Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 26, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

The Unwomanly Face of War

Truthdig Bazaar more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Bush Talks Nonsense With Brian Williams

Posted on Aug 30, 2006
Bush Interview MSNBC

Watch with amazement as our commander in chief mangles the English language, and speaks nonsensically about the war in Iraq, America’s standing in the world, his relationship with his father, and Albert Camus. (Via crooksandliars)

Favorite phrases? Let us know.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Crooks and Liars:
For someone who does not like how the public perceives him, Bush does not help his case any in this interview. Take this little exchange:


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
  WILLIAMS: When you take a tour of the world, a lot of Americans e-mail me with their fears that, some days they just wake up and it just feels like the end of the world is near. And you go from North Korea to Iran, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, and you look at how things have changed, how Americans are viewed overseas, if that is important to you. Do you have any moments of doubt that we fought a wrong war? Or that there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas?

  BUSH: Well those are two different questions, did we fight the wrong war, and absolutely—I have no doubt—the war came to our shores, remember that. We had a foreign policy that basically said, let’s hope calm works. And we were attacked.

Quicktime and WMV (crooksandliars)
Full Transcript (MSNBC)

Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile

Subscribe to the Truthdig YouTube channel:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Jessie, December 11, 2006 at 7:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This bush guy is ruining everything!
I mean what did Iraq do to him??
And looks like he wants to come to Iran next!!!
I live there!!!

Report this

By Bri, September 10, 2006 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Corporate America has more power than any president.

Wanna see change?

We can start with outlawing lobbiest and get rid of the corporate powers, who have their fingers in our gov’t policies (i.e.:  gas/oil, pharmaceuticals); get rid of the IRS (use a 10% flat tax); and get rid of “lifetime” government positions.  Those 3 things alone would change Pharmerica/Oilerica/IRSerica back into the America our forefathers created.

Report this

By CANNON, September 6, 2006 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is the leader of the free world we are talking about here.

Priviledge. Legacy. Pedigree. These words mean nothing.

I didn’t vote for him. We expect our President to be able to

talk in a rational way. He is not sounding too good is he?

Perhaps he should have thought about this question a little bit

more—where the hell are his advisors on this one?

Don’t give me B.S. about sunshine in his face. He’s dealing with

a smart reporter, Mr. Williams. He’s got to expect hardball


Just think, we could have gotten Gore. Yes, he’s boring, but

at least he’s not a criminal. I doubt Gore would have abused his

power in such a shameless way.

Four or eight years ago, we’re you personally better off?

I was. That’s for damn sure.

Report this

By saul2006, September 6, 2006 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Paul White
In the Right

I am notgoing to bash Bush as our problem is the members of the American version of Hitler’s youth who follow the idiot blindly

You like Bible: it doesn’t say one word about conservtives being good , in fact it says they are vile
As for Liberals from your own Book of Babble
Isaiah 32: 5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.

6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

Now as for why the God of the Bible is a baby killing stupid liar.

The god who said in Deuteronomy 24:16 that a son shall not die for the sins of the father and yet the one who has all powers at his disposal resorts to causing the death of the innocent son of King David for just that reason, the the fool turn around and smiles on Solomon who turns around and builds altars to other Gods. Religious fools will tell you this is a story of repentance but how did david repent- after screwing the wife of another did he say ” I have done wrong and shall make it up to the husband” No he brings the husband home and when the husband will not do his wife as the King had and knocked her up, David like a Mafia boss takes out a contract and has him whacked. How does he repent now, does he say ” This woman has caused me trouble and I shall send her away , never to see her again” No he jumps her bones. The moral of this story (Al Gore would like) is if you have an in with the Judge (God) you can get away with adultery and murder and get to keep the swag from your crime, Basthsheba.
Anyone that has a problem with this can have my web site shut down as there is an offer to shut down the site.

My web site has an offer to shut down based on the false interpretation of the OT Messiah message if one is foolish enough to believe in the Bible.

For why your Jesus was a a stupid liar got to the web site

Report this

By CANNONball - corrector, September 6, 2006 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

er, I mean Williams not Jennings - that guy is deceased.

Report this

By CANNONball, September 6, 2006 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You’re looking at the leader of the free world. We expect our President to be well-educated—not just Harvard legacy material—but well-educated. This means he can speak correctly.
This means he writes well. This means he thinks well. Above all, it is that he makes the correct decisions. His decisions suck both in the short and long-terms no matter what he says about “30 or 40 years from now” people will judge things differently. We have pissed off just about every country possible during his reign with few exceptions.

I didn’t elect him.

Just think how much stronger would this country have been if Gore had been elected. Yes, the boring guy.

I guess the critical question is this: Look at yourself eight years ago. Then look at yourself now. Are you better off? Most would say nope.

Kudos to Jennings for asking some hardball questions.

Bush should really be expecting these kinds of questions. All politicians are hammered—it’s just part of the job. Not to quick on his feet the ol’ George, eh?

Report this

By Kev, September 6, 2006 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now see, jeanand, Seven, rift avoided, squabble over, you found common ground and the world’s a happy place.

Report this

By jeanand, September 6, 2006 at 9:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Paul, thanks for defending me. Seven, I agree with your ketchup conspiracy theory.  Who can trust anyone from Nantucket anyway!!

Report this

By Seven, September 6, 2006 at 7:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well Paul my intent was not to offend merely some didactic teasing of a collegue.  It was not the best of situations to insult one’s intelligence and then mispell a word.  To clear up all questions “nary” is of southern vernacular meaning, none, which I was using with sarcastic undertones.  No harm intended. I do agree with you that inner squabbles do in fact often take us from the real issues, but you committed the same crime, as I, after you chastised me.  You are very smart it is somewhat intimidating, so like the playgrounds of old my final comment is “oh yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad”(if his rascal scooter is charged). Humor can often be fun so lighten up and thanks for the treatise.  My apologies Jeanand I really can relate to you wanting to nail Bush, you have some delicious anger—like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli.  Our time is near. Americans seem to be on a six year learning curve and I don’t think will continue to put up with this crap.  However, the democratic party needs to do it’s part by presenting a viable candidate.  I personally liked Kerry, but I don’t think most Americans could identify with him and you have to admit he was somewhat mechanical.  I didn’t like Kerry’s Republican connection, either.  If you recall during Reagan’s term Ketchup was identified as a vegetable by the USDA for the school lunch program.  Just a coincidence?  I think not, a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top.

Report this

By james jennings, September 5, 2006 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This president has set mankind back three hundred years.

Report this

By Kev, September 5, 2006 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well said Paul. And Seven, what’s with “nary” anyways? But when it is all said and done, I have to agree with jeanand, Paul and Seven, “Bush is an idiot.”

Report this

By nicholas kaizer, September 5, 2006 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

MY favorite is when he says he has an “ecelectic” reading list.  He’s such a freaking moron.

Report this

By juswill, September 5, 2006 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is not a contest, there will be no prizes awarded.  As we lable and compartmentalize each other we divide each other further…losing world and national perspective. “They” divide and conquer. 

The labeling is so prevalent, so called journalists on Fox and MSNBC begin “news-stories” with…“Conservatives think…”  or “liberals say”...

292 Million people making up our nation now are apparently divided into only two camps, (and one apparently is Godless?) and there is a secret spokesperson for each side who regularly informs the Networks what we all think?  I think not. 

What are conservatives supposedly conserving?  Certainly not our constitution. 

Liberals; where does it say constitutionally we should be taxed at all? 

In 1913 when the Federal Reserve was formed, at the behest of World Bankers, we effectively lost control of our economy.  Successive presidents from Roosevelt to Nixon,all the way through to GWB (all coincidentally CFR members seemingly working on their behalf), have created and economy backed by nothing other then hyperbole.  Volker, Greenspan, and Bernacke all play their roles and manipulate our economy and the population at the whim of enitities hidden and answerable to no-one.

Take a side, wrap yourself up in the devisive stage production, now masquarading as politics and you will be doing exactly as the World Bankers want. 

Consider re-reading “1984”, and then ask yourself,  if our salvation will be brought to us courtesy of our leaders.

Then remember that both Adams and Jefferson, believed that a revolution would be necessary to preserve their precious Republic from corruption, every 20 years or so. 

Perhaps we should start by exposing the Deiboldt, Military Industrial complex, and big-oils connection to the Republican party, and the Democrats relationship with the Pharmaceutical/Insurance industry, and China.  Repeat after me, this was not designed to be a two party system.

Meanwhile lets all break down into subgroups and argue about a few trees, the hell with the forest.

Report this

By paul kibble, September 5, 2006 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comment #21830 by Seven:

Oh, come on. Jeanand’s misspelling of “intelligent” is a typo resulting from haste rather than from ignorance. Even blogs by sophisticated professional writers such as James Wolcott occasionally contain similar errors. Most of us don’t use SpellCheck for our posts, and we certainly don’t have a copy editor standing over our shoulder to chastise us every time a finger strikes the wrong key (or fails to strike one at all).

And where did this come from?: “Therefore I believe that statistics would show if you spell intelligent wrong you ain’t nary bright.” Therefore nothing. There is no correlation between the kind of typo Jeanand committed on a single word and IQ level.

As for correct orthography, obviously better-educated writers are less likely to misspell words, but I’ve known (or known of) some very smart people who were terrible spellers. For example, William Faulkner’s original manuscripts for his novels are full of howlers that would make an eighth-grader blush.

Also, you may have committed your own spelling error. Is “nary” a mistyped transposition of “very?” If not, “nary” is a dialectical adjective normally preceded by an indefinite article such as “a” and “and,” as in “ain’t nary a functioning brain cell in Bush’s head.” Or is “ain’t nary intelligent” meant to be an ironic homage to Dubya’s normal way with the mother tongue? 

And what’s up with your aversion to employing commas after prepositional phrases, as well as your disdain for using colons in midsentence to precede explanations or definitions? Should I take what is obviously just the result of your being in a hurry to get it all down as evidence of your lack of intelligence?

Herewith a corrected version:

“Jeanand: I know exactly what you are talking about: much like your response, George makes many mistakes and sweeping generalizations without supporting evidence.  To compound this, you actually spelled ‘intelligent’ wrong.  Therefore I believe that statistics would show [that] if you spell intelligent wrong, you ain’t nary bright.  Don’t get me wrong: he is an idiot. I just take issue with the sweeping insinuation you made.  I guess if you believe your statement, the converse is true also: if you do speak well, then you are smart.”

Rather than engaging in this petty, pedantic infighting, we should agree to stop playing Style and Grammar Police to one another’s [not “each other’s”] silly lapses and focus on what is the main issue here re Bush (as correctly phrased by Seven): “he is an idiot.”

Report this

By jeanand, September 5, 2006 at 9:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes! Seven that is exactly my point.  Like your name..original..very seinfeldian-did I spell that right??

Report this

By Gene, September 5, 2006 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Barbara had her favorite son!  Like all good parents of challenged children she obviously instilled in him that he could do anything, be anything to which he set his mind. It’s too bad that such a proud nation is subjected to his decisions and his thought process(?). Have you wondered how much he comprehends about which he reads? Anyone can say that the read three Shakespears.

Report this

By Seven, September 5, 2006 at 6:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jeanand: I know exactly what you are talking about; much like your response George makes many mistakes and sweeping generalizations without supporting evidence.  To compound this you actually spelled “intelligent” wrong.  Therefore I believe that statistics would show if you spell intelligent wrong you ain’t nary bright.  Don’t get me wrong he is an idiot. I just take issue with the sweeping insinuation you made.  I guess if you believe your statement the converse is true also; if you do speak well then you are smart.

Report this

By Kev, September 4, 2006 at 11:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with Comment #21715 Jeanand, a truly intelligent person couldn’t possibly blunder the English language the way Georgy Porgy mangles it.  The scary thing, his verbal blunders are nothing compared to leadership blunders. But hey, what’s that old saying? Oh yeah, “Ignorance is bliss.”

Report this

By Mark Berger, September 4, 2006 at 10:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We needed a man of letters and all we got was a W.

Report this

By jeanand, September 4, 2006 at 9:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am sorry but I don’t think that I know too many people that speak the way George Bush does that I would consider intellegent. They may be smart in one area but ignorant in many other areas. I think statistics would probably support the theory that the more education you have the better you speak!

Report this

By John C. Bonser, September 4, 2006 at 6:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Paul White:
You are not the only Christian in this conversation. However, you seem to have ignored some of the basic principles - “You shall not bear false witness.” And that does not mean that you can cross your fingers behind your back when you lie when yu are the president of the United States! There are many other issues we might discuss along this line. However, it is of little value when we pick and choose which passages we need to consider. Especially when we have no desire to listen to others.

Report this

By Colonel, September 4, 2006 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No on with a high school diploma ever said he/she had “read three Shakespeares”! That is innovative terminology from an obviously inadequate mind. If Bush hadn’t been born wealthy, there’s a good chance he’d be on welfare.


God help us!

Report this

By joe, September 4, 2006 at 5:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush reading “The Stranger?” Gimme a break - I didn’t kknow it was out in coloring book format! Nevertheless, just the title is sort of autobiographical. Bush is a stranger to America, its Constitution, its People, its Goals, its Hopes, and to its Status in the rest of the world. How does one penetrate another’s mind that is immune to logic - Don’t know after teaching for a dozen years!

Report this

By Kate, September 3, 2006 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Take your damn bible and go home, leave this discussion to sensible, thoughtful discourse, I can’t believe you people still walk the earth. Keep your religion to yourself, that should be a personal issue, leave us the hell alone.

Report this

By paul kibble, September 3, 2006 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comment #21531 by lifewriter:

Yes, you theory’s off the deep end, all right. In fact, it’s downright crazy.

In short, it’s probably true.

This administration long ago stepped through the looking-glass into a bizarro world of hidden agendas and inverted logic that would scare the knickers off Alice, not to mention the White Rabbit. Under Bush, the most outlandish conspiracy theories can’t possibly compete with the awful reality.

Who’s voice? Shhh, not so loud. Whoever finds the answer to that one is guaranteed a 3-am visit from the CIA, followed by a quick shot in the armpit of 20 cc’s of some untraceable neurotoxin. “But he seemed to be in perfect health. . .”

Paranoia? Naw, BBAU—-Bush Business As Usual.

Report this

By lifewriter, September 3, 2006 at 8:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Kibble’s psychoanalysis of the President’s inability to lead is quite an intriguing and compelling treatise, though I’m left with the feeling that something much more basic is at work here.  Something that’s been implemented into our President’s public addresses which was not “in the mix” while Governor of Texas, or perhaps president of a failed oil company.

Simply put, I see Mr. Bush’s ability to articulate clearly at public appearances in a steady decline, when one compares his historic speaking engagements (both scripted and ad hoc) against those captured more recently.  It’s the cause of this decline that seems to be at issue, among lefties and our alleged hard hitting right-handers here, in our free speech forum of the new millennium.  I’ll just posit this, throw it out there, because, like the nursing staffers who’ve seen symptoms of chronic alcoholism, and avoidance of or intolerance to anxiety in their work, my specific history as a technical director for theater, film and video have afforded perspective into the President’s speech delivery methodologies which appear to have have drastically changed over the years. 

Case in point, take a look back at an early press conference when George W. Bush had been Governor of Texas.  As stated elsewhere in this string, Mr. Bush was not only more articulate, but also much more fluid in delivering his views and positions on state issues.  Contrast that against today’s public engagements, and you’ll find a man that pauses…at consistent, bite sized intervals…which may or may not be connected…to immediately preceding phrases and statements.  Now, this characteristic of stammering, jilted dialogue has been attributed to Mr. Bush’s “regular guy” personality, but the theory loses it’s water when compared to the much more cohesive points delivered in his earlier career as a politician.  So, to say that he’s somehow speaking from a more rugged, simple man perspective makes sense, but only if, historically he has always conveyed this affect.  And he hasn’t.  This new means of publicly fumbling emerged with the campaigns that lead to his first seat as President. 

In my personal history, I’ve seen this type of speech delivery before.  What’s most alarming about my proposal, if it’s true, is that the President is not actually contemplating or “owning” the words that he utters…they’re being spoken…into his ear…via an ear prompter.  And in my opinion, the efforts to bring in a master of the ear prompter, Mr. Tony Snow, only furthers this theory.  Consider the way Bush often looks up and above his audience while “forming” his thoughts.  Consider, while he speaks, that what he’s saying, has just been spoken into his ear, and he reiterates, perhaps rewords, but inevitably stumbles blindly through responses, because he doesn’t have the IQ, or the position to actually make decisions effecting our world today…he may very well be his father’s spokesmodel.

I know that this tirade is off the deep end, as I’ve offered very little supporting evidence…it’s just that I’ve grown quite familiar with the way novice users of ear prompters operate.  What’s astounding, if true, is that after 7 years of use, the man is no more proficient in his speech delivery than he was the day he started.  No surprise really.

And for the moment, I don’t know that it really matters if he’s memorized these quips that he regurgitates in parsed doses with frightening irregularity, or if he’s actually hearing the words right before he delivers them to his audience.  What’s behind both scenarios, and perhaps most sinister of all…is that the person speaking is not the decider at all, but instead, a marionette.  A Candidate of Manchurian proportions.  And it begs the question:  Who’s voice is this anyway?

Report this

By paul kibble, September 3, 2006 at 1:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

1. Thanks for the following killer quote, paul, though I think it might have found a more receptive audience in, say, the Germany of the 30’s and early 40’s: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

My colleague Bukko (Comment #21459)has already pointed out the insidious logical (and ethical) implications of this mindless obedience to the Powers That Be. If there is “NO authority except that which God has established” and therefore “EVERYONE” must submit to this authority, then that would include, as Bukko points out, every murderous dictator who comes down the pike. (The Holy Babble makes no distinction between “Christian” and non-“Christian” authorities; thus, “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and unto God, that which,” yadda yadda.

In offering this deeply moving Declaration of Faith, you’ve succeeded in confirming what I already suspected: you have many of the classic traits of the authoritarian personality. Since you are clearly what Ortega called “a barbarian of specialization” and thus free of any kind of intellectual curiosity about subjects outside your chosen professional field, I doubt this well-known theory of modern psychology would hold any interest for you. Still, as a public service, I’ll provide you with a standard list of said traits:

Conventionalism—the tendency to accept and obey social conventions and the rules of authority figures; adherence to the traditional and accepted (you to a “T,” pablo);

Authoritarian Submission—submission to authorities and authority figures (Daddy George/Jesus!);

Authoritarian Aggression—an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by authorities (those effing liberals!); particularly those who threaten traditional values (feminazis, fags, etc.);

Anti-Intraception—rejection of the subjective, imaginative and aesthetic (them smooth-talkin’, smart-ass artsy-fartsy types);

Substitution and Stereotypy—superstition, cliché, categorization (All liberals are “weebies,” etc.)

Power and Toughness—identification with those in power (Daddy George!), excessive emphasis on socially advocated ego qualities;

Projectivity—the tendency to believe in the existence of absolute evil in the world and to project unconscious emotional impulses outward’

As another website handily summarizes:

“The authoritarian personality does not want to give orders, their personality type WANTS TO TAKE ORDERS. People with this type of personality seek conformity, security, stability. They become anxious and insecure when events or circumstances upset their previously existing world view. They are VERY INTOLERANT OF ANY DIVERGENCE FROM WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE NORMAL (which is usually conceptualized in terms of their RELIGION, race, history, nationality, culture, language, etc.) They tend to be very superstitious [the earth really was created in 6 days, right, paul?]and lend credence to dogmas or interpretations of history that fit their preexisting definitions of reality, , ,” 

“They think in extremely stereotyped ways about minorities, women, homosexuals, etc. They are thus very dualistic- the world is conceived in terms of absolute right [Paul White on the Right]  (their way) vs. absolute wrong (the ‘other,’ whether African American, liberal, intellectual, feminist, etc.)”

Well, as one of your hymns has it: “TRUST AND OBEY/ FOR THERE’S NO OTHER WAY/ TO BE HAPPY IN JESUS [OR GEORGE]/ BUT TO TRUST AND OBEY.” Amen, Brother White!

2. You find it “ironic” that someone with my “impressive academic background” would “pass judgment based upon assumptions you make.” But of course my “assumptions” about your military record were based on the very limited information you offered me. (I note that at least one other blogger dismissed you as a “hypocrite” based on this information.)

Surprise: whatever my other skills, I’m not a telepath. I can’t divine what’s going on in your mind. What you actually did in Nam may have been clear in your head, but the function of writing (even if it’s only a blog post)is to communicate that experience to my head.

Had you simply added a proviso along the lines of, “Despite my 1-A-O status, I worked as a medic [or whatever] on the front lines,” the matter would have ended there. As it was, I had to rely on the supplementary info provided by the Selective Service website. I also relied on my experience with CO’s who were obliged to participate in Alternative Service Programs. In any case, I apologize for my “rush to judgment.” See, paul, unlike you Blessed-Assurance Righties, people in our camp can admit when they’re wrong.

By the way, I was given a 4-F deferment because I’m legally blind (no student deferment needed). But silly me, I thought I was “serving my country” by helping African-Americans participate in the American Dream by organizing civil-rights protests in the 60’s South (where we were frequently threatened with violence and some of us were killed) and, yes, organizing protests against the Vietnam War in the late 60’s. I realize your authoritarianism demands a constricted, rigidly hierarchical definition of patriotism that would by definition exclude any of the above activities from that category, but lucky for me that it’s the Constitution, not you, that guarantees me the right to put my version of patriotism into action.

Oh, by the way, because my animadversions against your grammatical lapses (after criticizing others on that score) “made you look like the loser I suspect you are, you chose to ignore totally my response.” What did Jesus say about those whited sepulchers?

By the way, I have also seen the legacy of Vietnam in the many, many, many vets I have worked with in various healthcare settings, including those with severe psychological problems (PTST, depression, substance abuse)and those who were dying of the effects of Agent Orange exposure (although for years our patriotic, troop-supporting Armed Forces denied any causal connection existed between this chemical and the high mortality rates of soldiers exposed to it).

3. Talk about making baseless assumptions, paul. I had my first job (paper route) at 15. No, I did NOT say that while you were fighting in a war to defend me, I was a perpetual student—going from one Ivy League school to the next. Some 14 years separated my two B.A.‘s. And no, my parents were OK financially but in no position to put me through 4 years at a prestigious Ivy League school. I got a full-tuition scholarship, a National Defense Loan, and some work-study grants. A rather humble silver-plated spoon, in short. (Since Righties supposedly believe in meritocracy, don’t blame me for having been academically talented enough to get a partial “ride.”)

4. “I suspect, like all of us, you need Jesus Christ in your life.  I hope you know Him.”

What monumental condescension. Of course I know Him, paul! The Mrs. and I just had the Nazarene over last night for our end-of-summer bash, and as always he was the life of the party. You should check out his impersonation of Dubya sometime!

Toward the end, though, he got kinda depressed and was rambling on and muttering something to effect of “If I’d known these assholes would distort my mission and message of peace and forgiveness into an ad campaign for The Wonders of Market Capitalism, I’d never have come in the first place.” I nodded sympathetically and offered him another cold one.(Water out of wine? Try 10 keggers out of thin air! JC rocks!)

In fact, paul, I was raised by Christian fundies, can still name all the books of the Bible and quote many verses verbatim,  sang angelic-voiced solos (“The Old Rugged Cross,” “Rose of Sharon”) until my voice changed, and for years was regarded as a model Good Christian until in a fit of lucidity I finally fled from the Oak Grove Bible Church in my fifteenth year, much to my parents’ dismay. The hypocrisy, lying, backbiting, petty doctrinal disputes, greed, and willful ignorance turned me into the proud atheist I am today. So pray away, my onetime coreligionist: this boy ain’t ever coming back to the Tender Shepherd’s fold.

5. What a truly majestic set of beliefs. Friggin’ awe-inspiring. I could feel the Holy Spirit moving within me as I read it.  Odd, though. Nothing about Christ’s beatitudes or such famous soundbites as “Do unto others,” “the camel entering the eye of the needle,” “the meek shall inherit the earth,” etc. Just more squawking points, expressed as simple equations: UN and KOfi= bad. Stand-tall AWOL chickenhawk Bush=good.

And of course as a fundie (remember that I grew up with people like you), it always comes down to one thing: $$$.I suppose I should defer to your expertise in economics (Brown is agood school). Unfortunately, your rosey scenarios about the state of our economy are on par with your rosey scenarios about the course and outcome of the Iraq war. (Speaking of not responding to points raised, I notice you didn’t dare address the fact that even former supporters of Bush’s war policy are now abandoning that support in droves. Loser, indeed.)

Just for my enlightenment, why don’t you offer a point-by-point refutation to these claims made recently by the Economic Policy Institute re Bush’s Economic “Recovery?” Appended below it is a May 2006 article by John Berry from that makes a similar point.

Here’s your chance to do a little teaching, paul. Have fun!

1. Profits are up, but the wages and the incomes of average Americans are down.

• Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages are still below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. Yet, productivity—the growth of the economic pie—is up by 13.5%.

• Wage growth has been shortchanged because 35% of the growth of total income in the corporate sector has been distributed as corporate profits, far more than the 22% in previous periods.

• Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389.

2. More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.

• The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 35.7% over the last four years.

• The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 115% of after-tax income, twice the level of 30 years ago.

• The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.6%.

• The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since WWII.

3. Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.

• The United States has only 1.3% more jobs today (excluding the effects of Hurricane Katrina) than in March 2001 (the start of the recession). Private sector jobs are up only 0.8%. At this stage of previous business cycles, jobs had grown by an average of 8.8% and never less than 6.0%.
• The unemployment rate is relatively low but still higher than the 4% in 2000. Plus, the percent of the population that has a job has never recovered since the recession and is still 1.3% lower than in March 2001. If the employment rate had returned to pre-recession levels, 3 million more people would be employed.

• More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since January 2000.

4. Poverty is on the rise.

• The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004.

• The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.

• More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.2% in 2000 to 17.8% in 2004.

5. Rising health care costs are eroding families’ already declining income.

• Households are spending more on health care. Family health costs rose 43-45% for married couples with children, single mothers, and young singles from 2000 to 2003.

• Employers are cutting back on health insurance. Last year, the percent of people with employer-provided health insurance fell for the fourth year in a row. Nearly 3.7 million fewer people had employer-provided insurance in 2004 than in 2000. Taking population growth into account, 11 million more people would have had employer-provided health insurance in 2004 if the coverage rate had remained at the 2000 level.

In addition, someone named BlondeSense has compiled her own list of ominous, bearish indicators:

1. Rising short term interest rates
2. Inverted yield curve
3. Housing bubble slowdown/pop in the works
4. Massive slowdown and/or bankruptcy at GM and/or Ford on the horizon
5. Rising unemployment in home building, financial services, and manufacturing due to #3 & #4
6. Rising energy costs
7. Corresponding slowdown in consumerism due to #5 and #6
8. Stock market’s four year / presidential cycle pointing down
9. Rising trade deficit
10. Rising national debt
11. Falling dollar as a result of most of the above, but especially #12
12. New guy on the job at the Fed to deal with all of the above.

Make-Believe, Deceit Are Behind Latest Tax-Cut: John M. Berry

May 18 (Bloomberg)—When Senator Jeff Bingaman stopped to get a cup of coffee on Capitol Hill on the morning of May 11, he greeted a woman he knew, who replied, ``Good Morning. Another beautiful day in the land of make believe.’’

Later that day, as the Senate debated the latest tax cut bill, the New Mexico Democrat observed, ``I thought that sounds right.’’


The official title of the bill, which President George W. Bush proudly signed into law yesterday, is ``The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.’’ It cuts taxes by roughly $70 billion over the next 10 years.

Nevertheless, Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, argued the legislation really only extends some parts of the tax code that have expired or would later.

``So I don’t want anybody to come over and say we are cutting taxes,’’ Grassley said.

The new legislation is really a stop-gap measure that settles nothing for the longer term. Still, it reduces taxes significantly, and that’s a tax cut except in the land of make believe.

The bill’s principal provisions involve tax rates on income from dividends and capital gains and the income thresholds at which taxpayers are subject to the alternative minimum tax. In another bit of make believe, the rates were set to expire in the first place because neither Bush nor a majority of the members of Congress was willing to own up to the amount of lost revenue if they were made permanent.

That type of deceit is still embedded in the new legislation for the same reason.

The income thresholds for the AMT have never been adjusted for inflation, so a provision originally intended only to make sure very high income taxpayers didn’t escape income taxes altogether is now hitting upper-middle-income households. In 2003, the thresholds were lifted for that year and the next and later for 2005 as well. Now, they have been extended for one more year, 2006, with an estimated revenue loss of $31 billion.

Low tax rates of 15 percent on stock dividends and capital gains—and no tax at all in 2008 for taxpayers in the 10- and 15-percent brackets—were to expire at the end of 2008. Nevertheless, Bush and Republican congressional leaders pushed through a two-year extension, to 2010, at a 10-year revenue loss of $51 billion.

Presumably, there will be another bill next year to prevent the AMT from affecting millions of additional middle-income taxpayers. And now all the other major tax cuts passed since Bush became president in 2001 will expire at the end of 2010, two years after he has left the White House.

That is going to make fiscal policy a key issue for the presidential candidates of both parties. Are any of them going to tell the truth about the terrible fiscal bind the country is in?

Or are they going to pretend, as Bush and more than a few members of Congress have, that tax cuts pay for themselves by generating so much more economic activity that the lower rates yield more revenue that higher rates would have?

That’s what Bush strongly implied Feb. 8 in a New Hampshire speech, ``You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.’’

``See, some people are going to say, well, you cut taxes, you’re going to have less revenue,’’ said Bush, setting up his straw man.

`We Cut Taxes’

``No, that’s not what happened. What happened was we cut taxes and in 2004, revenues increased 5.5 percent. And last year those revenues increased 14.5 percent, or $274 billion.

``And the reason why is cutting taxes caused the economy to grow, and as the economy grows there is more revenue generated in the private sector, which yields more revenues,’’ Bush explained.

Notice the assumption that if taxes hadn’t been cut, growth wouldn’t have accelerated and revenue wouldn’t have increased. Neither seems likely.

In last week’s debate, Grassley explicitly made that claim.

``In the case of dividend and capital gains tax policy, the tax policy we adopted in 2003 is the reason we have created 5.2 million jobs,’’ he said.

That’s ludicrous. Some Federal Reserve research has questioned whether the lower rates have even had much impact on stock prices. There are lots of reasons why U.S. economic growth has been strong since 2003, including extremely low short-term interest rates put in place by the Federal Reserve.

Nevertheless, Grassley said former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the 2003 tax policy ``is responsible for the economic recovery we have had.’’

Greenspan approved of the lower rates on dividends and capital gains as a plus for growth. He never came close to saying that the lower rates were responsible for the economic recovery.

Careless language on Grassley’s part? No, just part of a long-running effort to deceive the American public.

To contact the writer of this column: John M. Berry in Washington at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, September 2, 2006 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And one more thing, Paul W, about your comment on being alone on this site: you are in the minority not just here, but in the U.S., mate.

Fewer than four in 10 Americans now have faith in the cult of the leader. And that’s what it is, a personality cult. More and more formerly “conservative” Americans are joining us in the reality-based community and deserting the chickenhawks.

You Republicans are followers, not leaders. So it’s time to follow us progressives into the light. If you want to hold onto your dead-wrong beliefs, better abandon this site. Otherwise, some common sense might sink in and shake the foundations of your beliefs…

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, September 2, 2006 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Heya Paul White: So if our leaders are “established by God” does that mean he chose Mahmoud Ahmedinejad? And Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot et al? Or does God only pick U.S. leaders? And if so, what was God doing for the span of human history before the U.S. was created? Bit of a slacker, that God bloke…

And following your Biblical citation, if it’s improper to rebel against the rulers that God created, doesn’t that mean the United States itself is an ungodly creation, because it was born out of rebellion against God’s chosen King George?

Report this

By paul white, September 2, 2006 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Paul Kibble:

Of course I regard W as my earthly Daddy!!  All true Christians do. He’s my earthly Daddy because I believe God’s Word and try to follow it.  I believe that all of God’s Word is the truth, including Romans 13:1-2.  “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”  I Peter 2: 13-14 says the same thing.

What’s ironic Paul K, especially given your impressive academic background, is how you pass judgment based upon assumptions you make.  You don’t take the time or effort to verify them.  Your Columbia/Harvard methodology leaves something to be desired.  You chastised me for the manner in which you assumed I served our country (I suspect you never served your country, but I may be wrong).  I served in a war during 1969 and 1970 so that you could be free to sprew your venom.  How ironic indeed it is that you would then denigrate me without even knowing the facts.  You should be thanking me and all the others that allow you to run loose on this website. But that’s the beauty of our country.  People like you have the right to denigrate as you desire.

On another posting you became well aware of my military background, after I corrected your presumption.  Because it did not serve your purpose, and because it made you look like the loser I suspect you are, you chose to ignore totally my response, instead of thanking me. But that’s okay, patriots require no thanks.  I am just grateful that you can say what you want (notwithstanding its veracity).

As for silver spoons, I wish I had had one. I worked for everything I got.  I paid for it all myself.  I have a feeling my tax dollars helped pay for your plethora of Ivy League degrees (didn’t you say while I was fighting in a war to defend you, you were a perpetual student—going from one Ivy League school to the next?) With all of your Ivy League degrees, it sounds as if you are the one with the siver spoon. All of this being said, I feel sorry for you, but will pray for you.  I suspect, like all of us,  you need Jesus Christ in your life.  I hope you know Him.

Finally, I stand for plenty.  When I state my positions, most progressives on this site either back off or bash me personally, because they have few ideas of their own—they cannot compete in the arena of ideas.  That is why Conservatives control all branches of our governemnt.  The silent majority of Americans aren’t fooled by folks like you.  Progressives(you included from what you write) are about putting others down. 

I stand, among many other things, for lower taxes and the UN putting some substance behind its otherwise meaningless resolutions by calling for a blockade of Iran.  In the interest of time, here’s my rationale on lower taxes (recognize, of course, that I’m only an economics major from Brown—not Columbia or Harvard.  Our current booming economy attests to the value of lowering taxes—notwithstanding what the left says—W’s lower taxes not only resulted in the lowering of the unemployment rate, they also actually resulted in much more tax revenue collected—because they spurred the growth of new business and more profitable business by snmall business owners.  Lower taxes provide an incentive to business owners to expand—hire more people.  Not surprisingly, most of our job growth has come from small business entrepreneurs creating new opportunities for others because of lower taxes.

That’s what I stand for.  What do you stand for Paul K, other than bashing Bush, Rick Santorum, me, Christians and other patriots?

Paul White
In The Right

ps Am I the one and only conservative Christian on this website?  Is there anyone else out there on this site who has conservative values and believes in God?  Or am I taking you all on at once?

Report this

By Degobah, September 2, 2006 at 10:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is no polite way to say it.  When you distill it down, the primary difference between “Bush Defenders” and “Bush Haters” is simple intelligence.  Not education, but basic intelligence.  It is the ability to separate B.S. from reality.  There is no rational, intelligent defense for George W. Bush’s presidency, only mindless diatribes by those who seek to that completely circumvent the point that this person is not nearly smart enough to be President, never mind any brain damage from his party days.  This is a direct effect of our sorely neglected national educational system for the past two decades.  Unfortunately, a large segment of the U.S. population is just too ignorant to be trusted to vote for President.  This state of affairs works well for Fascists, but not for a Democracy.  Our founding fathers made clear that for Democracy to function you need an educated electorate.  Solution: Turn off your televisions; READ the news; LISTEN carefully to your political leaders; ASK questions; and, if you’re stupid and you know it, do the rest of us a favor and watch Democracy from the sidelines but don’t participate.  The rest of us will take care of you.  Ignorance will be the ruin of this country if we don’t start talking about the root cause of George W. Bush.  It is us.

Report this

By paul kibble, September 2, 2006 at 10:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comment #21310 by Bukko:

Bullseye, Bukko! As a fellow nurse who’s worked many hours with alcoholics on detox units and in psych wards, I am happy to validate your perceptions of the Prez. There’s clearly some organic dementia going on here (wonder if there’s an earlier dx of first-stage Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome during one of W’s “acute” phases).

By the way, don’t hesitate to offer a long-term diagnosis of Chimpboy. Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington, D.C.–based psychoanalyst and professor of psychiatry at George Washington University Medical School, did exactly that in a well-argued and meticulously sourced book called Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President (2004). An article by Dr. Frank from that same time period on this subject deserves to be savored in full:

If one of my patients frequently said one thing and did another, I would want to know why. If I found that he often used words that hid their true meaning, and affected a persona that obscured the nature of his actions, I would grow more concerned. If he presented an inflexible worldview characterized by an oversimplified distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, allies and enemies, I would question his ability to grasp reality. And if his actions revealed an unacknowledged – even sadistic – indifference to human suffering, wrapped in pious claims of compassion, I would worry about the safety of the people whose lives he touched.

For the last three years, I have observed with increasing alarm the inconsistencies and denials of such an individual. But he is not one of my patients. He is our President. He wants to remain our President for four more years, and he intends to do so on his own terms. On August 27, the eve of the Republican Convention, Bush said to New York Times reporters Sanger and Bumiller that “he would resist going ‘on the couch’ to rethink decisions.”

Since the Swift Boat controversy hit center stage in mid-August – both the ads and Bush’s refusal to take responsibility for them – we again see his reluctance to examine his conscience. Instead he remains mired in his long-standing pattern of denial and blame. Responsibility is something this president flees at all costs. It is a behavior pattern that began long before Bush became president, governor, or even a college student. It even began before Bush had become an alcoholic (he finally stopped drinking at age forty, with the help of his religion), though his response to criticism is typical of untreated alcoholics.

Bush was the first born child to a family that had long and moneyed traditions on both sides. When he was three and a half his sister Robin was born. It has been said that the nursery rhyme “Humpty Dumpty” was written with the first-born child in mind. It seems to capture perfectly the irrevocable trauma felt with the second child is born: Nothing can put the first-born back together again. Of course, first-born offspring find different ways to manage this insult. Some can be suspicious and overly competitive; others can be overtly nice while covertly furious; still others always keep an eye on the second child, making sure he doesn’t get too much. First-born children keep careful track of how much food mother gives to their siblings.

But if the second-born dies, as Robin did when George was seven, then an entirely new and complex dynamic is set in motion. The first-born often has to disown his destructive fantasies and banish them into his unconscious. But such fantasies threaten his mental equilibrium and he has to do something with them. One solution is to project them outward, thereby experiencing people around him as destructive or a source of danger.

By the time Robin died Bush already had a mother who was emotionally elsewhere. Children resent it when the mother is absent, and Bush’s resentment would have grown stronger in the face of his mother’s grief after Robin’s death. If George’s feelings were never addressed – and it is clear from numerous family accounts that the parents didn’t have a funeral and never talked to George about the loss – his natural animosity toward his sister would have remained unresolved; he would have been left with a host of forbidden feelings that were too threatening to acknowledge, only furthering the process of having to disavow these unwanted aspects of himself. He was deprived of the opportunity to learn to mourn, to heal. In that deprivation lays the kernel of what has by now become Bush’s knee-jerk reaction of denying responsibility for anything that goes wrong. He can’t allow it to be his fault.

It is true that blame and denial are arguably as typical of politicians as of alcoholics, though the latter are generally more likely to involve family members in the process. But blame is also a reminder of one’s destructive impulse; the individual who hasn’t resolved his anxieties surrounding that impulse is particularly motivated to avoid confronting those anxieties, which he can accomplish by shifting responsibility to someone else, or denying it outright. Drinkers turn to alcohol to suppress anxiety.

The untreated alcoholic who has simply stopped drinking treats anxiety as an enemy, and with good reason: He is often more challenged by anxiety because he has lost his time-tested means of numbing its sting. He knows that anxiety is a threat to his abstinence – he fears anything that might lead him back to the bottle – but his years of drinking get in the way of learning other methods to manage uncomfortable feelings. Bush manages his anxiety through his inflexible daily routines – the famously short meetings, sacrosanct exercise schedule, daily Bible readings, and limited office hours. All public appearances are controlled and staged – even the ones that appear to be spontaneous. They have to be.

But when routines fail, denial kicks in as the treatment of choice to manage the potential development of internal chaos. The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush’s personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat; when Jay Leno, on the eve of Bush’s DUI revelation (just a week before the 2000 election), asked him if he’d ever done anything he was ashamed of, he replied, “I didn’t” – and proceeded to tell a humiliating story of his brother Marvin urinating in the family steam iron. Fast forward to the Swift Boat ads, taking a brief stop at his denial that he knew Ken Lay (“Kenny who?”) of Enron who was in fact a friend and major contributor to his campaigns; then to his blaming 9-11 for the failing economy when the market actually began to crash after he announced his tax cut plans; then to his inability to admit to any mistake he made after 9-11 (in the April 2004 press conference he couldn’t bring himself to accept even a modicum of responsibility for either the intelligence failures before 9-11 or for the war in Iraq), to his denial in May of knowing Iraqi information source Chalabi despite having invited him to sit just behind the First Lady at his 2004 State of the Union Address. Putting it all together, we see a pattern that I call the KWD – the Kenny Who Defense. He employs it whenever and wherever he can, whenever he feels threatened.

All his disavowed destructiveness coalesces and requires management whenever anybody challenges him. He becomes instantly wary: Questions mobilize his anxiety and invite that exaggerated degree of rigidity he uses for self-protection. It is not a matter of intelligence per se, but a matter of paralysis when confronted with any question that requires thinking. When there is nobody in particular to blame he stumbles anyway, as he did at the Unity Conference on August 6 when asked to discuss the sovereignty of the Native American tribes. Mark Trahant, of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, noted that children study city, county, state and federal government but that Indian government is not part of that structure. In noting Bush’s unique experience as governor and president, he asked about Bush’s understanding of sovereignty and how to think about tribal conflicts in the twenty-first century. Bush hesitated, and then said, “Sovereignty means [pause] that you’re a sovereign – that you’ve been given sovereignty and can be viewed as a sovereign entity. Therefore the relationship between Government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.”

His relationship to his father makes all the more sense in light of the anxieties I have described. First, his father cast a giant shadow: he was a good student, a fine athlete, a war hero, a successful businessman. One grows up in awe of such a father – and given this particular son’s need already to disown his own feelings of destructiveness, he imbues his father – partly by projecting his own aggression onto the father – as a man of enormous power, making him more of a threat. And young George W. had few of his father’s qualities with which to defend himself. Being a cheerleader and a big fraternity drinker are just not the same thing. This situation can make a son feel rage, frustration, and shame.

One way Bush managed his feelings was through his humor, his sarcasm (not unlike his mother), and his need to be in charge of any undertaking. At times, being in charge meant mocking his father’s power (being stick-ball commissioner while his father had been an All-American first baseman is a good example). One particular power that George Sr. did not express, however, was the important paternal responsibility to help a son separate from his mother. I doubt the success of that endeavor with George Jr., as his father was absent for most of Bush’s childhood. And when he was present, George Sr. was absently reading or distant.

This particular son is driven by the need to retaliate – against his father and against a world full of enemies. He does so in a variety of ways – though the underlying motives are the same. He tells Bob Woodward that he needn’t consult his father before invading Iraq because he consults a stronger higher father; he regularly introduces Vice President Cheney as the greatest vice president in history, without mentioning that his father was VP for eight years; he dismantles international coalitions once valued by his father; he practices what his father called “voodoo economics” by implementing massive tax cuts for the rich, maintaining that deficit spending will revive the economy; and at the Republican Convention in New York, he doesn’t make a place for his own father – an actual ex-president – to speak. Each event taken on its face value is but an incident. When they are linked together they reveal a distinct pattern.

His drive to manage anxiety is paramount. That requires him to shift responsibility whenever possible. He can consciously deny blaming his father for having failed him in his time of greatest need as a child – in helping him both stand up to his mother and to let go of his need to be her cheerleader rescuing her from her unspoken grief. But unconsciously, the blame persists – crippling his ability to think. He remains a cheerleader, not a leader. The inability to take responsibility makes Bush genuinely unable to lead: he can bully others and seem to act decisively, but he retreats from threatened confrontation (he says “bring em on” only when embedded behind the Secret Service thousands of miles away from the battle). His need to remain in control makes him unable to think things through in order to lead from strength. His is a stage-managed strength, something we saw all too clearly during the week of the Republican Convention.

Report this

By OCPatriot, September 2, 2006 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush has always talked incoherently.  That’s why he’s lost without a script.  At first he recognized this but now he either doesn’t care or he has no one to script things all the time for him.  What’s the big surprise?  This was an ignorant man, remember, who had never been outside the country before being elected; who knew nothing about Iraq’s history; who hadn’t read much including the newspapers because it was easier for others to tell him what was going on.  So, I repeat, what’s the big surprise?  It is precisely because we are so-o-o-o-o surprised by this that we got ourselves in this mess.  Time to get off the belief that by painting a donkey a different color we are looking at a thorobred horse.

Report this

By paul kibble, September 2, 2006 at 7:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comment #21258 by paul kibble:

Dear Mr. Kibble:

Your post contains the following errata:

1. In the first “graf,” the word “Lahreseque” should read “Lahresque”;

2, In the second “graf,” the phrase “the reason no one wants rise to your ‘challenge’” omits the preposition “to” before the word “rise”;

3. In the final “graf,” the phrase “some of weren’t born with silver spoons up our asses” clearly omits the objective-case pronoun “us” after the preposition “of.”

4. Finally, don’t the semicolons here afer “Lahresque” and “rise” belong inside the quotation marks? Just asking.

Although the foregoing represent relatively minor lapses and are clearly the result of haste rather than of ignorance, perhaps someone who expends so much effort on monitoring the linguistic sins of others should first make sure that he himself is blameless on that score.


Paul Kibble

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, September 2, 2006 at 6:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How are you going Kibble? You write about Bush’s dyslexia aggravated by years of substance abuse. How right you are. Being a nurse, I tend to look at things through a medical lens, so I’m biased, but I see signs of alcoholic encephalopathy in Bush.

The erratic speech has been remarked upon, and other people have mentioned how Bushie is less coherent now than he was whilst Guv of Texas. What struck me in this interview with Williams was another physical sign—the stiff arms and shoulders. Bush’s body language was even more simian (that means “monkey-like” for you Republican cultists with small vocabularies) than it has been. I’ve worked with lots of people who pickled their brains with booze, and I see similarities between them and Bush. Alcoholism kills brain cells, and those neurons keep dying even after someone stops drinking. If you didn’t have a huge reserve of brainpower to begin with, you obliterate a lot of cells while you’re on the piss, and then aging takes its toll on your frontal lobe, it’s not uncommon for alcoholic dementia to start setting in at a relatively early age.

I can’t make a long-distance diagnosis any better than Bill Frist could with Terry Schiavo, so take my opinion for what it’s worth—not much. I just see similarities between the rummies I treat and the one with his finger on the nuclear trigger…

Report this

By paul kibble, September 2, 2006 at 12:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comment #21096 by paul white:

Thanks for supplementing Dubya’s hilarious Burt Lahreseque turn with your own masterly (not “masterful”) impersonation of, well, your Massah. A tough act to follow, but you killed! Hissing and stammering, full of Deep, Sincere Passion and bad grammar, you almost outdid your mentor and exemplar in terms of sheer illiteracy.

Instead of an Egregious Example, may I offer an all-too-representative specimen of your homage a George? [Sorry, can’t include the accent mark over that last “a.”]:  “While his english is not perfect (and of course your’s is. . .)”, followed in short order by “Finally, bad as you think Bush’s language is, it is better than your’s.”

Nice job on the second-person possessive there, paul! First time=probable typo; second time=stoooopud. I realize that most MBA’s spend no more than a week studying English Comp, but it looks as if you didn’t even make it through that week. Given your stunning command of “english,” it’s (or “its,” as you would no doubt say) clear why you identify so closely with our silver-tongued Chimpboy.

By the way, apart from your mangled prose, the reason no one wants rise to your “challenge” and engage you in Serious Debate is precisely because you have no ideas worth debating. What you have instead are rigidly programmed talking points, and every time those Pavlovians in Georgie’s Ministry of Propaganda start ringing the requisite bells (“9/11,” “Project Iraqi Freedom,” “Kill the Terrorists there so we don’t have to kill them here!”), you salivate on cue in Niagara quantities.

You are, of course,  a “Christian,” rather than an actual Christian, in the same sense that Thomas Kincaid is an “artist” rather than an actual artist. This explains your need for absolute certainty and your corresponding willingness to offer unquestioning obedience to any Higher Authority, whether religious or political. Your sledgehammerish “ironic” tone aside, it’s obvious you really do regard Bush as your earthly Daddy (just as he regards himself as the embodiment of your spiritual Daddy’s divine will). In fact, you would have made an ideally compliant subject in Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments on obedience to authority.

“Someday the slaves will rush to put on their chains,” as Rousseau said.  Hear (or “here,” in that hyperliterate vernacular of yours, or rather “your’s”) that steady clank-clank-clank? That’s you, paul, proudly sporting your customized ideological manacles as if they were designer bracelets. Whoa, check out homey’s bling! And they say conservatives don’t got no style! (That was a parody, paul. Try to keep up.)

Needless to say, the only ones “seething” on this website are you and your like-“minded” (as it were) paleoliths, frothing and flailing wildly as your Doubleyou-induced delusions continue to collide with cruel reality on a daily basis. An ugly spectacle, yet weirdly entertaining. 

And that sound you hear isn’t us crying; mais non, we’re laughing, albeit ruefully. (“And if I laugh at any mortal thing/ ‘Tis that I may not weep.”—-Keats.)

On that last point, the only “whining” going on these days is from your confreres on the Right. With Bush’s approval ratings still hovering in the mid-30’s generally and in the same ballpark on the Iraq disaster in particular, even former allies (nervous Republicans, pundits like Tucker Carlson, even the National Review and the op-ed pages of the neofascist Wall Street Journal)are running for cover. George huddles on the roof of the White House as the flood waters rise—-ooops, tasteless analogy.

WHA….WHA…...WHAAAAA…...!!!! At least you got that part right! But it’s coming from the echo chamber that is Right-Wing World.

P.S.: You’re (on the) right: I didn’t attend Yale. I had to settle for another Ivy League school,  Columbia—-at least for my first B.A. My second B.A. came from that third-rate diploma mill Harvard. I won’t bore you with my post-graduate degrees, much less some 25 years of journalistic/literary scribblings, since clearly none of these achievements could match yours (sorry, “your’s”). Alas, unlike Georgie, some of weren’t born with silver spoons up our asses.

Report this

By paul kibble, September 1, 2006 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comment #21093 by Bukko:

(with an aside to Comment #21096 by paul white) 

Hey, Bukko, glad you’re once again bringing some common sense from Down Under to this little all-over-the-map chat. Your ear is as finely tuned to the mangled nuances of Bushese as mine and, yes, you’re right:“ekkel-ectic” is what I heard, too. Unlike the Bushies and their loyal ho’s at Fox News, we’re at least willing to admit when someone from our camp is mistaken.

Anyway, Bush has been fighting a losing battle against dyslexia (aggravated by the ravages of God knows how many controlled and/or uncontrolled substances)for years now, and adding a superfluous syllable to “eclectic” is far from the worst of his offenses against the mother tongue. What’s the old maxim about writing?: “Style is man.” God knows that’s true of Dubya, whether applied to his written or spoken utterances.

By the by, check out the post above yours from something called “paul white.” “He,” or she, or it, sounds suspiciously like our old poison pen pal Hondo, who one day just up and vanished into the black hole of cyberspace.

It’s really creepy: same religious affiliation (pseudo-“Christian”), same Rove-approved talking points (Bush won “a mandate,” bitter-loser liberals are “insipid weenies,” etc). Since our friends on the right are constitutionally incapable of original thought, it doesn’t surprise me that they all sound alike.

Still, this kind of “coincidence” suggests that maybe our supposedly anti-stem-cell-research Prez is actually busy churning out little clones in the basement of the White House, all of them programmed to splutter along in identitical Bushspeak. Like I said, creepy.

Report this

By axolotl, September 1, 2006 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anyone who really believes that Shrub read Camus and “3 Shakespears” is ... as they say ... gullible to the max!!!

Report this

By i am an american, September 1, 2006 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just want the world to know.We all dont agree with our leader.I know you probably still hate us.

not much more to say :(





Just want the world to know.WE ALL DONT AGREE

Report this

By Lily Maskew, September 1, 2006 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We were attacked on 9/11.  Approximately 2,600 Americans were killed.  So, the solution was to put another 2,600 Americans at risk so they could be killed too.  This is not to mention Iraqis killed and people that were maimed. This does not sound logical to me.  Maybe I ought to go read Camus again.

Report this

By John C. Bonser, September 1, 2006 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hi Paul White!
Glad to hear from you; however, I wish that you were able to use facts rather than slam your favorite straw men. There is a difference between being critical and whining. Do you honestlt believe that the administration has made nthe right moves in its “war on terror!?”

Report this

By Barbie Van Bigbush, September 1, 2006 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We here, as well as anyone with even a shred of common sense and integrity, have come to the consensus that this Bush needs to Wacked so to speak.

WE GET THAT! And yes, Americans are starting to wake up short of the approximately 30% of the population who are diehard “Inbred Jed” type Bushlovers despite facts, reality, death, statistics, etc. WE are awake goddamit! What do we do, stand outside and picket? It doesn’t work. Most of us have jobs, families and lives we can’t always join every march and protest rally. Protesting alone deosn’t work, not realistically. Not when Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pack of hellhounds still run the show. We need to follow the same tactics that got the Bushnut into office. Hire some damn good hackers and hijack the elections and at least get the evil “libruls” into “power”. LOL….At least the “libruls” don’t have the most frightening band of special interest groups funneling them money.

Think about it, whose money would you rather see taken by the next President in office? Bushite=Enron + Exxon + Christian Colation + NRA and plenty of other military goods contractors and so on. I would much rather see the Dems or those of their ilk who get money from teachers and other unions, the Sierra Club, the National Organization of Women and the like.

Yes, I know, there are shady corporations funneling cash back and forth between both parties with rotten deals all around, but at least there is a far better chance of getting a leader who might actually act like he or she gives a shit about people and the world, than verbally bumble and stumble through words claiming it but then literally installing legislation that does just the opposite. Can you say Clear Skies Initiative to name just one….Elect only Dems in 2006, please, in all seriousness. Legitimate third party candidates are just not the answer right now.  This is the only logical way to turn the tide. Hell, if you got better ideas, then throw them on up here.

We need to legally dethrown these neocon criminals and start over. With any hope, the “librul” congress can get a little retribution going with at least starting an impeachment process against Bush even if it never really goes anywhere. The Bush clan needs to be taught a legal lesson by the “people” for the “people”. Clinton was skewered over absolute bullshit. These crooks lied us into a war and then claimed they never affiliated Saddam with Al Quaida when there are dozens upon dozens of accounts and speaches where Bush said just the opposite yet again. He just said it in this interview in Louisianna.

How many lies can a pair of ears hear? Not much more as I have stabbed both of my ears with the chop sticks I just finished using with my Kung Pao shrimp….anything is better than having to hear Bush lie to me in another shoddy half assed evasive interview. Good day to you all and may the nonexistent invisible man in the sky save us all from these bastards.

Report this

By M. Stanis, September 1, 2006 at 9:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now that this President has allegedly read “The Stranger” by Camus, perhaps it’s time for him to move on to a somewhat more topical, and might I add, humorous book, “The Trial” by Franz Kafka. I think he’d find many light hearted, and dare I say, hilarious moments in it. I’m sure he’d be slapping his own forehead over and over again when he realizes just how Kafka-esque he has been, and continues to be with each new day.

So…Mr. President, I think Kafka’s “The Trial” should be on your reading list…it’s about you and the world you’re fighting so hard to create…you know, a world where the accused are not allowed to face their accuser, evidence is not required, presumption of innocence is a thing of the past, one isn’t allowed to attend one’s own trial, and the Magna Carta (that quaint old document) never existed! You are King, and the peasants live or die at your whim.

When the Decider has spoken, the law is re-written!

Report this

By Orpheus, September 1, 2006 at 8:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

First, I did not realize that “eclectic” was pronounced “ecAlectic”.

Second, Bush could not remember anything he read in Camu’s “The Stranger”—a book that is about 100 pages. I’m glad that we did not have to suffer through an attempt at pronouncing “existentialism”.

Third, when Bush tried to convey that he had read three works from Shakespeare, it came out: “…well, I jes read three Shakespeare(s).” Well, you can never have enough Shakespeare!

Fourth, Bush tried to toot his own horn (ever out of tune) by saying that he stood in Jackson Square and told the people that he would deliver, and that he did!  The delivery is just a little late.

Fifth, CIA trained Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen (which splintered into the Taliban, then Al Qaeda). Remember? We had to kick out the evil empire (Soviets) from Afghanistan and so we employed the assistance of religious zealots that Reagan dubbed “freedom fighters” (Taliban) who openly bragged about throwing acid in the faces of women that did not cover up themselves adequately. Bush and his entire administration clearly implied at the outset, that Iraq (and Saddam) were linked to Al Qaeda. Yet, in the video he denied that. I don’t mind so much that he lied but it’s the sloppy lying that I protest. What has happened to the good liars? I miss Clinton!

Sixth, he claims that his dad gave him the greatest gift of all: unconditional love. Instead of all that love, Poppy and Babs might have considered a few books on critical thinking. Indeed, any sort of thinking.

Finally, what amazes me more than the historical ignorance of most Americans, is their tendency to foolishly stand by a public figure in spite of all clear evidence to the contrary of what they desperately need to believe. It’s as if they validate themselves vicariously through someone that (groan with me now) “holds their values”. I find the values of Bush, neo-cons, et al, without value or merit.  I am not a “believer” but if there is a hell, it’s fires burn for the likes of Bush and company.

Report this

By Chris Brainard, September 1, 2006 at 8:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I love how people just make excuses for him all the time. Like he is some innocent nice person who is just having a hard day in front of the cameras. Give me a break the guys makes a ton of cash and this is his job.

Report this

By Head Shaker, September 1, 2006 at 8:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We are all screwed…....

Report this

By jen, September 1, 2006 at 5:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That interview wasn’t really a big deal…certainly not as damning as scores of others.  What I thought was amusing was Brian Williams’ body language:  the folded arms, the direct and sustained pointing at Bush when asking questions…clearly he cant STAND Bush.  Good stuff.

Report this

By paul white, September 1, 2006 at 5:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To all insipid weenie liberals:

Here you whining, whimpering liberals (excuse me—progressives) go again.  Standing on your heads and telling the world it is upside down.  By a mandate, W was elected last time. He also (gasp!!!) was elected the first time, notwithstanding your abhorrence for the electoral voting system and Kathleen Harris, and the Supreme Court, and big oil, and Cheny, and Rove, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.

Like it or not, he is in deeee White House.  While his english is not perfect (and of course your’s is—just read your comments on this website), you’ve yet to hear him render a definition of what “is is,” as your beloved Slick Willie did. 

When you can’t compete in the arena of ideas (this entire web site), you pull out of the ole liberal playbook the tired, waery tactic of denigrating, bashing, putting down, accusing the other side, etc., etc., etc. 

Why waste time criticizing the language of W in an interview with Brian Williams, other than you have no day job?  Or, if you do,  could it be because you have nothing left to critize, other than his language? He did go to Yale—did you?  He did fly a plane—do you?  He does make speeches—do you? 

How do you like, when someone gives it to you?  Can’t stand it, can you.  You’re seething, aren’t you.

Why not put forth your own ideas on ideas, issues, thoughts?  I challenge any liberal to do that here now.  I doubt you can.  You know no other way than to bash Bush.  It’s part of your nature.

Finally, bad as you think Bush’s language is, it is better than your’s.  The last ten liberals I’ve spoken with say “uhm,” “you know,” “like,” “less neo-cons” (instead of “fewer” neo-cons), etc., etc.  And of course, your favorite, “Bush sucks.” 

WHA….WHA…...WHAAAAA…...!!!!  There, there liberals (excuse me—progressives) stop your crying.  Now, now, calm down.  Relax.  Let Daddy help you.  Here you go, little guy.  Here’s baby’s bottle.  There you go, big fella.  Here, suck on this.  Baby feel better?  That’s it.  Suck away, little baby.  Daddy W. not only feels your pain, but he takes care of all his crying babies.  Cause he’s in deee White House!!!

Now then, liberals, fire away at me.  Call me evry name you know.  But for the more serious of you, how about ONE (1) (uno) idea about anything.  Can any liberal respond to this with one concrete idea, without putting me down??  I think not.  Are you up to the challenge?

Paul White
In the Right

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, September 1, 2006 at 5:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As much as the chimp disgusts me—so much that my wife and I actually moved out of the United States because of him—I don’t think he uttered the word “epileptic.” It sounded like “ekkel-ectic” to me. He’s a retard with the same speech impediment as someone with an IQ of 79, but he know from “epileptic.” I’m sure he’s had some seizures before, although they were likely drug-induced, not “epileptic.”

And for you Bush cult cheerleaders who say “He’s the president!” let me counter with “Yes, but he’s a murderous moron. That’s not the kind of person you want to be president.”

Now excuse me whilst I go vomit from the wretchedness of having to watch this naf little bugger for more than three and a half minutes. And that’s only segment one…

Report this

By just steve, September 1, 2006 at 4:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s very clear that the actual president is not this fool…. it’s the much more formidlible, articulate and truly terrifying Dick Cheney, a man that could teach Stalin about power. Bush is merely an affable idot, a phoney everyman sock-puppet. This guy would have a hard time picking skim over 2%. And yes, I think he seems drunk, but considering how weak a mind he has I doubt he is. Were he drunk, he’d be shitfaced blathering barfy drunk. Just look a his daughters.

Report this

By lifewriter, September 1, 2006 at 4:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sympathy for the Decider?

Looking at the few comments near the top of this string that I can muster the strength to endure, I feel it important to remind our faithful audience that the man interviewed in this intellectual snuff film is not only a mass murderer, who has willingly and admittedly stated that over 30,000 deaths have occurred in Iraq as a direct result of his “decision” to occupy,  ( but, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he’s also just read “three Shakespeares.” 

Please understand, as Nader warned us so long ago, “For a cheap political advantage, the administration will destroy freedoms and civil rights, undermine our economy and destroy the position of the United States in the world.’’  Bush has implemented intelligence gathering operations that make Nixon’s administration look like kids playing with cans and kite string.  See

Don’t be fooled by a man so deluded by his power that he’s drunk on it, this beast has unleashed many terrible actions upon our neighbors at home and abroad.  He must be brought to justice for violating Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo, or so the Supreme Court ruled on the 30th of June, 2006.  See,0,339573.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions.

So as you go about blindly saluting a whimsical look back over the past 6 years, remember that Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative effectively disable the existing Clean Air Act, and in fact increased the amount of allowable toxic pollutants corporations can dump into our atmosphere.

He’s out in the sun, out in Crawford stroking himself with Brian Williams in tow, while Cindy Sheehan is summarily arrested just outside the compound for not paying a parking ticket in which she was sited for “following too closely to a moving vehicle / failure to appear”.
No mention of the almost 3,000 American Service Members dead in combat, or the hundreds of thousands wounded with PTSD, maimed or incapacitated by the horrors of war…ours is a president who’s legacy will be decided when people can think clearly about this actions, perhaps in another 250 years or so, when all of his little secrets have finally been cleared for public display by the NSA.

Report this

By von wegen, August 31, 2006 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The president proves, once again, that he’s educated beyond his intelligence.

As far as anyone else doing better than “Dubya”, consider this: we have had 43 US presidents so far, but only a very small handful have performed as poorly as this one—and his dad would have outperformed him in just about every category. Little Bush’s absolutely pathetic response to Katrina and the lies that led us to war in Iraq will not be forgotten by history—and it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see how he will be judged—if your head isn’t planted firmly in the sand, that is…

Report this

By No Question., August 31, 2006 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“People, he’s President…we’re not.”

I think that’s reason enough not to question 2871 coalition casualties given to a war started on false pretense.

( ).

We all know we’ve been lied to. The interview with brian williams is only one more of thousands of examples of bush’s evasivness.

We don’t need any more artciles taking jabs at bush. it’s not funny anymore. We need articles and discussion exploring what we, as a nation, can do.

Report this

By Mark Kienan, August 31, 2006 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice…etc should be tried for their lies to the American people which lead to the invasion of Iraq, the deaths of so many of our service people, the deaths of so many innocent Iraqis men women and children. These criminals have brought shame to our nation and fomented rightious hatred for our governments actions. These criminals are the true enemies of America, its constitution and our freedom. Accomplices in their crimes are the corporate news media and practically our entire congress.

Report this

By Howard Beal, August 31, 2006 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All I can say is…anyone who doesn’t care for this President can run in a few years, if they are over 35 and do a much better job.  Odds are they won’t, they’ll live the rest of their life finding something wrong in every President or elected offical. 

People, he’s President…we’re not.

Report this

By CV, August 31, 2006 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“the key for me is to keep expectations low”

- Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes

so much for Camus…

Report this

By Vladimir, August 31, 2006 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Is it just me or does bush seem drunk in this video?  The sway, squaring off to brian williams about fine literature, total incoherancy… Our PotUS is restructuring N.O., one bourban at a time.

Report this

By t s robinson, August 31, 2006 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While I despise this man being our president, I did not find his answers or mannerisms that offensive.  He was trying to react to the criticisms while standing in the hot sun, walking with a camera in his face, and knowing he is being hated by half of America.  Personally, I don’t think he came off that bad in what he was trying to say.  True, he is completely rough and jittery when he speaks.  He doesn’t have the smoothness of any president I can remember in my lifetime.  For that matter, he is a horrible representation of our country.  But he was trying to speak from his heart.  Even though I can’t stand him, I understood his attempts to communicate hope.

Report this

By juswill, August 31, 2006 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

(GWB) Having proudly proclaimed that he “delivered” for New Orleans, one can only hope he does not see fit to deliver for anyone else, anywhere. We are baited by those who wish us to seize the all too easy moment to point out the Emperor has no clothes… baited but don’t bite.

Should we all continue battling the two party battle in which those truly in-control wish to embroil us?  Whilst distracted by the, every four year, Punch and Judy show, we now call an election, the CFR and international bankers, smile beamingly as we argue over the trees but never see the forest.  Their winning puppet eventually is allowed to divy up a portion of the spoils for their patrons, while the real culprits running the whole affair sit and decide globally what will happen next.

Wrapped in God, the American Flag, and patriotism,  “they” contrive ways to get us all marching to their drums. Meanwhile our economy is crushed by single family owned “World Companies” like the Walton’s Global monster.  We executed a few supposed Communist’s in the 50’s, yet the Walton family handed over a good third of our economic idustrial base to a Communist Government far more reprehensible then Russia ever was. Try them for treason, Mr. President.  Divide up their holdings to finance our “good-works”.

Please remember, since we went off the Gold Standard in 1917, the so called economy is a rigged game. All inflation, is designed, controlled, and executed for and by the World Banks. Oil prices just like wars are pre-planned.  There was a time when “they” bothered to rationalize their actions.  But with the advent of elections courtesy of Deiboldt, why bother.

Research HARP and Climate Control and question if the weather is not too being used as a tool.  Oh, such pleasant thoughts. But be careful who you share your research with, or you will be written off as a conspiracy theorist.

Thinking that either party is not complicit is foolhardy.  As foolish as rooting for one puppet over the other, because you identify more with its puppet platform.  Count your blessings, we too could be deemed expendable, like New Orleans or Ruwanda.

Report this

By Concern, August 31, 2006 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think this country has never change its image, racist to the core whites think of themselves as master race, You put Bush in power voting against your best interest because Clinton did too much for your so minority and you white people hated that and put this neocons in power to reverse everything which was done for the past 8 years of Clinton, I hope all of you who voted for Bush loose everything like those people in New Orleans.

Report this

By Dale, August 31, 2006 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush’s speech only makes him SOUND stupid.  It is true that some intelligent people are not well-spoken.  However, Bush’s ACTIONS prove, beyond a doubt, that he’s an arrogant idiot.

Bush is an embarrassment to Americans and a danger to the world.

Report this

By Colonel, August 31, 2006 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Pareunia, Bush’s only intelligent record is that he was a military jet pilot. That does take some smarts. If you don’t believe it, you try it some time. That does not make him fit for the presidency, however.

Report this

By Tha Voice, August 31, 2006 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am left almost speechless after watching this…it’s almost as if a mental patient with dementia was interviewed

I’ll stick with my own mantra:

The illusions fulfillment is not that we believe that which we see and hear
that we see and hear that which we have been taught to believe.

in conclusion “W O W!”

Report this

By G. E., August 31, 2006 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The real question that should be asked is why New Orleans was not prepared for a hurricane like Katrina? For many years (I heard back in the 70’s)experts warning what could happen if a large hurricane hit New Orleans. Well it happened!!! So what happened to all that State and Federal money that was to be used to protect New Orleans. Where was that money spend that was to be used to maintain and upgrade the dikes, levees, and wetlands. That should be part of the real story. I suspect many people would have mud on their faces, thats probably why it will not become a story. In which case the whole truth will never come out. And that would not surprise me.

Report this

By michelle m, August 31, 2006 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Whats the big deal I LOVE GEORGE W.  He isn’t perfect, but no one is!  Lets spend time hunting down drug dealers and child molesters and leave him alone!

Report this

By Chris, August 31, 2006 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nearly 200 million U.S. citizens over 25 (so, maybe 150 million over the age of 35, the threshold age to be a president) and this is the best we can come up with? BTW You notice he moved on from Camus as quickly as he could. I’d loved to have heard Bush’s book report on that! Unbelievable that this is our leader. A peevish, incurious frat boy.

But, this to shall pass.

Report this

By Tom Cronin, August 31, 2006 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a sick far left liberal web site this is to say Hillary Clinton will turn this country around. She will put it on it’s ear! If the Liberal’s were running things you would really see a mess. Those people in Iraq and surrounding countries have been killing each other for thousands of years, politician’s on either side cant stop it!

Report this

By "Bush Lover", August 31, 2006 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ima Bush Lover, but Ima baginining ta sea tha era of my weighs. I becum a Bush Lover becoz he talkedded like me, butt nows I seas Ima litel smarterer thans hims. I hoppes yawls can forgiveses me fer helpining elicks thes mo-ron twos tha officeses otha Prezdints otha Knighteded Stateseses.

Report this

By sarah parker, August 31, 2006 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How can anyone even judge the grammatical structure of a COMMENT? Why don’t you right wing morons start listening to what’s being said rather than retorting with these idiotic responses like “Oh yeah, well you guys have bad grammar”. Eff you!!! People are dying everyday in this demonic war!!! If you want to debate the left can’t you at least try to stay focused on the issues that effing matter?

Report this

By danny, August 31, 2006 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, since the Presedent of the US is so “exposed”, he should learn to pronounce the word, “Eclectic” as it should be pronounced rather than, “Ecalectic” > (IK-Ka-lek-tic) that would be a good start.

Report this

By froggy57, August 31, 2006 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, I passed my mensa test and I’m over educated and very well read. I am neither republican nor democrat, and I did not vote for either party last time as there wasn’t much of a choice. But I found his remarks in this interview to to be fairly intelligent. I think anyone finding fault with this one has an axe to grind and is really reaching.

Report this

By JuntinTyme, August 31, 2006 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I cant wait till W is out of office. The we can take back what is ours! I believe that Hillary will be able to turn things back around for us. Starting with pulling our boys, and women out of Iraq, and other middle eastern contries. Giving the Arabs back there lands, so they can live in peace and harmony again. I just hope Americans wake up and see that we are just retarded idiots. Being the largest superpower in the world..bah! I just wish we had never let John Kerry down!! I mean my friends, we could be goose stepping throught the streets of New York under a French flag..oh the waste of our own humanties.. that has become our sum!

Report this

By Royal, August 31, 2006 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

George, people attack him for reasons…..and the whole argument that they should stop doing it go out and do something useful like volunteer is a logical fallacy .....of course they should volunteer ....but that has nothing to do with this presidents idiotic policies and conduct ....Volunteerism is only useful if it accomplishes something…doing it for busy work or social advantage is false morality .......and does not excuse the lack of action by the sovereign government .....By the way none us us imperfect spellers on this blog are president of a major nation we dont have whole staffs at our beck and call or Havard educations so the comparison is off base

Report this

By Pareunia, August 31, 2006 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How stupid must you be to be trained and fly military jets?

Report this

By CityZen X, August 31, 2006 at 11:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In this arranged benevolent so called interview we have two dynamics in play. The interviewer (chicken shit).
And the interviewee (Bu$h*t).
An act of coprophilia performed in waltz time.

Report this

By phil, August 31, 2006 at 11:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

George doesn’t have a clue? Yet, he is the head of the most powerful country in the world, and is steering it like a drunk, down a winding road. Where are the guys with the cuffs, when you need them.

Report this

By peacemaker, August 31, 2006 at 11:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush haters?  Wow. Has an interesting ring to it.
It’s synonymous with anti-American.  These are simply terms used to defend the administrations’ stupidity and make it’s supporters appear as if they are above everyone else who oppose their actions. Like bullies in the school yard without a reponse to be being revealed by a larger group of individuals.  They reply,  “I know you are but what am I?”
“oh yeah, well…uh uh.. your the big poopoo head. Not us!”
Then high five each other to claim their “victory.”
Like the white people who protested other white people for helping their black brothers and sisters obtain equality during the peak of the civil rights movement. Calling them, “nigger lovers!”

Report this

By bjamar48, August 31, 2006 at 11:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I hope this country never gets to where we must listen or respect someone just because they are our President. That is a title. It is the person that we must look at. We must respect the title, yes, but we have to look at what the person is doing. I do not care if they are Democrat, Republican, man or woman. They are still human and just because someone is given the title of President it does not instantly make them a genius. It is up to the people to watch and pay attention. We hope that we make the right decisions when we elect someone, but most people can not even make the right decision when they marry someone. You really never know until you “live with them”..What is going on overseas is just like trying to hold warm jello in your hand. It can not be done forever!!

Report this

By L. Mutone, August 31, 2006 at 11:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who needs S.N.L. or Comedy Central, when I need a laugh all I have to do is listen to our(gulp) president.

Report this

By Honey, August 31, 2006 at 11:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Sp sp speech impediments are not indications of st st stupidity.”

I think I speak for many when I say that no one thinks that Bush’s supposed speech impediment is the prime indicator that he is indeed stupid.

Report this

By George DaVall, August 31, 2006 at 10:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How sad to see so many self professed literates expound on the deficiences of our President, and yet fail to even check their own grammar and/or spelling of words in their posts! It is amusing to see the rampant attacks made on Bush.  It makes one wonder at the amount of time some folk have on their hands?  Could it be better spent?  I am sure.  Go out and volunteer, do some good for society.  Then, maybe our world might be better served.  Think about it.

Report this

By Ben Wunder, August 31, 2006 at 10:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just remember folks; 2 more years and you get to pick a new one.  Quit fretting.  You can’t oust him for not being a polished speaker.  You can’t hate him for stuttering… He said eclectic.  Sp sp speech impediments are not indications of st st stupidity.

Report this

By Chitown, August 31, 2006 at 10:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


All you Bush haters- he is the MAN.  I mean, what other country in the world would have the balls to elect some guy like this?  In fact, he knows so much more than us- he didn’t even HAVE to get elected!  This is a good thing.  Embrace him.  Make his lessons and morals your own.  We will all be much, much happier people.

Bush is NOT like us.  Bush is a role model.  We don’t give him enough credit for this.

You see, I once disliked Bush- but I have seen the light- and it doesn’t matter.  I’ve learned a lot of lessons about how slackers can get places in life; most of which I’ve learned from Bush.  All you have to do is tell people you’re working hard over and over again.  I mean, what great lessons he teaches us!  Don’t apologize.  Ride one’s beliefs no matter what the facts may be.  In fact, in most cases, the facts are liberal (aka wrong).  He teaches us don’t answer the hard questions- because only liberals ask hard questions and we know liberals are wrong.  Just dodge them and ramble on about something else unrelated (baseball, terrorism, etc.)

Great lessons this man teaches us.  Great, great lessons.  All you naysayers- BUSH RULEZ!

Report this

By Colonel, August 31, 2006 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The neocons never doubted George W’s obtuseness. Remember how neocon Richard Perle described his reaction to meeting George W: “The first time I met Bush 43, I knew he was different. Two things were clear. ONE, HE DIDN’T KNOW VERY MUCH. The other was he had the CONFIDENCE to ask questions that REVEALED HE DIDN’T KNOW VERY MUCH”. And boy, how the neocons have answered W’s questions! With the neocon’s ANSWERS and W’s CONFIDENCE, we’re in an Iraq War with no end in sight and the neocons are prodding W to expand the war to Iran! If experience is any teacher,  neither W nor the neocons know very much, and the country had better wake up to that fact.

Report this

By Tyler Rose, August 31, 2006 at 10:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Without fail, every comment thread on every website where there’s something political turns into a stupid, pathetic flame war between ineloquent republicans and ineloquent democrats.

Here’s something to think about, both your sides are ridiculous.  Bush, Lieberman, Clinton (both of them), Gore (sure, global warming is important, but look him up on censorship), and pretty much any other talking head figurehead for either party are, as human beings, utterly fucked, and prove so nearly every time they speak in a public setting.

You know what?  You’re all idiots.

Report this

By paul kibble, August 31, 2006 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comments #20875 by Rick P and #20879 by David Jones:

Why, yes, many of us are “Bush-haters,” to use your daringly original turn of phrase. Apparently you’re suggesting that’s a bad thing. Since you’re both obviously almost as well-read as your Massah, perhaps you can ascribe our aversion to the 43rd Chief Exec as akin to what Coleridge called Iago’s “motiveless malignity,”
or what my great grandfather called “pure cussedness.” Why, given King G’s absolute fabulousness, there’s just no damn reason for such animosity, is there?

Um, au contraire-y, as W might say: maybe our distatse for the Chimp-in-Chief has something to do with his grotesquely incompetent performance as our Prez,  a role someone told him he should play simply because Daddy had played it, too. (Alas, they forgot to tell him why he should play it.) The royal line of succession and its tiresome obligations must be preserved, after all.

Actually, I’m grateful for Dubya’s little tete-a-[empty] tete with Bri: it provided one of the few moments of comic relief we’ve recently had amid the otherwise grim news about Iraq, global warming, etc.

Best bit (and a direct slap in the face to all them thar pointy-headed inteelekshual types that sez Monkeyboy must take an hour to lip-read his way through the back of a cereal box): Georgie’s new found love of Quality Lit, although he was kinda vague on the details. (See, Camus’ The Stranger was “last week”—-Jurassic Park in Georgetime—-so, you know, the particulars of theme and plot kinda got swallowed up in the Okefenokee Swamp that is W’s alkie-cum-coke-raddled brain. . .need we add, the common fate of everything else that enters that mephitic forbidden zone.)

Anyway, class, never forget that, in Bushese, “I read X” is always a shorthand translation for “someone [usually Laura or Karl] read the CliffsNotes version of X to me at nappy time.”

Next week’s reading list: the two-volume edition of Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past, the entire oeuvres of Whitman, Emily Dickinson, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, and Wallace Stevens, and Will Durant’s 12-volume history of civilization. And that’s just Monday!

Might also want to throw in E.D. Hirsch’s The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy—-full of pithy, impressive-sounding little buzzbites easily digestible for Fox-watchers, his taget demographic. Since most of said demographic share his deeply sincere passion for Great Authors, I’m betting those plummeting poll numbers will do a truly dramatic about-face!

P.S.: may I humbly suggest another addition to his majesty’s master list?: The Bush - Haters Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years (Paperback),
by Jack Huberman. Published in 2004, it’s maybe a little out of date (you’ve done such a terrific job in the ensuing two years, hence your through-the-ceiling performance ratings among the electorate). Still, on the principle of “Know your enemy,” it’s a handy tomette to keep on the bedside table or—the more likely scenario in your case—-by the john.

Report this

By Edward S., August 31, 2006 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s no that wonder nobody’s tried to assasinate this guy.  That only happens to leaders who are trying to make the world a better place.  As long as Bush resides in the hip pocket of corporate America his longevity is guaranteed. Ironically, his only strong point is running companies into the ground. Poor Bastard.

Report this

By Lynn Baker, August 31, 2006 at 10:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Unfortunately, we either elected and re-elected GWB, or we didn’t do enough to prevent the same. It is a democracy people, and the majority spoke not only once, but twice.  What does that tell you about the mindset of America.  The world view us as misled, mentally challenged idiots.  Next issue please!

Report this

By Colonel, August 31, 2006 at 9:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The White House is no place for a C student to catch up on reading the classics he ignored in college. The President desperately needs to be reading the works of classic foreign affairs sages like George Keenan, et al.

Report this

By et_011, August 31, 2006 at 9:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The US has suffered ever since we have allowed professional politicians to goveren our way of life.  We need term limits to regulate the damage a poor leader can cause.  The good people, who can no longer serve, will work towards finding like minded people to serve the best interest of the citizens on a whole. GW is a professional politician from a long line of professional politicians, you get what you ask for sometimes, even if you change your mind later, you have to live with your choice. 
In my opinion we have lacked “good” leadership for many a year, and unfortunately I do not see a strong POTUS canidate in the near future.  Come next election maybe you should look at your ticket and ask, “what has this canidate done for us in all the years he has served”? Term limits are needed at all levels of government.

Report this

By moe, August 31, 2006 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In this clip Brian Williams comes off far worse than Bush, whose responses to the empty prompts are just fine. Whatever you may think of Bush, Williams seems a true airhead.

Report this

By Kahleeb, August 31, 2006 at 9:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I thought that it was a good interview.  Bush mentioned his secure relationship with his father,despite the political situation his father’s close friendship with Bill Clinton—that he gives him unconditional love. 

He also has a good perspective on history—a long term one.

It seems to me that those who dislike Bush both find and invent so called mistakes, such as incorrect verb tenses, poor pronunciations, or so called bad decisions.  Time will tell whether the decisions were right or wrong.  Time will also tell whether the naysayers are wrong.

Report this

By Crystal, August 31, 2006 at 9:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Are these people calling commenters “Bush-haters” smoking crack? (I don’t hate Bush, just what he does to my country! Fair enough?) Do they see their economy flushed down the toilet? Do they see US boys and girls coming home in coffins? Do they see the self-professed lies these soldiers coming home dead for? Do you see the price-gouging, and corporate power grabs? And they still blame the “bush haters” for not coming up with solutions for this huge mess, which happens to be the country I love?! Can’t you sympathize with the helpless frustration on these posts?
Yeah… two more years of this clown.

Report this

By jkoch, August 31, 2006 at 9:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And yet, all the Dems running for office want to all the things Bush claims to want to do—only better.  Ask them to be precise or explain what they mean.  After the waffle and fluff for five minutes, W’s mime of Chauncey Gardner may not seem so bad—at least to the ears of many voters.

Please, folks, imagine telling voters how to get out of Iraq.  Imagine that you want to win votes, not an argument.  No one with perpetual support of 30% and the ability to divide or nullify the rest should be considered dumb.

Report this

By RubberPimple, August 31, 2006 at 9:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This exchange is really terrifying; this great leader of ours is incapable of simple dialog. For all of those who cast their vote ‘cause he was “just like you and me” or because you felt like you could just sit and have a beer with him, here’s a newsflash: our leaders shouldn’t be ordinary, they should be EXTRAordinary. But we don’t like all that “elitist” stuff here in the land of opportunity, do we? Anyone who can thoughtfully and logically debate (not argue) and issue must be some kind of “East coast liberal elitist.” Well, here’s your East coast elitist, right here. Raised in the Northeast, “educated” at Yale. Yeah, I’m sure he really earned his place there, and Daddy had nothing to do with it. Pathetic. The ridiculous caricatures painted by both extremes are completely invalid. Most of us are in the middle somewhere, and this man is at the bottom.

As for the comment by “jjgg”: “Of ourse, we can’t still avoid the fact that he was very unprepared for the interview”  This man is the leader of our nation. He has been the leader of our nation for almost 6 years. He shouldn’t have to “prepare” for an off the cuff interview consisting of relatively simple questions. Is he a puppet? A hideous, life-size marionette? He cannot think clearly or coherently and people like yourself give him a pass. You deserve all of this.

Report this

By Jonathan, August 31, 2006 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

About Bush??? the LESS said the BETTER :(

Report this

By foges76, August 31, 2006 at 8:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The key for me is to keep expectations low.”  How much lower can he go?  And Brian Williams…“President George W. Bush, a late in life convert to Shakespeare.”  Does the mainstream media always have to parrott what these idiots say?

Report this

By alan goldstein, August 31, 2006 at 7:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

God is using W to punish America?

Report this

By GDuckett, August 31, 2006 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Once again GW has proved science wrong. There is vast differences between chimps and human beings. To me the worst part of this administration isn’t the lies, warcrimes, or profiteering. It’s the fact the american people continue to let it happen. History has shown numerous accounts of citizens rising up against the tyranny of corrupt goverments. The american poeple have become sheep being led to slaughter, and we do it happily knowing good and well what the outcome is surely to be. FIGHT AMERICA! You have and ivy league monkey as your president.

Report this

By David Jones, August 31, 2006 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You are without any doubt a Bush hater without any judgement and full of your own prejudices.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook