Bush's Rose Garden speech today...
...was another embarrassing moment in the history of our nation. Okay, maybe not that bad, but the man is so angry about people not understanding what he means when he says something that it's really getting to be very uncomfortable to watch him. He acts like everyone else on the planet is stupid, doesn't know history, doesn't understand the images or the news reports coming out of Iraq, and he certainly can't understand why anyone would want him to clarify anything. He feels that when he says something, Americans should just absorb it and go on. Well guess what? No!!!
Throughout the whole press conference he acted annoyed with having to do it. He was helpful to me at one point, however. He made something very clear to me. He was asked about comments made about Iraq and how it's maybe time to change the course over there and here's what Bush said:
The stakes couldn't be any higher, as I said earlier, in the world in which we live. There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives. And they want us to leave, and they want us to -- and they want to topple government. They want to extend an ideological caliphate that is -- has no concept of liberty inherent in their beliefs. They want to control oil resources, and they want to plot and plan and attack us again. That's their objectives. And so -- and our strategic objective is to prevent them from doing that. And we're constantly changing tactics to achieve that objective.
Now, when he said this, I said to myself, "That's exactly what he and his Pigs in Washington are doing!!". Bush has used his religion and his beliefs to catapult his insane agenda. He's said in the past that God told him to attack Iraq, he's said that he talks to the Higher Father instead of his Earth-born father, and some of his followers and believers (just like Jesus had apparently) think that God chose him to be the president of the United States during this time to lead our nation into the Final Battle. Whackos! Nonetheless, he has used religion over and over and over and he's no better than the terrorists or those who wish to harm our country, but apparently when he was talking today, he forgot about that. Also, the concept of liberty does not equal torturing prisoners and taking habeas Corpus away from Americans either! Bush has prevented liberty to exist in our own nation right now and he keeps changing tactics until Americans don't realize that it has happened. Jees.
Of course to make my point above, Bush went on to say:
This is the real challenge of the 21st century. I like to tell people we're in an ideological struggle. And it's a struggle between extremists and radicals and people of moderation who want to simply live a peaceful life. And the calling of this country and in this century is whether or not we will help the forces of moderation prevail. That's the fundamental question facing the United States of America -- beyond my presidency. And you can tell I made my choice. And I made my choice because the most solemn duty of the American President and government is to protect this country from harm.
I think the real ideological struggle is between Good & Evil and right now Bush has made our country the Evil in everyone's side. There is no moderation with the Bush Pigs. It's either, "You're with us or you're with the terrorists". There is no in between. He is a fanatical dictator who is no different than Kim Jong Il at this point. When Bush speaks, he spews fire and nothing else. Lies, deceits, and distortions and when that fails, he'll become the conductor for his minions to chant, "Deny, distort, divert!". It's all smoke and mirrors with these assclowns.
Here was his biggest denial of the day:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Back on Iraq. A group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war. That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December, at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure, and do you consider this a credible report?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me and it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- that there's a level of violence that they tolerate. And it's now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods so people can feel at peace.
No question, it's violent, but this report is one -- they put it out before, it was pretty well -- the methodology was pretty well discredited. But I talk to people like General Casey and, of course, the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.
Q -- the 30,000, Mr. President? Do you stand by your figure, 30,000?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I stand by the figure. A lot of innocent people have lost their life -- 600,000, or whatever they guessed at, is just -- it's not credible. Thank you.
There he goes again! Denying scientific research! Yup, he can't admit that he's killed more people than the tsunami did in 2004. He can't admit that he's killed more people than Saddam Hussein did. And.......he can't believe a word of John Hopkins/MTI research because he says they're discredited entities! Oh for the love of the Turnip Truck.......can the man just admit for once that he is a warmongering, lying, stinking, no good for nothing, piece of shit? Apparently not!
I can't wait for the November mid-term election. I will be shoving my ballot up the ass of the nearest Bush supporter when I'm there!
posted by KayInMaine at 6:24 PM
12 Comments:
Bush says he agrees with John Warner that if the Iraq policy isn't working, they need to adjust it.
First, Warner never said adjust it he said rethink the whole thing.
Second, Bush's version of adjusting his policy is to move more US troops in the firing line of the insurgents.
Bush is a traitor.
I find it insane for Bush to be speaking about credibility with a straight face.
He has NO sympathy or clue as to what he is saying, just robo-talks what even words they feed him.
Empty shell of a man playing pResident in the white house.
Did you hear Bush talking today, a reporter asked if if constantly resorting to empty threats and rhetoric hurts his credibility and the fool in chief responded after stuttering and stammering a while that the empty threats and rhetoric is the best path to diplomacy and solving the problem, that halfwit wouldnt know diplomacy if it bit him on the a$$!
What do you guys think of the plane crash into that building, it doesnt smell right to me, I know if I was i psycopath Neo Con that was losing credibility and no one believed my fear tactics or took them seriously anymore It would make sense to take a plane like that crash it into a building, initially say its not terrorists so no one will suspect its a ploy or staged event then have the famous person who's plane it is, body turn up dead in a public place and wallla an act of terrorism that fox lies and the neo cons are allegedly innocent of staging because they initially denied it was terrorism.
maybe i'm wrong but for some reason this just doesnt smell right to me.
Q You said yesterday in your statement that the North Korean nuclear test was unacceptable. Your chief negotiator for the six-party talks said last week that North Korea has a choice of either having weapons or having a future. When you spoke a month or so ago to the American Legion, you talked about Iran and said, there must be consequences for Iran's defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. I am wondering, sir, your administration has issued these kinds of warnings pretty regularly over the last five years, and yet these countries have pursued their nuclear programs. I'm wondering if you -- what is different about the current set of warnings, and do you think the administration and our government runs a risk of looking feckless to the world by issuing these kinds of warnings regularly without response from the countries?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a fair question. First of all, I am making it clear our policy hasn't changed. It's important for the folks to understand that we don't continually shift our goals based upon polls or -- whatever. See, I think clarity of purpose is very important to rally a diplomatic effort to solve the problem. And so I try to speak as clearly as I can and make sure there's no ambiguity in our position. I also found that's a pretty good way to help rally a diplomatic effort that I believe will more likely work.
I know this sounds -- I'm just saying it over and over again, but it's -- rhetoric and actions are all aimed at convincing others that they have an equal stake in whether or not these nations have a nuclear weapon, because I firmly believe, Mike, that that is the best strategy to solve the problem. One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards. It is must easier for a nation to hear what I believe are legitimate demands if there's more than one voice speaking. And that's why we're doing what we're doing.
And to answer your question as to whether or not the words will be empty, I would suggest that, quite the contrary, that we not only have spoken about the goals, but as a result of working together with our friends, Iran and North Korea are looking at a different -- a different diplomatic scenario.
So according to GWB, blustery threats and empty rhetoric is how "diplomacy works, the reporter asks bush if making empty threats hurts his credibility and Bush babbles that his policy hasnt changed (yeah he just plans on babbling empty threats and rhetoic, thats what "HE" considers diplomacy.)
Bush uses a poker analagy saying you have a stronger hand if more people are playing your same cards (sorry fool in chief but when more people are playing your same cards your cards are dead and you dont have any outs).
bush is a fool that thinks arrogant bluster and empty threats is diplomacy, and that freedom and democracy is brought with guns and bombs and death, hatred and torture. and that those things make us safer.
Mike, we were all thinking that when we heard the news of a plane crash in Manhattan on the heal's of the Fuhrer's embarrassing speech yesterday! What I found most intriguing was the SILENCE coming out of the White House yesterday after the crash. Hmmmmm...makes you wonder if they too thought it was a terrorist attack and were trying to gather excuses as to why their intelligence agencies weren't on it, especially after Bush touts all the time that ONLY republicans can protect America.
Now that we know it truly was an accident and a Yankee's pitcher died, it's very sad.
I was happy to hear that the F-16s were called up immediately over every major city in the country after this plane crash, but I said to myself, "How come they weren't called up on the morning of 9/11 until after all the planes were down?". Huh.
Interesting....yesterday was a surprise crash and the F16's were called up in an instant...but 9/11 was an inside job and the F-16s weren't anywhere to be found.
Worfeus, I'm so glad you're here!!! I've been meaning to tell you that. You are such a freaking riot, so you'll be a lot of fun to have here. :-)
Larry any info on the Slimy Trolls who are back hiding under their rocks or bridges.
Want to see what the Iraqi's reallly think of Bush and the American occupation of Iraq, check out this the blog listed below or this book :Baghdad Burning II: More Girl Blog from Iraq
by Riverbend / Ridgeway, James (INT) / Casella, Jean (INT)
The second installment of Riverbend's incisive, salty, impassioned observations from war-torn Baghdad.Baghdad Burning (2005) is a collection of blog postings by a 24-year-old, middle-class Iraqi woman who calls herself Riverbend. This sequel picks up the story in October 2004-before the world knew that Americans would re-elect George Bush. Just before the election, Riverhead prophesies that should Bush return to the White House, life would worsen not only for Iraqis, but also for Americans, whose national image is "tarnished world-wide." Indeed, much of this is devoted to Riverbend's fury about the American occupation of Iraq. She bluntly says that although Iraqis felt sympathy when the Twin Towers collapsed, "9/11 is getting old." The author suggests the war has moved into a different phase-now, instead of being assaulted with smart missiles, Iraqis are besieged by American media, by television and radio reports that are deceptively sanitized. She tartly notes the vagaries and obfuscations of political speech, and she has little patience for the euphemistic lingua franca of war: "What exactly are precision attacks?" she pleads, after Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld invoke the phrase. "How can you be precise in a city like Samarra or in the slums of Sadir City?" Throughout all her political analysis, Riverbend sprinkles reminders of the day-to-day realties of life in Baghdad-the water problems, the lack of electricity, the daily explosions near her home, the endless gasoline queues. Riverbend's musings will make it impossible for readers to hold on to some cardboard cutout notion of "an Iraqi." Here is a practicing Muslim woman who disdains suicide bombers but understands how people are driven to such extremes, who can't stand the fundamentalist leadership of Iran, who simply wants Iraq to be stable, prosperous and peaceful.Bracing, and sure to be controversial, this is a unique and essential record of our times.
The distinctive voice of pseudonymous Riverbend shines through this continuation of her blog, from October 2004 through March 2006 (2005's Baghdad Burning won a Lettre Ulysses Award for the Art of Literary Reportage). Now 27, she offers an invaluable description of life in a middle-class, secular, mixed Shia-Sunni family. Alternating reports of attacks seen on TV and raids in her neighborhood with the mundane details of fuel shortages and infrequent electricity and water, Riverbend also offers astute analysis of the Iraqi draft constitution and American media, widely available through Iraqi TV and the Internet (her suggestion for a reality show: "Take 15 Bush supporters and throw them in a house in Fallujah"). She emphasizes how gender has become an issue when it never was before, e.g., election forms are all stamped "male." Riverbend's dry wit leavens her anger: after watching the 2006 Oscar ceremonies on TV, she proposes Iraqi Oscars ("Ahmed Al-Chalabi in 'Disappearing Act' for his magnificent evaporation from the Iraqi political scene"). Throughout, the blog insists that most Iraqis are tolerant; prefer secular to religious government; fear civil war; and vehemently want the occupation to end. (Riverbend's blog continues at riverbendblog.blogspot.com.)
Another interesting book:Talking Right: How the Right turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times Reading, Body Piercing, Hollywood Loving.....
by Nunberg, Geoffrey
Nunberg (Sch. of Information, Univ. of California, Berkeley; Going Nucular ) more narrowly focuses on how the Right has taken control of the common political language to move our national politics steadily toward the conservative point of view. Words with powerful symbolic meaning, such as patriotism and terrorism , have been appropriated by conservatives and used skillfully to further their political agenda. As an example, Nunberg notes how the word elite has been narrowed to describe more liberal sectors of society, such as academics or the media, rather than referring to corporate or military leaders who exercise real power. This hijacking of the language is tied to the Right's powerful use of storytelling, going back to the 1960s and then epitomized by Ronald Reagan. Nunberg argues that for Democrats to return to power they must take back the language and tell stories that engage listeners.
Nunberg, a professor of linguistics and columnist for the New York Times, believes that Democrats are at a loss for words when it comes to the use of political language. As the Democrats feebly argue that they must "reframe" their arguments to reach voters, Nunberg (Going Nucular) believes that "what we have here is more than just a failure to communicate." Though conservatives have gained political ground using loaded terms such as "death tax" for estate tax, "climate change" for global warming and "hate speech" for any criticism of the president or fellow Republicans, their true triumph is more subtle, hijacking the "core vocabulary of American political discourse"-like "values" and "elite"-and using them to Republicans' exclusive advantage. Nunberg insists that liberals cannot model their strategy after GOP successes, though he offers little in the way of practical strategy. Though the phrase "politics of perception" has been overused-and therefore, as Nunberg might argue, rendered empty of meaning-Nunberg proves in this thoughtful, funny and rousing effort that the use and misuse of language is still of vital concern to the body politic. (July)
Lets see now we have had an Iraqi woman who is IN IRAQ say it is a disaster and she wants the occupation to end and we have had an American soldier, a TRUE PATRRIOT not the phonuy reich wing chickenhawk kind who is also IN IRAQ say it is a senseless war and a disaster accomplishing nothing but lining the pockets of the wealthy elite....................then we have Bush and his incompetentent sidekicks and cronnies who have a clear vested political and financial interest in justifying and keeping this endless war going who ARE NOT IN IRAQ misleading the American people about what is REALLY going on over there.........................truly pathetic!
Mike, if our soldiers were able to speak out against those above them, you can bet your sweet bippy the dialogue would be a lot different! Our soldiers are there and they know what is truly happening. Quite a few who do come home speak out against the occupation and some even go AWOL because they don't want to return. They're not scared.....they're just fighting an illegal and immoral occupation and they don't feel good about it all!
Post a Comment
<< Home