Yep, it’s all a joke:
Minutes after the Iraq Study Group placed an improvised explosive device beneath the Bush administration’s Iraq policy yesterday, panel member Lawrence Eagleburger was asked how President Bush reacted to the recommendations.
“His reaction was, ‘Where’s my drink?’ ” the former secretary of state cracked after the commission’s White House visit and Capitol Hill news conference. Reaching for his own cola, Eagleburger continued: “He was a little loaded. It was early in the morning, too, you know.”
I wonder if the families of everyone who has died or been maimed or lost their homes in the Iraq disaster found that funny. But here’s the money quote from that article:
…The retired diplomat certainly did not mean that the president had fallen off the wagon. But if any event would call for a stiff one, this was it: A bipartisan group of elder statesmen — some of them friends of Bush’s father, no less — had just concluded that the Iraq war, the centerpiece of Bush’s presidency, was a disaster with no easy way out.
But not to worry. Bush won’t let a pesky little thing like reality interfere with his delusions:
President Bush yesterday argued against key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and insisted that victory was not only still possible, but crucial.
Bush, standing side by side with his staunchest ally in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, said the two countries must stand firm in the face of rising extremism in the Middle East, which he called an “unprecedented threat to civilization.”
Bush used the word “prevail” 11 times in the hour-long White House press conference in his first expansive remarks since the Iraq Study Group offered a devastating assessment Wednesday of US policy in Iraq.
“I believe we’ll prevail,” he said. “I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail . . . that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.”
Too bad the Decider couldn’t have understood the consequences of failure before he invaded Iraq. Too bad Poppy’s been bailing him out his whole life. We might not be where we are now. But hey, W’s used to failure…it’s what he knows best.
(lots of cleaning going on thanks to the Iraq Study Group) that I have to disagree with Booman’s opinion that W is the second worst president we have ever had. I remembered once again how the whole country united behind him after September 11 and considering the almost total support he had on September 12 and the depth of lies, deceit, and death that had to be dealt to the people before they would cough up all of that support during desperate times, this is the worst president we have ever had!
Yeah, I think he’s earned the top spot on the WPE list.
(ps, check your e-mail)
These two wars have always been a joke to those whose lives or the lives of their family members are not at risk.
‘Let’s party’- it’s going to be a cakewalk.
Imho, it seems common that for many, those less fortunate than themselves are virtually invisible.
For the administration, these ‘less fortunate’ are the American people at large. We are an abstraction & our personal sacrifices are unreal.
Who did Booman think was worse? I honestly can’t think of anyone in history who has destroyed the leading world power so thoroughly in 6 years at it’s helm, and I’m including Caligula and Nero (neither of whom did this much damage to the Roman Empire). Maybe Philip II of Spanish Armada fame? He fits all the criteria of hurting his empire militarily, economically and internally, but it took him alot longer than half a decade to do the non-armada damage.
Domestically, I don’t have a clue. Even completely worthless Presidents like Buchanon aren’t in Bush’s league for divisiveness, destruction and corruption (most of which will come out in time).
and Poppy is the enabler. Do we really have to keep paying the ultimate price for this dysfunctional family?
Whether Georgie boy is still sober, or not is not something I am unwilling to pass judgement on.
What I can tell you for a fact is this: any genuine active alcoholic/addict worth his or her salt, with a huge investment in hiding the fact he/she IS still using, can do so for a very long time. And the more enablers you have close in, the longer you can pull it off. Especially if your addiction includes the use of any number of prescription drugs as well, and you happen to be in a position to get whatever you need from a cooperative doc or otherwise have an insured supply as I once did as an RN. You just use uppers in the morning, downers when anxious, drink all you want when it’s safe, then paste yourself back together with the right combo of drugs so you can show up for work the next day and start the cycle all over again. Of course it can’t go on forever. But it got me through a few years of fooling most people into thinking I was solidly sober, when in reality I was one walking chemical reaction.
I guess the one thing we do know for sure is that W has more than enough enablers to allow him to do almost anything, as he has since birth.
Absolutely right about that investment, scribe. Now just imagine how that investment in appearing sober is compounded by a professional position that exists almost entirely in the form of theater — when the people of the world are your audience.
Just an aside: in what universe does the word ‘loaded’ not indicate falling off the wagon? We already know the guy’s got money.
In any case, the grand illusion is falling apart.
diplomat certainly did not mean that the president had fallen off the wagon.
Could this statement be true? Well, yes. Maybe the president was never ON the wagon.
My own view.
Though no, I do not credit the reporter with a proper sense of irony. 😉
I wondered what the hell else the reporter thought that could mean? That the Preznit was getting loaded on Diet Coke?
I meant I AM unwilling to pass judgement…
President Bush yesterday argued against key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and insisted that victory was not only still possible, but crucial.
One can only wonder exactly what constitues victory these days. Perhaps he really means a victory of public opinion, something that is proving increasingly evasive.
Frankly, even after the years of obfuscations/adjustments/semantics juggling & other adjustments to the mission’s stated purpose, the public at large still haven’t been given the full truth regarding precisely what BushCo is after in Iraq. Imo, Bush’s ‘victory’ refers to that secret mission; as usual, we’ve been led to believe it’s one thing (or six), when the base fact is likely something else entirely, something wholly abhorrent to the American psyche that simply can’t be fully exposed.
Something involving genocidal slavery, for example — the basic, unchanging wages of wholesale imperialism.
In fact, I’d be willing to bet that Bush’s own conception of ‘victory’ doesn’t engage the whole truth either, because I don’t believe truly he knows it. He’s just the bag boy, with an illusion of positive purpose that must be maintained. Pretty easy, since he’s basically a very stupid person (despite a shrewd self-interest that passes for intellect).
Bingo.
I have always believed that they invaded Iraq in order to set up permanent military bases from which to threaten and intimidate all the countries of the Middle East with the intention of controlling the production and distribution of oil. They are too wedded to the auto and energy industry to actually pursue alternative energy, and they know America will face increasing competition for oil from China and India, not to mention their fear of petro-euros vs petro-dollars. As supplies dwindle, he who controls the oil can call the shots and make a fortune. This all ties in with their denial of global warming and the constantly changing justifications for the war. They don’t really give a damn about 911, or Sadaam, or a nuclear Iraq/n, or freedom and democracy, or terrorism. Winning means establishing those bases in a country subdued enough to prevent inconvenient distraction from intimidating the entire region militarily, and the rest of the world economically.
Call me crazy, but this seemed evident to me even before the invasion.
Good luck convincing any other country to “help” us in Iraq unless Bush admits that this was a failed attempt to control the global energy supply, renounces that policy, blows up the bases, pulls out the troops, apologises, resigns, and falls on his sword.
Absolutely right on, imo.
My thoughts above refer to that national subjugation.
Wholesale Imperialism.
That’s it, wench. American military bases surrounded by ever larger “Iraqui-free” green zones.
The definition of a terrorist is expanding to include any man, woman or child in Iraq who isn’t of use to American economic interests.
I agree with you completely susanw, but I didn’t catch on quite as quickly as you did. When it was clear Bush/Cheney were dead set on invading Iraq, I couldn’t really see an underlying reason for their determination. Then I read the book “The Rise of the Vulcans” by James Mann. He shows that Wolfowitz began advocating for permanent US military bases in Iraq way back in the 1980’s because he saw the instability of the region rising and wanted to secure US “interests” in the area.
If we can figure this out, I’m sure most of the rest of the world can too. So, when talk begins about pulling out of Iraq, I don’t think anyone will take us seriously until it becomes clear that this means shutting down those bases. Haven’t heard a peep about that.
Right, NL. It’s all just more posturing, positioning bullshit until we hear a chorus of “What about the bases ?” from the press and our elected leaders.If we don’t confront this head on, we’re enabling back door imperialism.
“Where’s my drind,” ranks up there with “He’s looking for WMD [under desk],” and “I said ‘How’s your boy?’ ” They are some clueless assholes.
You would think that would be the last thing he’d be joking about, with the mess he’s created already.
Totally disconnected from reality, that one.