Bush Buzzword Bingo
- If you can't stand listening to the president speak, try playing this game. Like the Thanksgiving version, you get a bingo card randomly printed with Bush's favorite buzzwords, bushisms and talking points. First to get five in a row gets bingo, but probably will just end up feeling bad about the world. For more bush/bushism fun, try the "Give Bush a Brain" game
from egreetings. (see if you can beat my high score of 8)
posted by FeldBum
on Dec 18, 2005 -
"We're not going to have any casualties."
This is the response that George W Bush gave to Pat Robertson, during a meeting in which Robertson expressed deep misgivings about the impending war in Iraq. There's been a lot of discussion about just how self-assured the President is on his positions (and how he won't admit any mistakes), but where does assurance end and delusion begin?
posted by almostcool
on Oct 20, 2004 -
‘Staying the Course’ Isn’t an Option
"If Bush is re-elected, there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq:
Four years from now, America will have 5,000 dead servicemen and women and an untold number of dead Iraqis at a cost of about $1 trillion, yet still be no closer to success than we are right now, or
The U.S. will be gone, and we will witness the birth of a violent breeding ground for Shiite terrorists posing a far greater threat to Americans than a contained Saddam."
posted by specialk420
on Sep 26, 2004 -
"DEAR MR PRESIDENT, WE
WE THINK YOUR WAR IS STUPID, AND WE SAY NO WAY!" Thus the Radical Cheerleaders
arrive on the protest scene, taking the outfits and chants usually found on the football field to protests and demonstrations all over the world. Some chants here,
and more coverage here. hey, it beats giant puppets!
posted by amberglow
on Nov 15, 2003 -
John Dean's analysis of the administrations case for War.
"What I found, in critically examining Bush's evidence, is not pretty. The African uranium matter is merely indicative of larger problems, and troubling questions of potential and widespread criminality when taking the nation to war. It appears that not only the Niger uranium hoax, but most everything else that Bush said about Saddam Hussein's weapons was false, fabricated, exaggerated, or phony."
posted by thedailygrowl
on Jul 18, 2003 -
Bush Blasts 'Revisionist Historians' on Iraq
President Bush countered those questioning his justification for the invasion of Iraq on Monday, dismissing "revisionist historians" and saying Washington acted to counter
posted by onegoodmove
on Jun 17, 2003 -
an imminent a persistent threat.
"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders. Paul Krugman
writes that the Bush administration will fight a "khaki election" next year, taking advantage of the general good feeling after the Iraq war. The original khaki election was the British election of 1900, contested during the Boer War. Our armed forces don't really wear khaki so much anymore and I think we need a new term. I suggest calling 2004 the "Camo Election." Any better suggestions?
posted by Mekon
on Jun 3, 2003 -
War With Iraq - As Predictable As Chess
There is still a good chance we can avoid war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein has never won a war, and his military forces surely foresee their own destruction. Numerous assassination attempts by them (some involving the Republican Guard) have failed. They are likely trying again, even now. Therein lies our best hope.
What if they fail again? Then invasion by the U.S. is inevitable.
posted by daHIFI
on Nov 22, 2002 -
Bush's "war on terrorism" may be fine and all,
but shouldn't he be attacking something more pressing
? In times of elevated terrorism threat levels
, your leader has yet to do much about the situation, except promising federal help and sending his "thoughts and prayers" to the families of the victims.
Isn't this domestic terrorism? When will we see similar pro-active measures taken against this terrorist just as Bush is taking against Saddam?
And where's that gosh-darned knee-jerk reaction from the media that we've come to expect?
posted by manero
on Oct 7, 2002 -
A Blast from the Past.
In 1998, George Bush, Sr. explains why Saddam was not removed in the Gulf War: "Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
posted by owillis
on Sep 12, 2002 -
U.S. Stops Iraq-Al Qaeda Talk
From the Washington Post. Beyond the superficial significance of administration back-tracking, in regards to intelligence there seems to be two key aspects to this story: 1) The article talks about how the CIA was unable to "validate two prominent allegations made by high-ranking administration officials," implying that Bush/Cheney/etc. have been making baseless assumptions about Iraq in their pro-war arguments, and 2) it brings into question whether we know anything at all about Iraq, anyway. What if the same can be said of Hussein's nuclear plans?
posted by risenc
on Sep 10, 2002 -
We will strike first
announced President Bush at the West Point graduation ceremony.
I was camping this weekend, so I just saw this. I am surprised that it hasn't generated more commentary. The actual text of the speech can be found here
posted by Irontom
on Jun 3, 2002 -
White House media advisor spins the war in London.
President Bush has sent "military advisors" to Yemen, Georgia and the Philippines to help with the war on terrorism. Did anyone know he sent his #2 media man, Tucker Eskew
, to London as a "media advisor" to Tony Blair's #1 media man, Alastair Campbell
, to help spin the war to the Brits?
Do you think a U.S. administration would ever agree to a foreign government rep "advising" them on how to talk to their citizens? Or do they already?
posted by busbyism
on Mar 20, 2002 -
What's up with this Iraq stuff?
No more formal way of putting it, sorry. Can anyone say what the hell is going on here
, exactly, when bin Laden hasn't even be found and the Taliban is still putting up a fight? Is Bush, in saying Saddam will "find out"
how the U.S. will respond to its refusal to allow inspections (again), just throwing a small bone to the hard right? Is the national press on too much of an adrenaline rush, or bored with Afganistan already? Or are the Dr. Strangelove wannabes talked about here really taking over?
posted by raysmj
on Nov 27, 2001 -
Bush decides he doesn't want peace.
resident bush has made it clear to the president of south korea that he will be reversing the previous administration's policy toward north korea. so the strides of peace that have been made can easily be wiped away now. i especially like the reversal of colin powell's comments from the day before.
posted by bliss322
on Mar 8, 2001 -