Bush and Cheney are Insecure and Scared

Bush and Cheney require attendees at their political speeches to require loyalty oaths swearing fealty to Bush and Cheney.

Bush's 12 press conferences were not press conferences. They were shows in which members of the press asked pre-submitted, approved questions.

Now tell me these guys aren't afraid of the very people they are trying to represent. They are quaking in their boots from being asked a single question.

Bush the senior had 141 press conferences versus his son's 12. When Clinton was president a reporter asked him at a press conference about the CIA flying drugs into Mena, Arkansas and how Clinton may have conspired.

Bush is a fly compared to either his dad or Clinton, president on paper only.

I agree, they know they cant answer the question that may be given that weren't pre authorised.

The sad thing is since, falsly named 'The swift boat veterans for truth' (which suspiciously looks very closely linked to bush), decided to smear John Kerry, his opinion ratings have dropped quite considerably... Its a pity how false smear campaigns can have such a bad effect on an election... But Kerry should have responded quicker than he did to the claims made, and his inaction may have caused him the election... pity the Dems arent as dirty in their tactics as the Reps.

I know that bush will not do an interview unless the questions are supply in advance like you two just said.

I wonder that they are being very carefull about the real issues that the public wants the president to address, the president does not have a good point to talk about domestic issues unless they are link to ''war on terror'' and ''American is a safer place''.

Basically bush's only talking point is the war on terror... But in reality since the war on terror (with 9/11) began the amount of terror attacks internationally has tripled compared to the 3 years prior to 9/11. Also bush has not made America any safer as his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have actually driven more people to terrorism than previously... Not to mention Osama isnt captured yet...

Its a pity so many people buy his bull# and beleive him to be some sort of saviour

I agree with you specialasianx, bush has played the card right when it comes to hide behind god while he does his dirty business.

Notice you can't get republicans in here defending either the fake press conferences or the requirement to sign loyalty oaths at administration speeches. Truth hurts, these guys are frauds who don't believe in freedom and the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

That is true taibunsuu,

I have noticed that bush everywhere he goes is in a control enviroment, I wonder what happend to the baby kissing days.

I think the "war on terror" is getting on him.

I'm actually independent. Democratic and Republican parties are little more than franchises and their leaders don't stick to any particular formulas.

The reason that most Republicans aren't in here defending the point is that it's always the same stupid crap. Rarely do these arguments actually have real credible evidence. I know that just about every time I debate on this site, it turns into the same argument, or they just start mindlessly insulting Bush. How do you know for sure that they're all pre-screened? Did Bush admit this? How do you know that other political figure's speeches aren't pre-screened? Even if this is true, he has good reason. Liberals have a history of twisting his words . And yes, I do admit that he's a really bad public speaker, but you can't pick on the guy for screwing up words now and then.

If you think they are canned then fine, watch the O'Reilly interview next week.......


Conspiracy? yah right!

How can you know that O'Reilly isn't going to ask questions that are already pre-screened and approved?

Why do people have to sign loyalty oaths to see the President or VP speak?

Why has the President done 12 press conferences in the same time his father performed 141?

Why can't the President answer spontaneous questions?

Well I think it is because of the obvious press bias, I know people that have talked with Bush and say that he is NOT stupid, maybe he will let something slip???

And yes O'Reilly has been given guidelines to follow, but he will be blunt also...

Originally posted by Herman
The reason that most Republicans aren't in here defending the point is that it's always the same stupid crap.

No, it's not. Signing oaths of loyalty to hear the people we hire to talk about why they should be re-elected is unprecedented.

Rarely do these arguments actually have real credible evidence. I know that just about every time I debate on this site, it turns into the same argument, or they just start mindlessly insulting Bush. How do you know for sure that they're all pre-screened?

I've watched every press conference of this administration in which Bush appears. On March 6, 2003, Bush admitted on live, prime-time television that the press conference was scripted. I nearly fell out of my chair.

KING: "Mr. President."

BUSH: "We�ll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted..."

He trailed off and kind of smiled as the press crowd laughed quietly.

This, combined with the fact that every journalist who ever asked a hard question has been thrown out of the White House press pool or is not allowed to ask questions, is obvious proof that the conferences are not real in their traditional sense.

Even if this is true, he has good reason. Liberals have a history of twisting his words

.

Uh-huh. How would you feel if Clinton White House had pre-scripted press conferences in which no one could ask questions about Waco, Paula Jones, Lewinski, or any of the other scandal-related questions that were asked directly to the president? The President, if he's the right stuff for the office, has to be able to answer the tough questions.

And yes, I do admit that he's a really bad public speaker, but you can't pick on the guy for screwing up words now and then.

I don't care if he can't pronounce words. I care that he can't answer real questions and can't face Americans without making them sign oaths of loyalty to him first. That seem very free and American to you?

RIO RANCHO, N.M. -- A Republican National Committee practice of having people sign a form endorsing President Bush or pledging to vote for him in November before being issued tickets for RNC-sponsored rallies is raising concern among voters.

--
When Vice President Dick Cheney spoke July 31 to a crowd of 2,000 in Rio Rancho, a city of 45,000 near Albuquerque, several people who showed up at the event complained about being asked to sign endorsement forms in order to receive a ticket to hear Cheney.

''Whose vice president is he?" said 72-year-old retiree John Wade of Albuquerque, who was asked to sign the form when he picked up his tickets. ''I just wanted to hear what my vice president had to say, and they make me sign a loyalty oath."
www.boston.com...
--

I don't care what your party affiliation is, this is BULL#!

Well, just because one of his press conferences was pre-screened, it doesn't mean that they all are. I'm sure that every president has had at leat a few pre-screened interviews. There just isn't any proof of him kicking people out of the white house because they ask civilized questions. I don't agree with the loyalty oath, I think that's really stupid.

Its really funny how there is this myth of liberal bias in the press...

Most american papers i read online, and all the US news channels i see on cable are either pretty neutral or very right in their bias... Itsl ike o'reilly claiming to havea 'fair and balanced view'... pfft yeah right!

It's not a myth; they are. Most of the good things that happen, you don't hear about. I guess it's just because the media just wants juicy stories. What sells right now, and what's popular is to hate Bush/and, or think he's just a moron. Think of the Dan Rathers case. If that was a republican, you'd never hear the end of it. Sure, if you watch Fox then you'll think that there is a right-wing Bias. It all varies based on what channel you're watching. Fox is a tad right-wing biased (even though o'reily claims to be independent to keep his ratings up). Look at CBS, NBC, or any other media outlets. Look at the Arizona Republic!!!

What sells: sex, violence, and celebrity. Any combination of the three makes the news even bigger.

Why does it sell? Human nature.

Why does the media push it? Because it sells.

Biggest stories ever:

OJ Simpson trial. Sex, violence and celebrity

Clinton / Lewinsky. Sex and celebrity

Gary Condit. Sex, violence, and celebrity

...you get the picture.

In the old days, newspapers had PROCLAIMED bias. "Voice of the Democratic Party," or "Organ of Republicans for Truth," etc. The papers were funded by the parties themselves. Then, papers switched over to funding by advertisers and to get broad readership, switched to the tradition of 'objective' reporting.

Media outlets still have covert bias, which the trained eye can see a mile away. To get fair news you need a few different sources with different angles.

taibunsuu,

You are so right is not funny I posted while back on the topic of how the media influence people, while doing my research on media and politics I found out that the media used to do a great job until corporations bought them turning them into the huge media bias of today.

Depending who is the owner or owners that is how you receive the news of today and in political years you pretty much knows with media outlet lean on to.



[edit on 22-9-2004 by marg6043]

Clinton's press conferences were pre-screened. Ever since nixon, the white house has exiled news outlets that asked "unnapproved questions."

Which is why the Lewinsky affair was broken by the British Tabloid press. The were already banned from the white house.

As far as Swiftboat vets for truth, how does that compare with Dan Rather? Now there's evidence that his director called the Kerry team multiple times before airing the papers, and again when challenged about their authenticity.

You really think there's a difference between parties?

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Notice you can't get republicans in here defending either
the fake press conferences or the requirement to sign loyalty
oaths at administration speeches

Hi there. Give us time to find the thread bud. How long
was this up before you said 'no republicans are here
to defend ...'.

Reference the 'fake press conferences' - you'll have to be
more specific before I (or anyone else) can address this.
What do you mean by 'fake'. Questions provided ahead
of time? I know that G.W. is going on O'Reilly and O'Reilly
has already said that no questions are provided ahead
of time. Would you show some support that the press
conferences are 'fake' so that we may rebutt that?

Loyalty Oaths - This was discussed on a different thread.
I attended a Bush rally in Philly about 6 weeks ago. None
of us signed anything. I have friends out in the midwest
who attended a Bush rally about 3 weeks ago. They were
not required to sign anything.

Some folks here claim to have had to sign something. I
don't know what exactly they signed. Was it a 'loyalty
oath' as they claim? Or was it a security paper saying that
they won't disrupt or heckle during the speech (or some
such thing)?

If someone actually has a copy of this 'loyalty oath' then
I would like to see a copy of it. Scan it and download it
so that we all may read it. Otherwise ... it's just hearsay.