Bush in the bunker
November 15, 2005 12:50 PM   Subscribe

Bush in the bunker. [this link takes you directly to the article, but will call up the print dialog] In a story seemingly out of Capital Hill Blue, sources say that "Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions."
posted by caddis (199 comments total)
 
Suprised? No.
Care? No.
posted by damnitkage at 12:51 PM on November 15, 2005


It's a veritable hen party!
posted by maryh at 12:53 PM on November 15, 2005


Yeah, all women?
posted by scheptech at 12:54 PM on November 15, 2005


MeFi'd already?
posted by rxrfrx at 12:56 PM on November 15, 2005


President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”


Reminds him of the Nixon days? Reminds me more of someone else.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 1:00 PM on November 15, 2005


Wow this is big news. This reminds me much of Scarface, The Godfather and all the stories where the powerful do not adapt to current conditions and instead become paranoid and secluded, even cutting off their family members and closest allies.

Actually this is concerning on several levels, it shows that Bush seems to be actually unaware of what was going on and the White House truly was in control by Karl Rove and others. It also shows the unrelenting "until the last man" stance that Bush has taken. You know, I never believed Bush was behind much of anything -- we can still hope that he can be a good president, realize he was being manipulated and take a stand. I always deep-down thought he was a moderate Republican, either too stupid or too naive to tell the neo-cons no. Either way this begins to look a lot like the king in Lord of the Rings, who's half dead and being whispered to in his ears.
posted by geoff. at 1:02 PM on November 15, 2005


Tommy Gnosis (heh), where did you get that quote?
posted by geoff. at 1:03 PM on November 15, 2005




If I was in the Whitehouse, I would keep my distance also. He's a political flop. The polls show it, even his own party is grumbling. It's no career booster to be the best friend and advisor of a lame duck president.
posted by stbalbach at 1:05 PM on November 15, 2005


I heard he just sits in his room all day and plays Doom while listening to Marilyn Manson. Reportedly he's been writing "purple prose" regarding the strained familial relationships. Hopefully his cries for help do not go unnoticed.
posted by cloeburner at 1:06 PM on November 15, 2005


3 years 1 month 14 days and 7 hours and 57 minutes left to his presidency, people.. there's a lot more to the sideshow coming up!
posted by pez_LPhiE at 1:07 PM on November 15, 2005


Reminds him of the Nixon days? Reminds me more of someone else.

William H. Taft?
posted by eddydamascene at 1:10 PM on November 15, 2005


Hey, I like a little Bush in the bunker as much as the next guy, but Capital Hill Blue? C'mon....
posted by you just lost the game at 1:11 PM on November 15, 2005


3 years? Oh man... can't you guys have a non-confidence vote or something?
posted by GuyZero at 1:11 PM on November 15, 2005


We really have no way of knowing who he sees, avoids etc--and here is the moonie magazine (Insight) telling us who. Further, we are given a report of erratic behavior that cites Sec Powell! How long has it been since Powell was Sec of State? Earlier reports told us his behavior was that of a dry drunk...
What might also be said: Bush seems from a number of preports I have read at odds with VP Cheney, though in this case I can understand each one's dislike of the other.
posted by Postroad at 1:13 PM on November 15, 2005


Well, if someone would just give him a blowjob, then we could impeach him.

[confession: joke stolen off a gag email]
posted by Miko at 1:14 PM on November 15, 2005


This reminds me much of Scarface

Me too!
posted by maryh at 1:15 PM on November 15, 2005


Gossipfilter. "Sources say" means, essentially, this is idle chatter around some water cooler.
posted by beagle at 1:15 PM on November 15, 2005


Well now, to be fair, let's wait until he gets caught at four in the morning having sex with a canned ham in the White House kitchen.

Funny, I wonder if he won't talk to his dad or his dad won't talk to him?

Either way, I bet he feels awfully lonely. Good. Hey, we've never had a sitting president commit suicide, have we? I wonder what the Vegas odds are on that?
posted by fenriq at 1:15 PM on November 15, 2005


Well, if someone would just give him a blowjob, then we could impeach him.

I'll do it. Anything for America.
posted by you just lost the game at 1:16 PM on November 15, 2005


“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”

It seems to me this GOP guy is right, but there is one crucial difference. It became increasingly clear, as time went on, that Nikon was directly involved in a simple, felony crime that everyone understands: burglary. Thus, while Nixon went insane, I think his days were numbered once the shit hit the fan. He was on the way out.

Bush? No such luck. He may have committed some very complicated crime, I don't know, but even if he did, he's been pretty good at keeping himself out of things (probably because he isn't actually the guy doing things in the White House). Even if he did commit some crime, he has a Republican congress that wouldn't impeach him for raping a baby on TV.

So we are stuck with the madman for another few years. Scary.
posted by teece at 1:16 PM on November 15, 2005


This feels like leftist hysteria to me, especially given the source. I'll wait until it breaks on mainstream media before I believe it.
posted by CynicalKnight at 1:17 PM on November 15, 2005


Do we wish, GuyZero, don't we wish.
posted by terrapin at 1:17 PM on November 15, 2005


He may have committed some very complicated crime, I don't know, but even if he did, he's been pretty good at keeping himself out of things (probably because he isn't actually the guy doing things in the White House).

And now he's Tony Soprano! My God we've elected a mobster! That could explain the tax break that included an off-brand DVD player.
posted by geoff. at 1:22 PM on November 15, 2005


The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions."

Jealousy over the Clinton thing?
posted by jonmc at 1:22 PM on November 15, 2005


I started thinking Howard Hughes or Elvis. Cut off from reality. A few close people controlling the information in.

I'll chip in to pay someone to give that bj.
posted by Red58 at 1:24 PM on November 15, 2005


I'll chip in to pay someone to give that bj.

Shouldn't cost much for 5 seconds work, I imagine.
posted by jonmc at 1:26 PM on November 15, 2005


My God we've elected a mobster!

If Rove is out as consiglieri, does that mean that he's moving the entire administration to Las Vegas?
posted by eddydamascene at 1:28 PM on November 15, 2005


If Rove is out as consiglieri, does that mean that he's moving the entire administration to Las Vegas?
posted by eddydamascene at 3:28 PM CST on November 15 [!]


If that's the case, I advise Neil Bush not to go fishing with his brother.
posted by COBRA! at 1:29 PM on November 15, 2005


My God we've elected a mobster!

If Rove is out as consiglieri,


Cheney always did remind me of a WASPy Luca Brasi.
posted by jonmc at 1:30 PM on November 15, 2005


Isn't there an historical precedent regarding the fate of tyrants who end up in bunkers? I know I read about it somewhere... now let me think....
posted by slatternus at 1:39 PM on November 15, 2005


Insight is just another arm of the Washington Times, i believe--solidly pro-GOP and now turning against them like most of the rest of the country, moonie or no. If Drudge has posted it (and he has posted these links), it's clear someone wants these stories spread--maybe to minimize fallout in Congress for 06 and to isolate Senators and Reps from him?
posted by amberglow at 1:44 PM on November 15, 2005


This feels like leftist hysteria to me, especially given the source. I'll wait until it breaks on mainstream media before I believe it.
posted by CynicalKnight at 4:17 PM EST on November 15 [!]


I love a dry sense of humour. Pure genius this, on so many levels.
posted by juiceCake at 1:47 PM on November 15, 2005


I've never understood the alliance of the Moonies and the American Right. Politics makes for incredibly strange bedfellows.
posted by jonmc at 1:47 PM on November 15, 2005


Tommy Gnosis (heh), where did you get that quote?
posted by geoff. at 1:03 PM PST on November 15 [!]

Try the second link of the post, which is from early 2004.
The Washington Times is not necessarily the most reliable source, though I would like to think this is true. Yeah, an Oval Office suicide sounds like the perfect Thanksgiving gift to the world.
posted by zoinks at 1:52 PM on November 15, 2005


from Insight's about page--they're wholly part of the Times: ...Published in association with The Washington Times, Insight provides its subscribers an intelligence briefing on the Washington behind the lights and cameras. Insight features exclusive articles by top Washington reporters from some of the world's most serious news organizations, including The Washington Times. Insight also features commentary by renowned pundits such as Wesley Pruden, Mark Steyn, Tony Blankley, Donald Lambro, Michelle Malkin, John O’Sullivan and others.

Led by its Editor-in-Chief, Wesley Pruden, and Managing Editor, Francis Coombs, The Washington Times, has established itself as the leading competitor to the mainstream press. Insight follows in The Times’ illustrious tradition of hard-hitting, reliable investigative reporting. ...

posted by amberglow at 1:53 PM on November 15, 2005


This feels like leftist hysteria to me

Ah yes, that famous "leftist hysteria" that predicted disaster in Iraq (check), asserted that the administration was lying about its true motives for going to war (check), sounded the alarm about corruption in the Bush administration (check), warned that the GOP was trying to illegally control the media under cover of attacks on "liberal bias" (check), called the pre-election brouhaha about same-sex marriage a calculated wedge issue, made a fuss about Bush and Cheney's repeated claims about links between Iraq and 9/11 (check)...

Won't those crazy leftists ever calm down?
posted by digaman at 1:54 PM on November 15, 2005


It's got something to do with the God and power thing, I think, jonmc. That whole Moonie milieu is replete with patriarchal authoritarianism, just like our fellow citizens across the aisle.

Interesting to see them spreading a story like this, though. When they turn, they turn all the way and bite like a pit bull, huh?
posted by zoogleplex at 1:54 PM on November 15, 2005


Aaaaand Tommy Gnosis has set the new land speed record for a Godwin.

The title ("Bush In The Bunker") looks like an auto-Godwin, or a pre-emptive Godwin, or something, if you ask me.
posted by Western Infidels at 1:57 PM on November 15, 2005


Don't say "bunker." Don't say "fuhrer." And for God's sake, it's "Department of Homeland Security, not Fatherland Security.
posted by digaman at 1:58 PM on November 15, 2005


jonmc- Check out John Gorenfeld's work sometime. Moon is one odd cat, but he's a really rich, and therefore influential. He's also suprisingly in line with some of the furthest reaches of the Far Right.
On preview, what zoogleplex said. Wonder what set off the wrath of Moon?
posted by maryh at 2:01 PM on November 15, 2005


I'm sorry, but as soon as I heard Bush's speech announcing DHS, it immediately and irrevocably says "Fatherland" in my head. I can't say "Homeland Security" without that ringing inside my brain, and that really irks me.

So, if this is really true, any bets on how long they'll be able to keep a lid on his going batshit?
posted by zoogleplex at 2:03 PM on November 15, 2005


It's not exactly news that Bush has a potty mouth.

From 1998 and 2000:
"There's Adam Clymer -- major league asshole -- from the New York Times," Bush said.

"Yeah, big time," returned Cheney.
From 2002:
"Fuck Saddam," Bush said. "We're taking him out."
posted by kirkaracha at 2:05 PM on November 15, 2005


People take Capitol Hill Blue seriously?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:13 PM on November 15, 2005


The horror. The horror.
posted by thanatogenous at 2:15 PM on November 15, 2005


Capital Hill Blue posted something very like this about a year and a half ago, I think; they were predicting a CIA-driven "coup" that would force Bush from power. That was kind of kooky, and I think it was really more a matter of performance art than tinfoil hat.

This is a little different, in that it omits the CIA coup part of the scenario. And, of course, in that it's entirely consistent with what we know about Bush's style of dealing with subordinates. He hates to hear bad news, so nobody tells him any; after a while, you lost the ability to think up rosy-cheeked bullshit, and you just stop communicating.

Really, this sounds like nothing so much as the vacant hell that a lot of couples get into after the warmth dies in their marriages...alas, we have no provisions in America for no-fault divorce from our President. (Not that I even think that would be a very good idea....)
posted by lodurr at 2:22 PM on November 15, 2005


Mainstream meida? I saw Bush's ranting referred to obliquely in the New Yorker and the NYT last week, as well.
posted by Miko at 2:30 PM on November 15, 2005


What I find interesting is, assuming the article is factual, the only people he's talking to are the ones that any objective observer would consider "good."

One might disagree with their politics, but I've seen nothing to suggest Condi or Hughes are anything but legitimate in their goals and methods. A stark contrast to the axis of evil that Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney represented.

Maybe they'll intervene and bring him to his senses soon enough to stop some of the madness.
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:32 PM on November 15, 2005


So what does he have to do to restore confidence?

Answer: start admiting mistakes.

This unwillingness to recognize when something's gone wrong would appear to be the stumbling block and what's eroding confidence even within his base of supporters.

And is why comparisons with previous out of touch leaders are not entirely inappropriate.
posted by scheptech at 2:40 PM on November 15, 2005


Really digaman I think you might be going a little too far:
Ah yes, that famous "leftist hysteria" that predicted disaster in Iraq (check)

after democrats voted it through congress, jsut becuase it is wrong now (understatement) and that is how you feel now doesn't change the point that both democrats and republicans pushed through that war

asserted that the administration was lying about its true motives for going to war (check)
Please see above

sounded the alarm about corruption in the Bush administration (check)
Ok what is the left supposed to do welcome a right wing canidate?

warned that the GOP was trying to illegally control the media under cover of attacks on "liberal bias" (check)
guilty


called the pre-election brouhaha about same-sex marriage a calculated wedge issue, made a fuss about Bush and Cheney's repeated claims about links between Iraq and 9/11 (check)...

Ok what is the left supposed to do welcome a right wing canidate?

What next leftist hysteria claims to have invented the internet?
posted by hexxed at 2:40 PM on November 15, 2005


George W. Bush: First president to commit suicide while in-office.

You heard it here first, folks.
posted by odinsdream at 2:42 PM on November 15, 2005


hexxed: the left/liberals and Democrats are not the same thing. Just like conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing.
posted by cloeburner at 2:42 PM on November 15, 2005


hexxed: the left/liberals and Democrats are not the same thing. Just like conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing.

I am not saying that at all, I am just saying making an argument that the leftist hysteria was waving caution flags the entire way is crazy. We are all responsible for what has happened we should at least own up to that.
posted by hexxed at 2:44 PM on November 15, 2005


... the president believed his chief aide when Mr. Rove said that he had nothing to do with the leak of Mrs. Plame's identity.

Give me a break.
posted by gubo at 2:46 PM on November 15, 2005


sorry misunderstood that last one, you are correct not all crazy leftist are democrats, and not all crazy conservatives are republican, I mistakenly linked the two together.
posted by hexxed at 2:47 PM on November 15, 2005


Downfall!

Oh! Did I just take it there?

*checks post*
Achtung! I did.

posted by mullingitover at 2:48 PM on November 15, 2005


You know, the Chinese must be seriously bemused by the irony of Mr Bush encouraging them to switch to more democratic means of selecting leaders at this point.
posted by scheptech at 2:49 PM on November 15, 2005


The Washington Post is now using the "m" word--and you know how quickly that gets out of hand:

"Signs are that members of Bush's own party, at least in the Senate, are increasingly sick of the mushroom treatment..."
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 2:50 PM on November 15, 2005


Since when has accurately predicting the failed Iraqi invasion and the corruption of the administration made the far-left crazy? If anything it is those who continue to live in a dreamworld and refuse to concede that it was THEIR fault we are in this situation who are deluded, not the so called "crazy leftists".
posted by cloeburner at 2:50 PM on November 15, 2005


I find it odd to suggest that he is a bunker, since it seems pretty clear that there has been an active push to bring the Iraq war origins into the national dialogue (such as this video that is making its way through the net showing Bush restating the case and showing how all the major Dem leaders said the same thing as him.). There seems to be cooperation throughout the administration. Bush seems to have a lot of fight left him in.

I'm not sure how what is actually happening can comport with the view that he is a despondent shut-in. He certainly isn't a commanding presidential presence right now; but suicidal talk seems a little absurd.
posted by dios at 2:52 PM on November 15, 2005


Wonder what set off the wrath of Moon?

Bush not taking his calls?
posted by fullerine at 2:54 PM on November 15, 2005


doesn't change the point that both democrats and republicans pushed through that war
posted by hexxed at 4:40 PM CST on November 15


As evidenced in this video I just linked showing clips of all Democrats saying the same thing as Bush.

We shouldn't be revisionist about the reason for going into Iraq. It was the right thing to do.

We should focus on the poor implementation of the plan by Bush. That is his failure. Going in there is not.
posted by dios at 2:55 PM on November 15, 2005


Capital Hill Blue posted something very like this about a year and a half ago

Dood. It's the second link.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:55 PM on November 15, 2005


odinsdream, you're kidding, right? I wouldn't be surprised if he's depressed, but if he were having suicidal thoughts/ideations/fantasies, how could he possibly act on them? It's not like he could grab a SS agent's gun or wander unsupervised in front of a bus on Constitution Avenue.
posted by alumshubby at 2:55 PM on November 15, 2005


"Signs are that members of Bush's own party, at least in the Senate, are increasingly sick of the mushroom treatment..."

The mushroom thread is showing that it has power even outside the blue! It must be stopped!
posted by mullingitover at 2:57 PM on November 15, 2005


One might disagree with their politics, but I've seen nothing to suggest Condi or Hughes are anything but legitimate in their goals and methods. A stark contrast to the axis of evil that Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney represented.

[aside] One more time, folks: if you're going to refer to women in public life exclusively by their first names (and using a diminutive, at that) then can you also do the same for the men? For example: either Dickie, Georgie and Condi, or Cheny, Bush and Rice. Thank you.

Now please do carry on with Bush in the bunker. I laugh until my head comes off, women and children first...
posted by jokeefe at 3:00 PM on November 15, 2005


I don't think any reasonable American would deny his or her share of responsibility for the state of our government and this administration.

But I sure as hell didn't vote for the guy... I did my part to try to stop him, but sometimes things don't go the way you want.

Even so, hexxed, as regards your point via the Democrats on Capitol Hill voting for the war, well, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of those Democrats's constituents were opposed to them doing so, and are quite unhappy that they knuckled under to the war fever. I know I'm one of those, and I know many others. While of course we all bear a bit of the responsibility for all this, I think it's fair to say that pointing out what the Democrats in DC did is not in line with what the left-leaners in the general population wished. And that makes the "leftist hysteria" you cite, which said straightforwardly long before the shooting started that the war was a very bad idea and that the administration was lying about the reasons to go to war, was still accurate and quite relevant.

Don't confuse the opinions of the general public with the actions of our Representatives and Senators, because they don't always agree. Just because they voted for the war, their vote doesn't invalidate the predictions of non-Representatives and non-Senators.

On preview, others said this, but I'm posting it anyway for good measure, and to point this out as succinctly as possible, dios, to counter your citing "this video that is making its way through the net showing Bush restating the case and showing how all the major Dem leaders said the same thing as him." Again, don't try to evade by pointing the finger at the Dems in Congress folding to political pressure, because we whom they represent didn't tell them to do so.

That our representatives went against our wishes is not part of this discussion and should not result in a derail here. We deal with them at election time.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:00 PM on November 15, 2005


Ah yes, that famous "leftist hysteria" (check)(check)(check)(check)(check)

Those examples later popped out in mainstream media, and yes they proved correct. Much as I doubt Dubya's ability to lead water down a drain and as much as I despise his asswipe brigade I will always wince at the sight of propoganda pieces, be they left or right.
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:01 PM on November 15, 2005


We shouldn't be revisionist about the reason for going into Iraq. It was the right thing to do.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh man... good one, dios! ZING!!

You should move out to Hollywood, man... I've got some comedy screenplays you could "punch up" for me!
posted by BobFrapples at 3:02 PM on November 15, 2005


be willing to bet that a majority of those Democrats's constituents were opposed to them doing so

I don't have a link handy, but I am sure someone can dig it up. I seem to recall very broad public support for the action. Though, I would appreciate anyone bringing out number to clarify this for me.
posted by dios at 3:03 PM on November 15, 2005


Bob,
Obviously we aren't going to agree on the principle. But it was something that had broad support among Democratic leaders as well. I used the term revisionist to suggest that we shouldn't be arguing that this was the lone idea of a quacky Bush cabal. It clearly wasn't.
posted by dios at 3:04 PM on November 15, 2005


If I recall correctly a day or so before the war a majority of Americans were opposed to the war if it was pursued without UN approval. This statistic, of course, drastically changed once we went through with the war anyway.
posted by cloeburner at 3:07 PM on November 15, 2005


I don't have a link handy, but I am sure someone can dig it up. I seem to recall very broad public support for the action.

I seem to recall huge protest marches in the streets, myself.
posted by jokeefe at 3:08 PM on November 15, 2005


Insight is just another arm of the Washington Times, i believe--solidly pro-GOP and now turning against them like most of the rest of the country, moonie or no. If Drudge has posted it (and he has posted these links), it's clear someone wants these stories spread--maybe to minimize fallout in Congress for 06 and to isolate Senators and Reps from him?
posted by amberglow at 1:44 PM PST on November 15 [!]


If Republicans told the truth they would never win - so now their plan is just to mimic the Democrats to try to hold on to power in 2006, and get back to the pleasant hand jobs from Wall Street.

Watching the lies are fun : the GOP cares about
1. Terror
2. Jesus
3. Anti War

Whatever gets them into power.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:10 PM on November 15, 2005


That sounds about right, cloeburner. I seem to remember broad support if Bush went back to the UN, less than majority if he didn't. But when we went, support went up because of the war effect. Is that what you remember? To be honest, I can't recall very clearly. Stupid getting old.
posted by dios at 3:11 PM on November 15, 2005


I seem to recall huge protest marches in the streets, myself.
posted by jokeefe at 5:08 PM CST on November 15


That were about .001% of the country?
posted by dios at 3:11 PM on November 15, 2005


(Number intended for illustrative purposes only and not meant to be accurate!)
posted by dios at 3:12 PM on November 15, 2005


dios, if you really think invading sovereign countries in clear violation of international law is the "right thing to do" then you should reconsider your chosen profession. It'd seem you don't have any respect for the law whatsoever.

As for whether the Democrats supported or not... it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. Ever heard the expression, "the buck stops here." It doesn't matter if God himself piped up and said Saddam had WMDs. The President still led the nation into an illegal and immoral war on ridiculously faulty intelligence. It's not a matter of being "revisionist." (BTW, you have to love how Bush can corrupt most any word. Talk about doublespeak.) It's a matter of finding out what really happened.

I'm sure it's starting to become clear to even Bush that his time is up. People are asking questions, now it's just a matter of time. 25,000+ Iraqis are dead, 2,000+ American solders are dead, and our global support completely squandered. Somebody better have a good reason.
posted by nixerman at 3:12 PM on November 15, 2005


But it was something that had broad support among Democratic leaders as well. I used the term revisionist to suggest that we shouldn't be arguing that this was the lone idea of a quacky Bush cabal. It clearly wasn't.


Why do you think it had broad support, dios?

Could it have been because of all the chicken little-esque warnings of WMD's and "Saddam supports the terrorists" that were spewing forth from the White House, at that time? Do you think it had broad support because we foolishly trusted our elected government to tell us the truth?

When these reasons are later shown to be false, and our "broad support" was based on deception and neck-deep horseshit from the Bush administration, then it's not "revisionist" to say "You misled us. This has proven to be a horrible decision. We want answers."

Accountibility, dios. For EVERYTHING.
posted by BobFrapples at 3:15 PM on November 15, 2005


I seem to have lost the "ibility" to spell.
posted by BobFrapples at 3:17 PM on November 15, 2005


dios, if you really think invading sovereign countries in clear violation of international law is the "right thing to do" then you should reconsider your chosen profession. It'd seem you don't have any respect for the law whatsoever.

Thanks for the advice. I don't recognize anything called international law though. I recognize the Constitution of the United States as the "supreme law of the land."

As for whether the Democrats supported or not... it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. Ever heard the expression, "the buck stops here."

I agree. As I said, Bush should be held accountable for the implementation of the War because the buck stopped with him on it. But the revisionism that suggest this was wholly created by some Bush group and they were the ones pushing it is not accurate. Democrats did too. All I was addressing the attempt to alter the pre-war narrative. I still think Bush should be held responsible, and I think we had an election last November wherein he answered for it.

The President still led the nation into an illegal and immoral war on ridiculously faulty intelligence. It's not a matter of being "revisionist."
I don't think the war was immoral. I don't think the war is illegal. In fact, as a matter of moral calculus, I think it was the right thing to do. As a matter of legality, Congress authorized it. (If you are referring to the UN, I think the UN resolution authorized the action, but that really doesn't matter).
posted by dios at 3:18 PM on November 15, 2005


"I seem to recall huge protest marches in the streets, myself."

As do I, jokeefe, since I participated in several. As I recall, my Senator voted against a measure in that house, but my Congressperson voted for it, and got a complaint letter from me.

Don't underestimate the sweeping power of the Republican Marketing Machine at that point in time. I believe strongly that Congress got caught up in that mess as a result of salesmanship and flat-out deception on the part of the Administration, and toppled over like felled buffalo in the face of the right-wing "information" onslaught.

I agree with Bob. They screwed this all up royally, we're all going to pay for it for many decades to come, and it's right to say "we told you so" and demand accountability.

Meanwhile, we're talking about a right-wing mouthpiece newspaper outing the President's retreat from reality, and the possible truth or falseness thereof, not the vote on the Iraq war, so back to topic please.

I ask again, how long do you think they can keep this secret if it is indeed true? (It's certainly rather plausible in any event.)
posted by zoogleplex at 3:19 PM on November 15, 2005


If I recall correctly a day or so before the war a majority of Americans were opposed to the war if it was pursued without UN approval.

So taking away almost all other countries and the majority of Americans, what are you left with. Virtually no other members of the human race thought invading Iraq was a particulary good idea except Mr Bush and a few key players in his administration. It's amazing really that it's taken this long for him to 'become isolated'.
posted by scheptech at 3:19 PM on November 15, 2005


Could it have been because of all the chicken little-esque warnings of WMD's and "Saddam supports the terrorists" that were spewing forth from the White House, at that time?

And all the Democrats as shown in the link of the video I provided. Including statements by Bill Clinton who said the same thing on national TV in 1998? As did Albright and others.

That's my point. This wasn't a Republican only war, and we shouldn't act like it was.
posted by dios at 3:19 PM on November 15, 2005


dios, I have to say that I don't think that it was right in *any* way to invade Iraq.

- They didn't attack us.
- There are many countries that have mean nasty dictators and we don't care about them.
- There are many countries that have big nasty weapons and we dont attack them.
- We have made a terrible mess now leaving the country in near civil war. People did warn about that, it wasn't an unknown or unknowable thing (see Skowcroft article in the NewYorker last week as an example)
- We have created a magnet and recruiting tool for new suicide bombers.

Just a stupid, stupid decision. And now he has to hide away so that he doesn't have to hear anybody say that to him.
posted by Red58 at 3:20 PM on November 15, 2005


Here's the New Yorker Scowcroft piece, btw.

Warning: long, and only mildly interesting. I read it on a plane.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:21 PM on November 15, 2005


Virtually no other members of the human race thought invading Iraq was a particulary good idea except Mr Bush and a few key players in his administration.

And Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair, and the British Intelligence and other major intelligence agencies who said the same thing about Saddam's WMD, and both Houses of Congress.

This is exactly the kind of revisionism I am referring to.

You are acting as if only Bush was arguing that the intelligence showed what it did. That is clearly wrong as a matter of historical fact.
posted by dios at 3:23 PM on November 15, 2005


Does anyone know if since the cold war finished anyone disconnected that button?

A nutcase president could really give himself a good send off, couldn't he?
posted by donfactor at 3:23 PM on November 15, 2005


dios,

Not to pile on you here but to add to what BobFrapples is saying in terms of the terror warnings. Remember how we'd have new terror alerts every few weeks about how the terrorist were going to attack us because they hate our freedoms, often being announced on the same day as bad news for the administration?

And remember how many of these were found to be based on info the DoJ had been sitting on for months/years?

Notice how we don't get those so much anymore?

(this isn't directed at you so much as general frustration at how this administration willfully uses the fear of americans to push them in any direction they want. If it were up to me I'd kick a few of them in the nuts.)
posted by slapshot57 at 3:25 PM on November 15, 2005


doesn't change the point that both democrats and republicans pushed through that war
posted by hexxed at 4:40 PM CST on November 15

As evidenced in this video I just linked showing clips of all Democrats saying the same thing as Bush.


All democrats? What about Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham, Inouye, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wellstone, and Wyden? Didn't they vote against the Iraq Resolution?
posted by effwerd at 3:26 PM on November 15, 2005


Dios: I seem to recall the single largest demonstration in the history of the world for a single purpose.

Odd how perspectives differ.
posted by Freen at 3:29 PM on November 15, 2005


dios

Believing a country is pursuing actions that could be dangerous to us is very different than pushing through a specific course of action.

Saddam was a bad man, killed thousands of people and wants dangerous weapons: Everyone agreed

Starting a land war of indeterminant length to stop weapons programs many believed non-existant: I'll be generous and say there were differing opinions
posted by slapshot57 at 3:30 PM on November 15, 2005


dios: A solid majority were not in favor of the war unless it was UN approved (it was something like 60%-80%).

The war was not approved by the UN. You figure that out.

And, for the record, the Democrats did not vote for the war. Neither did the Republicans. They voted for an authorization of force with respect to tough new weapons inspections. Tough new weapons inspections were had with only the threat of violence, so it's not clear what the actual justification for the war was. The thing Congress voted for did not grant it. Further, all of the intelligence for making a good decision at that time was not to be had, so we really can't hold many congress people accountable for being wrong on that, R or D. They were actively misled. On top of that, the vote was rushed to the floor in the middle of an election (in every way, Bush II contrasts badly with Bush I, this being a great example).

As for it being a good idea from the beginning: that duck won't hunt. The US could not do this alone: it needed 300K troops, minimum, and it did not have them. So going to war without the UN was a bad move, regardless of whether or not it was implemented well. Indeed, it's specious to say that: Bush did not have the ability to wage the occupation correctly, even if he had taken it seriously, so it wasn't going to be good no matter what. It didn't have to be quite this bad, but good was not one of the possible outcomes when Bush decided to go in under-manned.
posted by teece at 3:30 PM on November 15, 2005


- They didn't attack us.
True. And the only real point here. But the Genocide convention and humanism suggests there are other reasons to go to war than aggression.

- There are many countries that have mean nasty dictators and we don't care about them.
Fine, there are other dictators, and we should take them out, too. That he had to start somewhere is a function of the law of priority. It isn't an absolution of Saddam that there are other bad dictators, too.

- There are many countries that have big nasty weapons and we dont attack them.
Same response as the one above. First doesn't imply only. In fact, one can argue that making an example is helpful (see, e.g., Quaddafi).

- We have made a terrible mess now leaving the country in near civil war.
I think your view of present Iraq is wrong, but I do agree that it is a very fertile grounds for criticism. Criticize the implementation of the plan. You can find I will agree with a lot of it. But the basis for going in there is not colored by the implementation of it.

- People did warn about that, it wasn't an unknown or unknowable thing
And as many people disagreed with those people. It's a matter of making a decision. I am comfortable with the fact that all of Senators agreed with the president (as did the prior administration), as did Blair and his intelligence agency. If Bush was wrong, they were all wrong. Luckily, I didn't support the war on Bush's narrow-minded views, so the existence or not of WMD was irrelevant in my mind. That was just a botched sales job, imo.

- We have created a magnet and recruiting tool for new suicide bombers.
Well, I think I have made my position on this clear in other threads. But I will just add that I don't mind fighting them there.
posted by dios at 3:31 PM on November 15, 2005


Oh yes, plenty of blame to share for the invasion of Iraq but the lion's share should and must go to Bush and his staff for intentionally manipulating the intelligence and the media (and the terror alert levels) to push it through.

There's a reason half the nation thinks Bush is a liar, there's a reason he has the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, there's a reason why people are sick and tired of lies and obfuscation. People are sick and tired of a president who looks to place blame rather than figure out how to fix his colossal fuckup.

And I think alot of people are really sick and tired of the apologist's dismissing of real and relevant issues surrounding the war and the invasion.
posted by fenriq at 3:34 PM on November 15, 2005


This wasn't a Republican only war, and we shouldn't act like it was.


In a way, you're right, dios. This wasn't a Republican war... it was a Bush Administration War. But in these days of "Always Support Your Team, No Matter What they Pull", it's the same thing, isn't it? They "cooked the books" to create a case for going to war against Saddam (as did Britain... Blair isn't getting a free pass on this either), and people on both sides believed the doctored info and supported the war.

But here's the thing, dios... "supporting" a war and calling for and then starting one are 2 very different things.

The Bush Administration started this war. It was their idea from the very start, and by God it was gonna happen, no matter what ANYONE said. They misled a great many good people to do this... and they HAVE to answer for it... both for the war, and the initial deception. Period.
posted by BobFrapples at 3:35 PM on November 15, 2005


The war was not approved by the UN. You figure that out.

And, for the record, the Democrats did not vote for the war. Neither did the Republicans. They voted for an authorization of force with respect to tough new weapons inspections. Tough new weapons inspections were had with only the threat of violence, so it's not clear what the actual justification for the war was.


The UN resolution 1441 (I think, my memory is getting rusty on this) authorized the use of force if Saddam didn't comply. He hadn't complied with dozens of UN resolutions. So the argument can be made we were enforcing UN law. I personally don't care to make that argument because I find it irrelevant in my position on Iraq. Again, I think it was Bush's mistake going there in the first place and trying to sell the action on limited grounds. I supported it for whole other grounds. But my goal is not to convince you that it was a good idea, it is to suggest that you we ought not change history (it wasn't that long ago!) to suggest things like your second paragraph does, that Democrats didn't vote in support of war. That is just wrong. Bush was given the authorization. We shouldn't be changing the facts.
posted by dios at 3:36 PM on November 15, 2005


Metafilter: There are other dictators, and we should take them out, too.
posted by lodurr at 3:38 PM on November 15, 2005


And you're still ignoring the massive information push both on the Hill and in the general media about how we had to attack Saddam NOW NOW NOW before he NUKES US!!!!, dios. With all that in our faces, most people were scared and were swayed heavily, including our Congresspeople. I daresay if you had spoken personally with each Democrat on the Hill, they would have told you, "well, I'm very skeptical about this war, but people are scared and it would look bad to go against the President at this juncture."

In fact, that really seemed to be the reason why they all jumped on the bandwagon - political expediency and the thought that it would "look good" to support the administration. Pretty sure they're all kicking themselves at the moment.

So please don't be smug about the Democrats voting to support the resolution to use force, and don't point to it with your knowing smirk and say, "well you lefties wanted the war too!" Their motives were suspect, and as I said, we who vote for them will deal with them (and already have, in some cases) at election time.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:38 PM on November 15, 2005


Dios is right.

If you believed in going to war in Iraq, and believe(d) that sacrificing the lives of our soliders and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians was worth the cost of changing the Middle East, then arguing over the fine print of how we got there does get revisionist, especially since most of the country wanted the war, and no bigtime politicians took up the anti-war mantle.

But the main problem I have is that so far I see very few Republicans and right-wingers criticizing the implementation of the war, which was clearly a disaster. If you truly think that going in was the right thing, isn't the level of incompetency, cronyism, outright theft, and lack of planning criminal? Shouldn't those who supported the war, and support the troops be at the front lines of criticizing the disastrous implementation of the administration?

We hear a lot of high minded, clash-of-civilizations/remake the world/defear the imminent islamofacist takover talk when it comes to good reasons for the war, but precious little criticism of the utterly horrendous conduct during the actual war. Instead we see things about how it's the media's fault, the left's fault, etc. or that things really are going great over there and everyone else is a liar. Very unhelpful, and I think reveals that the main motivation for many (not all) war supporters is plain and simple revenge for 9/11.
posted by cell divide at 3:38 PM on November 15, 2005


I seem to recall huge protest marches in the streets, myself.

That were about .001% of the country?


Largest US political march (Washington, 1963) was about 0.25% (high end estimate). Dual protests in SF and DC in January 2003 were about 0.10% (high end estimate). In absolute numbers, 500k vs. 300k.
posted by eddydamascene at 3:39 PM on November 15, 2005


We should focus on the poor implementation of the plan by Bush. That is his failure. Going in there is not.

Dios, in the words of probably the greatest diplomat who ever lived: "It is far worse than a crime, it is a blunder."
posted by Chrischris at 3:39 PM on November 15, 2005


first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes

They are the four horsewomen of the apocalypse, afaic. Despite the obvious schadenfreude (sp?) here, it is *not* a good development.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:44 PM on November 15, 2005


"If you believed in going to war in Iraq, and believe(d) that sacrificing the lives of our soliders and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians was worth the cost of changing the Middle East, then arguing over the fine print of how we got there does get revisionist, especially since most of the country wanted the war, and no bigtime politicians took up the anti-war mantle."

Since I didn't believe in going to Iraq, and think the sacrifice of all those people was unwarranted and dangerous to overall world stability (and have been since proven right), I feel perfectly justified in complaining however I want, especially since I actually vote and write my reps. And I'm certainly not alone here.

However, can we stop following dios down the side track, and talk more about how the right wing is disowning the President, and how the administration seems to be imploding?

(Myself included, of course. I've said my piece.)
posted by zoogleplex at 3:44 PM on November 15, 2005


"With all that in our faces, most people were scared and were swayed heavily, including our Congresspeople.

Did Bush scare Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright in 1998 with those messages as he sat as governor of Texas? Because those two said the same thing in 1998.


Criticize Bush for his implementation for the war. I will support that. But don't alter the facts of history and act as if Bush invented all these reasons (which were all said before he got there) and don't pretend as if he was the only one who believed them (because we have to take the words of all the Democrats in this video on their face value).

Unfortunately, it is getting close to dinner time and I have to go. But let me just restate a couple of things so that they don't get distorted in abstentia. Bush relied on the same intelligence that Clinton, Blair, and Congress relied on and came to the same conclusion as them. He tried to package the war on a single issue, and that is to his fault, because in the end, they all turned out to be wrong because our intelligence wasn't that great. But this was not something that he cooked up. The same arguments were made by Clinton in 1998. Bush and the Congress acted on them though in 1998. My problem is that they didn't sell the war for all the myriad of other reasons we should go in there, including the humanitarian reasons. Had they done that, we could have a better dialogue now about the morality of the war because there were ample moral grounds to go in there that are ignored by focusing on the WMD question. But Bush deserves accountability for the implementation for the war, that was his job and his ideas. All I am saying here is that it is incorrect to be arguing this was all made up by him--an argument that seems to be the big talking point these days and is historically incorrect.
posted by dios at 3:46 PM on November 15, 2005


Ha. When "UN resolution 1441" gets dragged out, you know you're struggling.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:47 PM on November 15, 2005


- They didn't attack us.
True. And the only real point here. But the Genocide convention and humanism suggests there are other reasons to go to war than aggression.


This is a wonderful example of revisionism, for those who weren't quite certain. If this were the case, there were and are much bigger fish to fry than Saddam's Evil Reign(TM).
posted by IronLizard at 3:48 PM on November 15, 2005


alter the facts of history

Straight out of the GOP talking points of the day. Amazing.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:48 PM on November 15, 2005


for dios: ...Bush's argument is deeply flawed. Far from being baseless, the charge that he intentionally misled the public in the run-up to war is built on a growing amount of evidence. And the longer Bush goes without refuting that evidence in detail, the more persuasive it becomes.

And his most prized talking point -- that many Democrats agreed with him at the time -- is problematic. Many of those Democrats did so because they believed the information the president gave them. Now they are coming to the conclusion that they shouldn't have.

Like other Bush campaigns, this one will inevitably feature the ceaseless repetition of key sound bytes -- the hope being that they will be carried, largely unchallenged, by the media -- and virulent attacks by the White House on those who dare to disagree, even going so far as to question their patriotism. ...

posted by amberglow at 3:50 PM on November 15, 2005


...Bush relied on the same intelligence that Clinton, Blair, and Congress relied on and came to the same conclusion as them. ...

No, that's not true. Clinton did strikes and sanctions and diplomacy--not WAR-- and so did Congress and Blair until Bush started lying about WMDs and Mushroom clouds and an immediate threat.
posted by amberglow at 3:55 PM on November 15, 2005


[vague reference to the belief that Iraq possed NBC weapons which would be dangerous for the USA comes from both sides of the aisle and Atlantic]

But then we step to the next layer in this deliberate attempt to muddy the water...

At the time of the invasion, we [meaning the international community] were making great progress—for which I am prepared to credit this administration for pressing—in terms of evaluating this information on the ground; and finding it to be erroneous. IMO, the sane thing to do here would be to take a step back and re-evaluate the intelligence. The administration elected to run in the opposite direction though.

Sensing the case for military action weakening by the day as the inspectors continued to turn up no evidence, the administration redoubled efforts to link Saddam and al Queda, fear-bait the American public, and hasten the invasion time-table. What the current propaganda campaign (and, for Christ's sake, they telegraphed it and the purpose it will serve so why are we treating it as anything but?) equivocates on is the trends in supporting the action, the fact that many were in the process of re-evaluating the information behind the threat, and that a significant percentage of the support they did enjoy was a direct result of equivocating patriotism and agreement with the administration's policies.

The reason the administration can continue to wiggle and spin, cf video link supra, is that there is no identifiable single incident whereby they crossed any line into wrong-doing. The problem with pointing to the Niger document and related fallout is that it can be spun in isolation. The problem with pointing to stove-piping is that it can also be spun in isolation. By virtue of splashing this chain of misdirection and lies of omission over such a large, multi-dimensional canvas, the administration and its apologists have an inexhaustible [in the next 3+ years anyway] supply of redirection and red herrings to distract and spin.

The moral of the story: If you're going to get wet, you might as well swim the English Channel.
posted by Fezboy! at 3:57 PM on November 15, 2005


President Bush claimed that members of Congress who voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution “had access to the same intelligence” as his administration. This is patently false.
Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.” It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House:
FACT — Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently Withheld from Congress:
...(link and citation)
FACT — Sen. Kerrey: Bush “Has Much More Access” to Intel Than Congress:
...(ditto)
FACT — Rockefeller: PDBs, CIA Intel Withheld From Senate:
...(ditto)
FACT — War Supporter Ken Pollack: White House Engaged in “Creative Omission” of Iraq Intel:
...(ditto)
FACT — White House Had Exclusive Access to “Unique” Intel Sources:
...(ditto)

posted by amberglow at 4:01 PM on November 15, 2005




The vote on giving Bush war powers is tallied here
and it's a good reminder of what was going on.

" the Democrats supported him by a narrow margin: 29 in favor, 21 opposed. The Republicans supported the President with near unanimity, 48-1. James Jeffords (VT), the Senate's lone Independent, voted No.

.... 10 of the 13 Democrats seeking re-election also supported the President. .... a majority of the Democratic senators not on the ballot for re-election in 2002 opposed the President's request for broad war-making powers...

... the three senators seeking re-election who opposed the President? Two are considered among the safest incumbents ....

The third is Paul Wellstone. In his floor speech explaining his vote, Senator Wellstone concluded, "I would like to thank my staff for never trying one time to influence me to make any other decision than what I honestly and truthfully believe is right ..."
posted by hank at 4:09 PM on November 15, 2005




The qualitative leap between Clinton and Bush II was existence of WMD's possibly used against Iraqis and neighboring states to the meme of "mushroom clouds," i.e., Saddam has nukes and is going to launch them, eventually, at American soil. Bush, Cheney, and Rice all used this phrase.

If one can't see the difference here, go read some Machiavelli. The worm has turned with regards to American public opinion, and the more Bush tries to blame Democrats, the more questions people are going to actively ask themselves regarding the whole lead-up to the invasion. I agree that far too many Dems were feckless. That's a small price to pay for the general condemnation of Bush's cabinet and Republican supporters of the war.

I, for one, welcome Bush's rapid slide into the abyss of history. The 2006 elections will be telling, to say the least.
posted by bardic at 4:10 PM on November 15, 2005


And Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair, and the British Intelligence and other major intelligence agencies who said the same thing about Saddam's WMD, and both Houses of Congress.

I'm talking numbers of people. Bill and Tony are two guys, and in neither of their countries did the majority of people think invading Iraq was a good idea. And these are the two countries most, supposedly, in favor of the war.

I would suggest at least 90% of people around the world who could read a newspaper thought invading Iraq was a bad idea. Never at any time, did a majority anywhere support Mr Bush's decision. Never has an American administration acted so unilaterally on something of this nature. Virtually the entire world was telling him to simmer down, back off, rethink. He insulted the intelligence of peoples world wide by saying 'yer either with us or agin us' and going ahead anyway.

And only now he's feeling isolated? What took so long?
posted by scheptech at 4:12 PM on November 15, 2005


Bush relied on the same intelligence that Clinton, Blair, and Congress relied on and came to the same conclusion as them.

This is straight up wrong dios, and tells me you have not done your homework. We can talk about this like adults when you know what you are talking about.

All of the scary claims made about Saddam were post-Clinton claims. The things that swayed public opinion were bio-agent production, training of al Queda, and nuclear weapons progress. ALL of the specifics of these are post-Clinton. All of them were based on faulty intelligence. The intelligence shown to congress critters was only the (minority) view that found these claims credible. The majority intelligence sources that found these claims bogus were left as classified by Bush. He only declassified the parts of the NIE that bolstered his case. And the big points were all post-Clinton. And as has now come out, Bush knew there was reason to believe that all of these claims were very suspect.

Let's not rewrite history, indeed. I'm being serious when I say it's time to educate yourself. You apparently don't get enough Iraq info. outside of the right wing echo chamber.
posted by teece at 4:16 PM on November 15, 2005


thanks for those links amberglow.
posted by jcruelty at 4:17 PM on November 15, 2005


Well, IANAL, international law or otherwise, but I'm not seeing anything in UN resolution 1441 giving the US the right to invade Iraq. In fact part of it states:...Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States.

I could be wrong, you may want to give it a read. And to state that you don't think the war is immoral is pretty amazing, I think most rational people would agree that a preemptive war can never be moral.

Fine, there are other dictators, and we should take them out, too. That he had to start somewhere is a function of the law of priority.

Humanitarian grounds for the war seems to be the favorite fall back rationale, which is why I think many here bring up the point that there are many dictators that we conveniently ignore. If you think "we" should take them out, too, well then enlist..oh yeah, you're too old/ill/insert deferment reason here. How convenient for all those who follow the neocon "might is right, a right that we should exercise constantly", chickenhawk load of crap. If there's a "law of priority" then Saddam would have been way down on the list considering some of the monsters out there. That is unless your priority is based on something other than altruistic intent, perhaps something that can be priced by the barrel.

/not intended to be a personal attack on dios (who I admire for promoting rational and reasoned discourse), but an attack on this particular point of view.
posted by tetsuo at 4:17 PM on November 15, 2005


Did dios actually type: "I don't mind fighting them there."?

Really? How many have you taken out, tough guy?
posted by 2sheets at 4:19 PM on November 15, 2005


We have created a magnet and recruiting tool for new suicide bombers.

Well, I think I have made my position on this clear in other threads. But I will just add that I don't mind fighting them there.

Sorry to hear you're shipping out, dios. Be sure to keep us updated, will you? And while you're fighting shoulder to shoulder with all those young men and women who joined up for whatever reason-- to get an education, or for the sake of a job, or because they honestly believed in the cause-- let us know if the sight of their deaths and suffering have changed your mind at all.
posted by jokeefe at 4:21 PM on November 15, 2005


Painfully typical.
posted by bardic at 4:24 PM on November 15, 2005


Well, I think I have made my position on this clear in other threads. But I will just add that I don't mind fighting them there.

Well, suit up, my friend. They need all the help they can get.
posted by odinsdream at 4:29 PM on November 15, 2005


Well, IANAL, international law or otherwise, but I'm not seeing anything in UN resolution 1441 giving the US the right to invade Iraq.

The important thing to remember about that line of thinking, tetsuo, is that it is a canard.

I don't know how many UN resolutions Iraq was in violation of, if any. They had a missile with a tiny bit too much range, IIRC. But as it turns out, they had actually disarmed, so any violation would have had to been pretty technical in nature.

But more to the point: not a single UN resolution gave the US the right to invade. Not a single one.

IF Saddam was found in breach, by the UN, a UN security council resolution would need to be had to make an invasion legal. No such resolution was had, so there is absolutely no way this war can be justified via the UN.

You can't enforce international law by breaking it. dios, and the right wing talking heads he gets this from, are putting up a smoke screen with that. It has no actual bearing on what really happened in Iraq (and it's SO 2003, anyway).
posted by teece at 4:34 PM on November 15, 2005


I have a very hard time letting mainstream Democrats off the hook for supporting the war. Far too many Democratic politicians and journalists allowed themselves to be duped. I find it frustrating that we are acting like this fiasco was unpredictable. Credible sources were casting doubt on U.S. intelligence before the war.

Powell's presentation to the U.N. was pathetic. It felt like watching a good man throw himself on the sword for his leader. Many people chose to look the other way.

I don't doubt that relations between 41 and 43 are strained. 41 is loyal to the CIA, and as little as I like him, he was a professional with genuine humility. I'm not saying he was a hero, but he had much greater foresight than his idiot son.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:37 PM on November 15, 2005


It looks like Chimpy Mcflightsuit is gonna be lonely for quite a long time being as such that all his friends have gotten from him what they needed from him (access), and now find it in thier best intrest to distance from him. Sad and lonely times. Karl won't be hanging round. Delay won't either. Dick? why he's no fun. Looks like a lonely lonely lonely time for Chimpy until the sychophants of 06 and 08 come around fellating for his golden rolodex.
posted by svenvog at 4:47 PM on November 15, 2005


“But the main problem I have is that so far I see very few Republicans and right-wingers criticizing the implementation of the war, which was clearly a disaster.” posted by cell divide

Somebody call me?

“All I am saying here is that it is incorrect to be arguing this was all made up by him--an argument that seems to be the big talking point these days and is historically incorrect.”
posted by dios

I think amberglow nailed this point. Thoroughly. Nailed. Buried. Repeatedly. Yes, nailed this point, amberglow did.

There was however a great deal of me-tooism going on by the Dems - I concede much of that could have been post-9/11 support, but not a lot of questions were asked and when doors started getting closed on the whys and wherefores there should have been a hell of a lot more “opposition” in the opposition party.
But hypocracy is universal. And the press didn’t do much to help the situation.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:49 PM on November 15, 2005


Yeah, if I were Chimpy, I'd probably get another dog.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:51 PM on November 15, 2005


Dios, my Dios,

You sound almost as crazy and defensive as our president, so by all means stick to the story that it was the Democrats who pushed for this war. It's so screwball, please keep it up. But remember that for most people it is embarassing and humiliating to see the that the president cannot accept responsibility for his actions.

But that doesn't matter. You said : "Criticize Bush for his implementation for the war. I will support that." So say it - say "Bush is reponsible for this mess we are in." You are going to feel better. Really. Just say it to yourself.
posted by xammerboy at 4:51 PM on November 15, 2005


"41 is loyal to the CIA, and as little as I like him, he was a professional with genuine humility. I'm not saying he was a hero, but he had much greater foresight than his idiot son."

That I'll agree with, gesamt. I didn't agree with 41's political positions or handling of the country, but he was clearly an educated, dedicated man and put care into his service to the country, and I felt he deserved respect as President even when I thought what he was doing was misguided.

His biggest failure for me was that after campaigning vociferously against Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" in the '80 primaries, he went right along with them after he got the VP nod, and continued them through most of his term - right up to when he finally couldn't take it anymore, and raised taxes in order to right that situation for the benefit of the country.

For which he was promptly ejected, of course... but that was a pretty brave move on his part, since it was in fact the correct thing to do.

And of course the second biggest failure was that his administration continued the policy of supporting Saddam Hussein as a "bulwark" against Islamist forces in that part of the world - up until Saddam invaded Kuwait - thus leading us to our present mess.

Mistakes aside, I give Bush 41 credit for trying to do his best for the US as he saw fit, with diligence and finesse.

Kinda funny how his son is hiding behind mommy's skirts, eh? Says a lot about that family, psychologically.
posted by zoogleplex at 4:53 PM on November 15, 2005


alumshubby, you're kidding, right?


posted by Chuckles at 4:53 PM on November 15, 2005


I'm wondering if he’s hitting the booze again and they’re keeping him out of the public eye.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:54 PM on November 15, 2005


I've seen nothing to suggest Condi or Hughes are anything but legitimate in their goals and methods.

Condoleeza Rice was an incompetant national security advisor, and she perjured herself in front of the 9/11 Commission.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:56 PM on November 15, 2005


Dios I don't appreciate your attempts to revise history.

--Somehow you have concluded that Bill Clinton support or made a decision to launch a full scale invasion of Iraq. This is not true but you are trying to revise history to suggest that Clinton supported the war in Iraq.

--Somehow you feel that all the lawmakers had access to the same information that the President and his advisors did. As has been stated many times in many places this is flat out untrue.

--Somehow you think that the broad public support for the war at the time was because the public supported Bush's efforts to oust an evil dictator and liberate the Iraqi people as opposed to the fear that Saddam harbored both WMD's and terrorists and that he was in league with Bin Laden. In fact I know I can dig up some of the polls that show a majority of Americans believing that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attacks when even at that time, pre-war, we knew that to be a false statement that Bush cronies used publicly in the run up to war.

--MOST IMPORTANTLY somehow you believe that Bush and Co did not lobby for this war and that in the end he and he alone made the decision to go to war in Iraq, ignoring the Senate and Congress's request to make sure the UN was involved.
posted by aaronscool at 4:58 PM on November 15, 2005


aaronscool, WORD! Nicely done.
posted by fenriq at 5:00 PM on November 15, 2005


I don't think you're going to change dios's mind, aaronscool. His claims have been rather thoroughly debunked by amberglow and others in this thread, but he's going to stick with them as gospel truth no matter what. He supports this administration and apparently everything they do, even when they do it horribly and endanger every American.

We can respect his right to his opinions, even when they are based on easily refutable false information. At least he's relatively erudite about delivering them, unlike some of the other MeFites who agree with him.

Good job all in debunking and refuting, thanks.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:04 PM on November 15, 2005


dios, as the days and weeks have progressed the white house has become mired deeper and deeper in blatant dishonesty and duplicity.
I can understand your loyalty to 'your team' but this isn't about a 'team' here, this is about the United States.
The man wrongfully identified as president has dragged this country's name and reputation through the mud and you need to acknowledge that. Even your fellow republicans can admit that and are distancing themselves from him and his 'team'.
For your own sake it would really help you to sit down and think it over.
The people who identify themselves as republicans do no honor to your beliefs and make fools of all who sympathize with them.
posted by mk1gti at 5:13 PM on November 15, 2005


Well to be perfectly honest I abhor the talking points arguments. Bush has recently "Come out on the attack against Revisionist Democrats" and in his speeches told a few whoppers himself.

This whole "Revisionist" stuff is a big load of crap that is basically designed to try and get the heat off his decisions. "Revisionist" by his definition means never looking back to see the mistakes you've made and I don't ever want to live in that kind of head in the sand, blind faith, doomed to repeat history kind of place...

On that note this was the cartoon in my morning paper...sums it up well I think
posted by aaronscool at 5:18 PM on November 15, 2005


Last week the White House held mandatory briefings on how to handle classified material.

Interesting. Those are described elsewhere as ethics training. Also here.
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:27 PM on November 15, 2005


dios writes "Thanks for the advice. I don't recognize anything called international law though. I recognize the Constitution of the United States as the 'supreme law of the land.' "

dios writes "But the Genocide convention and humanism suggests there are other reasons to go to war than aggression"

Wouldn't that Genocide convention you mention be considered International law?
posted by smcniven at 5:39 PM on November 15, 2005


Well, I think I have made my position on this clear in other threads. But I will just add that I don't mind fighting them there.

Wow Dios, all this time I thought you were a well spoken contrarion with some sort of law degree who made decisions with critical thinking skills but alas i have been misled.
posted by svenvog at 5:39 PM on November 15, 2005


"I've seen nothing to suggest Condi or Hughes are anything but legitimate in their goals and methods."

I don't even know where to start here. I know people who worked for Rice at Stanford. She's a great administrator. And I give her credit for some honesty. When the Plame scandal broke she looked very regretful about lying.

Hughes is such a fucking idiot, I don't care about her intentions; I don't care about her heart. I care that she is another nepotistic appointment without qualifications and wisdom. Is she a lyer? A fool? I don't care. I just care that she's incompetent.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:42 PM on November 15, 2005


dios writes "But the Genocide convention and humanism suggests there are other reasons to go to war than aggression"

Wouldn't that Genocide convention you mention be considered International law?
posted by smcniven at 5:39 PM PST on November 15 [!]



i think you guys mean Geneva convention.
at least, i hope so.
posted by Miles Long at 5:50 PM on November 15, 2005


dios; war is not a solution, it is a failure, the largest failure a society can make.
posted by odinsdream at 5:57 PM on November 15, 2005


"But the Genocide convention and humanism suggests there are other reasons to go to war than aggression"

But it (Dios) also defended torture [and Cheney] before torture was cool.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:59 PM on November 15, 2005


cloeburner writes "I heard he just sits in his room all day and plays Doom while listening to Marilyn Manson. Reportedly he's been writing 'purple prose' regarding the strained familial relationships."

Should we be watching for a POTUSblog on myspace.com?
posted by clevershark at 6:12 PM on November 15, 2005


smcniven writes "Wouldn't that Genocide convention you mention be considered International law?"

A law without teeth is no law at all.
posted by clevershark at 6:13 PM on November 15, 2005


dios is an obvious troll. Best to ignore him.

He posts exactly what will piss off the largest number of people -- do not be fooled by the verbiage. He's just a troll. Don't feed him, don't respond to him.

If dios believes that invading Iraq was a good idea, he's the only one. Even Bush doesn't think that any more -- why else would be be blaming the Democrats?

Don't waste your fingers trying to refute dios' "claim" that it wasn't Bush's war. We were all there. We saw it as it happened. Dios is trying to rile us by denying the evidence of our senses. Bush pushed American relentlessly into war. You saw it, I saw it, dios saw it, the whole world saw it, but dios wants to piss you off...

Don't feed the troll. Do not respond.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:18 PM on November 15, 2005


If dios, attorney-in-theory, does not recognize the validity of international law, then why does he prattle about violation of UN resolutions?
posted by rdone at 6:19 PM on November 15, 2005


I don't recognize anything called international law though. I recognize the Constitution of the United States as the 'supreme law of the land.'

But the Constitution says that "...all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...."

"All treaties" would include the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:28 PM on November 15, 2005


No international law? See U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2, "The United States":

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
posted by rdone at 6:28 PM on November 15, 2005


This has derailed terribly. Let's focus on the "Oh, shit, first suicidal POTUS!"

I'm not kidding. Too lazy to check my own comments from posts past, but I've mentioned that this guy could be suicidal. This guy has been so used and owned by the neocons that he doesn't know which way is up. "You're going to be a Hero, George." "You Know you're doing the right thing here!" "Don't pass up your time of greatness!" "Don't worry about the truth."

Blah, he's been cracking for a long time. He's gonna off himself. Weak in character. Weak in morals and ethics. Unstable environment. No true friends. Just realizing that his "friends" have been full of shit. Typical stoner/druggie shit (no offense to stoner/druggies). I hope he just ends it.
posted by snsranch at 6:38 PM on November 15, 2005


I don't know about any of the rest of this stuff, but GW is looking like a scared little boy who is in way over his head and is now cowering with his mommies.
posted by caddis at 6:42 PM on November 15, 2005


lupus_yonderboy, I can't agree with calling out dios as a troll. He's sincere, but has bought into the brainwashing. The fact that he's now saying "We should focus on the poor implementation of the plan by Bush. That is his failure," indicates how far things have come. He can point to a Bush failure and call it a failure plainly. The brainwashing isn't holding.

Remember, dios is probably enjoying the echo chamber of talk radio, hannity books and all the rest. If in that environment he can begin to see that there exists failure caused by the administration, then it has simply become too great to hide anymore, anywhere.
posted by Pliskie at 6:43 PM on November 15, 2005


... and he is not half, or even a tenth, the man his father was, and he knows it.
posted by caddis at 6:45 PM on November 15, 2005


Man, imagine having 5,000+ dead americans + 15,000 injured ones, $250B from the US Treasury pissed away... on your head.

A similar burden killed LBJ. Here's hoping this fuck (excuse me, idiot) gets to feel the true weight of his colossal fuck up.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:47 PM on November 15, 2005


In light of the recent push by the White House to brand its critics as traitors...I was trying to think of a single occasion in American history where that tactic hasn't been thoroughly discredited. and usually its proponents disgraced with it.

Nixon with his enemies list, McCarthyism, the Sedition Act all come to mind as examples of cases where powerful officials sought to imprison, intimidate and destroy critics by declaring them un-American or traitors -- all of which are courses viewed as themselves anti-American.

Attacks by the powerful upon the patriotism of critics inevitably leads to revulsion, it is an immutable law of American democracy. It is an oxymoron in American thought...dissent cannot be unpatriotic. The charge never sticks. Not to Eugene Debs, not Theodore Rossevelt, and (my guess) not to Cindy Sheehan or Dick Durbin.

Now, in spite of the stupidity of many policies of this administration -- they are not dumb. And for their gross incompetence and cronyism, one element of politics at which they certainly excel is the smear. What made previous smears work were a combination of factors, including majority support for a popular president who was viewed as honest and trustworthy, and -- this is key -- the ability to smear the critics without Bush's fingerprints on the bludgeon.

In their current campaign to smear critics as traitors, they enjoy neither of those previous keys to success. Bush is polling in the mid 30s and he himself is giving nasty speeches about the opposition from lecturns at military bases.

Bush and his advisors (whoever is left) must realize that American history almost universally takes a dim view of this particular tactic. The backlash is almost certain to be fierce and has previously destroyed the reputations of nearly any government power in American history which has employed it. It is a line that rightfully should not be crossed. Even those who's reputations survived were condemned throughout history for this particular course of action.

After watching in horror for the past five years as this impossible nightmare administration has dismantled everything that made me proud of my country -- I can't help but shake my head in disbelief at this one.

Can it be, at last? Are they really this desperate? Is this the tactic of last resort that it appears to be? Are they hoping to trade history's judgement for the wages of squeaking by until after their terms are over, leaving their legacy to turn to dust?

History was never destined to be kind to George W. Bush...but this tactic may be the thing which demolishes him for good in his own lifetime. I can only hope, and for now we're left to guess why.

I think the real answer is...he's too insulated and dismissive of history to see that he's wearing this hat yet. And as history has already demonstrated -- he'll be the last person in America to realize it.
posted by edverb at 6:53 PM on November 15, 2005


snsranch: yes, I think you're spot on. Either suicide, or "suicide". Depends on whether Rove's involved.
posted by slatternus at 6:54 PM on November 15, 2005


As to Bush offing himself, that's highly unlikely, as the Secret Service is near him at all times. If any of his retinue of SS guards starts thinking the POTUS might try something that radical, he will be under 24-7 direct surveillance by at least 2 agents. The only way it could happen is if the SS themselves loses faith in him, which is pretty much out of the question. They take their job very, very seriously.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:59 PM on November 15, 2005


Interestingly enough it seems that a more apt and obvious parallel lays with the action of top Worldcom execs as the company was losing billions quarter-on-quarter -- they got paranoid, evangelical, and were more than ready to blame their own failings on others' lack of faith and materialism.

Worldcom's head honcho has been convicted and is now in prison. I wonder what'll happen to the guy in the White House.
posted by clevershark at 7:07 PM on November 15, 2005


Metafilter: There are other dictators, and we should take them out, too, unless the president is a democrat, and those dictators happen to be serbian.
posted by Freen at 7:52 PM on November 15, 2005


zoogleplex: ah, you're right. He doesn't have the balls anyway. He'll just cry to his mom that that world is unfair. Like he did when his baseball team sucked. Loser. Or when his oil co. went belly-up or whatever, who cares, he sucks as a human being.

But, yea, you're right.
posted by snsranch at 7:52 PM on November 15, 2005


I seem to recall very broad public support for the action. Though, I would appreciate anyone bringing out number to clarify this for me.

Most Unconvinced on Iraq War, Los Angeles Times, December 17, 2002 (my emphasis):
Despite a concerted effort by the Bush administration, more than two-thirds of Americans believe the president has failed to make the case that a war with Iraq is justified, according to a Los Angeles Times poll.

The overwhelming majority of respondents -- 90% -- said they do not doubt that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. But in the absence of new evidence from U.N. inspectors, 72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq.
...
The poll also found that support for a possible war appears to be weakening, with 58% saying they support a ground attack on Iraq. In an August Times poll, 64% said they would support a ground attack. Last January, after President Bush first denounced Saddam Hussein in his State of the Union address, the Times and other polls found support for military action greater than 70%.
...
That lack of support may stem from the impression that the president has failed to present enough hard evidence to prove that Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction and is prepared to use them.
...
If the United States should launch an attack, 68% of Americans want it to be only with the support of the international community. Only 26% said they were willing to support war if the United States acted alone.
So in December 2002, support for a war was declining. A majority of Americans felt that the administration had not made case that war with Iraq was necessary even though they believed Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, and they wanted the US to act with international support if there was a war. Enter the State of the Union address and Colin Powell's "This is Bullshit" speech to the UN.

Poll: U.S. Has Made Case Against Iraq, CBS News, February 7, 2003:
...a new CBS News poll shows an increasing percentage believe the case has been made for military action, but most still prefer that the U.S. get U.N. approval before taking such action and would like to give the weapons inspectors more time to work.
American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq changed increasingly to support after the State of the Union address and Colin Powell's speech. "A Gallup poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War."

By the way, I'm sure the waning support for war had nothing to do with the "16 words" about uranium magically making their way into the State of the Union address after being removed from the president's speech in October 2002. I'm also sure the weakness of the claim of Iraq seeking uranium had nothing to do with Colin Powell not mentioning it at the UN the following week.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:52 PM on November 15, 2005


I wonder what'll happen to the guy in the White House.

he'll get his own library.
posted by quonsar at 7:58 PM on November 15, 2005


edverb
nicely put, as I am sure many americans and persons around the world are thinking now, just how low can they go in pointing out how truly mediocre and untrustworthy they are?
My guess is that before this is through, very low indeed.
There has been talk here and elsewhere about this bunch being frog-marched out of the white house before, who knows what the morrow may bring?
posted by mk1gti at 8:01 PM on November 15, 2005


Live by the sword.....

hank pointed out that 10 Dems that were up for election voted with Bush, and bardic suggested the reading of Machiavelli. Astute points, both.

Memories being as short as they are, it seems that few here remember how absofuckinglutely important it was to BushCo that the decision on force be made in October - in the middle of off-year congressional elections. He had to have been orgasmic at that point, knowing that he was getting his war and making unwilling Dems look like pussies to the angry and as-yet-unenlightened-to-the-ways-of-real-crooks electorate.

Machiavelli could have learned a thing or two from these guys.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:14 PM on November 15, 2005


Doesn't Bush keep Saddam's personal sidearm in his desk. It can't be that hard...
posted by Balisong at 8:15 PM on November 15, 2005


Ebbers is not in prison. The last I read, he was out pending his appeal. A small thing, perhaps. In such a heated discussion throwaway "facts" need to be verified.
posted by stirfry at 8:15 PM on November 15, 2005


Hey, we've never had a sitting president commit suicide, have we?

Well, not if you don't count Greg Stillson (played by Martin Sheen) in The Dead Zone. But Stillson was a deceptively-moderate right-wing nut who unilaterally started a war. Totally different.

"The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!"
posted by kirkaracha at 8:19 PM on November 15, 2005


...and kikaracha for the win...
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:25 PM on November 15, 2005


"I still am big! It's the presidency that's gotten small!"

Stolen from here.

Aww, thanks Heywood. And I didn't get you anything.

posted by kirkaracha at 8:34 PM on November 15, 2005


stirfry writes "A small thing, perhaps. In such a heated discussion throwaway 'facts' need to be verified."

I did assume that he was in prison based on the words in the second article to the effect that he was to begin his sentence on Oct. 12th, but I guess the proverbial "law's delay" will have its effect.
posted by clevershark at 8:45 PM on November 15, 2005


I think I'd sleep better if I felt the US military was going to take control, instead of the CIA.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:57 PM on November 15, 2005


Anyone else notice the extra slurred speech and what have you? I lived with an alcoholic. It does seem familiar. I can't imagine they could keep him under wraps for three years though.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:19 PM on November 15, 2005


It's probably pointless to add this, this late in the game, but I will anyway.

Read what Kevin Drum just posted.

This story, along with a few others in the last months, have come out painting an unpleasant picture of the Oval Office. Yes, they're all rumor. They could be wrong, they could be spot on, but who the hell knows?

They are significant, but not because of their content. Up until the last few months, Bush had a White House that was very tight lipped. They did not break ranks. Compared to Clinton's White House, it was very impressive. Clinton's people leaked like a sieve. Not so Bush's.

However, whatever force it was the kept Bush's folks from giving the dirt to reporters, it is gone. Someone up-thread said this story sounded like lefty hysteria. It might sound like that, but it is not. How do we know? Insight is subsidiary of a very conservative paper, The Washington Times, as others have pointed out. This story came from a right winger, not some crazy lefty.

That is significant. Bush has lost the respect (or fear, or whatever it was) he once commanded. There are conservatives that would like to see Bush portrayed in a negative light. Bush better hope that doesn't grow, or he's going to be in for one hell of an unpleasant couple of years.
posted by teece at 9:37 PM on November 15, 2005


Maybe we're heading for an Armageddon show-down between the forces of good and evil. Sure as hell things can not be allowed to continue in this manner.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:56 PM on November 15, 2005




posted by snoktruix at 9:57 PM on November 15, 2005


I'm in the middle of a book about Stalin. It was said that 10 million died in his expedition against the 'kulaks'.
What will it take to stop this kind of mass extermination in the name of 'progress'? How many have the Bush family and their minions killed, tortured and maimed in the name of 'freedom and democracy and *cringe* 'free enterprise'. . .

I only hope that they and their supporters experience the hell they have wrought on others literally and personally for a very, very long time.
posted by mk1gti at 10:02 PM on November 15, 2005


Commies = Republicans. Figure it out snoktruix . . .
posted by mk1gti at 10:06 PM on November 15, 2005




posted by spock at 10:34 PM on November 15, 2005


I think I'd sleep better if I felt the US military was going to take control, instead of the CIA.

God help us if those are the options.
posted by prak at 1:11 AM on November 16, 2005


I am concerned for the health and well being of the W, not for altruistic or humanitarian reasons, but because the phrase "President Richard Cheney said today..." gives me the cold shudders and brain freeze ups.
posted by paulsc at 4:15 AM on November 16, 2005


"President Cheney today opened the gates of Hell, letting out all his minions. The President said, thru a spokesdemon, that only those who have souls should be afraid, causing the Bush clan to smile with relief. ..."
posted by amberglow at 6:23 AM on November 16, 2005


"President Richard Cheney said today..." gives me the cold shudders and brain freeze ups.

Sure, but at least he'd make the trains run on time.
posted by scheptech at 6:42 AM on November 16, 2005


Well, if someone would just give him a blowjob, then we could impeach him.

I'll do it. Anything for America.


I thought I would do anything to see Bush thrown out of office, but I won't do that.

Bush won't commit suicide in office. Maybe if he's sentenced to prison time, but otherwise no.
posted by orange swan at 7:24 AM on November 16, 2005


at least he'd make the trains run on time

...and I'm sure we could all get used to him just, you know, hanging around.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:27 AM on November 16, 2005


Sure, but at least he'd make the trains run on time.


Trains?! What are you, some kind of Amtrak-lovin' liberal c*cks*ck*r? Go f*ck yourself!
posted by lodurr at 7:43 AM on November 16, 2005


President Cheney today opened the gates of Hell, letting out all his minions.

That would be okay, because if he's the Devil then he's not a natural-born citizen, so he can't actually be Pres (or VP).

I knew that stupid restriction would come in handy.

And has anyone else noticed how Hastert looks suspiciously like Kodos (or Kang)?*

Actually he does look kinda like a domo-kun, doesn't he?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:46 AM on November 16, 2005


Meanwhile, another thread begins to unravel...
posted by you just lost the game at 8:03 AM on November 16, 2005


Oh he'll get his own library but can anyone tell me just how many books are there in the My Pet Goat series?
posted by longbaugh at 8:05 AM on November 16, 2005


And when they open the the George W. Bush Presidential Library, the inscription on the plaque out front will be:

"And I see Bill Buckley is here tonight, fellow Yale man. We go way back, and we have a lot in common. Bill wrote a book at Yale. I read one." - George W. Bush, Oct. 2000
posted by you just lost the game at 8:32 AM on November 16, 2005


I overheard a telephone call:41-43
posted by hortense at 9:19 AM on November 16, 2005


While I think it's unreasonable to suggest that W could manage to commit suicide in office, it's interesting to speculate on whether he might suffer a nervous breakdown.
posted by alumshubby at 11:48 AM on November 16, 2005


While I think it's unreasonable to suggest that W could manage to commit suicide in office, it's interesting to speculate on whether he might suffer a nervous breakdown.
posted by alumshubby at 11:48 AM on November 16, 2005


dang
posted by alumshubby at 11:48 AM on November 16, 2005


Balisong: "Doesn't Bush keep Saddam's personal sidearm in his desk. It can't be that hard..."

You really think the Secret Service lets him keep it loaded? I rather think not.

I guess he could try to beat himself to death with it, though... but I don't think he's got the guts for that.
posted by zoogleplex at 12:24 PM on November 16, 2005


All it takes is one pretzel.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:39 PM on November 16, 2005


Didja hear that Scooter was actually operating as assistant to the President, not the VP? It's right there in on the front page of the rap sheet.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:16 PM on November 16, 2005


« Older Who is 10641?   |   Documentary journalism? Activism? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments