Bush Breaks Down
(SKY News June 14) –– Poor George W. Bush.
The US president broke down in tears during an interview on The Today Show and said he was an "emotional wreck".
Bush, who's serving his second term, blamed media reports about his marriage and criticism of his governing skills for the upset.
He also said that constant attention from the press was a factor in his emotional crisis.
Denying rumors that he and First Lady Laura are heading for divorce, Bush said: "(My marriage is) awesome. She helps me. She has to. I'm (an) emotional wreck right now."
Bush defended his governing skills, which have been under the spotlight since September, when millions drowned in Hurricane Katrina as he was photographed eating lobster.
"I know I'm a good President," he said, insisting that his dad ate lobster while poor people died when he growing up in the White House.
"I can't go anywhere without someone judging me. I did it with my dad. I'd just sit on his lap and eat lobster. We're rich."
"I feel like I'm a target," he sobbed.
25 comments:
You were gone for weeks, and no one noticed or cared.
Did it ever occur to you that this is because you consistently post COMPLETE LIES and DISPRSPECTFUL TRASH on this site?
No, I don't suppose it would.
Because that would be an "idea," and there is room for only ONE "idea" in your head: "BUSH SUCKS."
Wow, someone has issues, and I don't think it's Bush.
Welcome back, Tom!
Wow, someone thinks anyone with an opinion differing from their own automatically has "issues."
Typical liberal.
Nice to see SUPERFRANKENSTEIN back with us. I've been missing it.
Also, the whole 'typical liberal' comment just SCREAMS 'issues', and pretty hateful issues at that.
Boo hoo! I'm rich and I'm under a lot of pressure. Wahhh!!!
You're the fucking president of the United States! Don't be such a whiny bitch. Christ! Cocky, swaggering Bush is better than teenage girl Bush!
Spysmasher, leave Tom alone, he might go all Bush on you and start sobbing.
quote:
"You were gone for weeks, and no one noticed or cared."
a COMPLETE LIE and DISPRSPECTFUL(?) TRASH.
now then, the real issue here is when did the president trade places with britney spears? check link.
Superfrankenstein,
You were gone?
"Also, the whole 'typical liberal' comment just SCREAMS 'issues', and pretty hateful issues at that."
Also, the whole "no ideas, all smearing" thing just SCREAMS liberal, and pretty stupid liberal at that.
Spysmasher, don't you have some puppy blood to drink or something?
oh, spysmasher, you are the worst.
No one missed Superfrankenstein.
Except Spysmasher, who we all knew was just chomping at the bit,logging on several times a day to see if he was back, just so he could start rantin' and ravin' again."Damn it. Where is it? I'm frothing at the mouth with no where to bite!"
And sure enough, the moment SF is back,so is SS. ("Damn Liberals. Think they're rid of me! But I'll show them! I'll show them all! My genius is too powerful for their feeble attempts to fool me into thinking they've gone away! Ha, ha, ha! Once again, I win!")
Admit is SS. It was drivin' you NUTS.
So what were you doing with yourself? I mean besides wacking off to Anne Coulter?
"Because that would be an "idea," and there is room for only ONE "idea" in your head: "BUSH SUCKS."
As opposed to your one idea: all liberals suck.
Look at the laughable liberals!
All they know how to do is SMEAR and CALL NAMES!
This is truly an IDEA FREE zone.
I anxiously await the next SMEAR....
Des thought it was real. Now THAT'S funny.
Don't worry, Tom, Bush will get some bad news again soon. Cheer up!
"Des thought it was real. Now THAT'S funny."
Nu-uh! I was angry because I got hungry for lobster....and sitting on Bush Senior's lap.
Okay, I give up, why does Spysmasher even visit here? Isn't it like someone visiting rec.pets.cats just to advocate the drowning of kittens? I have over 750 subscribed-to feeds on Bloglines, and I never seem to have time to get through the blogs I like - why on earth bother with blogs you don't like? (And yes, I've said the same to liberal bloggers, although I wonder how Spysmasher figured that I was a liberal because I took him to task - it's not like noting he had issues is a "typical liberal" conclusion, anyone could have reached it.)
ELAYNE SAID: "Okay, I give up, why does Spysmasher even visit here?"
Gee, you have a funny way of giving up. Writing lengthy comments about me is actually a sign of interest in me, not a sign of "gving up."
How do I know you're a liberal? Well, hating President Bush is a central theme in your life, so it was a wild guess.
It is really not up to YOU to "understand" why I visit this site, but since you are so obsessed with me, I will tell you that I am here to police the liberal lies posted here almost daily.
No one here, including you, even TRIES to refute what I post on a factual basis. This is an idea-free zone that is all-smear, all the time. Perfect for all you liberals! You, too, have no ideas, and are all smear, all the time.
We are now in the midst of a BOOMING economy, and we have not been attacked since 9/11. Those are the FACTS, jack! You can't refute them, so let the name calling begin!
'We' the yanks, or 'we' the coalition? Think carefully before you answer.
Also, the economy isn't booming. The global markets are started to look very shaky indeed, according to the BBC.
I'm sorry, spyboy, but this isn't about 'smearing' you - you manage that yourself. I'm just a little sick and tired of your country treating global politics so cavalierly and my country paying the price for your arrogance. And that includes the spineless American left.
I do agree with you, though. Ever since Menzies Campbell replaces Charles Kennedy, the Liberals have been a joke.
"I'm just a little sick and tired of your country treating global politics so cavalierly and my country paying the price for your arrogance."
We learned it from you, okay? We learned it by watching you!
Of course, England never heard of Imperialism.
Right?
P.S. The economy IS booming, despite what the ultra-liberal, anti-American BBC may be reporting/wishing.
Recently, John Kerry repudiated his earlier vote for the war in Iraq. To cheers of Democratic activists, he now laments, “We were misled.”
Misled?
Putting aside the question of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the royal “we,” was the senator suggesting that Iraq did not violate the 1991 armistice accords?
Or that Saddam Hussein did not really gas and murder his own people?
Perhaps he was “misled” into thinking Iraqi agents did not really plan to murder former President George Bush?
Or postfacto have we learned that Saddam did not really shield terrorists?
Apparently the Iraqi regime neither violated U.N. accords nor shot at American planes in the no-fly zones.
Senator Kerry, at least if I remember correctly, voted for the joint congressional resolution of October 11, 2002, authorizing a war against Iraq, on the basis of all these and several other casus belli, well apart from fear of WMDs.
Second, those with a shifting position on the war sometimes cannot keep up with a war that is shifting itself, where things change hourly. And when one has no consistent or principled position, the 24-hour battlefield usually proves a fickle barometer by which to exude military wisdom.
Even as critics were equating Haditha with My Lai, al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda mass murderer in Iraq, was caught and killed. And what was the reaction of the stunned antiwar pundit or politician? Either we heard that there was impropriety involved in killing such a demon, or the former fugitive who was once supposedly proof of our ineptness suddenly was reinvented as having been irrelevant all along.
The Iraqi army — well over 250,000 strong — is growing, and the much smaller American force (about 130,000) is shrinking. How do you call for a deadline for withdrawal when Iraqization was always predicated on withdrawal only after there was no Iraqi dependence on a large, static American force?
After lamenting that the Iraqi government is a mess, we now see a tough prime minister and the selection of his cabinet completed. So it is not easy to offer somber platitudes of defeat when 400,000 coalition and Iraqi troops are daily fighting on the center stage of the war against Islamic terrorism. Someone from Mars might wonder what exactly were the conditions under which a quarter-million Muslim Arabs in Iraq alone went to war against Islamic radicalism.
Third, there is a fine line to be drawn between legitimate criticism of a war that is supposedly not worth American blood and treasure and general slander of the United States and its military. Yet much of the Left’s rhetoric was not merely anti-Bush, but in its pessimism devolved into de facto anti-Americanism.
Senator Durbin compared Guantanamo Bay to the worst excesses of the Nazis. Senator Kennedy suggested that Abu Ghraib, where thousands perished under Saddam Hussein, had simply “reopened under new management: U.S. management.” Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean confidently asserted that the Iraq war was not winnable. John Kerry in his youth alleged that Americans were like Genghis Khan in their savagery; in his golden years, he once again insists that we are “terrorizing” Iraqi civilians. With friends like these, what war critic needs enemies? Americans can take disapproval that we are not fighting “smart,” but they resent the notion that we are somehow downright evil.
Fourth, the mainstream media is now discredited on Iraq, and their drumbeat of doom and gloom is starting to rile more than pleases the public. Aside from the bias that counts always our losses and rarely our successes, we are sick and tired of manipulations like the lies about flushed Korans, forged memos, and the rush to judgment on Haditha. Most weary Americans want at least a moment to savor the death of a mass-murdering Zarqawi, without having to lament that he might have been saved by quicker medical intervention.
Fifth, the historical assessment of Iraq is still undetermined, despite the pontification of former supporters who think they gain greater absolution the more vehemently they trash a war they once advocated.
The three-week effort to remove Saddam Hussein was a landmark success. The subsequent three-year occupation in his place has been messy, costly, and unpopular. But the result of the third and final stage that Iraq has evolved into — an existential fight between Iraqi democracy and al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism — is still uncertain. If we draw the terrorists out, defeat them in the heart of the ancient caliphate, and win the allegiance of enough democratic Iraqis to crush the Islamicists, then our military has won a far greater victory than the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Sixth, note how critics now rarely offer alternative scenarios. All the old gripes such as the paucity of body armor or thin-skinned humvees have withered away. The Iraqi elected government is sympathetic and earnest, so demonizing them ultimately translates into something like “Cut these guys lose; they weren’t worth the effort.” Yes, the American people want out of Iraq, but on terms that preserve the democracy that we paid so dearly to foster.
Even the one legitimate criticism that we were too slow in turning over control to the Iraqis, and that the Bremmer interregnum had too high a public profile, is now largely moot, as Ambassador Khalilzad and Gen. Casey are in the shadows, giving all the credit to the very public Iraqis and taking most of the blame for the bad news.
So we are nearing the denouement of the Iraq war, where we wanted to be all along: in support of a full-fledged and democratically elected government that will either win or lose its own struggle.
Seventh, the old twin charges — no link between al Qaeda and Saddam, no WMDs — are also becoming largely irrelevant or proving untrue. It must have been difficult for Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times, in their coverage of the death of Zarqawi, to admit that he had been active in Iraq well before the end of Saddam Hussein, along with a mishmash of old killers from Abu Nidal to Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi American who helped plan the first World Trade Center bombing.
In addition, most abroad were convinced before the war that the CIA was right in its pre-war assessments. The publication of the Iraqi archives points to a real, not a phantom and former, WMD capability — in line with efforts elsewhere in the Islamic world, from Iran to Libya, to reclaim something akin to the old Soviet deterrent.
The costs in Iraq have been high and the losses tragic. But nothing in the past three years has convinced me otherwise than that in a post-September 11 world Saddam had to be removed on ethical and strategic grounds;
or that the insurgency, though unexpected in its intensity, could be put down by a U.S. military that would react and evolve more quickly than the terrorists to changing conditions on the ground;
or that our mistakes, though several and undeniable, are tragically the stuff of war, and so far have not proved to be irreversible or beyond what we experienced in any of our past efforts;
or that the maligned secretary of Defense was right about troop levels and the plan for Iraqization — although demonized for trying to transform the very nature of the American military in the midst of a war;
or that we are engaged in the great humanitarian effort of the age, as “one person, one vote” has brought to the perennially downtrodden Arab Shiites a real chance at equality;
or that the best method of winning this global struggle against fascistic Islamic terrorism remains fostering in the Middle East a third democratic alternative between autocracy and theocracy that alone can deal with the modern world.
Once a democratically elected Iraqi government emerged, and a national army was trained, the only way we could lose this war was to forfeit it at home, through the influence of an adroit, loud minority of critics that for either base or misguided reasons really does wish us to lose. They really do.
— Victor Davis Hanson
Yeah, I suppose inventing that whole imperialism thing was a bad move on our part. Also, having rulers who believed they were ordained to rule by God.
You never know what people are going to end up copying...
During last week's congressional debate over the war in Iraq, critics of the Bush administration's policy made three arguments: that President Bush more or less lied when claiming Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that no progress is being made in the war there.
All three assumptions rest on shaky ground, so it is remarkable how much critics have seized on them with such fervor and certainty--the very vices of which they accuse the war's supporters. Indeed, one wonders how Democrats would react if real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, say the discovery of chemical weapon shells, surfaced. Would they step back and re-evaluate their assumptions, or would they accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence as part of a Karl Rove-inspired pre-election dirty trick? Far from politics ending at the water's edge, today's partisan battles seem to take on added ferocity when they concern foreign policy.
Let's examine the three assumptions critics of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy make:
Bush lied about Saddam being a threat. Both the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the independent Silberman-Robb Commission found not one case in which Bush officials, quoting the Senate committee, "attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities." Recall that both the French and German intelligence agencies also believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Just two months before the war, the Los Angeles Times reported that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix "disclosed troubling new details about Iraq's weapons programs and expressed frustration with what he described as Baghdad's refusal to resolve long-standing questions about efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, as well as long-range missiles." Mr. Blix later told reporters that in his gut he felt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. "These guys had played cat-and-mouse during the whole of the '90s, so I was suspicious of that," he told NBC's Tim Russert earlier this month. He later changed his mind when his officials uncovered no evidence of a weapons program. But the question remains: If President Bush lied about Saddam having WMD why did so many others also say the same thing at the time?
Some Democrats still believe Saddam was a threat, WMD or not. Former Nebraska senator and presidential candidate Bob Kerrey, now president of New York's New School, noted earlier this year that newly declassified documents from Saddam Hussein's office concerning a meeting between an Iraq official and Osama bin Laden show that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." One document is a handwritten account of a Feb. 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and bin Laden, where bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document reports that after Saddam was informed of the meeting he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by bin Laden. Several months later al Qaeda terrorits attacked the headquarters of the Saudi National Guard. The document specifically said the question of future cooperation "between the two parties [is] to be left according to what's open" in the future.
"I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the Sept. 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," Mr. Kerrey told the New York Sun. "This presents facts that should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on Sept. 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada rose during last week's debate to declare, "There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction." Not everyone shares his certitude.
The Iraq Survey Group, an investigative commission set up by President Bush to look at the WMD issue, released its last public report in October 2004. While it found no evidence of WMD inside Iraq, it reported that Saddam was preparing to reconstitute his WMD program "as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed." According to the report, Saddam had the capability to start anthrax production within one week of making the decision to do so, and thereafter to produce more than 10 tons of weaponized anthrax a year. The congressional Office of Technology Assessment estimates that if even 200 pounds, or 1% of that amount, were released into the air over Washington, up to three million people would die.
The Iraq Survey Group report also found that the CIA had "received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved." These reports "were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation"--especially "given the insular and compartmented nature of the [Saddam] regime." The CIA was unable to complete its probe due to instability in Iraq, but it held out the possibility that an "unofficial" transfer of WMD might have been secretly conducted, with WMD material either shipped out of Iraq into Syria or destroyed by another country after being flown there.
Since then, the Iraq Survey Group has been inactive even though a continuing stream of credible sources have come forward with clues of where evidence of WMD material might be. Some administration officials now appear to be reluctant to investigate further, in part out of fear that any fresh discovery might lay the White House open to charges that lax U.S. security could have allowed the insurgents to get their hands on highly dangerous material. Some Pentagon officials have actively discouraged further investigations. But even with no official approval, some U.S. servicemen continue to explore promising leads about possible WMD sites or out-of-country transfers on their own. Many believe such tips will eventually bear fruit.
Then there is a vast trove of untranslated documents, recordings, videotapes and photographs captured in Iraq that have not been examined--partly because of the sheer volume (36,000 boxes) and partly because of foot dragging by career bureaucrats. The few documents that have been examined have yielded some clues. ABC News has reported that 12 hours of captured recorded talks between Saddam and his cabinet officials include Saddam saying, "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before [the 1991 Gulf War] and told the British as well . . . that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." The Iraqi dictator then added that while he would not authorize such an attack, he speculated that someone else could launch a chemical, nuclear, or biological attack from a booby-trapped car.
Other sources tell me that recently translated captured documents include target lists of U.S. facilities and frequent references to WMDs in Saddam's possession. "He was either being lied to by his own officials, lying to them or he had something," one intelligence analyst told me.
No progress is being made in Iraq. Rep. Jack Murtha, the leading Democratic advocate of immediate withdrawal, is convinced that "we can't win this militarily." He told CNN last week that "we've been there three years longer than World War I, we've been longer than the Korean War and almost as long as the war in Europe." He expressed frustration that "we can't get [the president] to change direction. . . . In Beirut, President Reagan changed direction. In Somalia, President Clinton changed direction."
Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq. But Mr. Bush has other reasons.
Documents found on the computer owned by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi show he was increasingly concerned about the "bleak situation" the insurgency he led faced. "Time is beginning to be of service to the U.S. forces by allowing them to form and bolster the [Iraqi] National Guard, undertake big arrest operations, carry out a media campaign weakening the resistance's influence and presenting it as harmful to the people, [and] creat[ing] division among its ranks." He concluded by saying that the best way "to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war. . . . We have noticed that the best of these wars is the one between the Americans and Iran."
The Zaraqwi document sure sounds like progress, an impression buttressed by the admission of an al Qaeda leader last week that his death was a grave blow to the insurgency.
Not every Democrat believes there's no progress in Iraq. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, who managed Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign, had the honesty to tell Fox News Channel last Friday: "Yes, we're winning, but we're not winning fast enough." Imagine what would have happened if in the middle of the fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Franklin Roosevelt had been accused of not rolling back the Axis fast enough. Mr. Beckel went on to conclude "This war is just--it's stupid politics."
Last week's less-than-edifying congressional debate on Iraq contained a lot of that. Democrats were incoherent in their opposition to a nonbinding "stay the course" resolution on Iraq. At one point, Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, stood up and declared, "This side is not trying to go wobbly. We're trying to articulate what we think would be a better strategy for success in Iraq." After the debate no one I talked with thought the Democrats could claim "mission accomplished" on that front. A total of 42 House Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution. Only three Republicans voted against it.
That's not to say that among Republicans there wasn't political posturing along with a desire to embarrass the Democrats with the debate. The GOP-sponsored resolution itself was a disappointment. Michigan Republican Thad McCotter (who voted "present") rose "to express my profound disappointment with this resolution before us, because it is strategically nebulous, morally obtuse and woefully inadequate." He noted that the resolution merely declared that the U.S. would prevail in "the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary." Mr. McCotter expressed dismay that the resolution "lacks the moral clarity to call the terrorists our enemy."
Given the bland and limited language of the resolution, it is astonishing that 80% of House Democrats felt compelled to vote against it. If President Bush has staked the future of his administration on the outcome in Iraq, Democrats appear to have placed their political bets on the war continuing to go badly. Given the death of Zarqawi, the formation of a unity government in Baghdad, and possible developments in the search for WMD material, that is starting to look like a risky wager.
Democrats might recall they made similar bets that they could win the political debate over Iraq in both 2002 and 2004. They lost both times, and last week's Iraq debate in Congress shouldn't give them confidence that they have any better approach in this election year.
Sty Splasher,
Even when you're just looking at the pictures, you get so iritable! Why don't you have someone read Rush Limbaugh's webpage to you? Or Ollie North's? Gordon Liddy's? Someone of like (half)mind so you could wave your bloody 9/11 shirt, rally 'round the flag, kill ya some of them damn raghaids, and make more money for Halliburton & Co.?
How many more dead soldiers do we need and indicted advisors, congressmen, lobbyists and other predatory pondscum before you and the rest of the LYING halfwit, reactionary, elitists realize that your leaders are corrupt, evil and don't give a rat's patoot about the fate of 97% of Americans? Or is everyone beneath your income tax bracket just whiny tree huggers?
Go crawl back under some junk bonds you LOSER!!!!!
PS: your boss at the solid waste treatment plant is gonna be mighty angry when he sees that you've been doing this all day rather than getting rid of the excrement with which you're trying to choke us...
NEWSFLASH: Dude, the 60s are over! It's an all-volunteer military now! You don't have to move to Canada after all!
Thanks for the all-smear post, though. Proves my point that all you liberals know how to do is smear!
Post a Comment