Mike Savage ACTUALLY criticizes BUSH

Guest · #1 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:44 pm

This must be the end of times... tonight I heard Mike Savage actually criticize pres Bush.

Specifically he said " president Bush should not be at the Tx ranch while we are at war... and make no mistake about it ... the battle now going on in Iraq are far fiercer than more intense and larger than ANY battle that took when we took out SH. It sends the wrong message."

anyone agree with this?

mf_dolphin · #2 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:49 pm

If I thought President Bush wasn't staying abreast of the situation then it would be one thing. He's in constant touch with the situation and the best thing a politician can do is let the military do their job.

Lindaloo · #3 Postby **Lindaloo** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:49 pm

Where did you get your source? Or are you just grasping at straws again?

rainstorm · #4 Postby **rainstorm** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:51 pm

dt is a closet ultra conservative. he listens to savage. i agree about one thing. time to kill the terrorists

Guest · #5 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:55 pm

To go his web site and LISTEN.

Lindaloo wrote:Where did you get your source? Or are you just grasping at straws again?

Lindaloo · #6 Postby **Lindaloo** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:57 pm

I did and found nothing.

stormchazer · #7 Postby **stormchazer** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:58 pm

We should remember that today, the President need not be in the Situation Room in order to be fully up-to-date with what was going on. If the nation is attacked internally, I would see where President Bush might wish to be at the White House for symbolic purposes but he can get all the info he needs even in Texas because of modern communications.

Guest · #8 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:58 pm

Of course Bush is staying on top of the situation.

But Savage's point was that while we are engaged in the 2nd battle for Iraq he -- Bush-- should not be on "vacation"

if Kerry had a brain they would be making campaign commericals about this . Fortunately kerry does NOT have one

mf_dolphin wrote:If I thought President Bush wasn't staying abreast of the situation then it would be one thing. He's in constant touch with the situation and the best thing a politician can do is let the military do their job.

Guest · #9 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:02 pm

The difference is that I listen and read EVERYTHING and everyone.

YOU DONT

rainstorm wrote:dt is a closet ultra conservative. he listens to savage. i agree about one thing. time to kill the terrorists

rainstorm · #10 Postby **rainstorm** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:10 pm

sorry, but air america is only on 5 channels

mf_dolphin · #11 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:22 pm

This is going to be a long war and this is just a flare up. Factions are fighting for their lives and it's not going to end soon. To suggest that President Bush could do more from the White House is just not accurate. President Bush is letting the military take the appropriate action as he should.

Guest · #12 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:53 pm

who listens to that drivel?

rainstorm wrote:sorry, but air america is only on 5 channels

rainstorm · #13 Postby **rainstorm** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:58 pm

barbara streisand!!

Lindaloo · #14 Postby **Lindaloo** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:08 pm

DT wrote:who listens to that drivel?

rainstorm wrote:sorry, but air america is only on 5 channels

You do because your mind is still in the 60's.

Guest · #15 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:14 pm

good debate!!!

wow what an intellect :lol:

Lindaloo wrote:
DT wrote:who listens to that drivel?

rainstorm wrote:sorry, but air america is only on 5 channels

You do because your mind is still in the 60's.

Lindaloo · #16 Postby **Lindaloo** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:17 pm

DT wrote:good debate!!!

wow what an intellect

Lindaloo wrote:
DT wrote:who listens to that drivel?

rainstorm wrote:sorry, but air america is only on 5 channels

You do because your mind is still in the 60's.

And your intellect consists of? Where have you EVER debated without attacking? And when have you ever backed it up with facts? Uh huh that is what I thought. Go back to your playpen DT I am done with you this evening.

stormraiser · #17 Postby **stormraiser** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:35 am

DT, I can't get Savage over here in Buffalo, but when I was in Albany, he criticized Bush all the time. He tells it like it is. That's what is good about him. Anyway, I agree Bush is on top of the situation, no matter where he is, but also that it may send the wrong message for him to be "vacationing" at his Texas Ranch while our men and women are losing their lives.

Lindaloo · #18 Postby **Lindaloo** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:07 am

Who says the President has to be in the White House to conduct business? How do you all know he is not on his ranch working?

#19 Postby **coriolis** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 11:49 am

I heard Michael's show too, about that. There is a point to be made about the symbolism of Bush taking some R&R with this battle flaring. However the bigger point that Savage made is that this operation, with casualties happening, would have been an appropriate time for Bush to address the Nation, to rally support, express determination, and all that good stuff. While I will vote for Bush, it's in spite of his detachment from the citizens, because he's better than the alternative. Bush is like a CEO, rather than a leader. Leadership takes more than that. Bush could have this country much more united with a common purpose than it is. It's like Savage said, "he's no Winston Churchill," who led Britian through it's darkest hour. It's the "vision thing."

DT, I think you have some points to be made, but you're not getting any style points!

#20 Postby **Stephanie** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:09 pm

coriolis wrote:I heard Michael's show too, about that. There is a point to be made about the symbolism of Bush taking some R&R with this battle flaring. However the bigger point that Savage made is that this operation, with casualties happening, would have been an appropriate time for Bush to address the Nation, to rally support, express determination, and all that good stuff. While I will vote for Bush, it's in spite of his detachment from the citizens, because he's better than the alternative. Bush is like a CEO, rather than a leader. Leadership takes more than that. Bush could have this country much more united with a common purpose than it is. It's like Savage said, "he's no Winston Churchill," who led Britian through it's darkest hour. It's the "vision thing."

DT, I think you have some points to be made, but you're not getting any style points!

I agree Ed with your post.

Mike Savage ACTUALLY criticizes BUSH

Mike Savage ACTUALLY criticizes BUSH

Who is online