8.30.2006

Bush and Wednesday Morning

Two great clips I pulled off the Today Show this morning when Bush was interviewed in New Orleans yesterday. The first one (33 seconds) shows how he continues to confuse 9/11 and Iraq (until he is called on it.) And I'll swear he mispeaks by saying, "Did we fight the wrong war? I have no doubt." And in the second one (28 seconds) he speaks of how he has an "ecelectic" [sic] reading list. (Both are youtube format).

47 comments:

oldphilosopher said...

As to Bush's popularity:

"It is so pleasant to come across people more stupid than ourselves. We love them at once for being so."
---- Jerome K. Jerome

As to Bush's sudden new "ecelectic" reading habits:

"A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one."
---- Benjamin Franklin

Anonymous said...

Aw, quit nitpicking!!

Anonymous said...

Can't think of any Democrat I'd vote for to replace the present administration.

Anonymous said...

If you truly can't think of any Democrat you'd vote for to replace Bush, then Bush has succeeded at doing what Karl Rove set out for him to do: dumbing down America to the point where we are afraid of intellect and reason.

TXsharon said...

Anon 8:44. If you read what oldphilosopher wrote, you will see why anon 8:35 can think of any Democrat to vote for. LOL!

Kind of like that interview with Rocky, the guy who drove from New Orleans to the White House for the "surprise" visit. Rocky is the kind of guy Bu$h likes to talk to. DUMB!

Anonymous said...

I'm a Republican, and I can't think of a Republican OR a Democrat I'd like to vote for! I think ALL career national politicians have lost touch with living in the "real" world, regardless of their political persuasion. Think of any Senator or Representative that has been there more than two terms, and try to picture them in a grocery store shopping for food, or at a gas station pumping gas. You can't. Yet they "represent" us!

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:44. I think our teachers are doing the dumbing down of America and are doing quite a good job of it. Do you even keep up with the news or just drink the democratic kool aid?

TXsharon said...

Vote for candidates, regardless of party, who are not on the corporate dole.

According to the media, any political candidate who does not have a big war chest is not a contender. This thinking only benefits the media and corporations who buy politicians with huge campaign contributions! We have to change this or we will never again have real people representing us!

David Van Os and Hank Gilbert are driving all over Texas to campaign. They are talking to people in rural areas that haven't had a visit from a political candidate in 40 years. Their campaigns are not the typical stop-over at the airport on the way to the next stop and 30 second sound bite commercials. It's a great deal more work than the normal way of campaigning.

If you think there are no good candidates for which to cast your vote this year, you need to look at harder.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:44 here. Though I vote predominantly Democratic, I have never voted a "straight ticket" in my life ... and my first Presidential vote was cast (to my regret) for Nixon. Though our teachers are far from perfect, I fault less to them and far more to the present environment in which they are forced to teach. That is, I find the parents far more at fault for the dumbing down of America than the teachers ... whatever their political persuasion.

Anonymous said...

Hey sheenan read the comment about the storm

Anonymous said...

Txsheehan, You are such a hypocrite. Your head is so far up the democratic party's ass that everytime Howard Dean farts, your lips quiver.

TXsharon said...

Unlike you, I am not an apologist for ANY politician. I fully understand that a political figure is not my friend or buddy. Politicians are employees and nothing more. If they do a poor job, they should be replaced.

This is not a football game!

Your rude comments make my day! Thank you!

Anonymous said...

You're welcome. I have many more.

Anonymous said...

You're right. This is not a football game. This is life or death and the democrats only want their power back and don't give a damn about your security. They want to negotiate with terrorists and try to placate them.

Anonymous said...

11:39 -- Well said. I still can't think of any Democrat I'd vote for -- it doesn't make me stupid either (or, "dumbed down"). Additionally, inferring that it does is what leads to a decline in the quality of the discussion. It seems when one disagrees with liberals (what a laugh as I consider myself liberal!), one immediately gets a mouthful of nothing from the same liberals.

8:44 Me? Afraid of intellect and reason? Hardly. I just wish I would run across it more often.

Anonymous said...

8:44 here. The Democratic party encompases a broad range of persons, policies and political positions ... from beyond Howard Dean on the left to beyond Joe Lieberman on the right. The statement "I can't think of a single Democrat I'd vote for" demonstrates knee-jerk Republican loyalty (or at the least, knee-jerk hostility to a vast, varied and diverse political party. If that does not allow an inference that you have been "dumbed down", then it allows an inference of an even worse form of narrow-mindedness.

There are certainly Republicans I respect, and have voted for with no regrets. I do regret, however, that the "GOP" of old is no more. The "Grand Old Party" of Dirkson and Goldwater was at least a party of principle and integrity. That the lines of mutual respect between the parties in the last 2 decades has corroded is far more the fault of the Republicans than the Dems.

And that you would fault me as a "liberal" while parenthetically admitting to that persuasion yourself is peculiar irony. If you are indeed a "liberal", then you are to the left of me. I have always considered myself a "moderate", believing that the best solutions derive from common sense and cooperation.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations on being a moderate -- you don't sound like it. My reaction is not knee-jerk -- I mean it -- I can't think of a single Democrat I'd vote for. I prefer to think it shows the state of the Democratic Party, bereft of ideas, etc., rather than any reflection on my intelligence.

If you want an honest, in-depth discussion concerning ways to solve problems, I'm with you. If you want to sink to political posturing and one-upping one another, I'll manage to curb my enthusiasm and abstain.

Common sense and cooperation is not what comes across from your posts. Actually, you seem combative and dogmatic.

Anonymous said...

No combativeness intended - nor offense - I assure you. But disagreement... certainly.

"The Democratic Party is bereft of ideas," ... and I'M 'dogmatic'?? You've just recited the Republican mantra, ludicrous as it is. Democrats offer ideas all over the spectrum. Feel free to disagree with them, make fun of them even. Some of them are pretty silly. But your suggestion (and you ARE the one who laid this groundwork) that ALL Democrats are mindless blatherers IS a knee-jerk response that belies your assertion that you crave an "honest, in-depth discussion." What "discussion" can there be when one side is predicated on the proposition that the other side is utterly "bereft of ideas"? A: No "discussion" at all.

Mind you, I make no such similar assertion about the Republican party. John McCain is someone I want to hear. So is Chuck Hegel.

But so is Joe Biden. And there's a name for you. If you have actually listened to what Joseph Biden has to say about Iraq and our foreign policy and still consider him "bereft of ideas" - whether you agree with them or not - then your right. This is pointless. And I'm done with you.

Anonymous said...

Biden wants Iraq to be 3 seperate states, but that's not what Iraq wants. Biden is a loose cannon. I love to hear his blather though. He is typical of the clueless democratic party.

TXsharon said...

Of course Democrats have ideas. How about we secure our borders and ports and inspect all incoming freight and cargo. When the Democrats tried to pass legislation requiring that incoming cargo be inspected, Home Dept who contributes heavily to Republicans, raised hell with their bought political operatives and the deal was shot down on a partisan vote.

In the past, terrorism has been successfully stopped by good police work not bombing civilians and obliterating their infrastructure.

1:24 Ron Paul is a Republican who comes to my mind instantly as one who understands the value of the rule of law and following the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

If you keep reading this blog, and I think you will, then you're not done with me. Instead of listing the names of a few politicos, let's discuss real solutions to real problems. Mind you, not some Pollyannish notions retrieved from the minds of pundits, but practical, real-world solutions. Can you do that?

Your tone with me continues to be condescending. Methinks perhaps you are incapable of true discussion. If you're looking for combat, go join the marines.

I will re-cap here: I can't think of one Democrat I would vote for in replacing the current administration.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sheehan, was 9/11 successfully stopped by good police work? The answer is no because Gorelick set up the wall where the CIA and FBI could not share information. That worked real well didn't it? I believe she was appointed by Clinton. When we do try it by police work such as eavesdropping on terrorists with data mining, then the democrats scream that the rights of all Americans are being trampled. Do you see your hypocricy in play here? I didn't think so. Do you realize what cost and manpower it would take to check every cargo container entering this country? And how slow would that take you to get your tampons from China?

TXsharon said...

Sure, it might take a little longer to get shipments at first but that’s not a good reason to fail to inspect cargo that could have dirty bombs or (screech) WMD’s. We already have the technology and the cost would be minimal especially compared to the cost of a war in the wrong country! Hell! The cargo on airplanes isn’t inspected! That’s negligence!

Illegal wiretapping of US citizens including, Quakers, peace activists and political opponents is not what I call good police work and it’s not necessary to catch terrorists.

Clinton, blah, blah, blah, abortion, blah, blah, blah…

911 happened on Bu$h’s watch and he was given warnings which he ignored. That is a fact. However you don't care because you are an apologist.

Now, reply with Clinton, blah, blah, blah...

Anonymous said...

Hey Dipshit sheehan, it's called eavesdropping on SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. Get that through your peroxide tinfoiled head. It's called spying on your enemies, something that has been done since the very first war. No wonder you kook left wing moonbats will continue to lose elections.

TXsharon said...

6:33 And it's accomplished legally by getting an easily obtained court order or illegally by the Bu$h crime family.

There is even a spy now buy later plan where you can wiretap now and get permission later. But still the arrogant Bu$h crime family has to break the law.

Why do you hate smart women?

Anonymous said...

I don't. It's the ignorant ones that I don't like. You try to explain to them how the real world is and they think just the opposite. Debating you is like talking to a liberal. Oh wait, you are a liberal. You're just misguided.

TXsharon said...

When you're backed into a corner, you call names. That's not a debate. It's predictably childish and immature.

You do too hate strong, smart women. Intimidated?

Anonymous said...

Your idiotic false statements sometimes aren't even worth a response. Like I said, your head is so far up Howard Dean's ass....Pull it out and you will enjoy the view and the smell so much better. What is it with you liberals that everything is doom and gloom, conspiracy theories, and world domination?

Anonymous said...

Having just read George Soros' column in the Boston Globe titled Blinded by a concept I came to the realization that your party has been hijacked by the totally whacked out kook billionaire that hasn't a clue on how the world works and all the liberals are following along while he takes you over the cliff or down the toilet. Keep following this moonbat and get back in touch after the elections and I will remind you again why you keep losing elections. Talk to you Nov. 8.

Anonymous said...

Sharon,

You don't sound like a strong, smart woman. Rather, you sound overly assertive and simplistic in your devotion to party politics and self.

Gotta run. Have a nice day!

TXsharon said...

Wiretapping can be achieved effectively through the legal process. Why do it illegally if you have nothing to hide?

Inconveniencing Home Depot to inspect all incoming freight is worth it if American lives are saved. Don’t you agree?

Maybe you didn’t get the memo.

8:25 You sound like someone who pretends to be a Christian. I invited people to not vote party line. Now who is simplistic?

Attacking me rather then addressing the issues is transparent and pathetic.

Anonymous said...

The mafia is not trying to kill us so we are not eavesdropping on them, we are legally wiretapping on them. Now the war on terrorism has changed the rules. Either we catch them before they attack us or 9/11 will look like just another 4th of July fireworks display compared to what or how they attack us next. But let's be sure and make laws and follow laws that give terrorists their bill of rights, even though they could care less about your pathetic infidel life. Why fight someone that doesn't play by the rules if you are going to play by the rules? Guess who wins everytime? And why do you have a hard on for just Home Depot? Probably 90% of what you buy comes in on a cargo container. Business would virtually come to a halt if we inspected every container. But keep believing George Soros, who is a convicted felon, and go down hard with your left wing kook way of thinking. Talk to you on Nov. 8

TXsharon said...

With the money we spend in one day on the misguided war in the wrong country we could set up everything needed to inspect all the cargo entering the country. That would be a better way to protect Americans. Personally I wouldn't mind the initial inconvenience of having the cargo held up compared to the lives and money lost in the wrong war in the wrong country.

Why are the Republicans soft on defending the homeland?

Wiretapping can be achieved legally. There is no excuse to do it illegally.

Why didn't your hero read the memo?

Remember November : ) My birthday present!

TXsharon said...

Home Depot is the company that pressured the Republicans to vote against the best interest of the people. I do not fault Home Depot for that. I fault the people who take hush money and then offer protection by changing their votes. I fault those people regardless of their party. It just happens to be a fact that all of them were Republicans. It was a split vote along party lines.

Why don't Republicans want to protect Americans?

Anonymous said...

SHHHH Sheehan. We'll talk Nov. 8. P.S. why do liberals want to give terrorists the same rights as you and me?

TXsharon said...

I'll bring some tissues to dry your tears.

Anonymous said...

No thanks, you go for the cheap ones like your tampons.

TXsharon said...

Fine then. You can wipe your nose and tears on your sleeve when I get my birthday present on Nov. 8th.

Why didn't Bu$h read the memo?

Anonymous said...

Notice the date on the memo. Gee, this proves Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing. If this was so important to Clark, why didn't he have his boy Clinton do something about it? Typical liberal trash. Kick the can down the road so Clinton didn't have to deal with it. Nice try, Sheehan

TXsharon said...

Nice try on the spin. The Bu$h crime family was on watch and they did admit receipt of the memo and made the "your ass is covered remark."

Nice try but it falls flat.

Anonymous said...

You forgot to answer the looming question. Why didn't Clinton do something about it?

TXsharon said...

He was not in office when the memo was issued. Duh! Therefore the responsibility rests with the Bu$h Crime Family. You can blame Clinton for many things and I would likely agree with you on some of them. You can try to blame him for 911 but only the fringe lunatics fall for that one.

Anonymous said...

Oh, thanks for the explanation. So let me get this straight. Al Quada and Bin Laden weren't threats to us, even though they tried to blow up the WTC in 93, until Jan. 20. Thanks, we can now rewrite history based on your brilliant reasoning.

TXsharon said...

Once again, nice attempt to twist the words around. 911 happened when The Bu$h Crime Family was in office. The Bu$h Crime Family had many warnings. The Bu$h Crime Family ignored those warnings.

Later The Bu$h Crime Family let Osama go. There is more to the story but you like your fairy tale better so that you can continue to believe Rove's marketing job. Just know that no one in The Bu$h Crime Family would ever have a beer with you. He is not your buddy. He is an employee who needs to be fired.

Anonymous said...

Bush let Osama go? When did he ever have him in custody? Clinton was offered Osama 3 times by Sudan and didn't take him because he didn't want to deal with him. Once again kicking the can down the road. There is some fact for ya Jack. Sheehan, the blonde in a bottle is really starting to affect your thinking. Seek help immediately....

Anonymous said...

TxSharon, Are you saying that there was not an attempt to blow up the WTC in 93?

TXsharon said...

Oopsie! There's that little matter of the PDB!

"A small but significant White House cover-up fell apart this past weekend.

When the White House finally released the August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief, it marked the end of a two-year effort on the part of the Bush administration to prevent the public from learning that a month before the 9/11 attacks--and weeks after the U.S. government had collected "chatter" indicating Osama bin Laden was planning a major strike--Bush received information indicating that al Qaeda was intent on mounting attacks within the United States.

Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in the attempt to keep the contents of this PDB--which was entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" and which noted that al Qaeda "apparently maintains a support structure [in the United States] that could aid attacks" and that the FBI had detected "suspicious activity...consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks"--from becoming known. And it is obvious why it was so important for her and the White House to smother this PDB.

The existence of the August 6 PDB was first revealed by CBS News' David Martin on May 15, 2002. But Martin's report only referred to the PDB in one sentence that noted the PDB had warned that an attack by bin Laden could involve hijacking U.S. aircraft. CBS did not report the title of the briefing or any other material it contained. A media furor erupted after the White House acknowledged Bush had received this PDB. The day after the CBS News report, The New York Times carried a front-page story with a headline declaring, "Bush Was Warned Bin Laden Wanted To Hijack Planes."

...And so forth. His reply was, "Okay you've covered your ass." But I won't bother to quote the whole thing because you have your fingers in your ears.

U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight

CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away

Of course, if Rush didn't say it you won't believe it no matter how many sources I supply.

As I've told you repeatedly, I am no fan of Clinton's. However, if you believe he "kicked the can down the road" what do you think should have happened to him for that negligence?