Here is a cut-and-paste from the official transcript of this morning's dubious press conference with GWBush:
"I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. " (GWBush, 8/21/06, emphasis added).
Replace the words "terrorists" and "suiciders" with "criminals" and "violence" and GWBush just became a New Deal Democrat. A big-L Liberal. And that explains a lot, really. The huge government spending, the massive make-work projects in Iraq, the wartime presidency, etc. The neoconservative philosophy is really a New Deal for the Middle East - and they can't see it, or see why it's so at odds with their domestic laissez-hurricane policies.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Bush Is Losing It
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 3:04 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
In the same press conference, Bush said that pulling out of Iraq would be a mistake and "we aren't gonna do it while I'm President." So the GOP stance is no pull out no how until 2009 at the earliest? That's not a strong counter to the Democrat's phased withdrawl position - which actually reflects the median view point among voters.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Yeah, but he admitted that Iraq had "nothing" to do with the war on Terror.
See the comment here
// posted by USwest
No, he said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He repeated the lie that Iraq is the "central front" in the War on Terror. And most Americans think (rightfully) that the War On Terror has something to do with 9/11.
Instead, what Bush means is that 9/11 was the excuse for a new foreign policy to "confront threats before they materialize" in his breathless verbage. Think about that phrase for a moment.
// posted by LTG
Here's the problem: The administration has worked hard to plant the idea that Iraq was part of the "War on Terror" that was started as a result of 9/11. And this administration tried to fabricate evidence that Saddam had met with 9/11 highjackers. The implication was that he was somehow supplying them with the "means" to attack. That is where the whole Plame affair started, if you remember. The WMD and all that was because Iraq was key in "the war on terror" Saddam was just waiting to get us.
That fiction doesn't work anymore. So now they have to change the story. Now it is "Saddam" wasn't responsible for 9/11. This is interesting considering what has been said before.
What I regret is that the reporter didn't ask his question differently. "How did Iraq get wrapped up in the "War on terror" if Saddam wasn't part of the 9/11 scheme?"
LTG is right to point out that the rhetoric is important. Because now they have a "freedom agenda", a new set of buzz words (full of arrogance of course). And "confront threats before they materialize" is part of the "doctrine of preventative strikes" which we have heard before.
The pond they have dug has become so murky with their lies that no one can even see the bottom anymore. The Administration are down to scuffling around for a coherent message on a policy that isn't coherent. There haven't been a worse group of liars since Nixon, and that is saying a lot considering that they are mostly the same damn people.
What is really interesting is that a reporter dared to so openly challenge King George(something that no one dared do earlier) and showed he had no clothes.
// posted by USwest
Oh, and it seems Molly Ivins and I are channeling each other.
// posted by USWest
Yeah, is "Freedom Agenda for the Middle East" version 3.2 of their justification for this mess!? First it was Saddam set up 9/11. Then it was Saddam was going to nuke us at any minute. Then it was spreading democracy. Now it's the more ambivalent "freedom" issue.
Did you all see the Daily Show last night. Jon Stewart said the Middle East policy was like Bush was driving us all in a car and we were all fine so long as we were going to Afghanistan but then he took off for Iraq and we are the people in the back shouting. "AHHH! Hey wait, the freeway's over there!"
// posted by RBR
Freedom for the Middle East does not, apparently, include Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, , Oman, Egypt, or Pakistan. It's a joke.
All we seem to be able to deliver in Iraq is Freedom from Electricity and Freedom from Security.
// posted by LTG
I like that, RBR. Version 3.2. Good one.
// posted by USWest
Post a Comment