Shit! To continue:
My standard of evilness has always been Nixon. At least with Nixon, one was certain that behind the bullshitting facade, there were wheels turning. Evilness was being competently carried out.
These guys, I’m afraid, could fuck up a wet dream.
There was that one guy beating on the big picture of Saddam with his shoe.
That was it.
-Joe
During the 2000 election, I heard a quote. I forget who said it originally, but it went something like, “It’s better to have an evil ruler than a foolish ruler, because evil at least sometimes sleeps.”
Durn, John, it’s right up the page:
So: multiple witnesses say Bush expressed this sentiment.
They don’t let you quote the entire article here. You notice I did quote the paragraph where a White House official rebutted the key statement. It wasn’t like I was trying to dodge anything.
It’s one thing to wish the government could say such things, but it betrays great ignorance to say they need to say them.
Bush thinks they need to sign their own death warrants? Gawdalmighty, save us from this freakin’ idiot.
Would make a great photo op, Bush moving in to plant a Lieberman smack on Maliki, who screams in panic and runs…
Me too. For nearly 30 years after August 9, 1974, I assumed I wouldn’t live to see a President more evil than Nixon.
Then one morning a few years back, I suddenly realized I already had.
They could indeed.
Two differences between Nixon and the Bush crew, because Bush & Co. can carry out evil quite well too: (1) Nixon took the trouble to see that the government as a whole ran reasonably well, but Bush’s crew really doesn’t care if it works, if it doesn’t have anything to do with shoving more boodle to the moneyed interests, or maintaining political power. As blackhearted as Nixon was, he would have been terminally embarrassed by a Katrina-style governmental fuckup. (2) Nixon’s loss of connection with reality was all about the Kennedys; he could see the larger world clearly. Bush’s crew is the reverse: they see domestic politics with incredible clarity, but that’s as far as their vision extends. They don’t see anything else worth shit.
Sometimes I think they believe they can buffalo their international adversaries - the Sunni insurgents, the Iranians, Hezbollah - in the same way they can buffalo the Democrats and the press. I don’t know if that’s true, but it sure looks like it an awful lot of the time. Projecting ‘resolve’ has served them well in battling the Dems and rolling the pundits, but it’s been a damned sight less successful with Kim Jong Il, or anyone else on the international stage.
Kim Jong Il doesn’t spend a lot of time worrying about gay marriage.
cite???
I suddenly recalled this thread from 2003, right after we rolled into Baghdad.
'Member the video footage which showed a (small) crowd cheering the US troops? It was what made a lot of Bush supporters say “See? They *are *grateful we rescued them!”
Anyone else creeped-out by the unironic use of “domino effect” by a scholar quoted in the article?
I dunno what Bush meant to say without seeing all the original words, but by oure coincidence I watched a tape last night of Dennis Miller saying “the Iraqis aren’t loyal enough to America.” Jesus wept. I can’t believe ANYONE would say something that stupid.
Bush is crap agrees UK’s deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott.
It’s definitely in character for Bush to talk the way that everyone is assuming, but you are jumping to conclusions. Attacking him for something described by someone else in a way that could be interpreted differently is kinda weak.
If you’re just having some fun at Bush’s expense, as elucidator seems to be saying, that’s one thing, but it doesn’t stand up as an actual criticism of Bush. Especially since finding substantial things to criticize Bush for is like shooting a fish in the barrel of the gun that’s doing the shooting.
This is the second pit thread in a row where I’ve come in to defend John Mace. I hope I’m not creeping him out or anything.
Given that no official transcript is going to be posted on whitehouse.gov, we have to make do with what we have. The testimony of two witnesses, the Bible tells us, is valid; apparently there were that many.
Fine for you to defend John, but if you’re gonna do that, could you explain how to read the O’Leary quote in a better light?
Unfortunately, that’s a classic example of “takes one to know one” …
You can’t fix stupid.
I noticed there was nothing about it on whitehouse.com, either.
At the very beginning of the war, when everyone was talking about using Iraq o create an exemplary democracy, to show the Arab world that representative government was possible, I asked a co-worker, “So we’re going to create an Anti-American, Anti-Israel government?” What else would a democratically elected government in Iraq be?
All right, I missed that quote. My mind kind of blanked as I read that part. Before that I didn’t see any substance to your attack, but now I do.
The most charitable way I can read the O’Leary quote is that apparently Bush does have reason to believe that the US is appreciated by some (although it could be just that the government is grateful to Bush for putting them in power). I guess he figures then that a lot of Iraqis really are grateful to us, enough to make a difference. Either he really isn’t all that bright, or his mind is clouded by wishful thinking. And you have a good point about why it’s foolish to expect open support.
But that’s different from the arrogance of saying something like “Those ingrates don’t appreciate what we’ve done for them”.
Is it really so strange that considering the track record this president has, that people are predisposed to believe just about anything about him. I mean really, did you ever think people would take the same forgiving attitude of our president that most people reserve for their cousin with crippling Down’s syndrome?