[sarcasm]Yeah - God Forbid that Kerry would actually THINK about the consequences of war - Bush has proven attacking blindly is so much better... - I say burn him at the stake for even suggesting the idea!!![/sarcasm]

__________________
Truth is by nature self-evident, as soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear. Gandhi

I am honest enough to get you gthe direct quote with date. SEE BELOW. Yes this quote taken out of context sounds horrible. Taken in context it is understandable.
All political quotes are all virtually taken out of context; Kerry's and Bush's.
Kerry's statements , as this Bush quote when viewed in the context of the when and why it was made is self explanatory. If one wants to know the explanation. Actions like quotes when taken out of context can and usually are construed falsely. What Bush did in 1968 and what Kerry did in 1968 have to be viewed in the context of that time or you can easily warp the truth. Kerry haters do it; Bush haters do it.

Kerry shot and killed a 14 year old kid. That sounds horrific!!!!!
The "kid" was a Viet Cong terrorist who was killed in the course of trying to kill Americans.

Bush was arrested to drunk driving in Maine. Sounds like a real bad thing.
He was 22 or 23 not 53 when that happened. CONTEXT CHNAGES EVERYTHING

wackos on both sides use quotes, actions and votes by a senator out of context for their own purposes.

see www.gov.whitehouse I think but search on google for "BUSH hands cut off Iraqi Hussein "
Home > News & Policies




For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 25, 2004






President's Remarks
view
listen





President Meets with Iraqis Who Received Medical Care in the US
Remarks by the President After a Meeting with Iraqis Receiving Medical Care in the United States
The Oval Office
10:02 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein. I'm with six other Iraqi citizens, as well, who suffered the same fate. They are examples of the brutality of the tyrant. I am also here with Marvin Zindler, of Houston, Texas. I appreciate Joe Agris, the doctor who helped put these hands on these men; Don North, the documentary producer who made a film of this brutality, which brought the plight of these gentlemen to the attention of Marvin and his foundation. These men had hands restored because of the generosity and love of an American citizen. And I am so proud to welcome them to the Oval Office.
I assured them we have a plan to help Iraq achieve free elections. We'll transfer full sovereignty. They were pleased to hear that America will stay and help with security. We will continue to work on reconstruction matters. I assured them I will continue to ask the world to help. And they want to vote. They want -- they want to have elections. And they're going back to Iraq soon, and we're so proud to have them here in the Oval Office.
Again, thank you, sir, for coming.
MR. KADHIM: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate you. Thank you. Please, be seated, and I'll answer a couple of questions.
Terry.
Q Mr. President, can you say why General Sanchez is being replaced as the top commander in Iraq? Is that in any way related to the prisoner abuse scandal? And who is going to replace him?
THE PRESIDENT: Rick Sanchez has done a fabulous job. He's been there for a long time. His service has been exemplary. And the Defense Department will add further comments to it.
Mike, welcome. It's good to see you.
Q Mr. President, Chirac's office is quoted as saying that President Chirac told you that the transfer of power has to be real.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Can you describe what you may have said to him to reassure him that the transfer of power would be real?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- what President Chirac and others have said is they want to make sure that the transfer of sovereignty to the interim government is a real transfer. And that's what we want. We want there to be a complete and real transfer of sovereignty so that the Iraqi citizens realize the fate of their country is now their responsibility. And we'll be there to help. And we'll help in a variety of ways. We'll help by making sure our security forces are there to work with their security forces. We'll help to make sure the reconstruction money we have set aside is well spent. We'll help by getting -- to continue to work with other countries to help aid a free Iraq. We'll do what we need to do to help the interim government succeed in getting to the period of free elections. And I had a great conversation with President Chirac. We share the same goal, a free and stable and peaceful Iraq.

Yes, Dick.
Q Mr. President, looking forward a bit to the elections that you'd like to see in Iraq, is it imperative for Iraq to end up with a democracy? Or are free elections enough to satisfy your aims at this point?
THE PRESIDENT: What's imperative is that the Iraqi citizens develop a constitution that they can call their own, a constitution written and approved by Iraqis. As I said last night, our intention was never to have Iraq look like America. Our intention is for Iraq to be free and stable and whole -- at peace with its neighbors. A free Iraq will help change the history of the greater Middle East. A free Iraq will show the rest of the world that when people are given a chance to raise their families in peace and security, a civil society that's stable and hopeful will develop. And that's what we want. We want a society where -- where the men who've suffered so much because of the whims of one brutal man -- where their children can grow up and realize their full potential, where the schools work, where the health care system is good. And there's no doubt in my mind that Iraq can achieve this great dream and vision. And there's no doubt in my mind, some day their children will come to America and say, thank goodness America stood the line, and was strong, and did not falter in the face of the violence of a few.
Listen, thank you all for coming. I'm glad to have you here.
END 10:09 A.M. EDT

You said ::::I would like a link to the speech dis-fluency study. I know it is somewhere since I have heard it mentioned in speeches here at the University. I have looked in the associations I belong to and cannot find it. Do you have it supersabr--as I understand it--the speech dis-fluencies point to a portion of the brain that is not functioning normally.

I I remember only that I heard this "speech dis-fluency" study discussed on to the best of my knowledge by a guest on WBZ radio Boston MA on the DAVID' BRODNOY 'show. I do not recall the term "speech dis-fluency". Is it really that brain does not function normally or is it that the brain functions differently ? You obviously know more about this topic than I do.


"We will not go to war without an exit strategy" Powell I think ???

LOL

I think the disfluency is a marker of what is happening in the brain.

Anyone hear of this study or have contacts with neuralpsych folks? I believe we are flailing about for a journal article here.

__________________
Those who define have the power. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...heney.ssl.html

The whole "given" argument is just stupid. Are you supposed to be offended if someone says that you've been given life or opportunity? Are they saying they were never given sovereignty? That it was there at the beginning of time? You have to want to be offended to even notice.

And...
"As the continent's first societies, American Indian tribes hold their status as sovereign nations with an almost sacred reverence; an inherent standing as self-governing, independent bodies dating back millennia, something that's always existed."

"And for good reason. In recent elections, the Indian vote, which political observers say traditionally has gone to Democrats, has been credited with deciding several prominent elections."

Do these things not contradict each other? What am I missing?

I agree that the whole "given" bit, like almost all of the "quote" brouhahas that have arisen in this campaign, doesn't seem like much. But to be fair, I'm not an Indian. Maybe it is a big deal to them.

Just like Bush describing the war on terror as a "crusade" doesn't seem like a big deal to us, but might to Middle Eastern Muslims.

America's legal relationship with Indians is complex. They are both U.S. citizens and members of their tribe. Reservations are legally sovereign territory, with their own laws and governments, except that most federal laws apply to them (FBI agents investigate murders on reservations) and there are a host of other weird relationships and jurisdictions thanks to the complicated historical dance between sovereignity, co-existence and citizenship. Some tribes, for instance, have treaty rights that supersede other laws.