The "real" George story
- Thread starter oldironman
- Start date
- Status
Wildalaska
Moderator
Churchill used to greet visitors naked but for a cigar.
I'll bet he got very little news
Imagine president Spiff answering the door naked? Would you want to be the one to tell him Al MaryKayDa just nuked Poughkeepsie.
Thats what I call unapproachable.
WildascreamingcomesacrosstheskyAlaska
Bush war planning notes: Source me.
Remember his staff has to keep things simple to read.
1) Get American people hyped up over Osama Bin Laden. Then switch to attack plan on Saddam Hussein. Invent WMD as excuse.
2) After quick victory over regular Iraq troops, pull down statues and declare mission accomplished.
3) Continue to let American soldiers die to defend a country that should be defending itself.
4) Throw a large BBQ roast in Baghdad and invite all sides of waring religious factions. Have sing along around camp fire. "Deep in the heart of Texas", "Tennessee Waltz", "Yankee Doodle", etc.
5) Prepare to receive Nobel peace prize for bringing peace to middle east. Don't wear brown suit.
6) Get congress to pass special bill to allow extension of presidential term.
Remember his staff has to keep things simple to read.
1) Get American people hyped up over Osama Bin Laden. Then switch to attack plan on Saddam Hussein. Invent WMD as excuse.
2) After quick victory over regular Iraq troops, pull down statues and declare mission accomplished.
3) Continue to let American soldiers die to defend a country that should be defending itself.
4) Throw a large BBQ roast in Baghdad and invite all sides of waring religious factions. Have sing along around camp fire. "Deep in the heart of Texas", "Tennessee Waltz", "Yankee Doodle", etc.
5) Prepare to receive Nobel peace prize for bringing peace to middle east. Don't wear brown suit.
6) Get congress to pass special bill to allow extension of presidential term.
WA,
Also, as I mentioned above...LBJ. I bet it was pretty off-putting to have to discuss target tasking with a guy on the hopper in a 10 gallon hat.
If you were doing your "it puts the lotion on it's skin" dance in the middle of cabinet meetings....yeah, I'd have a problem with that.
I'd have a problem with it because, in all likelihood the economy would *not* be doing great and we would *not* be at peace....because nobody wants to tell the leader of the free world what's going on.
And I would have to ask....what's up with Alaska? Does he need Xanax?
GoSlashorelseitgetsthehoseagain27
Also, as I mentioned above...LBJ. I bet it was pretty off-putting to have to discuss target tasking with a guy on the hopper in a 10 gallon hat.
If you were doing your "it puts the lotion on it's skin" dance in the middle of cabinet meetings....yeah, I'd have a problem with that.
I'd have a problem with it because, in all likelihood the economy would *not* be doing great and we would *not* be at peace....because nobody wants to tell the leader of the free world what's going on.
And I would have to ask....what's up with Alaska? Does he need Xanax?
GoSlashorelseitgetsthehoseagain27
Acting like what? It "did NOT sound like twilight time for Mr. Bush." If objective, I think one would leave it at that.
We are all quite familiar with GW's personal mannersims, but few are qualified to interpret them. If one is kind and supportive, he might just see someone trying hard to do a good job. I would like to see the person whose every twitch would be considered flawless over many years of intense and often unfriendly scrutiny. This is not American Idol, where part of the game is to be mean and hateful.
I do think of Lincoln with others considered among the greats and GW Bush similarly, in that a President can help the US succeed in spite of itself. I believe it was always inspired leadership and included political or even personal controversy. I would consider Cheney as part of the GW Bush sense of mission. One would also have to be naive to think that Bush the elder had no influence, although I believe him when saying that he does not proactively participate.
GW may be somewhat a puppet, but what politician in high places is not to some extent? Being President is a Faustian arrangement, which doesn't even relax in the final years of a second and final term with no further ambitions. Even then, the President has a responsibility to help his party retain the office, while he or she makes every effort to ensure some noteworthy legacy of achievement. Any such achievement would have to be, by definition, good for the US, or history would mainly reject it. Some of those achievements are admired only in hindsight, with the principal regarded as larger than life. It's been said that you have to be dead to be famous.
Let me understand. I am a child of the 40's. So, are we mentioning Churchill's name when talking about bush? You mean Winston Churchill? The statesman that made some of the most brilliant speech's in modern history. The man that by use of words helped save his country......Bush & Churchill...now that is funny.
Hey didn't we have a recent President that used a cigar in a strange way? Maybe we should send Bush a box of good cigars.
Just to let you know this line is from the original post on this thread.
and this
I have no idea why. I'm citing the behavior itself and you're citing the author's opinion of the behavior. Are you trying to conflate the two?
This editorial does not contradict the account of the episode presented in the other articles cited. It confirms it.
The behavior is what I'm interested in discussing, not what these people happen to think about it.
targetshootr
New member
I wasn't referencing the article, just stating a fact. Long term use of alcohol shrinks the brain. Even after someone stops, the brain is left smaller. Of course a wisenheimer would say, "figures", but thankfully I'm not like that.
I suspect we will survive his eight years in office even though it'll probably take two generations to undo all the things he's screwed up, whether they were the result of a medical condition or flaws in his character.
aww...don't be like that 
Plenty of disagreement with me so far. Unlike the subject, I have no problem with dissent. All I ask is that you present your counter-argument in a rational, civil manner so we can discuss it like adults instead of fighting over it like children.
What I'd really like to discuss is what we do to protect our own interests in light of this possibility.
I'd really like to see the Republican party (and my 2nd Amdt rights) intact after all of this. We may not agree on much, but I think it's safe to assume that we at least share that goal...
Plenty of disagreement with me so far. Unlike the subject, I have no problem with dissent. All I ask is that you present your counter-argument in a rational, civil manner so we can discuss it like adults instead of fighting over it like children.
What I'd really like to discuss is what we do to protect our own interests in light of this possibility.
I'd really like to see the Republican party (and my 2nd Amdt rights) intact after all of this. We may not agree on much, but I think it's safe to assume that we at least share that goal...
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Yeah, but Cliff's Notes on tape don't count.
GC70,
Not a bad idea at that. The public might respond well to it. Then again...Cheney is the only guy I know of that has an even lower opinion rating than Dubya, so it might backfire also.
Plus, I'm sure Cheney prefers things just as they are, and honestly: how would we be able to persuade him otherwise?
(edit) nevertheless, I think having Republicans take Ol' Yeller behind the barn would be a fantastic damage-control move, particularly in comparison to letting the Dems do it. Not that I think they actually would...they're getting too many points from him with things as they are.
Not a bad idea at that. The public might respond well to it. Then again...Cheney is the only guy I know of that has an even lower opinion rating than Dubya, so it might backfire also.
Plus, I'm sure Cheney prefers things just as they are, and honestly: how would we be able to persuade him otherwise?
(edit) nevertheless, I think having Republicans take Ol' Yeller behind the barn would be a fantastic damage-control move, particularly in comparison to letting the Dems do it. Not that I think they actually would...they're getting too many points from him with things as they are.
This is a different thread. GoSlash27 started a thread that was closed for good reason. There is no all getting back on track, if it was never the premise, and few are signing on to it with any intellectual integrity. If some want to pee on the campfire and make it unbridled Bush bashing, it will just get closed again.
RG,
Agreed. The original premise (such as it was) wasn't "bashing", but (as GC put it) constructive thinking. We are presented with a potential (and I stress potential) political liability that we would be well-served to acknowledge and plan for. Neither Bush-bashing nor Bush-supporting is particularly helpful.
It would not suit our interests to pretend nothing's wrong, only to have the Dems sink our candidate with this during the general election.
It seems that things are pretty well on-track now.
Agreed. The original premise (such as it was) wasn't "bashing", but (as GC put it) constructive thinking. We are presented with a potential (and I stress potential) political liability that we would be well-served to acknowledge and plan for. Neither Bush-bashing nor Bush-supporting is particularly helpful.
It would not suit our interests to pretend nothing's wrong, only to have the Dems sink our candidate with this during the general election.
It seems that things are pretty well on-track now.
Last edited:
Those who want to make something of it beyond face value will do so because they WANT TO. Personally, I will wait for any further developments that indicate some genuine crisis that is any different than the usual Bush Derangement Syndrome, wherein the man can't do or say anything right...a total failure of objectivity in perception, the strongest sort of negative bias. Who exactly is the "crazy" one? Maybe not anyone in particular here, no ad hominem intended, but I think it is an important question.
Oh, absolutely. Like, say, the Dem campaign manager. The real question isn't how you or I perceive it, but how the electorate perceives it.
Will they readily dismiss all this as groundless Bush-bashing, or will they be influenced?
Think carefully; a wrong answer could have long-term repercussions none of us want.
The BDS approach...it might play well here, but I seriously doubt you'll have much success convincing the general public that they're crazy instead of him, nor would I suggest that you try.
- Status