latest bushism

[redtwiga 0]

From Joe Conason today...I guess the Prez's handlers let him get a liiiittle off-message yesterday.

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
George W. Bush uttered that amazing sentence yesterday to justify the war in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

What? Yes, I promise that's what the man said. (And by "him," the president clearly meant Saddam Hussein -- not Kim Jong-Il, who actually has refused to let international inspectors into North Korea.)

Now a presidential statement so frontally at variance with the universally acknowledged facts obviously presents a problem for the White House press corps. He wasn't joking, and he didn't sound disoriented or unwell. Although Dana Priest and Dana Milbank wrote the story as delicately as they possibly could, they couldn't make it seem less weird:

"The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."

Appeared to contradict the events leading up to war? Indeed, that's an exceedingly mild description of what Bush said. There's no plausible explanation, unless the president suddenly flashed back to his Yale sophomore philosophy seminar, grappling with the argument that everything we perceive is mere illusion.

For the moment, however, let's just assume reality does exist. What possessed the president to make an assertion that everyone on the planet knows to be untrue? And who is going to take the responsibility for this one? Did George Tenet vet Bush's statement? Do the British have a secret dossier proving that Saddam never actually admitted Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC teams? Will Condi Rice or Donald Rumsfeld show up on Fox News next weekend to explain why Bush's statement is "technically accurate," even though he shouldn't have said it?

As hard to explain as what Bush said is the press corps' failure to report his stunning gaffe. The sentence quoted above doesn't appear in today's New York Times report, for example. Yet there is no question about what he said -- undoubtedly to the amazement of both Kofi Annan, who was sitting beside him at the time, and the dozens of reporters who were present during their brief joint press conference.

Anyone who doesn't believe me (or the Post) can watch Bush say the exact words quoted above here, toward the end of the White House's own videotape of his remarks, under the headline "President Reaffirms Strong Position on Liberia."

Another recent president once said something that was blatantly untrue, if fairly trivial, and the videotape of his statement was replayed again, and again, and again, and again…

[Jib 0]

Since the statement has been taken out of context, I can only point out that Iraq was less than open with regard to weapons inspectors and disclosures related to same. So, while inspectors were physically in Iraq, Bush may have meant their inspections were significantly limited to the point of being meaningless.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Clownburner 0]

Quote

So, while inspectors were physically in Iraq, Bush may have meant their inspections were significantly limited to the point of being meaningless.

Or, it could mean he's a clueless idiot.

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[spedbus 0]

it's fairly irrelevant. almost no president has written their speeches in the last 60 years, few presidents have had actual convictions that were their own without a marketability test done well in advance by a team of pollsters. the president's duty is no longer to lead the country, he has a team of experts for that on his cabinet. the president as a position of power in the United States is as nearly provincial as that of the Queen in England. his name goes on the papers but not without the expressed consent of his panel of experts. the president is now and will continue to be a position where quick thinking in interviews and popularity are far more important than long-term credibility or a grasp of the banalities of living. bush just isn't as suited to the job as clinton was. but both their expert panels have an agenda that is moving whether the president looks like a moron in the process or not.

You'll lose speed, but keep altitude. It will look like you have a choice, speed or height, but either way you're still gonna nose-dive into the ground.
-Chuck Palahniuk

[SkyDekker 1,465]

well between lieing about a blowjob or lieing about a nuclear weapons program and a war, I pick the lie about the blowjob. At least that one didn't kill people.

[Blahr 0]

Quote

Or, it could mean he's a clueless idiot.

Thats an enlightened comment :-)
He may be a lot that people dont like but I'd have to say that the president is not a "clueless idiot"

Either way, the world is a better place without Saddam running the show in Iraq. He was a sadistic, self serving prick and didnt even care about his own people.

I dont feel the need for the president to justify what we did. Not to me, anyway.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I dont feel the need for the president to justify what we did. Not to me, anyway.

pretty scary thought, so once a minority of people vote for your president, he can do whatever the hell he wants?

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Just to update Wendy's list:

The War with Iraq was about
presence of WMD
terrorism
oil
not finishing them off in 1991
liberating the oppressed people of Iraq
Hussein would not allow UN inspectors into the country.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[Marz 0]

Quote

Quote

Or, it could mean he's a clueless idiot.

Thats an enlightened comment :-)
He may be a lot that people dont like but I'd have to say that the president is not a "clueless idiot"

Either way, the world is a better place without Saddam running the show in Iraq. He was a sadistic, self serving prick and didnt even care about his own people.

I dont feel the need for the president to justify what we did. Not to me, anyway.

So if I understand this right, it's not ok to call your president a clueless idiot, but it's ok to call Saddam a self-serving prick? I'm not saying I disagree (on both counts, the idiot and the prick) I just want to get this whole patriotic imperialist logic straight. Call me stupid.... I'm a leftist french canadian

Marz

[billvon 3,070]

>Since the statement has been taken out of context .. . .

In context, from the video on whitehouse.gov:

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, eh, absolutely. We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore after our reasonable request we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

>So, while inspectors were physically in Iraq, Bush may have meant
> their inspections were significantly limited to the point of being
> meaningless.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "in" is.

A very funny quote from Bush a few months back:

"This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq. Now there are some who would like to rewrite history -- revisionist historians is what I like to call them."

I guess he's learning the lessons of his detractors. If you're about to get caught in a lie, just change history! Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who invaded the US, launched an anthrax attack against us, and blew up that building in Oklahoma City. And he refused to let UN inspectors in. Of course we had to invade him.

[TheAnvil 0]

Try actually reading the State of the Union then get back to us.

Remember that a lie is a statement known by the person making that statement to be untrue at the time the statement was made.

Leftists know that their icon, Bill Clinton, was a liar of pathological dimensions. Their obsession with tagging George Bush serves to salve the guilt liberals feel for their beatification of Clinton.

My fury at Bush's SOTY remark is over inept management of intel at that level; inexcusable. This one bit of bad intel does not make all of the other intel we had incorrect. There is the possibility that Bush knew, and he could therefore be considered a liar. There ARE a lot of liars in politics, however. Here are a few examples:

The Great Prevaricator: I did not have sexual relations with that Lewinsky woman.

Julian Bond's recent comment about Republicans and the swastika.

The Vice Prevaricator: My father took heat for supporting the Civil Rights Act. (I can think of about 100 other lies ALGORE told during the election ALONE but will stop with that one)

Ted Kennedy's depicting Bob Bork as supporting a segregated America.

John Kerry stating he always supports veterans. How about their right to NOT have their absentee ballot pre-targeted for disqualification, eh?

Joe LIEbermann during the '00 Vice Presidential debate: I haven't changed my position on a single issue. (He must have forgot about CA PROP 209, abortion, etc)

Dick Gephardt - just look at his website. Disgusting.

I think I'll stop there. I could go on....ohhhhh could I go on.

This latest Bushism....I'll read the entire thing and form my opinion then.

Beers to all,

The Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,070]

>There ARE a lot of liars in politics, however.

Of course. Always have been, always will be. In this case, the aforementioned lies may just have led to the invasion of a foreign country, resulting in 200 dead US soldiers and 6000 dead non-combatant Iraqis. That makes this particular lie worthy of investigation, at least - if for no other reason than saving the lives of the next 200 US soldiers who get sent to war on a false pretext.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Try actually reading the State of the Union then get back to us.

LOl, well I had to rub it in a little. Bill Clinton was not a great man either, no doubt about that.

I do find it inetersting how the president and staff are now calling it a weapons program. They are slowly backing away from the weapons of mass destruction.

Soon, they will be telling us that the US invaded Iraq because Sadam Hussain was a bad man and they had a weapons program.

Funny enough, that sums up approximately 99% of all the countries in the world.

The canadian premier is an idiot and Canada has a weapons program, guess we are next.

[TheAnvil 0]

If you show me that British Intelligence did not report that Iraq tried to purchase uranium in Africa, I'll concede that Bush lied. Until then, the left's 'Bush lie' assumption has no merit.

If the same folks calling for an investigation now (and I want one, though obviously not for partisan purposes) had called for one when their hero El Jefe Clintonista bombed an aspirin factory, they'd have a whole lot more credibility and look much less like partisan buffoons. They aren't worried about inept intel management because that's not their purpose in demanding an investigation. Their purpose is obviously partisan, and that disgusts me.

Now I'll grant you, that Bush might have misled America via that comment. If he knew that British intelligence report to be false and used it anyway, I'd be pissed in all likelihood. Then again he might have had other classified intel and been unable to reveal it without endangering national security and therefore used this tidbit to motivate America towards a course of action he knew was the right one. I dunno, and doubt we ever will.

Though I'm a libertarian who likes Bush (sometimes) I am still amazed that Iraq was such a centerpiece of his foreign policy. Utterly. Now that we're there I think we must stay for the long term (10 years minimum) and do a lot of investment there. Mixed thoughts about the whole thing.

I forgot to be specific: I want an investigation.

Beers,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

If the same folks calling for an investigation now (and I want one, though obviously not for partisan purposes) had called for one when their hero El Jefe Clintonista bombed an aspirin factory, they'd have a whole lot more credibility and look much less like partisan buffoons. They aren't worried about inept intel management because that's not their purpose in demanding an investigation. Their purpose is obviously partisan, and that disgusts me.

You deride the critics of the war in Iraq as being partisan. How are we to interpret your constant name calling (El Jefe Clintonista) and your failure to attribute an ounce of good to the democratic party as anything other than partisan? By playing your "I'm a libertarian" card? I call your bullshit.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[TheAnvil 0]

Dammit. I should have known you were Canadian or British or Aussie from your spelling.
This Iraqi-centric foreign policy post-9/11 still mystifies me. I like it not at all. I think the African investment push is definitely a good thing in the long run, but just wonder about its direction. The AIDS $$ is a good thing. Lack of even a statement, much less a foreign policy focus towards that SOB Mugabe is flabergasting.

Does anyone know if the US sent much (if any) aid to Algeria after that quake recently? Just wondering.

The structure of Bush's second tax cut not only mystifies but avidly angers me. Just wanted to state that one more time. It pisses me off.

Beers,

Vinny

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[NeedToJump 0]

Quote

In context, from the video on whitehouse.gov:

Which video? Could you provide a link or at least a description of which video? I'm curious to see/read the entire speech he gave.

Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I am still amazed that Iraq was such a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

How could that have taken you by suprise? It's been publicly stated as the primary goal of half his cabinet for a decade.

I predicted war with Iraq by the end of 2003 once the election was determined. I think I even posted it here somewhere.

[TheAnvil 0]

Reread my post dude. I deride the critics of Bush's 'lie' as partisan - and most of them are. Exactly where did I state that all critics of the war are Friends o' Bill? I don't recall that. Please send me a link so I can see it for myself.

I refer to El Jefe Clintonista as such because of his left leaning tendencies (this is an allusion to the Sandinista commies in Nicaragua; lefties just LOVED these folks, if you'll remember. Especially Peter Jennings. Clinton was a lot nice man than those SOBs, though their political philosophies have a lot in common) among other things. I think it quite appropriate.

When the democratic party does something good and worthwhile, I do give it credit. The fact that I don't give them credit often says something about them. Liberalism in general does have a lot of merit on occasion - especially at local levels of government. Their national party is so partisan and hostage to specific special interest groups one might consider it a domestic threat to America, however.

Call my stuff BS if you like. It matters not to me. The name calling you refer to is humorous, whimsical, and accurate in an adjective manner.

How about instead of calling my stuff BS, try to 'Billvon it' and argue with me. A nice retort to keep me interested would be to point out a leftie or rightie or independent who called for an investigation for the Clintonista aspirin fiasco AND this intel fiasco. Bill - if there is one and you don't tell me about it I'm going to be greatly disappointed.

Oh - I AM a libertarian. A hypocritical libertarian, but a libertarian nonetheless. I disagree with a few things my party supports, but find their arguments superior to that of any other.

Beers,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

You did post it somewhere, though I forgot where. You posted a link to some website that was really interesting reading.

It amazes me because I myself would have pursued a much different foreign policy were I in charge. Now granted I don't have all of the data Powell/Rice/POTUS have, but my focus would have been different, I do believe. I still see it as extremely strange, but stand by my current position that we should be there for the long haul of reconstruction.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I think I'll stop there. I could go on....ohhhhh could I go on.


The Anvil

How come you forgot the lies told the American people and Congress by Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush I?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

Exactly where did I state that all critics of the war are Friends o' Bill? I don't recall that. Please send me a link so I can see it for myself.

OK, I was wrong. That was someone else. I retract that comment.

Quote

Oh - I AM a libertarian. A hypocritical libertarian, but a libertarian nonetheless.

I can live with that.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Oh - I AM a libertarian. A hypocritical libertarian, but a libertarian nonetheless. I disagree with a few things my party supports, but find their arguments superior to that of any other.

Amen my Libertarian brutha!

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[billvon 3,070]

>If you show me that British Intelligence did not report that Iraq
>tried to purchase uranium in Africa, I'll concede that Bush lied.

It did report that; however, the US also investigated the claim the year before and found it to be false. Reporting information that the US knows to be false is a lie, even if someone else told the same lie. Perhaps the report just got lost, or Bush forgot it; if that's the case, then the answer is to just handle such matters better. It's not OK to just lose critical intelligence that might lead to a war, although that's not as bad as intentionally deceiving people about it. An investigation will reveal what really happened, and who knew what when.

>If the same folks calling for an investigation now (and I want one,
> though obviously not for partisan purposes) had called for one when
> their hero El Jefe Clintonista bombed an aspirin factory . . .

Yep. I found it remarkable that we spent $40 million on investigating marital infidelity and nothing on a potentially unjustified bombing.

[spedbus 0]

ironically it was my general statement about american politics and the role of president as chief-liar that started them getting into specifics.

You'll lose speed, but keep altitude. It will look like you have a choice, speed or height, but either way you're still gonna nose-dive into the ground.
-Chuck Palahniuk