Er, when their server comes back up, that is...

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 20, 2006 02:44 AM

Yo, Blair!

Sheesh, what an idiot. Personally, I'm not bothered by his usage of "s__t," but that his comment reveal him to be an utter idiot, completely unaware of what's going on in the world, and living in a dream world.

Posted by: Dave J. at July 20, 2006 07:14 AM

Dave J., you're an idiot. What he said may have not been eloquent, but it was spot on.

Jack, I have no clue why you - or the press - care about this at all.

Posted by: tscrib at July 20, 2006 08:16 AM

Dave J., you're an idiot. What he said may have not been eloquent, but it was spot on.

First off, I believe insults directed at another poster are a violation of the commenting policy here.

That said, what did he say that was "spot on." That part about "we need to call Kofi and get him to do something." Oooh, yeah, that was brilliant. In every other speech he talks about how the UN is worthless, ineffective, etc., and then when something bad happens his great idea is to...call the UN. Brilliant!

Perhaps there were other nuggets of genius sprinkled into his conversation, but it was kind of hard to hear over the talking-with-food-in-mouth and the heavy mouth-breathing. (Neither of which were surprising, by the way.) Hard to imagine anyone who could make Bush the Elder look like a beacon of grace and dignity, but whaddaya know.

Posted by: Dave J. at July 20, 2006 08:57 AM

Yes, I agree with your comment about the elder Bush even when he was throwing up on a Head of State he was far less embarassing then his idiot son.

Posted by: tom at July 20, 2006 09:08 AM

I felt for Bush 41 when he threw up, since it was clearly by accident and clearly embarrassed him. The stuff Bush 43 does--the uninvited neck rubs, the "Yo! Blair!" business, the "Let's get to that pig" stuff...this is stuff he's choosing to do, and which doesn't embarrass him in the least, in spite of the fact that he's making his whole country look bad.

The expletive didn't bother me in the least. Everything else does.

916 more days. I hope nothing (else) terrible happens in the meantime.

Posted by: teacherrefpoet at July 20, 2006 09:15 AM

Shame?
Weep?

Laugh!

Good sh*t!

Posted by: rickyragg at July 20, 2006 09:17 AM

Interesting. I hadn't seen any of the context for the quote -- just about 10 seconds or so of the part the media want to play up.

I always thought the coarse language was a complete non-issue. But now, after listening to the minute or so just before that, I have to say that I am embarrassed by the substance (such as it was) of the President's remarks.

What I found most painful to listen to was Blair's patient attempt to speak with Bush in a somewhat sophisticated manner while Bush was continuously interrupting him with inane commentary.

How terribly, terribly frustrating it must be for Tony Blair to have his fortunes tied so closely to such a buffoon.

Posted by: David Wright at July 20, 2006 09:24 AM

Eloquence aside, Bush is right. Getting Hezbollah, et al to knock it off would stop the problem. It's not like Israel didn't give the bad guys a chance to not attack them, yet again. Go Israel!

Posted by: andy in korea at July 20, 2006 10:33 AM

Paris Hilton recently said that she and Jessica Simpson act dumb in public but are actually smart behind the scenes. President Bush is a little like that: He acts dumb in public but when you see him behind the scenes he acts even dumber. One tip: Before you take a leadership role in the world, learn how to eat a roll with your mouth shut.

Posted by: Bill McDonald at July 20, 2006 10:45 AM

"Bush is right...Go Israel!"
Right on, where the hell does Hezbollah get off dropping bombs on a soverign nation and killing civilians. Sheesh, this is the 21st century guys get with the program haven't you ever heard of a little something called diplomacy?

Posted by: tom at July 20, 2006 10:57 AM

I realize how low the bar has been set when Bush apologists don't realize how embarrassing and telling that trip was. You'd rather yuk it up, claiming a hidden genius in his levity. And yet, while the foreign press was questioning (repeatedly)what his response was to the grave, new fighting between Isreal and Lebannon, he was obsessed with friggin' roast pork.

Yes, indeed, we all missed the genius of his ways. All we needed was for Bush to step out of his sheltered existance/treatment he has here in the states, and whammo!, we have instant perspective on how universally wrong this country was to elect a ne'er-do-well fratboy as the 'Leader of the free world'. Because hey, we wouldn't sent civil engineers into nuclear engineering positions, but we damn-well need to be able to sip Bud Lite with a man who should have more responsibility than ANYONE. Indeed, Clinton's history as a Rhodes Schollar in Economics and work creating a budget surplus WAS FAR TOO ELITIST FOR JOE SIXPACK.

Are Republicans' egos so fragile they can't admit they were so deaf, dumb and blind to GOP hackery? Come on, isn't this the pinnacle of Conservatism, in it's most unadulterated state, controlling all branches of government? All the layers of onion, peeled away for everyone to see... and the hits just keep on comin'. I think Goldwater conservatives are counting Bush's days in office more studiously than Dems at this point, it's THAT bad.

Posted by: TKrueg at July 20, 2006 11:24 AM

The merits of Israel's case against Hezbollah, just point out how wrong President Bush was to do a premptive strike on Iraq. What would Bush supporters say if the President had said, "Hezbollah is just doing a preemptive strike so it's all part of the Bush Doctrine."
Israel acted in self-defense here. There were no rockets coming down on us from Iraq.

Posted by: Bill McDonald at July 20, 2006 11:28 AM

But.. "that deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball"

Posted by: TKrueg at July 20, 2006 11:40 AM

tk it must really irritate you that as bad as bush may be, your side couldnt field a candidate to beat him... says a lot doesnt it.. clowns to the left of me, clowns to the right and tk here i am stuck in the middle with you... (two more years) joco :)

Posted by: jocoze at July 20, 2006 12:22 PM

p.s i meant to say clowns to the left of me jokers to the right... ill play the role of joker. weeping? come on jack.. man up... :)

Posted by: jocoze at July 20, 2006 12:26 PM

George W. Bush is President because God wanted him to be. The Almighty is running a bit behind schedule on the Apocolypse and needed someone to speed things up.

Posted by: tom at July 20, 2006 02:00 PM

Jocoze-

I lay part of the blame at the feet of Beltway Dems and TV pundits for making an issue of Howard Dean's scream, so they could put a Vet (Kerry was seen a safer choice in the hysteria following 9/11) on the ticket. Dean was the only clear choice for any rank-and-file Dem who though our country needed a housecleaning. And yet the media chose to focus on the inconsequential 'scream' rather than anything of substance. Fair and Balanced (my ass).

So yeah, a lot of Dems are pissed at the party and their hack consultants who play it safe. But still, John Kerry was still a much, much better choice than Bush. So who's fault is that? Our passive, ill-informed citizens, to start.

I urge everybody, conservative or liberal, to take a closer look at Russ Feingold for '08.

Posted by: TKrueg at July 20, 2006 02:46 PM

Oh and Jocoze... aren't you man enough to weep when you see the country you love being led down the sh*tter?

Posted by: TKrueg at July 20, 2006 02:59 PM

Yeah TK, everybody's ill-informed and ignorant, except you of course. Can you be any more arrogant?

With attitudes like yours, no wonder Liberals are losing ground in this state (and country).

Funny how you lay Iraq squarely at the feet of the GOP, when congress overwhelmingly supported going to war.

Or are you one of those "Bush Lied" nut-jobs?

Posted by: Chris McMullen at July 20, 2006 03:53 PM

"lay Iraq squarely at the feet of the GOP"? Didn't you get the memo? Iraq is going great.
I'm actually encouraged that Bush supporters are starting to talk about Iraq in realistic terms. Not wanting sole blame for this disaster is understandable. Of course, if it had turned out great, you'd have creditied it all to the GOP's decisive leadership and greatness in foreign policy, but I guess that possibility's not worth holding onto now. Maybe some kind of middle ground would work for the next spin. How about, "It would have gone great but that darn Cindy Sheehan screwed it up"?

Posted by: Bill McDonald at July 20, 2006 04:17 PM

The 6+ year tantrum continues...

Ignore inconvenient facts, blame others, never entertain other points of view. Feeling right is all that matters. Surround yourself with like-minded drones and lash out!

Posted by: rickyragg at July 20, 2006 04:17 PM

I'm a lot more concerned with 20,000 plus young people missing limbs, etc... from fighting in a war that didn't have to happen, than how you're handling the harsh words.

Posted by: Bill McDonald at July 20, 2006 04:22 PM

Chris-

Any and every poll suggests a majority of Americans are ill-informed about our country's matters. When more people vote for f-ing American Idol than a presidency, I don't think I'm being arrogant at all. How else do you explain an asshat like Bush getting 'reelected'.

And are you serious about liberals losing ground? Your vaunted conservative movement is projected to take a nosedive this November, pal.

Yes, count me in that group that says 'Bush lied'. Try picking up a paper sometime... and for God's sake, turn off Fox News. What do you call using fake evidence to go into a pre-emptive strike/invasion?? A fib? A tall-tale? Wake up...

The illogical, grasping-at-straws defense can only signify Bush's ideals are 'in its last throes'...

Posted by: TKrueg at July 20, 2006 04:23 PM

Weep with you?

Jack, there's no crying in blogging! I have to admit it, though, George W. is in some kind of league of his own.

Posted by: Robert Canfield at July 20, 2006 04:29 PM

Bill-

Even if Iraq was a peaceful place today, the GOP would have a lot to answer for. Like, 'Who actually thought an American occupying force would bring stability to the middle east?" or "This preemptive strike and occupation... Do we have double standards for ourselves and the rest of the world?" I realize you're against Bush too, but people seem to forget that the ongoing violence in Iraq isn't the only reason the invasion was a huge mistake.

Ricky-
Thanks for the deflective rhetoric. Now, would you care to actually defend your Clown Prince? Nothing? I guess that would explain the deflective rhetoric.

Posted by: TKrueg at July 20, 2006 04:36 PM

"George W. is in some kind of league of his own"
You mean Bush League (rimshot)

Posted by: tom at July 20, 2006 04:38 PM

This is depressing.

Bush at the G8. The Middle East. The people in here sniping at each other. Even the truck I saw today with its "Proud to be an American" bumper sticker. And it's really depressing that I think that that is depressing.

Hey, Mr. President, I could really use a backrub right about now!

Posted by: ellie at July 20, 2006 04:44 PM

TK, it's more fun watching you wet yourself than rebutting your nutty, misguided inanities.

And Bill, when did I ever say I was a Bush supporter? I merely stated Congress (many Dems included) overwhelmingly voted for the war.

"...If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war against his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.” – Bill Clinton, 1998.

Or did the Clinton administration manipulate intelligence, too?

Posted by: Chris McMullen at July 20, 2006 05:01 PM

Chris-

I don't know that I'd describe my factual statements as 'wetting myself'. But I know the conservative response to terrorists has been what I'd describe as 'bedwetting'. You know, with knee-jerk 'solutions' that violate everyone's civil rights, ignore the constitution, and get us into an occupation that had NOTHING to do with 9-11. And we can thank you, honorary member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, for putting political party ahead of country.

So, you're saying you don't support Bush? You must be one of the growing number of Republicans who are conveniently backing away from Bush, hoping nobody notices your previous positions. Nice.

As for Clinton, I think he was smart enough to know not to conflate Al-Qaeda and Saddam/Iraq (hint: they HATED each other). Nor was he stupid enough to invade Iraq, expecting parades, flowers, and unicorns. Let's not forget that Clinton actually did something about both Al-Qaeda and Iraq.... they're called 'surgical strikes', so they don't make for entertaining political power-grabs like Bush's war does for mass media.

I seem to remember Republicans screaming "NO WAR FOR MONICA!" as Clinton was going after Osama in Afghanistan and Africa...

Posted by: TKrueg at July 20, 2006 05:20 PM

Chris, Sorry if I misread where you are coming from. Bill

Posted by: Bill McDonald at July 20, 2006 06:30 PM

"Or are you one of those 'Bush Lied' nut-jobs?" Chris Mullen

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." GWB, State of the Union Address 2003.

"And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official [who leaked Valerie Plame's identity]. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to." GWB, 10/7/03.

Question: How can you deny the above are both deliberate lies?

Question: Why would a non-Bush supporter deny they are lies? Do you get paid to do so?

I ask because the inconsistency reminds me of Bill O'Reilly, who IS paid to deny being a Bush supporter yet deny Bush lies. It's a propoganda technique of coating blind loyalism to Bush with a thin coat of feebly asserted "independent" thinking. The speaker's self proclaimed independence fools the casual observer into accepting the absurd pro-Bush lies he spouts as trustworthy.

If you are not getting paid to employ this propoganda technique, why are you doing it? It's an honest question.

Posted by: Sam at July 20, 2006 06:53 PM

Of course most everyone would have liked President Bush to speak more eloquently. But, I would have to admit that most of my friends, associates, business contacts, even some government employees speak/ act in just this manner/ways (especially at home and play). Why just look at Bojacks Blog and Blogs in general and it is difficult to find "perfect" dialoge-right Jack? And this isn't a critical remark, for me atleast it is reality. Some of us can't even spell or punctuate, like me.

Posted by: Lee at July 20, 2006 07:18 PM

Do the men at your workplace walk up and start massaging the shoulders of the women? I'm sorry, but that was lame. Not being able to talk well is one thing, but that kind of behavior is now seen as just weird and creepy.

Posted by: Bill McDonald at July 20, 2006 07:22 PM

Gosh, I just reread all the above postings. I found more cuss words, etc. than I hear from my friends and at construction sites. I won't comment on some of the poor logic I read.

Posted by: Lee at July 20, 2006 07:24 PM

Lee,

That's an honest question, but... When have we ever seen a glimpse of any thoughtful, intelligent argument from him? It's not just bad that he talks horrendously, he also very obviously avoids getting into any details. He's a shallow man, plain and simple.

He's a high-level kinda guy. You know, that guy at every office that, through nepotism, has attained management positions without working half as hard. The guy that jokes and grab-asses while everyone else hammers through a to-do list. Bush is, most certainly, that guy.

Why shouldn't we all expect an intelligent President?? He has a leeeetle bit more responsibility than the branch manager at some bank...

Posted by: TKrueg at July 20, 2006 07:40 PM

Think back to Ollie North being characterized as a rogue.

Isn't the relationship between the Lebanese Hezbollah (The Party of God) to the official Lebanese government like that between Ollie North and the Reagan Administration?

Think of the UN resolution directing the Lebanese Hezbollah to disarm as the Boland Amendment to Reagan's Freedom Fighters.

It is definitionally impossible for a "terrorist" to engage in an act that can be characterized as an act of war; for only nations can do that.

Why not call a spade a spade, that we (the current set of US leaders) have already "lost" Lebanon to the terrorists in the War on Terror? When I use the word "lost" think in terms of Central America and the fear of the administration of being labeled as having "lost" one or another country to the Communists.

Lebanon had already been "lost."

We are in denial, as evidenced by the blame-game-need to point to someone else, like Syria. Unless the plot is, or was, to go after Syria all along?

I always believed that Reagan suffered from actually believing the rhetoric he spewed; Bush 2 seems to show the same gullibility. Perhaps he too gets his funding from, and takes direction from, Saudi Arabia. I predict, btw, that the recent record profits for foreign oil companies (including those traded on the US stock exchanges) will be shattered once again.

How does it feel to work for Saudi Arabia? How does it feel to have relinquished our nation's foreign policy to Saudi Arabia?

Posted by: Ron Ledbury at July 20, 2006 08:23 PM

Well said

Posted by: TKrueg at July 20, 2006 08:46 PM

Bill: I guess I somewhat identifiy myself with Bush. I have some of his traits in not being able to speak brillently, and having grown up on a farm and in the woods with plain speaking folks. And their mannerism are sometimes questionable-but they are people, and they met well.

TK: I have listened to several interviews (Barbara Walters, NBC News,etc.) where his dialogue was better than most poeples. If you know presidential history, you'll find many of our former presidents lacking several aspects that you are making fun of. Johnson and Ford in interviews were not spectacular, nor their writings. And I could go on. And those two are not thought of as our worst presidents. Trashing and bashing gets old. Then read some of Teddy Roosevelt's writings and quotes, or Hardy. Ever read/hear Clinton's cussing, or his wife's?

Posted by: Lee at July 20, 2006 08:57 PM

Gosh again, my spelling and tenses aren't all that great. I better proofread next time, I write like Bush.

Posted by: Lee at July 20, 2006 09:10 PM

This isn't about eloquence, as much as it is about substance. When he tells Putin with a straight face that he should try to make Russia more like Iraq, we are the laughingstock of the world. To go along with the most hated. Then there's that pitiful "Just wait." Yeah, George, that wonderful Iraq you promised is right around the corner.

What a dope. God help America.

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 20, 2006 09:19 PM

Bill; I do have several friends that come up and message a persons neck in knowing there is a lot of tension, stress present. Of course, some of my Italian friends even show some hugging occasionally. I'm sure some of us have families that naturally are more demonstrative than others and touching is normal. I've recently seen at public PDC meeetings members of commissions/committees coming up and giving a light touch, rub. Creepy? I didn't get a sense of ulterior motives.

Now, if Bill Clinton did it, that is creepy; as he did to a female friend of mine here in Portland, then asked her if she would like to join a more "private party" after the Portland fundraiser-that is creepy. Her husband was standing near to his wife when this happened.

Posted by: Lee at July 20, 2006 09:27 PM

Lee, there's a difference between being "plain-spoken" and being, as Jack said, a dope. There's nothing wrong with down-home wisdom from uneducated "country folk". The offense, here, is that there just ain't much wisdom in our President, down-home or otherwise.

Perhaps you identify with him, but GW Bush wasn't raised on a farm or in the woods. The man attended prep school in Andover, then graduated from Yale, and received an MBA from Harvard Business School for crying out loud. One might expect such a person could express a coherent thought once in a while. Instead he is, as I said up-thread, a buffoon.

And anyhow, when did we decide that it was important for our leaders to be "regular Joes"? Personally, I want the President to be a well-educated, well-spoken, yes even elite member of our society. He (or she) should represent the very best of our country. We deserve no less.

Er... on second thought, scratch that.

As John Adams reminded us over 200 years ago... "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Perhaps we deserve exactly who we, collectively, put in office...

Posted by: David Wright at July 21, 2006 12:54 AM

Sorry TK, but I cannot let this one go...

"Let's not forget that Clinton actually did something about both Al-Qaeda and Iraq.... they're called 'surgical strikes', so they don't make for entertaining political power-grabs like Bush's war does for mass media."

I'm sorry but that is so incorrect that it's laughable. Clinton did very little to halt Al-Qaeda and missed several golden opportunities to take out Osama.

I'm no Bush apologist, but claiming that Clinton was anything more than ineffectual at dealing with Al-Qaeda is a total joke.

Posted by: Larry at July 21, 2006 08:12 AM

Larry- He did everything short of invading a country. He tried firing missles into what was thought to be Osama's camp (while the GOP screamed NO WAR FOR MONICA)... that it didn't kill Osama is hardly Clinton's fault. As Clinton's administration was briefing the incoming Bush cabinet, they warned them Osama and Al-Qaeda were an ongoing threat they'd worked really hard on... and Bush's team basically said, "OK thanks, we'll get to it". Then when 9-11 occurred, we use Iraq as some sort of angry punching bag?? Okaaaaaay.....

I seem to remember Bush saying a year or two ago (paraphrasing)about Osama that he "just doesn't think about him anymore... doesn't spend too much time on him".

Clinton HAD an anti-terrorism task force that Bush disbanded after he took office. Bush ignored intel. briefings. How can anyone say the Republicans are better for Nat'l Security??

Posted by: TKrueg at July 21, 2006 09:05 AM

"I seem to remember Bush saying a year or two ago (paraphrasing)about Osama that he "just doesn't think about him anymore... doesn't spend too much time on him"."

He is no longer wanted dead or alive, it would be better if we just all forget about him. He probably never had anything to do with 9/11 anyway, he just took credit for it to boost his reputation in the Middle East. I suspect that as the Bush years settle on the ash heap of history this will become the official story on Osama whats-his-name.

Posted by: tom at July 21, 2006 09:20 AM

"He did everything short of invading a country."

He did nothing of the sort. Clinton's responses to several terrorist attacks were extremely limited and weak.

Lobbing a few missiles into a camp that was already known to be deserted is not a strong response.

Telling fighter/bombers to stand down as they're getting ready to launch off an aircraft carrier on a mission to get Osama is not a strong response.

The attack on the USS Cole? We allowed the Yemeni authorities to absolutely handcuff our investigators. I can't imagine GWB doing the same.

The embassy bombings? Did anything come of that? No.

Remember how he insisted on calling the first WTC bombing a crime instead of an act of terrorism? So we captured a couple low-level operatives, sentenced them to prison, and did nothing beyond that to destroy the larger organization.

TK, I have no patience for folks who are Bush shills, but similarly I also have none for Clinton groupies. BOTH parties have been neglectful in dealing with the growing threat over the last 15 years....

Clinton may have been many things, but tough on terror was not one of them.

Posted by: Larry at July 21, 2006 09:50 AM

"BOTH parties have been neglectful in dealing with the growing threat over the last 15 years...."
Both parties have also been pretty much neglectful about Israels role in keeping the pot boiling in the Middle East as well. Looking the other way while Israel defends itself against Hezbollah by decimating Lebanese civilians isn't helping our cause in the Middle East either. Our lack of response in this situation may prove more dangerous then invading Iraq. I would also like to add that being critical of Israel doesn't make me or anyone else an Anti-Semite.

Posted by: tom at July 21, 2006 11:06 AM

Larry- Clinton's record on terrorism has been the subject of one smear and mischaracterization after another. The Right, knowing full well that Bush dropped the baton, has gone to great lengths to marginalize all the efforts Clinton put in place. I'm not saying you're a source of that, that simply you've echoing what has been tossed around from the pundit's perspective. Clinton knew that any overt occupation would stir the hornets nest more than quietly and covertly going after the cells.

Just to clarify, are you saying that Bush is or has done more to combat terrorism than Clinton did? What about Richard Clarke?

Posted by: TKrueg at July 21, 2006 11:19 AM

Totally in agreement with Tom... and let's not forget the monetary incentives for some wealthy elite in this country to keep the mideast in turmoil. Israel is a big customer of our defense contractors, and a neverending war for us means a steady gravy train for those same firms.

Eisenhower warned about the dangers of war profiteering after seeing what happened during WWII. If he had any idea our foreign policy would be partially dictated by it, to the extent we see today, his words would be even more dire. The Neocon wet-dream is our nightmare...

Posted by: TKrueg at July 21, 2006 11:26 AM

Oh yeah, Clinton and Richard Clarke really opened up a can of whuppass on Osama.

Al Qaeda torched two U.S. Embassies and attacked a US Navy Destroyer (the Cole), so Clinton tossed a couple of cruise missiles against a pharmaceutical fab and a few empty tents in the Desert.

Declare Victory and Go Home. Problem deferred.

Posted by: Mister T at July 22, 2006 07:33 AM

Mister T- So why did Bush wait until 9-11 to do anything? Prior to that point, they dropped many of the efforts and leads that Clinton's team was working on. They didn't even want to be briefed! They did so, only reluctantly, after Clarke begged them.

The moral of the story is, don't believe the GOP when they say they're the party for Nat'l Security.

Posted by: TKrueg at July 22, 2006 10:56 AM

Bush was too busy working on creating a strong economy. You remember what a strong economy was don't you? We had one for eight years before Bush came along. Once he screwed that up he decided to do the same for the Middle East. To paraphrase an old joke , It's too bad George can't do to Laura what he has been doing to the country for the last 4 years. Oh wait he's been doing that with Condoleeza.

Posted by: Tom at July 22, 2006 01:30 PM

[Posted as indicated; restored later.]