article, in that Bush's inability to answer that question reflected
pretty poorly on him, and his handlers. I mean, he had to know that
that question would come up. Hell, it comes up in darn near every
interview. It's essentially "tell us about a time a project failed" or
"what are your weaknesses." It was a political mis-step to not have
been prepared with at least one instance in which he made a trivial
error, which he could explain and even maybe laugh about.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:01:33 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is ridiculous. What would you of had him do, Angel? Completely ignore his generals? Wasn't that the liberal side a few weeks ago? That there were generals telling him he needed more troops, and he ignored them? Now he's saying the generals told him they had plenty of troops, and you are saying he SHOULD have ignored them.
>
> So which is it??!?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Angel Stewart
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:07 PM
> Subject: Bush's telling Non Answer.
>
> <snip>
> What did Bush say about
> this in the debate? He recalled "sitting in the White House looking at
> those generals, saying, 'Do you have what you need in this war?' " and
> going to the White House basement and "asking them, 'Do we have the
> right plan with the right troop level?' And they looked me in the eye
> and said, 'Yes, sir, Mr. President.' "
>
> Convenient, isn't it? If we don't have enough troops in Iraq, it's the
> fault of the generals, not of a commander in chief who doesn't seem to
> like answers other than "yes, sir." But in a democracy, voters don't
> have to say "yes, sir." And many of them, like Linda Grabel, are looking
> for even a smidgen of the humility Bush promised in the debates four
> years ago but now seems incapable of delivering.
> -------------
>
> -Gel
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
