# Politically speaking, G. W. Bush has a premature ejaculation problem **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2003, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238 "2003-12-05T21:08:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2003, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/21 "2003-12-08T06:28:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*Well, you certainly sound like just the sort of impartial observer I can trust to reount events faithfully. So again: cite? > Can you name a single Republican that didn’t criticize Clinton during wartime? And can you find a singleliberal pundit who, in response to said criticism, accused the Republicans of aiding or encouraging the enemy? \*\* Can you name a single Republican who criticized President Clinton? I’m not even sure how to search for your question. I could debate Kosovo but that is more a NATO decision than Clinton’s. I’ll chastise any Republican (you cite) who said anything that would lead an opposing force to believe we would alter our course politically. As I stated before, you can criticize the President in a polite and neutral manner. I posted my biases because I’m aware of them. I make a conscious effort to flip something to see if I’m overly critical. I can’t erase all my biases but I do try. If you wish to cite, I would filter out pre-conflict rhetoric. I expect that from both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2003, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/22 "2003-12-08T06:43:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cronos \* > \*\*Magiver, > > If nobody is apologizing for what he said, now would be good time to start. How can we say major hostilities are over when more soldiers have died since that declaration? Bush did say and most reasonable people expected that the US involvement would be measured in years. US involvement went far beyond war in Japan and Germany too, but we didn’t have face guerilla warfare there. If the administration knew that more lives were going to be lost and the nature of war is going to change drastically then they had to be more specific than just basically saying we’ve got more work to do. That little weasel phrase doesn’t give them a pass on why it’s open-season on coalition soldiers in Iraq. “End of major hostilities” means more than USS Lincoln coming home. It means the place is safer than during “major hostilities,” which is clearly not the case. All that has changed is the nature of the war, and the place is just as dangerous as before. That day marked nothing more than a photo-op for him—a victory lap basically. Considering that he didn’t even have to land there with an airplane since USS Lincoln was well within rage of helicopters, it seems to me they were eager to claim mission accomplished in a spectacular manner without much though about what lies ahead in Iraq. > > So he either jumped to conclusion (which I think is the case) or he mislead us intentionally. \*\* If you believe that the President believed the casualty rate would be anything different than what it is I don’t know what to tell you. I thought it was clear that we faced a long hard road ahead. And your comment about helicopters is misplaced. The jet makes better time and is more cost effective. Letting him fly the plane and getting pictures of him in a flight suite is obviously a photo op and a victory lap. He got the equivalent of a gatoraide bath from the troops he commands. You can’t condem him for the action without dragging every other President down with him. ---
**Author:** ![Cronos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@Cronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cronos)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/23 "2003-12-09T01:37:33Z")
Magiver, Here are some quotes from Republicans criticizing Clinton during the war in Kosovo. I don’t know what you mean by “polite” criticism, as these days any criticism of the president or his policies seems to draw cries of foul by the right. This, I think, is a bit of a hijack, though. [http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop\_kosovo.pdf](http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/24 "2003-12-09T01:48:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cronos \* > \*\* > [http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop\_kosovo.pdf](http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf) \*\* GW Bush critized Clinton for not having an exit strategy in Kosovo. heehee. Haww HAAAAAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAA! _sob_ Not really funny. Not funny at all. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/25 "2003-12-09T01:50:21Z")
> [@](#): > > As I stated before, you can criticize the President in a polite and neutral manner. Perhaps by calling him a rapist, a murderer, saying that his policies were wagging the dog, etc.? What exactly, anyway, is the justification for not criticizing the President in any manner you wish? A President is not a holy figure, but a politician vying for power with other politicians. Bush has run a dirty, nasty political game just like every other politician, and he can’t be held immune from the very same criticisms and accusations he and his team use against his own political opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/26 "2003-12-09T03:07:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*Perhaps by calling him a rapist, a murderer, saying that his policies were wagging the dog, etc.? > > What exactly, anyway, is the justification for not criticizing the President in any manner you wish? A President is not a holy figure, but a politician vying for power with other politicians. Bush has run a dirty, nasty political game just like every other politician, and he can’t be held immune from the very same criticisms and accusations he and his team use against his own political opponents. \*\* Bush isn’t holy but the troops are. A real politician who has problems with something involving troop deployment will deal with it personally, not through a camera. Cronos, thanks for the post. I’ve been on the roof all day and I’m beat. Just scanned through them. Kind of ironic Bush critisized Clinton for not going at it harder. I’ll read them and make comments. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/27 "2003-12-09T03:18:24Z")
Actually the steel tariffs were too hot to keep up much longer. The weak dollar means this is the pretty good time to drop the tariffs anyway. Naturally it still looks bad… In other topics I agree Bush is gung ho and to much into action… ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/28 "2003-12-09T03:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Magiver_ > It is unprofessional to question the President in public during times of war. She can verbalize her disagreements in a neutral manner without giving aid to the enemy. Your first statement is so scary that it seems to me that it could have come right out of the mouth of one of the **real “socialists”** (of the totalitarian variety) like Stalin. What the heck is that supposed to mean? That we sit quietly back and let the President do whatever he wants with impunity? He is the one who has chosen to put us in a perpetual state of war against an amorphous and ever-changing enemy. And, now we have no right to criticize him about it?!? As for your second statement, well, then you better produce her quote and show us how it was “giving aid to the enemy”. I haven’t heard her exact quote but I heard her explaining what she says she said (on Meet the Press) and her side of the story is that she was asked by a soldier how the people at home feel about them. And, she told him that everyone back home is very supportive of the troops. She then explained that there is some debate about the President’s handling of the war but that does not translate into any lack of support for the troops. As she explained, it would have been insulting to the intelligence of the soldier not to say that. As she noted, he is not ignorant and has access to news where he can see the discussions that are occurring. It seemed like a healthy dose of intelligence in light of the general dumbing-down of our political discourse that has come from this Adminstration, starting from the top. And, by the way, Clinton was, in my opinion, if anything too mild in her criticism of Bush on this. After all, she was relatively hawkish on the war, having voted for the resolution giving Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq and she says she still feels that was the right vote even if she thinks he didn’t handle that authority very well. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > If you don’t think that this administration has been pretty masterful in how its managed its public image, you’re missing out. They’ve played one of the best political games I’ve seen in my lifetime. Getting back to the OP, I gotta agree with **Apos** 100% here. Whatever one can criticize the Bush Administration for (where do I start?), their lack of political skills is not one of them! They have used their political skills with a 1984-ish level of talent. I still hope it will all come tumbling down on them eventually but when it does, it won’t be because of lack of political skills, it will be because no amount of political skill can make up for such horrendous policies. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/29 "2003-12-09T03:30:45Z")
Oh yeah, and here is what some other “socialists” are saying about Bush’s Iraq policy, [Gingrich criticizes U.S. policy on Iraq](http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1208iraq-policy08.html): > [@](#): > > Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Sunday blasted U.S. policy in Iraq, saying it has gone “off a cliff” by failing to put Iraqis in charge of governing and policing their own country. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/30 "2003-12-09T06:07:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cronos \* > \*\*If nobody is apologizing for what he said, now would be good time to start. How can we say major hostilities are over \*\* Actually, the phrase was “major combat operations.” And there have, in fact, been no major combat operations (i.e., division-level). \*\* > [@](#): > > US involvement went far beyond war in Japan and Germany too, but we didn’t have face guerilla warfare there.\*\* Actually, yes we did. Look up the “Werewolves” in post- WWII Germany. I would also suggest that the US could have more easily cowed some of those prone to resist if there were more civilian casualties and greater destruction as in WWII. Firebombing Tikrit might have saved US lives; nevertheless I’m glad we didn’t do it. \*\* > [@](#): > > If the administration knew that more lives were going to be lost and the nature of war is going to change drastically then they had to be more specific than just basically saying we’ve got more work to do.\*\* What are they, clairvoyant? If they started making specific predictions on what exactly would happen 2, 3, 6 months down the line, they’d inevitably be wrong, and you’d hammer them on that. They said there’d be problems and struggles. There have been. If you want to get picky about “well, the problems have been greater than what I was expecting,” have at it. \*\* > [@](#): > > “End of major hostilities” means more than USS Lincoln coming home. It means the place is safer than during “major hostilities,” which is clearly not the case.\*\* Thank you for telling us how you define this term in your mind. This is not how I understood it nor, I suspect how it was meant. \*\* > [@](#): > > All that has changed is the nature of the war… \*\* As the administration has said many times… \*\* > [@](#): > > So he either jumped to conclusion (which I think is the case) or he mislead us intentionally. \*\* Or he was glad to see the end of the first phase, and that the dire predictions that some had made and that he no doubt feared had not come about. Is it just possible that, like any other President, he was relieved to see the safe return of people he had sent into danger? ---
**Author:** ![Cronos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@Cronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cronos)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/31 "2003-12-09T07:45:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by furt \* > \*\*Actually, the phrase was “major combat operations.” And there have, in fact, been no major combat operations (i.e., division-level). > > No major combat?! So our soldiers have been dying because of what? How do you reconcile the higher body count during no “major combat?” Our soldiers are dying, our choppers are being shotdown, the visiting members of Congress spend the nights in Kuwait, and the President spends time there measured in minutes. Rationalization about “division-level combat” requires an unfathomable level of denial about the state of affairs there. > > \*\*Actually, yes we did. Look up the “Werewolves” in post- WWII Germany. I would also suggest that the US could have more easily cowed some of those prone to resist if there were more civilian casualties and greater destruction as in WWII. Firebombing Tikrit might have saved US lives; nevertheless I’m glad we didn’t do it. > > Haven’t looked up the specifics; but I venture to say the body count pales in comparision to those that died during WWII. > > \*\*What are they, clairvoyant? If they started making specific predictions on what exactly would happen 2, 3, 6 months down the line, they’d inevitably be wrong, and you’d hammer them on that. They said there’d be problems and struggles. There have been. If you want to get picky about “well, the problems have been greater than what I was expecting,” have at it. > > Clairevoyant? Hell, lets settle for merely comptetent. There were plenty of warnings from all around if they only paid attention. Which again goes to the OP, they shot off their wad prematurely. > > \*\*Thank you for telling us how you define this term in your mind. This is not how I understood it nor, I suspect how it was meant. > > You’re welcome. Thank you for defining “division-level” combat. It still seems specious to me. > \*\* As the administration has said many times… > The administration has been saying a lot things about this war, mostly crap. What does “…” mean? > > \*\*Or he was glad to see the end of the first phase, and that the dire predictions that some had made and that he no doubt feared had not come about. Is it just possible that, like any other President, he was relieved to see the safe return of people he had sent into danger? \*\* Since he didn’t have to send them there to begin with, I ain’t too impressed with his aleged relief in their safe return. Although to know for sure, it requires some clairevoyance. But this thread is about their lack of control of political ejaculation, not justification of actions. ---
**Author:** ![Cronos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@Cronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cronos)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/32 "2003-12-09T07:49:27Z")
Well, damn it! My post didn’t come out as I’d expected. Most of my responses are in the middle of the quotation. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/33 "2003-12-09T15:36:49Z")
Preview! 😉 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cronos \* > No major combat?! So our soldiers have been dying because of what? I repeat, the phrase in question is: “major combat operations.” As in large-scale airstrikes, coordinated attacks involving large numbers of troops and columns of tanks, etc. That phase of the operation, which had the potential for large-scale casualties and goofs (If a significant part of the Iraqi militray had fought, if a bomb had missed and hit an apartment building, if a chemical weapon was launched agianst massed US troops, etc) was over, and had passed without catastrophe. Ample cause for congratulating the troops, IMO. Soldiers being killed in twos in threes is a bad and serious situation, but it is not “major combat operations.” > [@](#): > > Haven’t looked up the specifics; but I venture to say the body count pales in comparision to those that died during WWII. Probably so; I was simply pointing out that noxious regimes do not go as quietly as you suggested. > [@](#): > > Clairevoyant? Hell, lets settle for merely comptetent. There were plenty of warnings from all around if they only paid attention. There were plenty of warnings that Iraq would attack Israel, that there would be a massive refugee crisis with starvation, that they would blow up all the oil wells like in '91, that Baghdad would be Stalingrad, that the people would rise up with women and children charging tanks, that we’d end up causing a half-million civilian casualties, etc. I invite you to look over the many many threads on these boards, or for that matter read the thousands of newspaper editorials where many people made many predictions about what would happen. Please tell me how many were spot-on. By and large, the administration’s predictions have been more accurate than most (not all) others. I’d agree that the task there is more difficult, and difficult in some different ways than was anticipated. But that is the nature of military affairs. “No plan survives first contact with the enemy” is a military cliche because it’s true. Things ALWAYS go wrong, the plan NEVER works perfectly, as any military man will tell you. All you can do is try to eliminate the worst possible outcomes (listed above) and set yourself up so you are prepared to be flexible. There are many signs that it could go to hell, but there are also signs it could come out pretty good. I read a lot of blogs from military guys’ over there, and they seem cautiously optimistic. Will that hold up? Dunno. Kinda worried myself. But Monday-morning quarterbacking where we start with assumption that our leaders are evil does noone any good. > [@](#): > > The administration has been saying a lot things about this war, mostly crap. What does “…” mean? I was pointing out that your sentence was pretty much word-for-word what the admin has said on several occasions. Major combat operations in Iraq are done. The overall WOT will continue in other ways for years. Wrongheaded, maybe. Dishonest, no. > [@](#): > > Since he didn’t have to send them there to begin with, I ain’t too impressed with his aleged relief in their safe return. Although to know for sure, it requires some clairevoyance. I don’t claim to know … it seems simply the most logical explanation. Commanders send out soldiers when they think it is necessary (and yes, sometimes they are wrong). That does not mean they are indifferent to the troops’ safety; on the contrary, if they are human at all, they are even more worried than the average citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Dryga\_Yes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@Dryga\_Yes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dryga_Yes)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/34 "2003-12-09T16:06:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\*I’m not a big fan of Hillary (or any other socialist) but I believe I would say the same thing about candidates I like. It is unprofessional to question the President in public during times of war. She can verbalize her disagreements in a neutral manner without giving aid to the enemy. IMO, she is stumping for political power at the expense of the troops she is visiting. I find it quite likely that people have heard her comments on Al Jazir and have acted on them. \*\* In other words, the only time it’s appropriate to criticize an administration for its decision to go to war is when there’s no war going on. Well, isn’t that fucking clever. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/35 "2003-12-09T19:06:07Z")
> [@](#): > > What is misleading about the banner? What moron was confused about it? Come on, you are talking about people who can’t figure out which chad is for Buchanan and which chad is for Gore. And who can’t count. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/36 "2003-12-10T00:13:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dryga\_Yes \* > \*\*In other words, the only time it’s appropriate to criticize an administration for its decision to go to war is when there’s no war going on. > > Well, isn’t that fucking clever. \*\* No, that’s not what I was saying. But thanks for living in Sweden.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/37 "2003-12-10T00:24:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*Oh yeah, and here is what some other “socialists” are saying about Bush’s Iraq policy, [Gingrich criticizes U.S. policy on Iraq](http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1208iraq-policy08.html): \*\* Did you even listen to what Gingrich said? ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/38 "2003-12-10T00:47:27Z")
Well, it doesn’t really matter if Dubya’s got a premature ejaculation problem, because he’s got a bunch of hot right-wing toadies willing to take a big (if premature) Dubya load straight up to bazoo for Four More Years. After they get that pesky, but managable, '04 election rigged, they’ll be supplying armbands and automatic weapons for their goosestepping groupies. Having said that, I have been a bit perplexed at the timing of some of this admin’s actions. They’re doing some really ugly stuff pretty close to election time, but I guess they’ve calculated the American collective memory to be \<1 year, so they’re good to go! ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/39 "2003-12-10T04:46:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Bush isn’t holy but the troops are. A real politician who has problems with something involving troop deployment will deal with it personally, not through a camera. Again, given your pretty out there statements about Hillary, I’m not exactly sure there’s any reason to accept your characterization of what was said in the first place. Nothing I heard her say to troops was particularly objectionable nor even critical, and it certainly wasn’t to the troops. Frankly, the whole thing is incredibly stupid. You’re acting like the troops are drooling morons who’ll burst into tears if its revealed to them that there are criticisms of the President’s policies, and its so cruel to let them know. In fact, the troops are very well informed about all these issues, and even (GASP) maybe have all sorts of different opinions about them themselves! In a 24 hour news cycle, it makes no difference where a politician is when they criticize Bush. The troops don’t live in a bubble. Hillary answering the question of a soldier honestly is not some dire sin against the troops, especially when Hillary’s main points are to argue that more troops, and more of the right kind of troops, will make a big difference to everyone’s security. Man how she must hate the military to say such things in front of their delicate ears! ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238/40 "2003-12-10T04:53:01Z")
“very” critical (misplaced in editing) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-speaking-g-w-bush-has-a-premature-ejaculation-problem/217238.md?page=3)