the impression that he's in over his head. Knowing that he's not an intellectual or policy wonk, he seems to be striving for a Truman/Reagan-like leadership style, but I don't think he has Truman's or Reagan's self-assuredness.

I think he was elected largely because his affability seemed a nice departure from Gore's stuffed-shirted wonkishness. He sold everyone on his ability to schmooze people and seek consensus. At that time, foreign policy and terrorism were very low on most people's agendas, so it made a certain sense (although he hasn't even lived up to the domestic consensus-building image). I just don't know if having an affable personality suffices under present circumstances, although I hope I'm misunderestimating him.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, g_f is right, Clinton required all questions be made known before a conference.

No way. The press would never have let that happen. I'll bet you and ghost_flash a week of "I'm a schmuck" in our signatures if Clinton required all questions to be known in advance before his presidential press conferences.

[insha]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I must have seen a different conference than you did. He answered every question quite well and referenced key materials when doing so. He did his homework, and it showed. I'm sorry you think he didn't do a good job, but I think the proof will be in the polls, that are so eagerly watched by the people seeking to unseat him. I say the polls go up after that speech / conference. Anyone want to take that bet?

He did poorly in the press conference, and as for the MSNBC Poll:

Breakdown (Bush's performance in the prime-time news conference):
Excellent 20%

Very good 16%

Average 12%

Poor 27%

Disaster 26%

Also the CNN Poll:

Did President Bush give a convincing performance at Tuesday's news conference?

Yes 33%

No 45%

Did not Watch 22%

So much for the Polls.

EDIT: CNN Link.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:


Cameras are unforgiving.

There isn't a Hollywood movie made where one of the main characters isn't at some point propped up on a beer crate to get a better angle for the camera.

Dustin Hoffman, for one, is *small*.

-s*

Hollywood is not reality.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
He doesn't even come close to directly answering the question but instead goes off on a tangent about how strongly he feels we should stay in Iraq. I yelled at my car radio.

I'm starting to get this helpless feeling of disbelief everytime I listen to him speak, knowing that there are still thousands of americans who listen and buy every word.

And hundreds more who will probably end up dying for it.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Hollywood is not reality.

Your point?

You're not seriously saying that the aesthetic decision made by the press officer of the Bundeskanzleramt (or more likely, the TV station) somehow discredits the chancellor by changing the message conveyed?

Are you?



-s*

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Your point?
-s*

I'm sorry, I thought I was clear with my statement. Hollywood constantly propped up President Clinton. You brought up Dustin Hoffman in response to another post on topic, but it isn't the same. I was clearly disagreeing with you.

Does that clear it up a little more for you?

[UNTeMac]

You people seem to have a need for a Hollywood President, but in reality, that doesn't work. It doesn't for me, and I was expressing it in one statement. I prefer a real person, who has faults, though they are only verbal and make him an easy target for easily amused people.
[/B]

Who is "you people" and where in anyone's post did you get that idea?