<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Saskatoon&#8217;s conversation with George W. Bush</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thesheaf.com/2009/10/27/saskatoon%e2%80%99s-conversation-with-george-w-bush/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thesheaf.com/2009/10/27/saskatoon%e2%80%99s-conversation-with-george-w-bush/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:51:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett WIlson</title>
		<link>http://www.thesheaf.com/2009/10/27/saskatoon%e2%80%99s-conversation-with-george-w-bush/#comment-561</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett WIlson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesheaf.com/?p=1488#comment-561</guid>
		<description>A good summary of the event - the shot about any &quot;un-approved questions&quot; was odd given the overall quality of review. For the record - I submitted a dozen questions for approval - they were instantly approved without comment - and the breadth of the questions was far greater than I had time to include. Also - 5 minutes before he went onstage - Mr. Bush said to me that I should just &quot;ask anything I wanted to fill in any gaps&quot; in what he covered.  There were no practical limits to what I could ask - other than the constraint of personal and professional courtesy determined in my sole judgement. (FYI - the first question I asked was not on any &quot;pre-approved&quot; lists ...).

I thought the day proved informative and educational to those that bought tickets for the opportunity to listen. Regards, Brett</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A good summary of the event &#8211; the shot about any &#8220;un-approved questions&#8221; was odd given the overall quality of review. For the record &#8211; I submitted a dozen questions for approval &#8211; they were instantly approved without comment &#8211; and the breadth of the questions was far greater than I had time to include. Also &#8211; 5 minutes before he went onstage &#8211; Mr. Bush said to me that I should just &#8220;ask anything I wanted to fill in any gaps&#8221; in what he covered.  There were no practical limits to what I could ask &#8211; other than the constraint of personal and professional courtesy determined in my sole judgement. (FYI &#8211; the first question I asked was not on any &#8220;pre-approved&#8221; lists &#8230;).</p>
<p>I thought the day proved informative and educational to those that bought tickets for the opportunity to listen. Regards, Brett</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stan</title>
		<link>http://www.thesheaf.com/2009/10/27/saskatoon%e2%80%99s-conversation-with-george-w-bush/#comment-560</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:51:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesheaf.com/?p=1488#comment-560</guid>
		<description>Other than being a bit bland and the smarmy remark at the end, not a bad description of his speech.
I thought the speech was very good.
 I went because I know the media told huge lies about Bush and wanted to see for myself. 
I mean did anyone actually believe that a man could become president twice and not be able to tie his own shoes?
Dan Rather threw his career in the garbage can trying to smear Bush with a ludicrous and obviously  fake memo.
That reveals the depth of the irrational behaviour that the media engaged in regarding Bush.
It&#039;s almost as bad the other way with their daily tongue baths of Obama, but the curtain is slipping there as well.
History will be much kinder to him than the media are.
And much less kind to Obama.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Other than being a bit bland and the smarmy remark at the end, not a bad description of his speech.<br />
I thought the speech was very good.<br />
 I went because I know the media told huge lies about Bush and wanted to see for myself.<br />
I mean did anyone actually believe that a man could become president twice and not be able to tie his own shoes?<br />
Dan Rather threw his career in the garbage can trying to smear Bush with a ludicrous and obviously  fake memo.<br />
That reveals the depth of the irrational behaviour that the media engaged in regarding Bush.<br />
It&#8217;s almost as bad the other way with their daily tongue baths of Obama, but the curtain is slipping there as well.<br />
History will be much kinder to him than the media are.<br />
And much less kind to Obama.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

