GO LITTLE BUSH, GO!
I take great pride and joy in watching George Bush be George Bush. As he nears the end of his presidency he is still the same plain spoken man of conviction he was when he took the oath of office. The media is pulling out all the stops in their final attempt to smear his reputation and somehow tie him to McCain to foil any Republican hopes for the White House in 2008. All the while, George Bush is calling them like he sees them.
I watch a part of his interview on NBC this morning and had to laugh at his plain spoken, but effective response to the interviews question. It went something like this.
BUSH HATING NBC REPORTER: Mr. President, some people are saying that you are leaving the middle east in worse shape than when you took office and that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists than there were before and we are in more danger of….
PRESIDENT BUSH INTERRUPTING:…Wait, wait, wait, your talking about the beehive theory. That some how if we just don’t bother ‘em they’ll stay in their hive and not hurt anybody, right? Well they didn’t stay in their hive when the came here murdered 3000 of our citizens, did they? They’ve always been there planning to do us harm. I think we need to go on the offensive against terrorists and defeat them before they take more innocent lives.
Thats a real commander-in-chief talking right there.
The Other Side Says: May 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
i find it interesting that buck choses this quote among all of the recent bush quotes. was this richard engel and the interview he did in the garden? if it was, i find the whole bush arrogance against engel interesting. engel has lived in iraq on and off for the past five years and bush still thinks he knows more about iraq. so far he’s been wrong about virtually everything.
this quote shows the ineptitude of bush and the right wing view of iraq. they cannot admit that taking resources away from afghanistan emboledened al-qaeda and let them flourish in pakistan. attacking iraq acutally produced the terrorist group al-qaeda in iraq (they weren’t in iraq before we attacked). al-sadr now has as much power as al-maliki (without the cease-fires iraq would be far more violent). taking out a sunni (sadaam) and replacing him with a shiite gave iran an ally in the region and more room to become as powerful as they have.
also, by mentioning 9-11 after the reporter said the war in iraq furthers the already de-bunked notion that iraq played any part in the attacks. many of the 9-11 attackers were saudis, but suadi arabia remains un-mentioned. (everyone admits that there haven’t been any attacks since 9-11 but no one says that 9-11 happened during the bush presidency. kind of an interesting omission considering bush failed to heed any warnings)
moreover, lumping every middle eastern country into one group over simplifies a profoundly complicated region of the world. but thats what he’s been doing all along.
this was a valid question that bush chose to avoid answering. instead he uses the victims of 9-11 and terrorism to deflect any criticism. after five years of being in iraq he still doesn’t understand the situation. you cannot take anything bush says without a grain of salt. his latest smear agains obama, and tying him to nazi appeasment, was innappropriate but not surprising.
to blame the media for portraying bush negatively is way too easy of a cop out. history will show that his policies are flawed and won’t judge him well. and its not the media who is tying mccain to bush, its mccain and his flip-flops that are tying each other together. and mccain has gotten some pretty hands-off treatment from the media. where’s the uproar about reverand hagee or mccain’s numerous ties to lobbyists?
Bryan R. Says: July 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
“…also, by mentioning 9-11 after the reporter said the war in iraq…”
I do believe the reporter first said “…you are leaving the middle east…”
I also believe Iraq is in the middle east.
I also believe The President is going to have better sources of wide-scope information than a reporter, even if he is living in Iraq.
conservopunk Says: July 18th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Why can’t you Liberals ever, ever simply admit when you are wrong? Since the 60’s your policies and declarations have been proven demonstrably FALSE by history. “The surge is working, the surge is working” (sung to the tune of “the sky is falling”
Liberals were (proven) wrong about:
The Cold War and USSR
The “War on Poverty”
The “Great Society”
The “inevitability of South American Communist regimes”
Clinton’s Guilt
Reagan’s Greatness
Carter’s “Greatness” - well not really wrong as he only lasted one term
Attitude towards al qaeda in the 90’s (under Clinton)
They hate us because we attacked them! ha ha ha
Oil Bans
Nuclear Power Bans
the Heterosexual AIDS epidemic… when is it coming?
Alar
DDT (Thanks a lot Rachel Carson, love the 20 million dead African people killed by malaria before DDT reinstated as a harmless bug killer)
Somalia
Foreign Policy in the Sudan (thanks Bill Clinton, love the 8 million slaughtered Africans)
The “Betray-Us” ad in NYT
The process of Govt after Katrina
Sami al Arian
Global Warming (becomes climate change)
Alger Hiss, The Rosenburgs and Joe McCarthy (vindicated by the Venona project)
and on and on and on…
conservOpunk
The Other Side Says: July 19th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
i’m not an expert on too many of conservopunks points, but i do see some glaring partisan attacks:
-clinton’s administration sent information to the incoming bush administration that out-lined the potential threat of al-qaeda using airplanes to attack the america. bush demoted richard clarke who advocated aggressively attacking al-qaeda and was clinton’s terrorism czar. the bush administration had many warnings about an immient attack but gave the intelligence to a low level office. as a result, bush didn’t see the information until a few weeks before 9-11. everyone points out the fact that america hasn’t been attacked since 9-11. that’s great, don’t get me wrong. but 9-11 happened under the bush administration. i’m not saying that bush perpetrated the attcks, rather he failed to protect america. and his actions after 9-11 has made america less safe. iraq diverted resources from fighting al-qaeda in afghanistan and allowed them to regroup in pakistan to pre-9-11 levels. our relationship with pakistan has prevented us from attacking al-qaeda. WE STILL HAVEN’T FOUND BIN LADEN. so to continue the meme that democrats are soft on terrorism is patently false. the republicans are the one’s who have made america far less safe.
-global warming hasn’t been proven right or wrong. that leads me to believe conservopunk has no idea about science. all scientists can do is gather enough evidence to show a theory is near fact. they also can find evidence against a theory to disprove it. scientists have found enough evidence about global warming that they are confident it is real. it’s like evolution. a lot of evidence and it is almost fact. on the other hand, intelligent design isn’t a provable theory and therefore isn’t near fact.
-the “betray-us” ad was poorly worded but nonetheless a legitemate point of debate. the republicans just blew things out of perportion, even though bush placed a military man into the chaos of politics. republicans only use the “betray-us” part and never address the basis of the ad.
i’m a little to young to intelligently respond to some of the other issues raised by conservopunk but there are still other glaring falsehoods (clinton witch hunt). both sides find it hard to say that they are wrong on issues. i wonder if bush will say that his economic plan has put america in a crisis? at least bush has changed on iraq, “time horizons” (fancy-speak for time-table), and talking to iran. mccain has even changed his mind on afghanistan. that’s promising, but why haven’t they been labeled as “flip-floppers” like obama was?