Bush smiling and winking at front row after mea culpa

[gerryhatrick]

For some reason pictures don't work for me at this place anymore, and yes I use the tags.

Check out the picture here

Not looking quite as contrite and sincere as he was trying to sound a moment earlier.

Does anyone think that wasn't a calculated cynical move?

[BHS]

If you read Adam Parfrey's Apocalypse Culture (1990 edition) you'll find letters written by people with schizophrenia who believe that every facial expression they see on the news is a secret coded message meant for them. I think a lot of unmedicated schizophrenics must be posting comments on the blog you linked to. The first comment reads, and I quote: "he is the spawn of satan." That pretty much sets the tone for every comment that comes after it.

[sharkman]

It doesn't really matter what Bush does, the nut bars who think he should be impeached will attempt to show how it's just more PROOF that he's gotta go. He comes out and basically says we made some mistakes and the wack jobs take issue with a smile. Whatever.

[newbie]

It doesn't really matter what Bush does, the nut bars who think he should be impeached will attempt to show how it's just more PROOF that he's gotta go. He comes out and basically says we made some mistakes and the wack jobs take issue with a smile. Whatever.

Well call me a nutbar then. But the repubs can justifiy spending how many million trying to catch Clinton in a lie and dear leader not only blatanly lies, he caused thousand of deaths on a lie. He didn't just "make a few mistakes" with his hokey language. Try and think outside the box occasionally.

[GostHacked]

It doesn't really matter what Bush does, the nut bars who think he should be impeached will attempt to show how it's just more PROOF that he's gotta go. He comes out and basically says we made some mistakes and the wack jobs take issue with a smile. Whatever.

Bush needed to go after he 'won' the last election. He has been nothing but a complete moron and fubbed things up. So what, BIG DEAL, he ran 9 companies into the ground, he still can be a great president.

Right??

[ClearWest]

I noticed that he did that a couple of times during one of the debates before the 2004 presidential election. At first I thought it was odd-- then it was made apparent that his wife was in the audience. He was likely winking at her, kind of saying "I've got this one under control".

I'm not a Bush advocateby any means. But to be fair, we should consider this. Isn't it possible that this was the case at the Press Conference? Was his wife in the audience? Was he just being a good husband?

I dunno--feel free to dispute me.

[Liam]

Was his wife in the audience? Was he just being a good husband?

I dunno--feel free to dispute me.

I don't think she was there. It was a press conference, not an official state-of-the-union type event which the first lady would attend. I think it's more a case of a flare up of a recurring Bush malady: fratboyus arrogantus.

[sharkman]

It doesn't really matter what Bush does, the nut bars who think he should be impeached will attempt to show how it's just more PROOF that he's gotta go. He comes out and basically says we made some mistakes and the wack jobs take issue with a smile. Whatever.

Well call me a nutbar then. But the repubs can justifiy spending how many million trying to catch Clinton in a lie and dear leader not only blatanly lies, he caused thousand of deaths on a lie. He didn't just "make a few mistakes" with his hokey language. Try and think outside the box occasionally.

For some reason I'm going to set the record straight, although it's been done time and time again only to be ignored by comments like this. Bush hasn't lied. Clinton did lie, and was disbarred because of it.

The Bush admin. did what they did with the best info they had at the time, just like every other country did at the time. If you're going to attack Bush for what he's done, fine, but making stuff up just to dump on him makes you no better than those rabid Republicans you find so distasteful.

[Montgomery Burns]

Newbie, Dear Leader lied under oath, a felony. I know that means nothing to you, but to the rest of us, it is important. That's why Dear Leader lost his lawyer's license.

[Montgomery Burns]

MSM lies - yet again. Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. From the "rightwing" National Post:

Speaking a day after he and U.S. President George W. Bush admitted to crucial errors in the execution of the Iraq war, Blair suggested an effective UN might have made their unilateral action unnecessary.

I saw this press conference and the NP is lying. Indeed, I have proof from the NP itself - from yesterday:

Mr. Bush, who in the past has declined to detail specific errors in judgment, said it was a mistake for him to tell Iraqi insurgents to "bring it on" when American troops were under increasing fire in the first months after Saddam's ouster.

"It was kind of tough talk that sent the wrong signal to people," Mr. Bush said at a joint White House news conference with Mr. Blair, who jetted to Washington for two days of meetings. Mr. Bush was roundly criticized after the remark about insurgents in July, 2003, which actually was "bring them on." He particularly angered family members of U.S. troops in Iraq, who felt it was insensitive to the dangers they faced. The U.S. President also acknowledged he may have alienated people by declaring he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

"I learned some lessons about expressing myself in a more sophisticated manner. Wanted dead or alive, that kind of talk." he said. "I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. So I learned from that."

That's Bush's "crucial errors." What the hell is going on with the NP lately? Chris Wattie put his name on a story about Iran issuing different colored clothing to non-Muslims, then the next day Wattie wrote an article blaming the story on Amir Tehari. Bizarre! The only MSM paper in Canada that is relatively balanced and they too are playing games with the facts. Please bring back the Conrad Black days; the old days when the NP was a rightwing paper, since rightwingers are not so partisan a la leftwingers.

And then, unsurprisingly, CNN (the channel that some on this board have called "rightwing" because of "conservatives" like Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs) was again caught being deceptive: Iraqi minister defends Iranian nuclear program

Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology and the international community should drop its demands that Tehran prove it’s not trying to build a nuclear weapon, Iraq’s foreign minister said Friday. ...

“Iran doesn’t claim that they want to obtain a nuclear weapon or a nuclear bomb, so there is no need that we ask them for any guarantee now,” Hoshyar Zebari said after meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki.

However the brothers in Iraq from Iraq the Model say this is untrue:

I wasn’t there at the press conference but I was able to find an audio clip of the same part of minister Zibari’s statement through Radio Sawa, and what he said here is so much different from what the CNN claimed he did (my translation):

We respect Iran’s and every other nation’s right to pursue nuclear technology for research purposes and peaceful use given they accept [giving] the internationally required guarantees that this will not lead to an armament race in the region...

Audio clip available here (Arabic)

Listening to the 2nd version of the story (in Zibari’s own voice) it is clear that Iraq recognizes Iran’s right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes exclusively and is moreover asking Iran for guarantees, not the other way around CNN!

And to top it off, CBS - today - wrote on their website that William Jefferson (the Donk that was caught on tape accepting a $100,000 bribe--and $90,000 found in his freezer) was a REPUBLICAN. After complaints, they quietly changed his party name to Democrat. Was a correction issued? Are pigs flying through the sky?

The liberal MSM's credibility is at an all-time low. They are such rank partisans that they continue to bullshit the public despite millions of citizen factcheckers who continue to catch their lies time and time again. :angry:

[newbie]

For some reason I'm going to set the record straight, although it's been done time and time again only to be ignored by comments like this. Bush hasn't lied. Clinton did lie, and was disbarred because of it.

Why do you "righties" continue to ignore and cover for Bush?? Did he not say the following?

We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. [bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]

The biological labratory claim was false but yet the administration still pedalled. it. But of course, I know you "righties" want to spin it, like the comments that Rumsfelt made about the same item. ("We know where the WMD are) Well, I don't read minds. I take people at their words. And the above is a LIE. Comparing this to Clinton is ridiculous.He was embarrased and trying to protect his family, and he did pay for that. But Bush is not accoutable to anyone, except the voters. Even the media buys Bush's lies. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021125/alterman.

So in the meantime, it's lie after lie. We'll see how the cards stack in November. Impeachment is still very possible.

[Montgomery Burns]

Newbie:

But Bush is not accoutable to anyone, except the voters.

Refresh my memory. Who did the voters elect in November/2004 after "lie after lie?"

[newbie]

Newbie:

But Bush is not accoutable to anyone, except the voters.

Refresh my memory. Who did the voters elect in November/2004 after "lie after lie?"

Nobody said he and Karl Rove weren't good at lying. The bulk of the 51% vote (whooping big victory) came out of Chrisitian coation territory (evangelical Christian groups), and you remember Bush is a born (cough-cough) again Christian. Plus the totally bogus character assassination of John Kerry re Boat Swift Veterans didn't hurt. And like I said, even the media gave him a free ride. But the times are a changing Monty. Have you checked out Bush's approval rating lately? Do a google on republicans against Bush. Might surprise you. Congress after the midterm elections will tell the tale. Then we'll talk.

[GostHacked]

Newbie:

But Bush is not accoutable to anyone, except the voters.

Refresh my memory. Who did the voters elect in November/2004 after "lie after lie?"

Yeah those voting machines in Ohio were problem free, right?

And we recall what happened in Florida where the court ruled that they won't take/count in any more ballots, but will recount the ones they have and then declared Bush the winner. Those other votes which were not counted could have turned the whole election around. Bush won by the slimmist of margins. Gore could have won by an even slimmer of margins.

Pre Bush

- surplus budget

- military was getting scaled down

- enconomy was in pretty good shape.

- national deficite was manageble and getting payed off.

- invaded some countries and messed up stuff.

During Bush

- no surplus

- huge expansion in the military

- economy has been on the downswing since

- national deficite has grown to over 6 tillion (and congress allows it now to slip to 9 trillion.

- 3 of the largest corporate scandles ever in the US (Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcomm)

- invaded some countries and messed up stuff.

Post bush?

- TBA. Check back in 2009 when Bush leaves office and we will see if the downward trend continues.

[Montgomery Burns]

Newbie:

Nobody said he and Karl Rove weren't good at lying.

Those stupid Americans got suckered again. They were too dumb to understand the flip-flo, er I mean, the nuance of John Kerry.

The bulk of the 51% vote (whooping big victory)...

When is the last time that the Dems got 50+ percent of the popular vote? 1976.

...came out of Chrisitian coation territory (evangelical Christian groups), and you remember Bush is a born (cough-cough) again Christian.

I doubt that the "bulk" of the 51% were evangelical Christian groups. And even if it was, so what? Don't they count? Or do only secularist groups count?

Plus the totally bogus character assassination of John Kerry re Boat Swift Veterans didn't hurt.

Kerry's campaign backed down from his Walter Mitty-like tale of secret missions in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 at the behest of President Nixon--even though Nixon was not president then. Kerry's campaign also admitted that one of Kerry's Purple Hearts *might* have come from a self-inflicted wound.

SBVFT: 2

Kerry: 0

And like I said, even the media gave him a free ride.

Oh yes. The notoriously rightwing biased MSM. Just off the top of my head: The bogus 380 tons of Weapons of Mass, er Medium Destruction that disappeared right under the nose of the US military; Rathergate; the Associated Press reporting that Bush supporters booed when Bush wished Clinton well on his upcoming heart surgery. Story after story describing the SBVFT as "the discredited SBVFT." Even Newsweek managing editor, Evan Thomas, admitted that the MSM was going to portray Kerry/Edwards in a good way and that would be good for about 15 points for Kerry. Thomas must've been zapped by Karl Rove's Mind Control Ray Gun when that slipped out.

But the times are a changing Monty. Have you checked out Bush's approval rating lately? Do a google on republicans against Bush. Might surprise you. Congress after the midterm elections will tell the tale. Then we'll talk.

One of the rare times I agree with you. Bush should've listened to the House Republican immigration plan, not the Senate and its RINOS plan. And they just might lose Congress. They were so close to a majority that would've prevented any filibustering by the Dems, the constant obstructing by the Dems who are dividers, not uniters--and the Repubs are going to blow it. Idiots! :angry:

[Montgomery Burns]

Gosthacked, I can't be arsed to bother with your tin-foil hat theories about Republicans "stealing" elections, or your outrageous claim that the economy has been on the downswing ever since Bush took office (the economy is actually better than it was during the Clinton years), but the debt was not being paid off. Indeed, it rose every year that Clinton was in office.

[GostHacked]

Gosthacked, I can't be arsed to bother with your tin-foil hat theories about Republicans "stealing" elections, or your outrageous claim that the economy has been on the downswing ever since Bush took office (the economy is actually better than it was during the Clinton years), but the debt was not being paid off. Indeed, it rose every year that Clinton was in office.

But yet you keep comming back and patronizing my replies. Good stuff Monty.

Like I said, IF history proves that Bush did the correct thing then I will gladly eat my words. Untill then, I have my eyes and ears open.

And you can really do yourself a service and just stop with the KKKarlrovebushisaNazitinfoilhats.

As you know a tin foil hat will actually make it easier for brain scanning. Being metal and all, it kind of amplifies those signals. My hat is made out of lead. I will let you chew on that one for awhile.

[sharkman]

Gosthacked, I can't be arsed to bother with your tin-foil hat theories about Republicans "stealing" elections, or your outrageous claim that the economy has been on the downswing ever since Bush took office (the economy is actually better than it was during the Clinton years), but the debt was not being paid off. Indeed, it rose every year that Clinton was in office.

But yet you keep comming back and patronizing my replies. Good stuff Monty.

Like I said, IF history proves that Bush did the correct thing then I will gladly eat my words. Untill then, I have my eyes and ears open.

And you can really do yourself a service and just stop with the KKKarlrovebushisaNazitinfoilhats.

As you know a tin foil hat will actually make it easier for brain scanning. Being metal and all, it kind of amplifies those signals. My hat is made out of lead. I will let you chew on that one for awhile.

Uh, your neck muscles must be HUGE!

[newbie]

Newbie:

Nobody said he and Karl Rove weren't good at lying.

Those stupid Americans got suckered again. They were too dumb to understand the flip-flo, er I mean, the nuance of John Kerry.

The bulk of the 51% vote (whooping big victory)...

When is the last time that the Dems got 50+ percent of the popular vote? 1976.

...came out of Chrisitian coation territory (evangelical Christian groups), and you remember Bush is a born (cough-cough) again Christian.

I doubt that the "bulk" of the 51% were evangelical Christian groups. And even if it was, so what? Don't they count? Or do only secularist groups count?

Plus the totally bogus character assassination of John Kerry re Boat Swift Veterans didn't hurt.

Kerry's campaign backed down from his Walter Mitty-like tale of secret missions in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 at the behest of President Nixon--even though Nixon was not president then. Kerry's campaign also admitted that one of Kerry's Purple Hearts *might* have come from a self-inflicted wound.

SBVFT: 2

Kerry: 0

And like I said, even the media gave him a free ride.

Oh yes. The notoriously rightwing biased MSM. Just off the top of my head: The bogus 380 tons of Weapons of Mass, er Medium Destruction that disappeared right under the nose of the US military; Rathergate; the Associated Press reporting that Bush supporters booed when Bush wished Clinton well on his upcoming heart surgery. Story after story describing the SBVFT as "the discredited SBVFT." Even Newsweek managing editor, Evan Thomas, admitted that the MSM was going to portray Kerry/Edwards in a good way and that would be good for about 15 points for Kerry. Thomas must've been zapped by Karl Rove's Mind Control Ray Gun when that slipped out.

But the times are a changing Monty. Have you checked out Bush's approval rating lately? Do a google on republicans against Bush. Might surprise you. Congress after the midterm elections will tell the tale. Then we'll talk.

One of the rare times I agree with you. Bush should've listened to the House Republican immigration plan, not the Senate and its RINOS plan. And they just might lose Congress. They were so close to a majority that would've prevented any filibustering by the Dems, the constant obstructing by the Dems who are dividers, not uniters--and the Repubs are going to blow it. Idiots! :angry:

A few things: 1. Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000, Al Gore did, but SCOTUS ushered Bush him in ignoring valid votes in Florida that would have tipped the balance in Gore's favour.

2. Bush won 51% of popular vote to 48% to Gore, Like I said a huge difference.

3. Swift boat: I refer you to this site for the true and accurate account of the B.S. that organization tried to pull off. http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/

[newbie]

Newbie:

Nobody said he and Karl Rove weren't good at lying.

Those stupid Americans got suckered again. They were too dumb to understand the flip-flo, er I mean, the nuance of John Kerry.

The bulk of the 51% vote (whooping big victory)...

When is the last time that the Dems got 50+ percent of the popular vote? 1976.

...came out of Chrisitian coation territory (evangelical Christian groups), and you remember Bush is a born (cough-cough) again Christian.

I doubt that the "bulk" of the 51% were evangelical Christian groups. And even if it was, so what? Don't they count? Or do only secularist groups count?

Plus the totally bogus character assassination of John Kerry re Boat Swift Veterans didn't hurt.

Kerry's campaign backed down from his Walter Mitty-like tale of secret missions in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 at the behest of President Nixon--even though Nixon was not president then. Kerry's campaign also admitted that one of Kerry's Purple Hearts *might* have come from a self-inflicted wound.

SBVFT: 2

Kerry: 0

And like I said, even the media gave him a free ride.

Oh yes. The notoriously rightwing biased MSM. Just off the top of my head: The bogus 380 tons of Weapons of Mass, er Medium Destruction that disappeared right under the nose of the US military; Rathergate; the Associated Press reporting that Bush supporters booed when Bush wished Clinton well on his upcoming heart surgery. Story after story describing the SBVFT as "the discredited SBVFT." Even Newsweek managing editor, Evan Thomas, admitted that the MSM was going to portray Kerry/Edwards in a good way and that would be good for about 15 points for Kerry. Thomas must've been zapped by Karl Rove's Mind Control Ray Gun when that slipped out.

But the times are a changing Monty. Have you checked out Bush's approval rating lately? Do a google on republicans against Bush. Might surprise you. Congress after the midterm elections will tell the tale. Then we'll talk.

One of the rare times I agree with you. Bush should've listened to the House Republican immigration plan, not the Senate and its RINOS plan. And they just might lose Congress. They were so close to a majority that would've prevented any filibustering by the Dems, the constant obstructing by the Dems who are dividers, not uniters--and the Repubs are going to blow it. Idiots! :angry:

A few things: 1. Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000, Al Gore did, but SCOTUS ushered Bush him in ignoring valid votes in Florida that would have tipped the balance in Gore's favour.

2. Bush won 51% of popular vote to 48% to Gore, Like I said a huge difference.

3. Swift boat: I refer you to this site for the true and accurate account of the B.S. that organization tried to pull off. http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/

4. Oh, and the missing weaponry and explosives in Iraq: Further, a joint analysis by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the proliferation section of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) indicated in November 2004 that several thousand shoulder-fired missiles are missing in Iraq. The missiles could be used to shoot down aircraft. As many as 4,000 surface-to-air missiles from Saddam Hussein’s regime are also unaccounted for, and as many as 6,000 such missiles worldwide are not under the control of any government.

The Iraq Survey Group’s October report said that as many as 36 al-Samoud missiles, 34 Fatah missiles, and 600 missile engines remain unaccounted for. Further, several vials of anthrax and botulinum are missing, as are 550 155mm mustard gas shells. U.N. inspectors destroyed at least 13,000 such shells, but 550 were never found.http://www.iraqwatch.org/update/

Not to mention some 380 tons of explosives powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads that are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under American control - from the International Atomic Energy Agency. So, there you have it. So believe what you want Monty.