Whenever I hear President Bush tell another lie (or read that he has told another lie) I'm reminded of the Liar-in-Chief's former professor at the Harvard Business School, Yoshi Tsurumi, and his spot-on recollection of this president's punk past. According to Professor Tsurumi, Bush "showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I challenged him." [Mary Jacoby, "The Dunce," Salon.com, 16 September 2004]
Tsurumi concluded: "Behind his smile and his smirk...he was a very insecure, cunning and vengeful guy." "He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion." [Ibid] In conservative Lebanon, Pennsylvania, where I grew up during the 1950s and 1960s, such people were called "punks."
Perhaps, it's fair to say that the world would be a much better and safer place if America's mainstream news media had challenged Bush as much as Professor Tsurumi and his classmates did. Alas, it let the punk candidate slide during his first run for president, notwithstanding such smug and asinine assertions as: "I may not know where Kosovo is, but I know what I believe." Thus, alas, many Americans voted for an admitted alcoholic (and, allegedly, a former drug using) twit, who would come to believe that God spoke directly to him and wanted him to be president.
The mainstream news media also failed to challenge seriously the Bush administration's campaign of lies, which it employed to frighten witless Americans into supporting an unprovoked - and, thus, illegal, immoral -- invasion of Iraq. Specifically, the news media paid insufficient attention to an outrageous assertion by Bush that proved he was either a bald-faced liar or an extremely reckless ignoramus.
On September 7, 2002, President Bush asserted: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
Yet, not only was there no such report, but the report actually written by the IAEA in 1998 reached precisely the opposite conclusion: "Based on all credible information available to date...the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its programme goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." [MSNBC.com, 7 Sept. 2002]
And although a White House official subsequently admitted that the IAEA report did not say what Bush claimed, the spokesman's own dissembling shed further light on the dishonesty driving Bush's push for war: "What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report."[Ibid] Why this entire episode failed to send red flags of suspicion flying across our entire news media remains an open question.
Yet, worse was to come. On October 2, 2002, Bush lied when he told Congressional leaders: "None of us here today desire to see a military conflict." How do we know he lied? Because in March 2003, in the moments "before he gave his national address announcing that the war had just begun, a camera caught Bush pumping his fist as though instead of initiating a war he had kicked a winning field goal or hit a home run. 'Feels good,' he said." [Paul Waldman, Fraud, 2004, p.8] Once a punk, always a punk?
In December 2003, months after the Bush administration's reckless assertions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction proved to be false, ABC's Diane Sawyer pressed Bush about justifying a war to the American public by stating "as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he [Saddam] could move to acquire those weapons." Put on the spot, Bush resorted to his punk college ways by responding: "So what's the difference?"
Two months later, Bush weaseled again. When put on the spot by Tim Russert, of Meet the Press, Bush justified his illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq by asserting: "Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and so I'm not going [sic] leave him in power and trust a madman...He had the ability to make weapons, at the very minimum." Such a snotty and infantile excuse for sending thousands to their deaths should have persuaded even the most brain-dead of Bush supporters that he had wasted his vote on a reckless punk.
In late 2005, Bush told another lie, when attempting to justify his unconstitutional order permitting the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without obtaining the required court-approved warrants. Bush defended his directive as a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism, evidently forgetting that, in April 2004, he assured an audience in Buffalo, New York: "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
Bush lied again on December 14, 2005, when discussing what intelligence was available to Congress, when it voted to support his decision to invade Iraq. Bush lied when he asserted: "Some of the most irresponsible comments - about manipulated intelligence - have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein."
In fact, the Congressional Research Service (CSR) released a report the very next day that exposed his lie: "The President and a small number of presidentially designated cabinet-level officials, including the vice president ...have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive information, including intelligence sources and methods." In all, the report identified "nine key U.S. intelligence 'products' not generally shared with Congress."
And Bush lied again, on the eve of the November 2006 mid-term elections, when he said that he wanted Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to stay on until the end of his presidency. In fact, Bush already had commenced work on replacing Rumsfeld and knew he was lying when he said Rumsfeld would stay on. Bush even admitted to this deliberate deception.
Two days ago, Bush lied again. In a December 19, 2006, interview with the Washington Post , America's Liar-in-Chief was once again put on the spot. According to the Post, when he was asked to reconcile his "absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq assertion of October 25, 2006, with his new assertion, "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush "recast" his former assertion "as a prediction rather than an assessment."
Bush's Harvard classmates and Professor Tsurumi would have understood all too well: Once a punk, always a punk.
Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA).
"He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion."
It really doesn't take a MENSA member to realize this horrid truth about the Chimp In Chief. All one needs to do is look at him and listen to him for more than five minutes. It is painfully obvious from his time destroying oil businesses, to his time destroying the State of Texas to his time of destroying the rest of the US that he has never once had to face the "music" for his actions and inaction. Even now, I can envision him throwing his toys all over the floor and having a nanny or some other lackey of the Bush family picking them up with a smile on their face.
And, indeed, if nothing can save Bush from himself, the citizens of the United States have an obligation to remove him from office - impeach, convict, remove - before he does more damage to American and the world.
Yes, that is our obligation, no matter what Nancy Pelosi may think. This country can ill afford to keep this madman at the helm any longer. We have been embarrassed, disgraced, and been showered with guilt by association because of the cowardly actions and lies put forth by this punk.
Once a punk, always a punk? Oh yes. In DUBYA's case, truer words have never been spoken.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 2:00:36 AM
As ever Walt Uhler is pungently, and in this case, painfully, Truthful.
And I think it is important to remember that bush jr. was the beneficiary of an entire political party and massive establishment that said to America....and STILL SAYS.....He is fit to lead the country !
The Republican Party should be compelled to pay a huge price for having certified this JERK as being worthy of leading the American people TWICE.
Two times the Republican Party and the entire conservative establishment declared this ugly individual as a "Great Leader".
Either this entire Republican establishment was/is lying, or they are completely, dangerously CLUELESS.
Either way, the Republican Party and the conservative establishment must be recognized as Poison for America and the American People.
by
Jay Diamond (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 4:47:51 PM
Narcissism is a non treatable disease. A person with this disorder should never be in a position to declare or not to declare war. A narcissist makes all decisions from a self-serving point of view and is INCAPABLE of taking into consideration the cost of his actions. The reason the diagnosis for this disorder cannot be made until adolescence is because it is not evident until after the teen years. The teen years are the narcissistic part of social development; the period where we are selfishly breaking away from parental rules. Most teens usually see the error of their ways and develop into rational thinking, mature adults. The narcissist continues to live the life of an immature teen...a teen punk.
When narcissism results in the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives, "those who can" need to take action to have him de-throned. Bring on the impeachment! Bring it on!
by
Elkay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 4:23:41 AM
Dear Mr. Bully G.W.Bush, yes bubba its time. Me and he fellows and media also the ladies will devise a BULL DOZER BLADE to mow you and your coherts under. With in a free society we have those rights as long as we stay peace full and with in the laws of the land. Were not gonna take pride in forcing your evil manipulation of America to war to end.
We just simply won't rest until our work is complete. The truth is Georgie Boy your days of bulling, lying and manipulation will be done from behind prison bars or just end by your execution for war crimes. War criminals from World War Two are still hunted down and tried to this very day. And George here is comthing more you can truly believe and deserve were not lying to you and your coherts its a matter of time and now is the time. Oh, and have a nice day PUNK.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 1:05:35 PM
I'm very much familiar with bullies. My dad was a principal, who was hired in the late 50s to bring some discipline to a small town school in Oklahoma. My dad was also the shop teacher, so it was easy for him to make paddles. The bullies were often short statured kids who walked around with arms out, as if they were ready to fight.
The second kind of bully was the bigger kid who was plainly mean and used his extra weight and height to his advantage.
When my dad moved in, these kids thought they owned the school. I'm, personally not in favor of corporal punishment, but back in those does, ... it was expected.
My dad delt swiftly on these "tuff" guys. After the punishment, they figured the way to get even was to beat up the "Hill" kids.
My older brother was thin and wasn't prone to fight. He would give his lunch away to bullies, if they threatened him. My little brother was, well, small.
At that time in my life, I was a hefty teenager, with big time Irritable Bowel Syndrome problems. Still have it. What it means was that a trip to restroom was like having a baby. The difference was that my pain was 3 times a week, so, ... I was pretty much impervious to pain.
After about 4 personality adjustments, the bullies left my brothers alone. The meanest bully's last name could have been "Bush." Walk around with cigarettes rolled up in his James Dean t-shirt. I beat him up twice; once for giving me a hard time about belching. IBS + hyetal hernias go together. The other time was in Algebra class, when I was a 9th grader and he was a 10th grader.
Bully didn't think 9th graders should be in that class. In line to sharpen my pencils, he was behind me, when I found reasons do a pre-emptive erasure campaign. After splattering him up against the far wall, the teacher came in and we both got 5 licks.
Does the last kid remind me of Bush? Dead ringer. "I've got the best military, therefore I have a right to take out anyone that I want." As Scowcraft once told Bush, "It will be easy to take out Saddam; the hard thing will be what we do after it is over." Can you believe a plan to go in and no plans for the aftermath? Is Bush pathological.
My bully could care less how he treated those around him. If we could have moved him into the future, from the 50s to 50 years later, he would have been the kid who brought a gun or knife to class.
Asked about his sleep habits, Bush Jr. deflected the question from the bedroom to his day time life. Fact, Bush sleeps well, while his Army of minions are taking out anyone in Iraq who is in his way. And, ... what about Iran.
Will he go for it? Not if he is impeached.
by
Dale Hill (58 articles, 0 quicklinks, 102 diaries, 347 comments)
on Sunday, December 24, 2006 at 3:36:41 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
