April 29, 2008

Straight-Talk Bush Express: Shut Up You ADD Afflicted Bozo

I don't know about you, but I'd pay folding money to see more of this sort of bitch-slapping preening and "gotcha" obsessed reporters.

[Ed: By the way, can we also revist the "Bush is inarticulate" canard again? Seems to be doing fine here.]

See also Gay Patriot's Why I like George W. Bush (and some people hate him)

"It is entirely fair when people take issue with his policies and/or his governing style, but to impugn his character as so many have done seems more a projection of their own demons onto the President of the United States than legitimate political discourse. They seem to derive their theories of his evil or greed not from actual facts about the man, but from their own prejudices about men of his class."
Via "The Green Report"

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Posted by Vanderleun at April 29, 2008 11:42 AM
Save to del.icio.us

Comments:

AMERICAN DIGEST HOME
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

That rocked. Not only did Bush give a great response to a rude person who was clearly not listening, he also gave an excellent summary of what we're doing and why.

How tired Bush must be of having to remind idiots in the press corps of these very basic ideas.

Posted by: Jeff at April 29, 2008 12:15 PM

Oh goodness. That woman better talk to her stylist later because I thing GW just got one of his first Scalps on that confrontation!

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at April 29, 2008 12:30 PM

It's too bad for term limits. The bitch (sorry "reporter") clearly was trying to get the "right" answer. Hurray for Bush. What a fantastic reply.


Posted by: mistersurefire at April 29, 2008 12:37 PM

Ah, gosh that felt good! Just flat made my day!

Thank you, President Bush!!

Posted by: Norm at April 29, 2008 12:38 PM

The President has been relentllessly hounded by this inane nonsense from the very start. See: Helen Thomas. How he has retained his composure for the most part, throughout it all, is a credit to his character.

Posted by: Mark Miller at April 29, 2008 1:03 PM

Sweet.

Reminds me of a pivotal scene in a movie where the dialogue ended with "You boys better move away"...

Good job, Mr. President.

Posted by: TmjUtah at April 29, 2008 2:11 PM

Bravo! I love the guy, if, for no other reason, because he's had so many hipsters frothing at the mouth for 8 years straight.

Posted by: DJ Voton at April 29, 2008 2:26 PM

Bravo! I love the guy, if, for no other reason, because he's had so many hipsters frothing at the mouth for 8 years straight.

Posted by: DJ Voton at April 29, 2008 2:26 PM

Mr. President...PLEASE do that more often!

Posted by: Mumblix Grumph at April 29, 2008 3:01 PM

And so say we all.

Posted by: vanderleun at April 29, 2008 6:00 PM

Amen and right on. We could have used more of this over the past 8 years...he asks the questions the left cannot answer. Like Cicero of old he burns up the [rhetorical] field all around him. Just great.

Posted by: doug at April 29, 2008 9:04 PM

Of course, such video will be dropped down the memory hole by the rest of the MSM. Cannot have Bush looking good.

Posted by: pdwalker at April 29, 2008 10:56 PM

Thank you for posting this. I want this video. It made my day. History will show that George W. Bush was one of the best U. S. Presidents to date. God has truly blessed us with him at the helm.

Posted by: Loyal Eagle at May 1, 2008 4:24 PM

What a clown, and he is so rude. Unfit to be president, definitely. Arrogant and Ignorance doesn't mix well for a leader.

I don't expect this comment to make it as the coward owner of this site will probably remove it.

Posted by: Kerry at May 1, 2008 5:12 PM

Wrong, dead wrong, about Bush.

Doubly wrong about your comment as you can plainly see.

I do observe than arrogance and ignorance in seeing the real qualities of the President don't mix well in somebody who is supposed to be a citizen.

Posted by: vanderleun at May 1, 2008 5:33 PM

Yup, I'm prejudiced against men of his class.

"His class" being billionaires who will do just about anything to preserve the wealth, income and influence of themselves and their friends; who will kill as many poor brown people as necessary in the process; and aren't all that concerned about the deaths of Americans in the process of keeping the status quo, either.

If he's been really concerned about sending the right messages to terrorists, the bin Laden family wouldn't have been shipped out on 9/12 on the only aircraft allowed to fly - they would have been shipped back in pieces, wrapped in bacon. And it wouldn't have been Iraq that was invaded; it would have been Saudi Arabia. And it wouldn't have been Hussein that was deposed and executed - it would have been King Fahd. And, just perhaps, right now the former site of the Kaabah would be a glass-lined hole lethal to approach.

However, because Bush Jr. felt he needed to finish the job his daddy started and didn't finish because there was an election on the way, so far he has spent 4374 US and Allied lives and 650 billion dollars, to say nothing of the lives of an undetermined number of Iraqis, on the basis of a tissue of lies. And, to Britain's eternal shame, our "leader" of the time went along with it - perhaps to keep up his value as an after-dinner speaker to American plutocrats with about as much idea of what's going on in the rest of the world as I have of the religion of Assyria.

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at May 2, 2008 6:55 PM

Yep, that would've worked; 'wrapped in bacon' you're not really taking that apocryphal factoid
about Pershing in the Phillipines, literally, are you Fletcher, didn't think so. Ultimately, it will have to be the target, Iraq serves as Italy to the European theatre, or some of the hardier island outposts in the Pacific. Of course, that would have been regarded as literally declaring war on Islam; which is the imprint of worldwide jihadism on that religion

Posted by: narciso at May 2, 2008 7:36 PM

Fletcher: So, uh, yeah. More assertions based on no evidence, and namecalling. That's a great rebuttal of prejudice, isn't it? Most of us, well, we have enough self-awareness to realise that the solution to an accusation of prejudice is not to puff out our chests and prove it.

Killing poor brown people? Obviously, that must be it - because freeing them from a dictator, that just can't be part of this calculus; nope, it just has to be "killing poor brown people" that he just doesn't care about, because they're poor and brown. Because you said it, and it's just true because it just is, right?

("To be a good President and man, he should have killed innocent RICH brown people who happened to be related to a terrorist (and had disowned him), and desecrate their bodies!" None of this namby-pamby shit, right?

PS. You're wrong about your entire premise there. But, hey, Bush still murders brown people and stuff, right?

Only, you're mad that he doesn't murder innocent ones for being related to the wrong ones, or incite the entire Muslim world to justified anger by destroying Mecca - which, of course, would be an actual crime against humanity.)

You are clearly capable of feeling morally superior without the slightest basis in reality; why not just do that without the ill-informed rants based on bigotry and lies, and wishes to murder the innocent?

Posted by: Sigivald at May 5, 2008 10:29 AM

Sigivald:

"Freeing people from a dictator". Ah, that old chestnut. And the oldest excuse in the book for America throwing its weight around.

What part of "the internal affairs of another sovereign nation are none of America's business" don't you understand?

Saudi Wahabism was the ultimate cause of 9/11 - and its main proponents are the Saudi royal family, and the bin Ladens are part of that royal family. Innocent my arse. Disowning Osama? Taqqiya.

So if any country needed punishing, it wasn't Iraq (whose leader viciously suppressed the organisation responsible, and in any case was a pretty secular country) - it was Saudi, who WERE responsible. Including its king.

If it was justifiable to "free" a country from its leaders (which it wasn't), then how about Saudi - which is just as unpleasant a dictatorship as Iraq ever was, if not worse?

And, just by the by, less of the enemy would have got killed - because Saudi has much less population and was (and still is) militarily a pushover.

As for vapourising Mecca - the real problem is, and will be for a few centuries, Islam. Their most unholy book COMMANDS the sort of thing that happened on 9/11. Sooner or later, probably after a couple of million innocent westerners get vapourised (or poisoned, or hit by some plague or other), the index case of that particular infection will have to be cured.

Cutting out cancers hurts too, or would without anasthesia; but what happens if you don't do it?

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at May 5, 2008 4:10 PM