I will not waste a minute of my time listening to Bush spew out more lies, how about everyone else???

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/46565/

Bush's Speech Is Sad Attempt to Salvage his Name

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig
Posted on January 10, 2007, Printed on January 10, 2007

To surge or not to surge, that is the question. As our prince proposes, once again, to take arms against a sea of troubles, he responds not to the disaster that he has visited upon Iraq, but rather embraces a desperate strategy for salvaging what remains of his reign.

To win, perchance to dream. Few Americans, a mere 17 percent, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll, think that sacrificing more Americans in patrols on the streets of Baghdad will reverse the slings and arrows of our outrageous Iraqi fortune, but giving a speech about it might provide our hapless Hamlet with some temporary political cover.

"All the world is really watching," proclaimed Bush press secretary Tony Snow, "and it's important to get this right." Toward that end, as The New York Times reported, "The president's aides were contemplating having Mr. Bush deliver it from the White House Map Room, a site replete with the history and imagery of World War II -- imagery that Mr. Bush has invoked as he has sought to compare the campaign against terrorism to the struggle against totalitarianism and the Nazis. But the Oval Office, a more traditional setting, was also being considered."

As for the speech's content, it is by necessity an exercise in the absurd, as the president previewed in his soliloquy for doubting Republican senators his conviction that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has had a profound change of heart. This radical Shiite leader, who only days ago turned over Saddam Hussein to the tender mercies of a mob chanting its allegiance to the even more fanatical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, now is expected to lead U.S. troops in battle against his chief political ally and sponsor of much of Iraq's most deadly sectarian fighting. Even Bush must know by now that those fellows with whom he is in bed over there bear us nothing but hate. Speak not of the pangs of despised love.

That must give pause to the president's top advisers, but nonetheless they fail to confront the insolence of office that so fully characterizes this man. "Iraqis will take on this plan and lead it. We will be there to support them and be there to help them hold it," said one senior U.S. official, who briefed the media offstage.

But some in attendance did claim afterward to have demurred. "I expressed reservations," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican. "I said, 'Why should we expect any different result than previously,' that I didn't believe the Maliki government had demonstrated the political will or capacity or resoluteness for reconciliation, that the reason Americans are not supporting the war is because they see Iraqis fighting among themselves rather than for themselves, and I didn't see the surge addressing the root causes of the violence." Needless to say that patient merit of the unworthy went unnoticed by the brooding prince.

"He seemed very confident," said Sen. Thad Cochran, a Republican from Mississippi. "I'm convinced he has come up with a proposal that he thinks will work." But Cochran confessed to feeling lonely in his faith: "I think I was the only senator who acted like he would be supportive. I was surprised that no one said it but me."

No matter such temporal considerations, for Bush's preoccupation is the dread of something after the death of his presidency, when history will judge the calamity of his long political life and such judgment would likely bear the whips and scorns of time.

"I don't understand what he thinks is going on in Iraq, but whatever it is, he doesn't care about politics, or the Congress or his successor, when it comes to Iraq," offered Richard C. Holbrooke, a veteran of foreign debacles authored by a rival clan. "He wants to either win the war or, since that is an impossibility, pass it on to his successor."

Will the Congress deny him? That is the question posed by Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, who only weeks before had withdrawn support for his leader's war: "What this sets up is a classic war powers confrontation between the White House and the Congress. Clearly he has the power to commit troops; the question is whether the Congress has the convictions to deny funding." The senator admitted to having no such convictions: "It would be a dishonorable thing to budget away the bullets."

Better to spend them killing more of theirs and yours in an unworthy cause, for in that sleep of death what dreams may come, and, as the bard foretold, "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all." Ay, there's the rub.

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/46565/

Who in the world does he think is listening to him? Where is the plan? It is the same stuff over and over again, just said a little differently.

The Plan comes from Skull and Bones, the 322 freaks

Watch the movie The Good Shepherd in the theaters with Robert Di Niro. He gets into the freak society.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343737/

The Skull and Bones
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pUogbYkoHc
2. http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/dail...addam_hang.html

JFK warned American people about secret society psychopaths:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0JLe97fP5M

I was at a meeting and missed the speech, as well as all the talking heads afterward. What was the general consensus?

I suppose someone needs to keep track of these election stealing liars. But I will just have to take a pass. :dripple:

The only thing thing these Evil Clowns could do that would gain my approval and get me to watch is if Bush and Cheney came out in front of America together, apologized, admitted they were abysmal failures, and promptly resigned.

I stopped holding my breath awhile back, but I'm still waiting.... :santa:

There is no one to stop Bush.

The reports say he already has sent some of the new soldiers in, so they are already there

He is sending a new battleship to the IraN border

If you look near the end of the speech, he heavily insinuates looking into a draft, and the need for many nations to be cleaned up, after they are destroyed by US
bombs

And did I say there is no one to stop Bush?

Just because 299 million USA people don't want this, but 4 do, Bush is listening to the four.

And Bush believes he already has the power to do it, forget what the last election said.

And watch another phony "event" happen to rally the public.

I think this is scarier now than the Bay of Pigs, but back then, you did not have a psycho trying to become dictator and upsurp all power.

Did I say there is no one who can stop him unless they impeach him.

(And did you see our old nemesis Joe LIeberman has already endorsed backing Bush's plan 100 percent. And Hillary has said she will not stop the money(which now as Bush already has new troops, is basically a non-threat anyhow).

And no one could stop him.

Here are some points from Pres Bush's speech:

(1) If we don't surge troops by 21,500 , Bagdad will become extremely violent.
(2) Iran and Syria are aiding terrorists.
(3) Navy Carrier Group is heading towards Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group
(4) American people need to be resolved.
(5) 911 Triggered a mad man to attack us. If Iraq becomes terrorist nation, more mad men will attack.
(6) Joe Lieberman will bring non-partisionship to the Iraq strategy by forming a committee or group.
(7) President is responsible for the mistakes of the past.
(8) The reason plan did not work last year was because of Iran and Syria sent terrorist to Iraq.
(9) Iraq will become a democracy and will influence other countries in the region.
(10) He knows that American people are unhappy with situation and so is he.
(11) He has been talking to PM Malaki about this plan.
(12) This year will be bloody and violent, and he wants American people to sacrifice.

He had a blank stare and did not look confident in what he was saying.

It was the same ole same ole as usual.

I know all about Skull and Bones, just more of the Bush crime family's evilness. These are dangerous people, something I'd sensed the very first time I saw George W. Bush. I could see and feel evil when I looked at him and the very first time I heard him speak. I still to this day cannot understand how anyone could have voted for this man.

And we all know he didn't win either election, the were both rigged and stolen. Pure evil without a conscience. That would be a good name for a book about the Bush crime family.

Start with Bush41.

100 percent pure evil.

And the more it unravels, the far more dangerous everything becomes for anyone living in America.

Did you notice that he gave his speech in a library? I bet he needed a map or a sherpa guide to find the W.H. library (despite his summer vacation pronouncement that he'd "read three Shakespeares").

These days, I think of him as the Bubble Boy. He's like Hitler, getting the precise news he demands, keeping his reality just as he wants it, firing the generals and others who have a different (reality-based) world view. (I wonder what the American equivalent to suiciding in a Berlin bunker would be, when all your friends have seemingly cut and run?) How bad will things get before his head slams into the concrete pavement of reality?

There should be a special category in the DSM-IV (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on mental illness) for Bush. Some combination of megalomania, narcissism, ADHD, speech/ reading/ comprehension/ & other learning disorders, sadism, an entrenched delusional state, authoritarianism, Oedipal issues, and severe sociopathy (no conscience). Perhaps they'll name the constellation of symptoms after him. Or maybe John Dean has it exactly right in his book "Conservatives Without Conscience."

Now, how do we diagnose Joe Lieberman, who has become McCain's cheerleader for surging? :wtf:

Thank God the reaction to the speech (and the same old, same old horrible ideas) has been largely negative. It's so good to pick up a paper and see "Congress Pans Bush War Push" and "Crowds Take To Streets Over War". And some Repugs are doing the moonwalk away from Bush. And there's the full-page impeachment ad in the NY Times! We've got to hope that we'll get our country back before he destroys the world. Now all we need is for Our Hero to get very vocal very soon about this escalation and the Iran war rumblings, if only to stuff a sock in Joe Lieberman's face.

Maybe I shouldn't worry about this, but I'm concerned about how Lieberman's support of Bush and McCain's policies these days could come back to hurt Gore because of his past connection with him. :unsure:

Gore separated himself from Joe when he endorsed Dean way back when.

Al showed Joe what he thought of him, however, 2 points-

It was Al that gave Joe national attention in the first place, and because of that
Joe got his real first whiff of publicity, which he inhaled and loved

As such, it made him the bitter, backstabbing, nogood corrupt whiny man he is today

As such he is a real traitor to the democrats, and more powerful now than ever

(It is not inconcievable that he might be offered the republican VP by McCain
Stranger things have happened)

Then they take the bipartisan road to the white house

Will the talking heads bring up how Al enabled Joe to be where he is today power wise? The media hates Al mostly, and if you go on that assumption, look out, they
will use Joe against Al.

Matthew 26:34
Jesus said to him(Peter), "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.

American people are not stupid. Majority voted for Gore in 2000. It was close thanks to Bill Clinton. In 2008 McCain/Liberman (or Jeb Bush/Lieberman) will be beaten by double digits.

No one likes a traitor, and Joe is one of the worse. Gore tried to call Joe to let him know that he was endorsing Dean, but Joe would not take the call. He wanted something to belly-ache about. I truly believe that one of the reasons that Gore did not take Tennessee was because of Joe being on the ticket. He did not bring anything to the ticket as what Gore did for Clinton.

I'm of the opinion in this discussion that, if Gore runs, the media will play up the fact that Lieberman was Gore's choice for veep. I don't think it'll make much difference in the end, but they will try to use it as showing that Gore exercised poor judgment in his choice given the huge difference in the views of the two men now.

I do find it bothersome that Al picked him. At the time, I did not find him a particularly appealing personality but didn't find him a serious deficit to the ticket. He was outspoken in support of Israel, but I don't recall that he showed his colors as a rabid idealogical attack dog back then. Perhaps pre-9/11 he was able to keep his views under the radar. In hindsight, I say "Al, what were you thinking?" But, after all, we can also say "Republican Party, what were you thinking" for nominating bush, and "America, what were you thinking?" for voting for him, and "Sandra O'Connor, what were you thinking?" for handing him the presidency (she is the one Supreme who had been quoted as saying a Democratic administration was unacceptable, or something to that effect. She stayed on during the Clinton Admin to avoid Bill appointing her successor).

So Al did not portray the wisdom in selecting his running mate that Clinton did. Fine. I don't think that will be an albatross around his neck. One thing that somewhat defuses it is that those who would most seek a cudgel to use against Al would be in favor of Lieberman's views. Only the most idealogical leftist would let it be a dealbreaker - and, frankly, there aren't other Dem possibles with a stronger position against the war and bush's stupidity than Al, so they'll end up with NO candidate if they let Lieberman dissuade them from supporting Al.

I always figured Lieberman was selected because he could help deliver New York and Florida, with their big Jewish populations. Also, Lieberman was absolutely squeaky clean, something that was of prime importance at the time because of Clinton and Monicagate. But I think the decision to select Lieberman was based on politics and winning the election, not on who would be the best person in the position.

I hope, if Al runs in '08, that the decision will be based on other things.

BTW, good to see you back here, dbciii. :good:

thanks. life has been hectic the past few months. I check in and read, but rarely have time to post.

I spend a good deal of what time I do have available on my "faces" website. I have started doing more than just linking to the washington post site. Names get released by the DoD sometimes weeks before they show up there. I find the articles in hometown papers, sometimes pictures, and get them into my site as soon as I can. I don't know exactly why, but I just feel compelled. If somebody got killed three days ago and a family is going through the hell of learning that, I feel like it is news everyone should be aware of. All you hear on the TV is an occasional "three more yesterday" or some such. Well, the "three more" have names, faces, families, friends, stories. So I try to gather that information and get it posted. I can't attend all the funerals; this is my way of doing that.

Do you have much traffic on your site? It occurs to me that a way to publicize our efforts to get Draft Gore meetup organizers would be for you to put a link on your site referring people to AGO if they're interested. Of course, I fully understand if you don't want to politicize your site or if you feel it would be disrespectful to those you're honoring. On second thought, maybe it's not such a good idea. :blink:

yeah, your second thought is better.

here's one I just posted today:




Major Mundell


My Tribute Website

Hi again :!:

As to Gore's selection of Lieberman in 2000, so he made one mistake. Nobody is always right and never makes mistakes, not even Al Gore :huh:

At that time back in 2000, I don't know that anyone could have foreseen what direction Joe would go. If it hadn't been for a certain blue dress, Al Gore would have probably selected another VP. Also, if Lieberman became VP under President Gore then I doubt he would have done many of the things that make him so unacceptable today. If Gore was sworn in as President there would have never been a war in Iraq so that would not be an issue.

The right will try, but how can they succeed in attacking Al for picking someone they like. The far-left might try and say it shows Al Gore makes bad decisions, but that's a pretty weak argument when we look at the bigger picture.

I'd rather speculate on who he might pick in 2008 than wring my hands over a past decision that we can't change anyway. :spikey: