Bush thinks about new ways to harm country...

[Arex]

At a ceremony signing the $417 Billion defense spending bill, Bush declared that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people..."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=6&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bushism


New 'Bushism' Born at Bill Signing (AP)

WASHINGTON - President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon (news - web sites) chiefs reacted.

The president was working his way toward a larger point. "We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country. We must always be forward-thinking," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush's misstatement "just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak."

"But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it," McClellan said.
Great quote for people who like to take things out of context. I know everyone misspeaks now and again, but c'mon George! As for the American people knowing that Bush speaks with "clarity and conviction," I beg to differ: http://slate.msn.com/id/76886. Or maybe there're subliminable messages buried in everything he says...

RX

[Kuchana]

Naturally people fumble when it comes to speech. It could have been worded differently but I understood the intended message in his words. I think it would have been more appropriate to say something to the effect of, "And we will strive tirelessly to find new ways to prevent the terrorists from harming our country and our people." Or akin to that.

But his statement should hardly be found amusing, even by his critics and supporters.

[Emperor_Mike]

A few years ago this would've been funny. But judging by his track-record thus far, I don't think I can even force myself to smile at this error.

[bluemonq]

what amuses me is that no one in the audience -- well, none of the mil people reacted. you'd think *someone* would do a double take at his freudian slip.

[achtungbaby]

Naturally people fumble when it comes to speech. It could have been worded differently but I understood the intended message in his words. I think it would have been more appropriate to say something to the effect of, "And we will strive tirelessly to find new ways to prevent the terrorists from harming our country and our people." Or akin to that.

But his statement should hardly be found amusing, even by his critics and supporters.
You know, there's no law against sensible objectivity :biggrin:

Let me show you:

"John Kerry might be the Democrat's most untelegenic candidate in the last twenty years. He might be even more uninspiring at times than Bush."

That's the truth actually. I never thought the Democrats would nominate a guy that was so...Nader-esque. But in this new era of terrorism, boring and stoic (and moronic in Bush's case) win out over all the flash and dash.

When Bush first got elected I was one of many who were always kind of pulling for him during public speaking engagements...kind of like pulling for the super shy little boy to overcome his fears...and applaud like crazy after he successfully mumbles some audible noise.

Remember that great bullhorn speech in front of rescue workers at Ground Zero? It was great, it was inspiring...Bush's staff were gushing that it was easily the greatest public engagement clip to date...

I guess at this point I'm just tired of making excuses for him. How much of any of his policies do you feel the President thoroughly understands and can speak at length, without the protection of handlers, before reporters? During the 2000 campaign there was a popular argument circulated that Bush was like a good CEO -- perhaps he didnt know every friggen detail of his company's operations, but he did hire smart people to know that stuff so he wouldn't.

Now that it's clear that his staff can't be trusted for good, sober advice, what good is he?