Bush: "We're not going to have any casulties"

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:53 am

And who claims that Bush made this statement? Some disgruntled ex-member of the administration? A liberal with an agenda? Nope, Pat Robertson. How can a president be so naive?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:57 am

Isn't Pat Robertson generally considered a nut though? It sucks being a xenophobe and therefore being put in the same class as him.

hodge313 · Post by **hodge313** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:04 am

How scary is it that Pat Robertson is actually making more sense than the leader of the free world?

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:09 am

If an anonymous report came out that Bush had devil horns and cloven feet, not only would the would the response be, 'I KNEW IT!', but also this forum would post pics and deny they were photoshopped.

CeeKay · Post by **CeeKay** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:28 am

no photoshopping involved!

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:40 am

Remember, Pat Robertson is only a psycho right-wing nutjob is he's talking POSITIVELY about Bush.

WAW · Post by **WAW** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 am

Schroeder · Post by **Schroeder** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 am

noxiousdog wrote:If an anonymous report came out that Bush had devil horns and cloven feet, not only would the would the response be, 'I KNEW IT!', but also this forum would post pics and deny they were photoshopped.

ND, you just summed up my thoughts exactly....

The Liberal Lounge (tm*) Swingers are out in force, baby!

-S

(*) BTW, whoever coined that phrase back on GG...I love it!

noun · Post by **noun** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:47 am

According to a documentary I watched on PBS last week, Pat Robertson was the one who baptized Dubya when he became born again.

Gizah · Post by **Gizah** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:03 am

Noun, you are referring to Frontline correct? That was a fascinating examination of both Kerry and Bush. I was surprised no one on these boards had mentioned seeing it.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:08 am

Well, if Pat Robertson said it, and he said it on the INTERNET no less, it must be true. Well, he said it on TV first, but then they put it on the internet, and they wouldn't have done that if it wasn't true.

No matter that the President was publicly telling us that this was going to a be a long, difficult campaign.

noun · Post by **noun** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:13 am

Gizah, yep, that's the one I saw. It was pretty damn fair and balanced, wasn't it? Not to mention extremely informative about both men.

The Pat Robertson / Bill Graham / Bush family connections are a lot stronger than I expected, and help explain the religious extremism at the upper levels of this adminstration.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:12 pm

Kerry flip-flops. Bush talks out of both sides of his mouth. Most of the time he's so incomprehensible, nobody can tell he's doing it.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:48 pm

Actually, at the debates Bush seemed to have a problem speaking out of the left side of his mouth, making some people think he might have had a minor stroke.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:27 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:And who claims that Bush made this statement? Some disgruntled ex-member of the administration? A liberal with an agenda? Nope, Pat Robertson. How can a president be so naive?

You believe Pat Robertson? How can a liberal be so naive?

And tell me, what other things do you believe that Pat Robertson has said? Somehow I don't see you as a real Pat Robertson follower

Grifman

Meghan · Post by **Meghan** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:50 pm

I've been sort of watching this today. My first thought was - what an odd day for an evangelical preacher to pick a fight with the Bush White House. It just seemed like such bad planning.

But it turns out he's said these things before. linky (sorry for the blog link but it's got all the relevant cites in one place.)

In short, PR told Connie Chung (CNN) in 2/03 that he told the Prez that America should expect big casualties.

Then last July, on Hardball (MSNBC) PR said "I warned the president. I only met with him once. I said, You better prepare the American people for some serious casualties. And he said, Oh, no, our troops are, you know, so well protected, we don`t have to worry about that."

Which is not quite as bald a statement as the ones we've heard today. But clearly it's been on Pat's mind and the WH was aware of it. The WH communications director was in the studio for that taping.

And the other odd thing about it is that it so closely mirrors the debate debacle, where Bush had previously said he wasn't worried about Osama and then denied having said that. I'm sure that's not what Rove wanted to be talking about today.

And the timing! Sure - I believe that Pat's full of it. I think he's even more full of it than Bush. But it's no secret that the GOP relies on the evangelical vote. The statements from the Bush White House today leave the evangelicals having to decide who's lying - the President or the Preacher.

This is not the October Surprise I was expecting ...

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:22 pm

Bush is a puppet who just repeats whatever his advisors tell him.

Bakhtosh · Post by **Bakhtosh** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:25 am

Wow...after seeing Kerry make a statement, clarify it, then reclarify, then deny he ever clarified his clarifications, the hypocrisy here is overwhelming.

As for Bush's statement, this is so obvious that it shouldn't have to be mentioned: they were talking about WMD. I hate that we lost the GG archives. I'd love to go back and excerpt similar conversations between GG members. And even if you interpret those comments in light of what we know today, 1000 deaths over this amount of time is not "massive" by any stretch of imagination...horrible and regretful, yes - massive, no.

And as for Bush's religious leanings, Kerry is sounding a lot more like a preacher these days that Bush is. I surprised Kerry's religious antics aren't making his backers here sick to their stomachs...especially after the lambasting Bush has received for much more mild statements and actions.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:47 am

Andrew Sullivan's blog isn't making a big hubbub about this. But he makes a good point.

MORE ROBERTSON: Yet more proof that he has said this before:
CHUNG: Because I'm wondering if you believe the United States should invade Iraq without U.N. backing.

ROBERTSON: Connie, I have, over the last year or so, been quite concerned about entering into this war. We should have gone in after him in the Gulf War I.

This thing is fraught with danger. And I think we need to understand that. I told the president that just recently, that we have got to prepare the American people for civilian casualties, for possibly our casualties, for gassing, for various chemical weapons against them.
No reference to Bush's response there. But this was before the invasion. Look, this isn't a huge deal. I think it merely shows what we know already: that Bush believed the Iraq war would be a push-over. The president was and is responsible for criminal negligence. And yet some believe he should be given a vote of confidence.

But the one thing I think we can all agree on... Pat Robertson needs to shut the hell up.

Octopus Overlords

Bush: "We're not going to have any casulties"

Bush: "We're not going to have any casulties"

Re: Bush: "We're not going to have any casulties"