we must also admit that the rest of the people around him are also mentally ill. staff, congress, and the courts. sane people would not allow someone so clearly unhinged to run a bakery
Posted by oldtree at July 12, 2007 08:25 AMWellllll,...shit!
Posted by Mal Feasance at July 12, 2007 08:33 AMBush belongs in a mental institution with padded rooms, no sharp objects, smoothing music and lots of psychotropic meds crushed and put in his pudding.
But certainly nowhere near the Oval Office.
Posted by Christopher at July 12, 2007 08:52 AMThe Stay the Course line from Bush, coupled with a standard pack of lies that directly contradict the report in question is all we'll ever get from Bush. The news here is that 1- the Media actually was out in front of this with the real story that Iraq failed to meet any benchmarks, instead of waiting for the Bush Talking Points and parrroting them, and 2- Bush/Rove/Cheney must be sufficiently worried about both the miserable state of affairs in Iraq and the almost daily GOP defections that they couldn't just stonewall their way intil the September Betraeus report to do their Stay the Course act. The September Deadline has just been rendered moot. The problem Bush now faces is that his incredibly tedious diatribe on "progress" and "more time" has been shoveled off on the public for years and years now and everyone knows it is B.S. Today's presser will not turn the heat off at all. Any GOPer Congressmen hoping for some cover are SOL. It's Stay the Course.
Posted by T2 at July 12, 2007 08:58 AMI found it iteresting that he was getting th "why didnt you send enough troops when the war started"-question. He answered by throwing General Franks under the bus by saying that it was the generals idea. HE conveniently forgot about General Shinseki (SP?) and his much hegher estimate of what would be needed (300-400 000 troops).
Funny how its always somebody elses fault.
Posted by Greup at July 12, 2007 09:13 AM"There's war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology. I understand that. It's an ugly war," Bush said.
Could he be more of a simpleton? Psychology being a academic discipline, perhaps he meant psyche. That's what a Yale and Harvard education gets you, I suppose. Well, if you were admitted by the well-to-doers' affirmative action plan, that is.
Posted by ann at July 12, 2007 09:35 AMup at TPM is a clip of Bush's response to a question on the LIbby matter. Basically his answer was: "waste of time, screw you". But the look on Bush's face while the reporter presented the question was on of pure hatred and anger....that anyone on this earth would dare ask him that question. Highly disturbing.
Posted by T2 at July 12, 2007 09:38 AMscout, you are one demented asshole. I don't know how you could possibly be married. Gawd help your poor wife.
Posted by tempus at July 12, 2007 09:46 AMOh, by the way, a little bird told me that a crate-load of Owsley's acid (LSD) was delivered to the WH back door on Sunday, while all of the executive branch were on their knees praying to their god, Dickey. Admittedly, some were on their knees for other reasons...
Posted by tempus at July 12, 2007 09:55 AM"Admittedly, some were on their knees for other reasons..."
And they paid 20 bucks to do it?
I don't know what the going rate is, Sharon. I think Wal-Mart sets the price, and I hear there are occasionally WH bulk discount sales. But that's just rumor.
Posted by tempus at July 12, 2007 10:09 AMThe fact that the Iraqi gov't isn't doing much, and there's nothing we can do about that is a good reason to get out, but...
does anyone else find it a bit distasteful to go into a country, oust the dictator, destroy any semblance of normal life, create conditions for a civil war, and then say "well YOU GUYS aren't pulling your weight, so we're outta here!" Is there a "nicer" spin on this, rather than saying "hey we did everything we could, but you guys are falling down on the job", placing the blame entirely on them as if our actions had nothing to do with conditions there now?
Posted by CG at July 12, 2007 10:17 AMI don't know what the going rate is, Sharon.
$20 bucks is the going rate for a McCain staffer in Florida. Of course, the staffer is a real "looker", so that's probably why the offer was so low. Wonder what the guy offers for a handjob? If he's like Foley, it was probably a Snickers Bar and a coke.
it would be perfect political justice to undo that travesty during the summer recess of 2007
Oh god, Steve, what mirth! The Dems are keeping their powder dry, and Reid has probably used his last really good "swoon" look explaining how they just don't have the votes. Gasoline is up like a big dog, the corporate lobbys are in full swing, and the DINO Dems will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Count on it.
Posted by phidipides at July 12, 2007 10:49 AMAnd so you know , Lie-berman and Levin think the way out of Iraq is through attacking Iran. A couple-a-more votes and the bombs will fly!
Posted by phidipides at July 12, 2007 11:24 AMThanks for hooking me up to the link, phid.
What the article failed to mention is that the undercover "cop" was a Giluani campaign worker trying to trade a bj for some cocaine.
Posted by TIKI AL at July 12, 2007 11:24 AMphidipides,
And McCain was worried wearing a sweater in an interview would make him look "gay?" Whatever the hell gay looks like.
The GOP: it's the gift that just keeps giving and giving and giving.
Posted by Christopher at July 12, 2007 11:44 AMIn related news, when the President was asked why he was hitting himself in the head with a hammer, said "Because it feels so good when I stop."
Mr. Bush is so addicted to feeling optimistic that he needs to create colossal disasters. If things are going well, there is no need for optimism, realism will do. It's only when you are deep in shit that you can be really optimistic!
Posted by biggerbox at July 12, 2007 11:47 AMJust more daily clucking points from the chickenhawks...
If Bush had been alive back in 1776, he surely would have been a royalist Tory, supporting King George III of England and the occupying Redcoats and the imported Hessian mercenary troops.
From our anti-imperialist beginnings, our country has gradually grown in power to eventually become the biggest imperial power in the 21st century, with the stationing military forces in over one hundred countries around the world.
It would seem that the uppity Iraqi people are not cottonin' up to the ider of bein' occupied by some Texas longhorns...
The upshot of W's comments is this: he needs to have Amurricans "fixate" on a distinct enemy. The easy fall guy is Al Qaida, even the best intel suggests that AQ's real impact within Iraq is minimal, at best. By expanding and dissembling on the issue of AQ within iraq, Bush deliberately misleads the US public in several ways:
a) he gets to hide th real bad news - Iraq is falling apart because of a growing civil war, with competing shia and sunni sects fighting each other AND within their own groups.
b) He gets us to fixate on one target
c) he creates a shorthand way of putting democrat party idiots in Congress on the defensive, because they have no spine, because they can't cope with deliberate lies from the Commander in Thief, and because they are being outfoxed and outroved by the Bush team. Again.
d) He continues to convince a small group of his base that everything he says is true. This is particularly easy because they are idiots, they believe that he is saving the US from Al Qaida, the evil muslimites from Iran who have only one wish - to follow us over here and attack us on our land, and because complex issues confuse them, whereas something simple (like incorrectly blaming all failure in Iraq on AQ) is something even his supporters can grasp.
We know he lies like a rug, yet he gets away with it. I listened to bush's speach on the radio. Disgusting.
Then I tuned in to the Democrat Party response. Harry Reid is incapable of calling a spade a spade, or a club a club, or a heart a heart. His response was pathetic, more suited for a whiney soap opera, the stating truth to power. Unfortunately, Reid's "response" was a pathetic failure, incapable to getting the media to sit up and investigate Bush's many lies. Instead, he squandered yet another opportunity to clear the air.
The upshot of W's comments is this: he needs to have Amurricans "fixate" on a distinct enemy. The easy fall guy is Al Qaida, when even the best intel suggests that AQ's real impact within Iraq is minimal, at best. By expanding and dissembling on the issue of AQ within iraq, Bush deliberately misleads the US public in several ways:
a) he gets to hide the real bad news - Iraq is falling apart because of a growing civil war, with competing shia and sunni sects fighting each other AND within their own groups.
b) He gets us to fixate on one target
c) he creates a shorthand way of putting democrat party idiots in Congress on the defensive, because they have no spine, because they can't cope with deliberate lies from the Commander in Thief, and because they are being outfoxed and outroved by the Bush team. Again.
d) He continues to convince a small group of his base that everything he says is true. This is particularly easy because they are idiots, they believe that he is saving the US from Al Qaida, the evil muslimites from Iran who have only one wish - to follow us over here and attack us on our land, and because complex issues confuse them, whereas something simple (like incorrectly blaming all failure in Iraq on AQ) is something even his supporters can grasp.
We know he lies like a rug, yet he gets away with it. I listened to bush's speach on the radio. Disgusting.
Then I tuned in to the Democrat Party response. Harry Reid is incapable of calling a spade a spade, or a club a club, or a heart a heart. His response was pathetic, more suited for a whiney soap opera, the stating truth to power. Unfortunately, Reid's "response" was a pathetic failure, incapable to getting the media to sit up and investigate Bush's many lies. Instead, he squandered yet another opportunity to clear the air.
What if bush made a deal with Osama?
1. bush does not go after him and allows him safe haven in Pakistan
2. in return osama agrees not to attack the US
3. pressure taken off musharif allowing him to remain in power with blair poodle status
4. bush has a perpetual boogey man to justify power grab, spying, and constitution decimation
"...yet the Iraqis themselves may question exactly how Bush defines success in Iraq." -(Steve Soto)
- The Iraqis themselves ? May question? Success in Iraq?
Don't you believe the Iraqi's know already? It is difficult to read the 'may question' part without gagging in disbelief. I don't know why you do this. Please correct me if I decontextualizing what you are trying to say.
"...of a 26% president and a failing meat grinder policy."
-(Steve Soto)
-I continue to find it perplexing when I repeatedly hear that a 26% approval rating is low. That is not low. One out of four is not low.
It is an abomination and a disgrace. Recent visitors from Italy pointed this out to me, where they claim, I assume accurately- that over 90% in Rome disapprove. And that is from a country with a deep fascist tradition.
"Petraeus wins the hearts and minds by killing 19 Iraqis when his helicopters attack houses and cars." -(Steve Soto)
The following link is to an important article that puts these "attacks" into a macabre context and is essential reading.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174817
They also slaughter camels too. How can they not?
Posted by Jill Bains at July 12, 2007 01:04 PMTalking about benchmarks, how many benchmarks have this Congress reached for you? Next?
Posted by peter at July 12, 2007 02:48 PM"Talking about benchmarks, how many benchmarks have this Congress reached for you? Next?"
petey, honey, try to keep up. this thread is about Iraq.
Posted by ann at July 12, 2007 03:03 PMA particularly pathetic attempt at distraction, Petr the GOoPer eater.
Get on your clown suit, get out the red nose, it's time for your lil' Repub monkey dance now.
Posted by euzoius at July 12, 2007 03:07 PM