Back on June 16, 2001 the "intellectually incurious" one had "Press Conference by President Bush and Russian Federation President Putin" at
in which big bro 43 said "I looked the man in the eye....We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue."
That doesn't seem what John Wayne would say. How many men has W looked into the souls of? Most married men wouldn't even want to admit that they spent hours gazing into their wife's eyes, let alone those of a man.
Forgetting about the squishy aspect of this, but the fool went on "There was no kind of diplomatic chit-chat, trying to throw each other off balance. There was a straightforward dialogue. And that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship. I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I didn't trust him."
Sounds like a submissive pose to me.
What is the press conference about? Doofus boy says "Terror in the hands of what we call rogue nations is a threat. I expressed my concern, and so did the President, very openly, about nations on his border and nations that can't stand America's freedoms developing the capacity to hold each of us hostage. And he agreed.
I brought up concerns about Iran. And I'm hesitant to put words in the President's mouth, but he said he's concerned, as well -- I think that accurately categorizes your position -- and we'll work together to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction."
What is W talking about today? The same topic-Iran, terrorism and WMD again, and W is being played. The article "Bush Says Putin Is 'Wily' About Future -- Russian Would Not Reveal Successor, President Says" at
states "Putin has become an increasingly vexing challenge for Bush. In recent days, Putin has signaled that after his constitutionally limited second term ends next year, he may become prime minister, effectively holding onto power and dashing hopes for any real transition. Putin also lectured two Bush Cabinet secretaries about U.S. missile defense plans, then headed for Iran, where he offered support for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his struggle with Bush over Tehran's nuclear program....
But Putin did not sound as if he agreed on Iran during his visit. Bush forecast doomsday if Tehran builds nuclear weapons. "We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he said. "So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from [having] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Why is our unstable leader of the free world ranting about WW3? It sounds like the same hypocrisy as WMD doesn't it? Maybe he has that confused as well as Iran and Iraq.
The article "Bush Says He Is Relevant" at
that big bro 43 "weakened by record-low poll ratings, asserted he is still politically relevant and scolded the Democratic-led Congress on Wednesday for having "little to show for all the time that has gone by."
He'll ruin the country's chance of being governed by people who don't say things such as the "leader of the free world doesn't do nuance", but try to cooperate. For the GOP there is no cooperation only bullying to get their way and attack those who stand in their way. W blames it all on the Democrats and in the process sounds just like a person who is stuck in the arrested development of a three year old as "I think it is their fault that bills aren't moving."
W tried to project his vile thoughts onto Democrats during this press conference and on "Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Oct. 17" at
MATTHEWS asks Senator Boxer: Senator, I guess I'm confused, and I guess we're all meant to be. The president said he could look deep into the soul of Vladimir Putin and he saw a good man, and now he's talking about World War 3. I mean, these are 180-degree different estimates of the situation.
BOXER: Well, I hate to say it and I'm just trying to be careful of my words, but the president just doesn't seem to be in command of the facts or what he's trying to say. I don't think he understands that his words, you know, have to be measured. And it's quite unfortunate.
I don't see a strategy other than, you know, we talk about scaring people and holding out the prospect of war. And you would think if he had, you know, good fortune with the war that he brought us on false pretenses, he'd be chastened by it. It seems like he's, you know, revving up again, and it worries me very much. I don't find it particularly stable. I mean, I'm just-I'm very concerned.
MATTHEWS: You think he's unstable?
BOXER: I didn't say that. I think that his speaking-what he said doesn't give you the sense that he has a focus or a strategy. It seems he's always talking about war instead of some way to explain that there are things we can do in this world.... When it comes to Iran, there is a process going forward at the United Nations.
David alluded to it. The fact is that the IAEA is going to come in and going to recommend to us whether we should move forward with U.N. sanctions. It will go to the Security Council. We do have a path that is laid out with the IAEA working with the United Nations and through the United Nations.
So I think a Democratic leader would learn from the mistakes that were made with Iraq and keep the world together. Nobody wants to see any kind of future wars. They want to see a way out. So I think what we would do in Iraq is do what Joe Biden has done, come forward with a plan, a vision of how we're going to get to the end game here, how we're going to see that the Iraqis can live together.
And he's come forward with a proposal that I strongly support. It's a diplomatic solution.
Same way with Iran. We have sanctions. If they don't act right, we ratchet them up. We isolate them. And you don't talk about war. War is a last resort.
And I was talking to some people in the Pentagon who have told me, Chris, that if there's a war with Iran and somehow we manage to get into that situation with this president-and God, we hope not-it would reverberate for-and I'm quoting, generations on Americans, as far as having increased terrorism here, jihad and all the rest of it. That is the last thing any president should have in the front of his mind."
Matthews "You think he's unstable?" sounds like an attempt by him to rattle Senator Boxer who didn't fold.
What about the debate over the fate of the State Children's Health Insurance Program? Just as with the Petraeus report, the GOP glommed onto some real fact expressed inarticulately and demonized the Democrats. Petraeus did betray us and why does big bro 43 continue sending troops to die in the Iraq urban asymmetrical hellhole, if he doesn't enjoy the policy? Every poll in the US shows him that we are all against his staying the course surge, so if he is rational and not emotionally ill, he realizes no one wants him to continue, yet he does. Why? He must have an idea that the GOP benefits from "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Face it-the GOP politicians talked about their aversion to the surge, but when push came to shove in their votes supported allowing our soldiers to die. What was their motivation?
So the Democrats played by rules that the GOP never exhibit until one of them became so enraged that he let go. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) grumbled at Republicans. "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
Other than the last 2 words what he said was spot on. It is hard to determine anyone's motivation for their actions, but unless they are emotionally ill people do what they enjoy!
W's phrases : "Bring em on." "Everlasting Crusade" "Capture him dead or alive" are just as damaging as "get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
The GOP is into demonizing their opponents as the article "SCHIP: GOP unleashes flying monkeys, Reid intercepts memo" at
states "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) got one piece of e-mail he wasn't expecting last week. The e-mail came from a "Senate Republican leadership aide" and indicated that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was "intently tracking the smear campaign" on the Frost family after their 12 year old son Graeme gave the Democrat's weekly radio address.
"This is a perverse distraction from the issue at hand," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, D-Nev. "Instead of debating the merits of providing health care to children, some in GOP leadership and their right-wing friends would
rather attack a 12-year-old boy and his sister who were in a horrific car accident."
Manley cited an e-mail sent to reporters by a Senate Republican leadership aide, summing up recent blog traffic about the boy's family. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declined to comment on Manley's charge that GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about Frosts."
It appears that the Republicans backed off after the malicious nature of their efforts was revealed. "Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off. An aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts."
This doesn't prove that McConnell's office was about to issue a public statement, but it certainly does infer that one might have been in the works.
Far from being the "welfare queens" as the Republicans have tried to characterize them, the Frosts did not choose not to have medical insurance. Mrs. Frost's job doesn't provide it and, "In a telephone interview, the Frosts said they had recently been rejected by three private insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions. "We stood up in the first place because S-chip really helped our family and we wanted to help other families," Mrs. Frost said." In short, the Frosts are who they say they are; a middle income family with too much income to qualify for Medicare to provide for their severely injured children, and too little to personally pay for the required medical help they needed. Just what SCHIP was intended to do."...
This is but the latest in a long history of the politics of personal destruction, practiced with fervor by the Republicans, and those who support their policies. Whatever the rationale for this behavior, it is perilously close to the "Two Minute Hate," in which the opponent must be demonized and the regime followers must devolve into a chanting mob, their sense of individuality replaced by a vicious notion of tribal bonding."
When an article can describe a party as doing the Orwellian "Two Minute Hate" that party-in this case the GOP has lost its way!
So Stark spoke out vehemently about SCHIP and Boxer about W's instability regarding Iran and WW3, but what are other Democrats doing?
They are supposed to be standing up for the rights of all US citizens, their constituents. They appear to be letting W's illegal NSA eavesdropping on US citizens to continue, with some checks, but not enough. How can they immunize the telecommunication companies from being placed in legal jeopardy without even knowing what alleged crimes they have committed.
W has telecommunication companies committing crimes. Verison admits to their crimes, but what of the other telecommunication companies who are all "Rangers"
W looked into Putin's eyes and saw nothing, a copy of W's amorality. In all sports the coach's personality soon becomes the team's as well. The GOP has been supporting W's policies. They are as twisted as big bro 43.