Finn d'Abuzz wrote:princesspupule wrote:So, we are supposed to accept that our president doesn't understand the meaning of the word, "casualty?"
What, are Frank and I the only 2 uncomfortable that our president is an idiot???
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=casualty Quote:ca·su·al·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kzh-l-t)
n. pl. ca·su·al·ties
An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.
One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.
One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.
One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets.
Either Bush misused the word in a sentence (which is possible) or
he actually believes b.s. Or Robertson is telling a story which makes the president appear to be delusional or an idiot.
Either seems equally likely... I hope to God you guys are wrong about Bush not understanding how to use the word in a conversation. I am truly hoping Robertson misremembers the conversation... I can find no comfort in our president not understanding what a "casualty" is.
Still at it I see.
I'm sorry, but I sincerely doubt that you are truly hoping that there is a reasonable alternative explanation. If you were, you would have no problem accepting one, rather than continuing to even consider the most far fetched of alternatives.
Let me make one last attempt:
Two scenarios:
Scenario One:
Pat Robertson visits the Oval Office and implores the president not to invade Iraq because of the likelihood of there being tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties.
The president assures Robertson that there will not be casualties to the extent he fears, and gives him a primer on how a modern war in Iraq will be waged, and why it is reasonable to expect relatively low levels of American casualties.
Pat Robertson either because he honestly misunderstood what the president said or because he is an attention grabbing nut contended that the president told him there would be
no casualties.
Scenario Two:
Pat Robertson visits the Oval Office and implores the president not to invade Iraq because of the likelihood of there being tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties.
The president assures Robertson that there will not be a single American casualty. Why? Because he believes God will watch over all American soldiers, or that shock and awe will have the Iraqis surrendering after the first engagement, or because he considers a casualty to be only someone who dies in an unjust war, and therefore, by definition, there will be no casualties in this war, or simply because he is insane.
Pat Robinson goes on TV and recounts the conversation, exactly as it happened.
Take your pick as to which is the more likely scenario.
If you choose two, then I would suggest that your way of thinking is quite similar to those who believe that if John Kerry is elected to the presidency, he will surrender America to the UN on the day after his inauguration. I'm sure such people hope that won't be the case.
Finn, God bless ya and yer blarney good enough to deserve such a fine irish name as "Finn."
I swear, reading your posts sometimes is as good as bubbles at the top of a stout beer!
I'm more inclined to believe scenario 1
Quote:Scenario One:
Pat Robertson visits the Oval Office and implores the president not to invade Iraq because of the likelihood of there being tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties.
The president assures Robertson that there will not be casualties to the extent he fears, and gives him a primer on how a modern war in Iraq will be waged, and why it is reasonable to expect relatively low levels of American casualties.
Pat Robertson either because he honestly misunderstood what the president said or because he is an attention grabbing nut contended that the president told him there would be no casualties.
Except rather than Robertson misunderstanding Bush, Bush misunderstands that "casualties" refers to deaths, thinks of "casualties as meaning "deaths by accident," or some such similar meaning... After all, he is on record in the recent debates describing his policy which chops down forests and sells it for lumber as "taking care of" the national forests...
... and out stumping in Florida he came out and said, "We
will not have an all-volunteer army!" And in Colorado, "See, I have a different philosophy. I'm a compassionate conservative. I think government ought to help people realize their dreams, not tell them how to live their lives," except when it comes to family planning and who they can marry...
I think it's entirely possible Bush said something he didn't mean, but that Robertson didn't ask Bush for clarification...
and jumped to another conclusion of what was meant in their exchange...
There are just too many recorded accounts of shrubbishness coming from the presidents mouth for us to discount
that as the possible reason for the misunderstanding. :wink:
Go figure... you may accept the democratic party ytrying to wash their equally bloodstained hands of this war... I dont... I hold them equally responsible...
