Maybe, but it’s apparently extensively-cited odiferous, bullshit spackled hogwash.
I’m kinda annoyed that he snubbed the NAACP
He could at least pretend to care. It is election year, after all.
Maybe Jeb needed help clearing brush.
On the Carole Coleman issue, they might have complained to the Irish embassy because RTÉ is the state broadcasting agency. Not that it made any difference in any case.
On the interview itself, she submitted the questions in advance and Bush’s writers came up with non-answers to them. When she tried to get him to clarify them, he got snippy. He also yelled at her for ‘interrupting’ even though he had paused long enough that any reasonable person would assume he was finished answering.
The whole thing has done wonders for her reputation here, and made him look even more the pathetic puppet we already knew he was.
I believe I remember someone else explaining this in another thread (sorry, no link). Apparently this whole “Kerry is a pessimist” marketing started the week after Reagan’s death. Reagan was often described as an “optimist”, so during the week of the funeral and all the tributes Bush tried to capitalize on this, and portray himself as an “optimist.” Presumably he did this so that people who fondly remembered Reagan as an optimist might begin to like him (Bush) more. Obviously, if Bush is claiming to be an “optimist”, then he’ll try to say that Kerry is a “pessimist.” Never mind that the way they word the ads doesn’t make sense.
This isn’t Bush specifically, but it’s on gop.com, so close enough:
The amusing thing is, this was posted there just a few days after Cheney patted himself on the back for having made himself feel better by telling Leahy to “Go fuck yourself.”
Guess it’s bad when Whoopi uses bad words on stage, but perfectly fine when Cheney uses them on the Senate floor. IOKIYAR - it’s OK if you’re a Republican.
Yeah, and A.Q. Kahn got, what, a reprimand on his Permanent Record? By gosh, evildoers worldwide are trembling.
And if anyone thinks Kahn - the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program - played Johnny Nukeseed without Pakistan’s intelligence people noticing what was up, they’ve gotta be nuts. For all we know, the game continues, just without Kahn’s involvement.
The reason “the United States was not on good terms with Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders” was because they’re a generally nasty group of people, and their nuclear program gave the previous Administration the willies. So now they’ve (somewhat) helped us in our fight with al-Qaeda, but in return, they’ve spread nukes to two other really dangerous and untrustworthy regimes.
“[T]he American people are safer,” huh? If a nuclear weapon ever goes off in the middle of one of our major cities, it will be worse than fifty September 11ths. And if that happens in the foreseeable future, the trail will probably lead back to Pakistan. Yet George W. Bush considers us ‘safer’.
Well, Mr. Bush, this is some new definition of ‘safe’ that I hadn’t previously been familiar with.
Maybe we could have prevented Pakistan’s spread-the-nukes program if we’d paid half as much attention to proliferation, over the past three and a half years, as we did to Iraq. But we’ll never know.
A President can’t always control the outcomes. But he can control the government’s choices. And the choice to be obsessed with Iraq was wrong, from beginning to end. Both proliferation and terrorism were more substantial and more urgent concerns. Hell, even global warming and global hunger were more threatening, over the long haul, than Saddam Hussein.
There is no excusing Iraq: it was a Bush Administration obsession that had nothing to do with anything - not the war on terror, not weapons of mass destruction, not anything. It was an enormous diversion of resources and attention during a time of genuine crisis. And not only have the crises of terrorism and proliferation become worse, but now Iraq itself is a crisis of its own, one we can’t escape responsibility for.
We’ll kick his ass out of office on November 2, if they don’t postpone the election, but cleaning up after the elephants is going to take some doing. And in some cases - nuclear proliferation being the most obvious - the damage may not be reparable.
So is stuff like this.
OK, it’s not the medications. It’s just you.
This is a bullshit comparison. Don’t like Walmart? Don’t fucking shop at Walmart. We didn’t elect (or uhh… not elect, as the case may be) Walmart to be our public officials, did we?
DID WE??
No, we didn’t.
It’s okay for Walmart to sell or not sell whatever they want. We can choose not to spend our money with them.
We cannot, however, refuse to pay taxes because Dubya isn’t living up to his end of the paycheck.
If they were jumping up and down and assaulting the audience, then we have a problem. Simply wearing a t-shirt that hurts Dubya’s feelings is NOT a sufficient reason to be removed.
Again, from that speech by Bush:
I don’t know who wrote this speech, but he’s blowing my mind. I’m seriously trying to follow the logic here. Let me see if I understand it: There was a Middle-Eastern country run by a dictatorship, that definitely served as a recruiting and staging area for Al Qaeda, and definitely had a nuclear weapons program and several nukes, which they had talked about using against the world’s largest democracy. Okay. And, if I understand what Bush is telling me, our brilliant solution to this problem was to get friendly with that country’s government, based on the idea that if they just get to know us, they’ll become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. That seems like an amazing level of optimism.
Here’s my dilemma – contrasting this scenario with the hundreds of statements from the WH about Iraq over the last few years, I’m finding a bit of a contradiction. I really don’t know why we didn’t either A) invade Pakistan instead of Iraq, or B) send Colin Powell to Baghdad with hugs and kisses for Saddam, and try to make him our buddy. Just not clear on what our principles are here.
Okay, here’s another bit from the same speech:
Okay, is this the same Afghanistan where the Taliban just murdered a bunch of people for registering to vote, and where the president of the country isn’t safe outside his capital? Still sounds just a wee bit nightmarish to me.
But I’m violating the request of the OP here, since this stuff is worth a separate thread. So, more in keeping with the idea of miscellaneous complaints:
This is just my impression, and I may be misjudging the guy. But Bush really seems to me like the kind of guy who’ll be your best buddy – as long as you don’t oppose something he wants. There’s an air of self-centered, childish petulance about him. I guess you have to be arrogant to even think you should be president, but a good president should at least recognize that other people may have legitimate arguments. Bush has shown a strong tendancy toward black-and-white thinking, which in combination with his rather childish attitude is, to quote the movie The Best Man, “tragic in a man and disastrous in a president.”
Also, when he was trying to shut down a satirical website for making fun of him (when he was a candidate), he said, “I think there ought to be limits to freedom.” So fuck 'im.
I should have made it clear that I think we did the right thing in invading Afghanistan – but we did it without a good overall plan. I’m just a layman civilian, but my impression is that, while we drove the Taliban out of the cities, they’re doing fine in the villages and mountains because A) we’re using the bulk of the Army to deal with Iraq, and B) we weren’t willing to sustain the kind of casualties we’d likely have had if we really committed to scouring the country and getting rid of the Taliban and terrorist elements. I’m afraid the country is going to break down into civil war again, and I don’t think we’ll be willing or able to deal with it, especially since we’ve already got a tiger by the tail with Iraq.
Not to be snarky, but maybe if Bush had gone to Viet Nam, he would have learned that winning battles isn’t the same as winning the war.
Okay, one more picayune complaint: It bugs me how Bush likes to pour God on everything, like ketchup. (Another steal from The Best Man, which I hope TCM will be showing before the election. Terrific movie, although obviously dated.)
WaPo, Saturday:
AP: "Bush Camp Controlling Admission to Events "
They can do whatever they want, of course. But it is starting to be an open secret.
WaPo:
No biggie, just amused.
But they tore Gore to shreds in 2000 over stuff not that different from this.
From the AP link two post up:
What did the headline at Whitehouse.gov say?
Yes, this bunch will lie about everything, great and small. I’ve given up thinking there’s even a rhyme or reason to it. I think it’s simply reflexive with them.
Something that pissed me off this morning, as usual, in the NY fucking Post.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27059.htm
What a fucking moron with this stupid plan. Someone mentioned awhile back that this is the singlemost expensive plan to the least likely attack used against us, and they couldn’t have nailed it better. What if 2 missles are launched? 3, etc etc.
I swear we need to fight these assholes in their arena. John Kerry ought to draft up some hokey plan, and say Bush doesn’t want to protect the country because he’s against it. :rolleyes:
I love how the fact that people are against the shield because they want a better plan, gets totally tossed out the window.
Here’s another one. According to a short piece in todays Washington Post an Ohio math professor attended both a Bush rally while wearing a Kerry t-shirt, and a Kerry rally while wearing a Bush shirt. At the Bush rally, he was asked to turn the shirt inside out, then later asked to remove it, and finally ejected from the event. At the Kerry rally, he was ignored completely.
You just don’t understand the threats of the 21st century. Terrorism is…
oh, wait
Wrong speech.
Let’s just assume that Dubya accidentally grabbed an old speech from the bullshit pile and, as usual, refuses to admit to mistakes.
Quite fun, spending billions because the guy in charge just can’t admit to a mistake, eh?
-Joe
So much fun :rolleyes: (at Bush not you)
Please, try to deny it. The Bush camp is much much much more negative than the Kerry camp, to an overwhelming degree. Listen to any radio station in a swing state, watch any Tv station: it’s purely negative ads, approved by George W Bush, most of which don’t even talk about George Bush or why you should vote for him.
In fact, Bush’s only real hope is voter suppression. Ads like the ones being targeted at African Americans by Republican interest groups aren’t even trying to appeal to African Americans: they are trying to encourage them not to vote at all. That’s what negative campaigning is all about as a chosen strategy: trying to get people to get frustrated with the political process and just tune out.