’)God, the President of the United States is a shmuck. I still balk at ranking him as the worst, but every day and every death he marches closer to the booby prize.
But in an unusual admission of a personal mistake, Mr. Bush said he regretted challenging insurgents in Iraq to “bring it on” in 2003, and said the same about his statement that he wanted Osama bin Laden “dead or alive.” Those two statements quickly came to reinforce his image around the world as a cowboy commander in chief. “Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people,” Mr. Bush said. “I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner.”
He went on to say that the American military’s biggest mistake was the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, where photographs of detainees showed them in degrading and abusive conditions. “We’ve been paying for that for a long period of time,” Mr. Bush said, his voice heavy with regret.
“His voice heavy with regret”. I didn’t see the conference, but I’m apt to believe the Times is once again clapping for Tinkerbell to come save this woeful presidency.
(UPDATE: Now I’ve seen it. There was no “heavy with regret”, just the usual “I’m not remotely qualified for this job no way no how” voice we’ve suffered with for 5 long years)
You know what the big mistake was?
The Iraq War.
finally some honesty from you Ollie.
“You know what the big mistake was? The iraq war”
That is something that can be discussed and argued about, and will for next 20 years or more.
It is certainly better than the constant “war for oil” or Bush lied…..
Feh. I was just watching Godzilla vs Monster Zero and I’m sorry to say, the “Controller” sounded a lot like the neocons and their plans to remake the planet.
It’d be funny… if it wasn’t so fucking tragic.
Oh and if you actually want to talk about why it was a mistake you are objectively pro terrorist.
“That is something that can be discussed and argued about, and will for next 20 years or more.”
Just as long as no one is ever held accountable. The second you expect someone to take responsibility, well, you’re a traitor.
Bush is more than a simple screw-up: he’s a coward who talks tough but has never been in a tough situation in his life. Owing to his name and his family connections, he’s been bailed out of every last scrape he’s gotten himself into. He’s the perfect figurehead for the arrogant, idiotic cowards of the far right. If this country wasn’t so overpopulated with spoiled, moronic a–holes (resident trolls included), Bush would’ve been impeached by now (at the very least).
But I guess you can’t go into posterity with the democracy you want; you have to slog through with the democracy you have. Its just a crying shame that other countries have to suffer for our epic shortcomings.
A) First out of his mouth in response to the questsion was the whine, “that sounds like a familiar refrain around here”
B) Did you see the sour expression on his face as he said it?
What a disgusting prick.
I actually agree with Joe Scarbrough. He said that Bush’s “apology” was nothing more than window dressing. He apologized for his tone and words….in other words semantics. I won’t balk at saying that Bush is the worst president in history and definetly the dumbest president and is a narcissist of the truest sense.
These were mistakes W had made three years ago. Why couldn’t he remember them in July 2004, when he was asked by a reporter if he had made any mistakes? (At least he didn’t bring up the Rangers trading Sosa to the White Sox. Whew!)
Does anybody seriously defend Bush’s “right” to have to be reminded by advisers and pollsters of the mistakes he’s made? It’s not like any of his miscues started off well and then reversed course. And it’s certainly not like God had given Bush bum advice in their oft-publicized ‘discussions.” …
Bush’s “acknowledgement” of mistakes is intended to be politically expedient, and not a sign of candor or contrition.
In short, a perfect encapsulation of the Bush admin.
I can only marvel at the greatness of the Roman Empire. They were able to manage to spend 500 years (or 1500 years if you count the Byzantines) at the pinnacle of Western Civilization before they succumbed to a succession of idiot emperors, failed military adventures and the internal rot of its corrupt, lazy and self-absorbed society.
We’ll be lucky if we reach the 250 year mark before we are finally eclipsed by our creditors. At least the upside is that we’ll perhaps become a normal country once again, one that doesn’t go around doing things like blowing up slums in Panama City and liberating nutmeg plantations in Grenada in order to feel “safe”.
Some of you guys sound like the same, idiotic arm-chair psychologists that call the sports-talk station here and bitch that Donovan McNabb doesn’t look “mad enough” after he throws an interception.
God, you people are so predictable. I knew someone would be stupid enough to say I’m comparing war to football (i even had a hunch you would be that stupid person).
I’m not making a comparison between those two things, i’m talking about arm-chair analysts who think they can tell what a person is thinking or how sincere they are by their mannerisms or tone of voice.
Yes, because a weak apology for mistakes that cost thousands of people their lives is exactly the same as a quarterbacks reaction to an interception.
“I m talking about arm-chair analysts who think they can tell what a person is thinking or how sincere they are by their mannerisms or tone of voice.”
And so you reject the NY Times description of Bush’s voice as “heavy with regret” on the same grounds then, right?
So the big mistake was his tone of voice? His regionalisms? Lack of sophistication?
No, sir. Those are annoyances.
The big mistakes were lying us into a war and planning incompetently for it, overstretching the guard and reserve forces so you could avoid a draft – which would bring up certain unfitting actions in your own past – abandoning the hunt for UBL, recess-appointing Nutty Bolton to the UN where he could do more of his nonproliferation magic, failing to negotioate with, never mind contain, North Korea and Iraq, ignoring the Sudan genocide for four years, bankrupting the US treasury with foolhardy tax cuts… shall we continue?
Feh. He’s not worth it.
Actually, I’m not “rejecting” either interpretation. When Bush said what he did, he very well could’ve been deep with regret. Or, maybe he was just acting regretful while in his head thinking “hey, we tortured some terrorists, big whoop…I hope this reporter shuts up so i can go hit that bottle of Jack i keep hidden”.
I can’t tell, but neither can Oliver or that little tool alex corrigan. That’s the point.
“perhaps become a normal country once again”
The United States was never a normal country you dolt! Perhaps you forget that this country has been in an almost perpetual state of war since it’s founding. We fought against the British, Spanish, amongst ourselves, the Germans, then the Germans again, Japan, Korea, the list goes on and on. WTF is normal anyway?
You cannot possibly make an intelligent judgement today that the Iraq war was a mistake. We won major combat and the insurgency seems to be increasing. Libya seems to have moderated. I have a few more doubts today about my own pessimism re the war than I did a year ago (overall, I still doubt). What if Iraq becomes a stable democracy and there is even a half-way domino effect int he Mideast. Bush and the neocons would then be able to claim, rightly, success and we doubters would be wrong.
Open up your mind. It hurts at first but after a while you’ll find the ‘big picture’ is the only way to go.
Dugger
Good God Oliver who are you placing in first over W?
Here is my ranking of the worst presidents
1) George W. Bush (for just about everything he has done)
2) Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam trumps everything else)
3) Ronald Reagan (For his fiscal, domestic and foreign policies. A careful examination of his funding of Islamic Fundamentalists, like Bin Laden, in order to counter the USSR might move him into second.)
4) Richard Nixon (Abuse)
5) A tough choice between.
Eisenhower: (A do nothing but he did authorize the installation of the shah over their democratically elected government thus paving the way for the ayatollahs to seize power a quarter century later.)
Hoover: (The depression.)
Buchanan: (The civil war although I figure kicking the south’s ass was bound to be needed eventually.)
Some may argue that with the exception of Buchanon all my choices are at least 20th Century and with the exception of Hoover all are from the 2nd half of that Century. I would say that as our nation’s power and prestige grew the consequences of a bad president are magnified thus Millard Fillmore just couldn’t cause the damage that even Gerald Ford could have.
>>We won major combat and the insurgency seems to be increasing.
LOL. I assume that was a monster Freudian slip, Dugger?
JK
“Actually, I m not rejecting either interpretation … I can t tell, but neither can Oliver or that little tool alex corrigan. That s the point.”
Oh I see, so because you don’t know what you think Bush’s emotions were no one is capable of making up their mind about what Bush was thinking or feeling? It’s true that it’s impossible to ever truly know the inner workings of another person’s mind but if, as a rule, you never make any judgements about other people’s state of mind based on their mannerisms or tone of voice, how the hell do you function on a day to day basis?
Yeah, I thought Clinton got a bad rap for the smiling at Ron Brown’s funeral thing. Nobody knows what they were talking about or anything.
See, JK, not everyone is so shallow that they see everything through a political prism.
You obviously do, which is pretty sad and pathetic, but whatever gets you through the day.
Oh, and stop violating the Oliver Willis comment section rule about Clinton. Remember, he’s not President, you can’t talk about him anymore. Why is this so hard for you lefties to understand? It’s your rule, for cryin out loud.
>>I m not making a comparison between those two things, i m talking about arm-chair analysts who think they can tell what a person is thinking or how sincere they are by their mannerisms or tone of voice.
I guess that would also apply to all of the criticisms of Clinton–”smiling” at Ron Brown’s funeral, or biting his lower lip.
It’s not a stretch to suggest that it’s human nature to analyze and interpret the actions, and reactions of people in the public eye. Lincoln’s been dead for over 100 years, yet people are still trying to get into the “mind of Lincoln.”
Truth is, it’s well documented that Bush has always had this tone of arrogance in his words, going back to the days when he was Governor of Tx., and responsible for the prosecution of the death penalty. Or the “Dead or Alive” cartoon-like silliness.
Get over yourself, cupcake.
JK
Colorado Dave -
Where does Harding end up on your list?
frame, you really can’t read. Anyone can make up their mind about what another person is thinking. That doesn’t mean they’ll be right.
“Anyone can make up their mind about what another person is thinking. That doesn t mean they ll be right.”
Um, I believe that’s exactly the point Oliver was making in his disagreement with the NY Times reading of the situation. The fact that you can’t make up your mind one way or another has less to do with the validity of Oliver’s assessment and more to do with your own lack of judgement. When you voted for Bush did you think he was a sincere guy or did you just let that judgement slide?
“You cannot possibly make an intelligent judgement today that the Iraq war was a mistake.”
Do you really believe that this war was neccessary in the first place, regardless of the outcome? The birth of such a democracy might have happened if the Iraqis had overthrown Saddam, themselves. At least that way they would have already contributed to their liberation, hence a much greater motivation by the people themselves to make it work.
Invading Iraq was the real mistake – not saying “Wanted Dead or Alive or “Bring ‘em On”. Trying to portray himself as being straight-forward and honest by admitting these ” mistakes” is a strategy used to try to take off some of the heat. Admit something, as long as you don’t admit the worse. While it seldom works, it is often used by politicians in trouble.
What if after we leave (??), Iraq is taken over by Islamic terrorists who then merge forces with the fundamentalists in Iran, who will then have nuclear weapons to become our greatest threat? Will it become such a great idea to have overhthrown Saddam then?
But such a “theory” is about all that its supporters have left. Some of us who opposed this war from the beginning, including many conservatives, feel that this uneccessary action, that has resulted in the death of over 2400 Americans and thousands of Iraqi civilians cannot be remotely justified, except in our own defense or one of our allies, period. Unless one believes in trying to overthrow every dictator or government in the world, that does not agree with us, regardless of whether or not the present an actual threat, (i.e. “nation building”).
Had Eisenhower not overthrown the Shah and had we not supported….
Sorry, That should read Had Eisenhower not installed the Shah and had we not supported….
BD:
While Harding was corrupt and Tea Pot dome scandalous it doesn’t resonate through the decades. Hell by the ’30s it didn’t matter.
Bush’s deficit we will be paying off for generations. And it will take at least as long to regain our reputation in the international community if we ever do.
55,000 dead Americans for no reason in Southeast Asia likewise beats a scandal.
Reagan’s funding and training of Bin Laden and support of fundametalist islam in Afghanistan is obviously something we are paying for now.
Nixon set the example of the imperial presidency.
Had Eisenhower not overthrown the Shah and had we not supported a bloodthirsty dictator for 25 years there would not be an Islamic Republic in Iran today. The entire, “any enemy of the Soviet Union, no matter how bloodthirsty, is our ally” mindset has backfired on us now that there is no Soviet Union. I probably should move Ike in front of Dick for that reason alone.
And the Depression and WWII are the two crucibles which defined America for the rest of the 20th Century.
>>See, JK, not everyone is so shallow that they see everything through a political prism.
Wait a minute. How do you know that? Could that be because you’re observing my words and actions and making a calculated guess as to how I see the world?
LOL. Like shooting fish in a barrell.
JK
I never said words, JK. I said tone of voice and mannerisms.
Talk to frame. Maybe he can get you a two for one deal in that reading comprehension.
Or better yet, go take some target practice, since you just tried to shoot fish in barrell and missed.
JK,
Yes.
Dugger (dammit)
Bushwacked,
I don’t now, nor then believe the war was an absolute necessity and thus I probably would not have done it. But I acknowledge that the war supporters can and did have good motivations and that they yet may be proven right or wrong. Right now, they are looking alittle better. I want to see if Iraqi forces can take over and maintain relative stability.
If you are able to see beyond the name calling on this type of thing, do you think a president should never put troops in harms way unless there is a direct threat to our physical territory – say to repel an invasion? I don’t believe that – but some believe in no prevention. If only we had intervened in the Rhinleand in the thirties.
Dugger
Dugger:
If only we had intervened in the Rhinleand (sic) in the thirties.
I find it interesting that so many people can claim to have learned the “lessons of WWII” without acknowledging the lessons of WWI.
It seems to me that a massive world conflagration caused by one country invading or bombing another is less likely than one caused by; a complex system of competing alliances, a combination of hubris and stupidity, and one ill-timed assassination.
William:
The United States was never a normal country you dolt! Perhaps you forget that this country has been in an almost perpetual state of war since it s founding.
William I hate to break it to you but humanity has been in what you would describe as a perpetual state of warfare since the dawn of history.
Sadly the US, even taking into account the genocide of the natives and the enslavement of Africans, has been one of the lesser militaristic nations over the course of of its life. I am neither excusing nor disavowing our own sins I’m just saying their is as bad or worse out there.
Funny, Colorado, that pretty much describes 1963, but it didn’t end up in a World War.
OW…one minor correction.
The mistake was electing the guy who put us in Iraq.
Oh..wait, that’s right…he wasn’t elected.
Or, is that two mistakes?
I don’t know.
JK
Years to clean up the Iraq mess. Years to pay for it. We’ll be drowing in Bush’s messes until I’m dead. I guess I’ll call all the neocon supporters to put me into that dreamy state of denial so I can blissfully commute to the wonderful world of denial.
Gee Frank I hope you are being glib.
I was of course, as anyone with brains knows, refering to June 28, 1914.
Look it up why don’t you? It’s a date that changed the world.
Frank D:
Funny, Colorado, that pretty much describes 1963, but it didn t end up in a World War.
hmmmm. I wonder what would history be like if Oswald had managed to shoot Kennedy in October of 62 and not November of ‘63?
Perhaps you missed the meaning of the adjective ill-timed.
I know exactly what day it was, Colorado. “It memorialized the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 where the Serbs were defeated by Turkey. The Serbs would mark the day with a feast.” So, actually, it was not ill – timed. But I wouldn’t expect you to be aware of that little bit of trivia.
I was referring to the “ill – timed” assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, who was such a fervent anti – communist — and a Catholic, to boot — that he frightened the eggheads in the Kennedy administration. They gave the go – ahead to his assassination a week or so before Kennedy’s assassination in Nov 1963.
Unlike you, I don’t need to be a condescending jerk about it.
Frank you are nothing but a condescending jerk.
I guess that explains this comment:
http://tinyurl.com/rmkhx
“What if Iraq becomes a stable democracy and there is even a half-way domino effect int he Mideast.”
OK, what the heck? Roll the dice.
Colorado Dave said,
“It seems to me that a massive world conflagration caused by one country invading or bombing another is less likely than one caused by; a complex system of competing alliances, a combination of hubris and stupidity, and one ill-timed assassination.”
But I say: Great War. Mobilization means war. Russia mobilized first. Therefore..
Dugger, Established Answers the Kriegschuldfrage
Dr. Condoleezza Rice’s Opening Remarks to Commission on Terrorist Attacks