Great Moments In Bootlicking

Leave it to Captain Ed to raise Bush sycophancy to unprecedented heights. Following the admission by Bush in an ABC interview that he was “unprepared for war,” Ed says the following:

“Unprepared for war”? That admission won’t help him in the final weeks. I think it’s also inaccurate. The Bush administration was prepared for war in Iraq, but they were not prepared for the occupation that followed. If he’s referring to 9/11, he was just as prepared for that as the Clinton administration, and for the same reasons. No one wanted to believe we were already at war with Islamist terrorists — and some people refuse to believe it even today. John Edwards called the war on terror a “bumper sticker”, and unfortunately he’s hardly alone.

And, with Captain Ed defending Bush even when Bush will not defend himself, you have the the last eight years of the disintegrating credibility of movement Republicanism in a nutshell. A little bit of war triumphalism, a shot at the Clenis and a dig at “teh left,” and the repeated knowing refrain that only a few people really get it (Ed included) and truly understand the nature of the “threat” we all face. All of that in one paragraph, which is truly an impressive feat.

If wankery had an award, this post from Ed would deserve the equivalent of the Pulitzer.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

87 replies
  1. 1
    erlking says:

    My god, he even references the "missing Ws" lie from the Clenis-to-Shrub handover. The bullshit is strong with this one.

  2. 2
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    Bush and his gang were not so much prepared for war as priapic for it.

    By claiming he wasn’t prepared, Bush is whitewashing his failure. And Special Ed is a doofus.

  3. 3
    cleek says:

    John Edwards called the war on terror a “bumper sticker”

    context has a liberal bias.

  4. 4
    Keith says:

    Ed would deserve the equivalent of the Pulitzer.

    Jeez, now I’m gonna spend all day trying to come up with an award for pundit wankery that isn’t already taken by Sully. Maybe the Kristol Egg? The Hewitt Rose Monocle? The Redstate $25,000 grant? The RandomThinkTank Medal for Peace and/or Freedom?

  5. 5
    That One - Cain says:

    @Xecky Gilchrist:

    priapic

    I learned a new word today.

    cain

  6. 6
    KCinDC says:

    I think there are several awards for wankery — just to start. Atrios’s Wanker of the Day, the Poor Man’s Golden Winger, and Kevin Drum’s Golden Wingnut. True, none has yet reached the recognition level of the Pulitzer, but give them a few decades.

  7. 7
    That One - Cain says:

    @Keith:

    Jeez, now I’m gonna spend all day trying to come up with an award for pundit wankery that isn’t already taken by Sully. Maybe the Kristol Egg? The Hewitt Rose Monocle? The Redstate $25,000 grant? The RandomThinkTank Medal for Peace and/or Freedom?

    Spewitt Award

    cain

  8. 8
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Ah, the "war" word. How it rolls trippingly off of wingnut tongues. It must be a bitter disappointment to the wingers that Bush never got around to authorizing a medal for masturbating to "Red Dawn" – that being as close to military service as most of them ever get. Using armies and air forces to deal with terrorists is just about as sensible as using a battleship to deal with bank robbers and street gangs.

  9. 9
    Zifnab says:

    No one wanted to believe we were already at war with Islamist terrorists Oceania — and some people refuse to believe it even today.

    /First to make 1984 reference!

    When will people learn! We’ve been at war with Islamic Terror since 1979 when Iran overran our embassies and used the jump gate within to launch thousands of Islamic Terrorist Radicals on to the streets of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. But the Carter / Clinton surrender-nistas refused to admit it. And now one of them has infiltrated the land’s highest office!

    Only one thing to do now, folks. WOLVERINES!

  10. 10
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    @Zifnab:
    Yes, but I was the first to make a "Red Dawn" reference.

  11. 11
    The Moar You Know says:

    He’s not defending Bush. He’s defending his world, for if Iraq was really truly a mistake and even Preznit 20% admits it, Ed has no reason left to get up in the morning and might as well die in his bed.

  12. 12
    KCinDC says:

    Zifnab, you’re off by centuries. How can you forget the Crusades?

  13. 13
    blogenfreude says:

    Name for the award? Easy. The Putz.

  14. 14
    cleek says:

    didn’t B.J. have the golden dildo (or something similar) award ?

    i remember a post with picture of a giant dildo here that had eventually to be hidden under the fold…

  15. 15
    Michael D. says:

    Laura must have been hitting the sauce in anticipation of the interview:

    As they prepare to say goodbye to the White House, the first lady said she thinks the country is thankful for her husband’s leadership.

    “I think they think he’s somebody that kept them safe for eight years,” she said. “And I hear that all the time, people thanking me, telling me to thank him.”

    No newspapers, TVs and Internets in the White House, apparently.

  16. 16
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    @Michael D.:
    Thank you, President Bush, for saving us from the twin nightmares of peace and solvency.

  17. 17
    Rick Taylor says:

    The Bush administration was prepared for war in Iraq, but they were not prepared for the occupation that followed.

    *beats head on desk* After all, who could possibly have predicted that after we overthrew the government, the interests they had represented would form an insurrection and there’d be civil war and a prolonged occupation? It was utterly unforeseeable.

    If he’s referring to 9/11, he was just as prepared for that as the Clinton administration, and for the same reasons.

    Oddly enough, the Clinton administration successfully thwarted the terrorist attack on its watch.

    No one wanted to believe we were already at war with Islamist terrorists — and some people refuse to believe it even today.

    Utterly delusional. John, wasn’t this someone you once considered one of the more rational conservatives?

  18. 18
    Zifnab says:

    @Dennis – SGMM: :-p Fair enough.

    @KCinDC: NOBODY RECOLLECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

    @cleek: You know, if anyone had an award for political fellatio, you’d think it would be a site with the initials BJ.

  19. 19
    demimondian says:

    @Keith: If wankery had an award, wouldn’t it need to be the Putzer?

  20. 20
    Rick Taylor says:

    On the other hand, I do have more respect for conservatives who continue to defend Bush than I do for the ones who are throwing him overboard, yet refusing to admit this discredits the conservatives who supported him and everything they stood for, and look for other similar icons to replace him like Palin.

  21. 21
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Wow, even Cap’n Ed’s commentariat is kinda lukewarm about joining him on the Lickspittle Express. He even gets that "Ws pried off the keyboards" bullshit shot down in the second comment.

    Of course, there are some who are right there with him–it’s Hot Air, after all–but they seem to be coming to the startling realization that Bush has actually been kinda lousy. Hence the effort to redefine him as "quasi-liberal."

    Oh, I do like the fact that one commenter finally admitted that "compassioante conservatism" is an oxymoron.

  22. 22
    jrg says:

    Even if the term "war on terror" actually meant something (it does not), we would still be better off if the people running the war were not the types that piss themselves over two men holding hands, or important people with foreign-sounding names.

    In fact, the only reason Bush chose the term "war on terror" is because it’s so general it can refer to a "war on anything I can convince uneducated rednecks to be afraid of". Otherwise the term would be "war on al qaeda", but that term is not general enough to encompass wars for oil and politicized terror alerts.

    In other words, if Special Ed wants to be supportive of the "war on terror", he should be more critical of terrorism accusations (like nonsense leveled against presidential candidates, for example). But, Ed is a conservative, so requesting common sense or prioritizing actual terrorist threats is far too much to ask.

    It takes a special kind of stupid to support a movement that believes that Obama is a terrorist based on his middle name, then come out and complain that the "war on terror" has lost it’s meaning. What a mook.

  23. 23
    Comrade Stuck says:

    He’s not defending Bush. He’s defending his world, for if Iraq was really truly a mistake and even Preznit 20% admits it, Ed has no reason left to get up in the morning and might as well die in his bed.

    I think we should thank Dear George of the 20 Percent. His words offer further distillation of Prime Wingnuttery to an even more pure essence. Maybe even down to 4 or 5 percent, which is about the exact number of rightwing blogoshpereites. They should praise liberals for advancing the notion of preserving endangered species. But nay.

  24. 24
    Rick Taylor says:

    Of course, there are some who are right there with him—it’s Hot Air, after all—but they seem to be coming to the startling realization that Bush has actually been kinda lousy. Hence the effort to redefine him as "quasi-liberal."

    I have more respect for someone who’s consistent and still defends Bush than I do for someone who’s trying to throw him overboard now that his popularity has bottomed out, while trying to pretend this doesn’t at all discredit the conservatives who supported him or the conservative world view he served.

  25. 25
    Nim, ham hock of liberty says:

    As long as you somewhat arbitrarily separate the "war" from the "occupation," I can almost agree with Mr. Ed. Beating up the Iraq army wasn’t much of a chore, but of course, that army never posed a threat to us in the first place.

    Admitting that the W administration didn’t have a clue what to do with the country once they broke it is more damning than praising, imo. It wasn’t really that hard to see that Humpty Dumpty wasn’t going to put himself back together in a new and improved, western-secular-democracy state.

    I can mangle some other metaphors if that would help.

  26. 26
    Mentis Fugit says:

    I propose "The Pull It, Sir! Prize"

  27. 27
    srv says:

    Calculated Risk’s coblogger Tanta, RIP:

    http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.....-away.html

  28. 28
    sparky says:

    @Nim, ham hock of liberty: i often enjoy stating that acts have no consequences. indeed, the more frequently i state that i make my own reality, the more watertight each of my conceptual boxes become!

    because failure is not an option victory can never be defeated. also.

  29. 29
    sparky says:

    @srv: thanks for posting that–it’s really a shame. Krugman also had a good post about her death. it was awfully decent of her to spend her last months wittily pointing out for our benefit that the financial emperors had no clothes.

  30. 30

    Calculated Risk’s coblogger Tanta, RIP:

    Time to kick Death in the junk, with steel-toed bunny slippers.

  31. 31
    El Cid says:

    No one could have anticipated that occupying a country would require an occupation.

  32. 32
  33. 33
    Ripley says:

    Malkin is a harsh Mistress but she pays well.

    What, he’s gonna give up that sweet, sweet gig?

  34. 34
    Not My Fault says:

    My god, he even references the "missing Ws" lie from the Clenis-to-Shrub handover. The bullshit is strong with this one.

    A careful reading of the "debunking" leaves me with the strong impression that some minor vandalism DID occur. (Including specifically the intentional removal or defacement of at least one W key by at least one Clinton staffer) But that the level of vandalism can accurately be characterized as "a few pranks" and that it is entirely in line with what happened in Bush I to Clinton, or even Reagan to Bush I.

    The thing that set the Clinton to Bush II transition apart was that instead of muttering "assholes" under their breath and getting to work like all the presidents before them, the Bush II team spent a couple of $100K investigating a couple of $1k of damage. (and then when the investigation couldn’t turn up anything more than a few pranks, they made a big thing about how they were being big about the whole thing and just moving on)

    I can’t find _any_ story that said the whole W thing never happened, just stories (rightly) saying that it was blown WAY out of proportion.

  35. 35
    Dave says:

    Ed is defending the war because everything the GOP has become derives from the war. Surveillance state, military adventurism, rendition, the imperial presidency, a benighted energy policy…it all derives from going into Iraq. Deny the war, and Ed would have to deny the very things he believes in.

  36. 36
    Dave says:

    @Ripley:

    And all it costs is your soul. A small price to pay…even smaller for Malkin, since she doesn’t have one.

  37. 37
    Stooleo says:

    Been a while since I’ve read comments over at Hot Air, makes my brain hurt. This one is a beaut .

    History will treat him better then we have…
    I think people will look back and see what a daunting task he had, and that he steadfastly held to the belief that a nation can be free from tyranny…what will be argued is “at what cost?”

  38. 38
    grendelkhan says:

    If wankery had an award, this post from Ed would deserve the equivalent of the Pulitzer.

    That would be The Coveted Palme D’Hair.

    (The award for metaphorically fellating the President is "The Fluffy"; the above is for all-’round wankery. Also featured were "The Purple Teardrop with Clutched Pearls cluster" and "The Soggy Biscuit Award".)

  39. 39
    Dave S. says:

    From the post title I expected a link to Powerline…

  40. 40
    The Moar You Know says:

    @srv: Thanks for posting this, although it is news I really did not want to hear. She was one of the best.

  41. 41
    Punchy says:

    John Edwards called the war on terror a “bumper sticker”

    He was specifically referring to the oft-repeated favorite righty phrase, IIRC, not the actual ideological battle, no? Damn these guys are fucking retarded.

  42. 42
    Rosali says:

    I thought Bush said the Iraq war was a success. A catastrophic success, but a success nonetheless.

  43. 43
    MNPundit says:

    Remember when Cole thought Captain Ed was mostly sensible?

  44. 44
    JL says:

    Why is John still linking to that crap?

  45. 45
    Andrew says:

    What will Bush do with his free time after January 20? He plans to write his memoirs, get back to a private life, and work on policy.

    Policy? Bush is going to work on policy?

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    Cap’n Ed has moved well beyond wingnuttery, all of the way into Hinderaker-land.

  46. 46
    JR says:

    Another hit, Mr. Cole.

    You are on a roll — I’d like to add further opprobrium to the Special Ed wonderpiece, but really you laid it out too well.

    I’ll just laugh and link, thanks.

  47. 47
    JL says:

    John is linking to HotAir, Sarah is campaigning in my state, the stock market is down 680 points and I’m celebrating the anniversary of the bloody mary.

  48. 48
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    I love it. He’s sorry the president who made a habit of referring to the other party as the "Democrat Party" wasn’t able to elevate the tone in Washington.

    Oh, and by the way, Ed…EVERY administration makes a point of meeting with the incoming administration and sharing information necessary for the transition. Idiot.

  49. 49
    Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan says:

    "Great Moments In Bootlicking"

    That’s unfair. Felching is a much better descriptor of what Ed is doing here.

  50. 50
    alphie says:

    All right wing blogs have second bananas like Special Ed to shovel crap like this so their masters(allahpundit) can stay above it.

    Hate the game, not the playa.

  51. 51
    Tymannosourus says:

    @Michael D.

    Laura must have been hitting the sauce in anticipation of the interview:

    “And I hear that all the time, people thanking me, telling me to thank him.”

    This doesn’t quite rise to a level of let-them-eat-cakiness, but it will do for now.

  52. 52

    This post reminds me of how much I look forward to your review of the Bacevich book.

    Ed is actually right about one thing:

    If he’s referring to 9/11, he was just as prepared for that as the Clinton administration, and for the same reasons.

    Unfortunately, as Bacevich notes in the introduction to his book, the DOD is more prepared to defend Seoul and Riyadh than it is to defend Manhattan. What Ed fails to note is that although the attacks may not have been avoided we did indeed have many signals that something was afoot. I don’t know if any administration would have avoided the 9/11 attacks but I am convinced that this administration could have received a high level briefing from OBL himself and still missed it. They were so blinded by their mission to cut taxes and take out Saddam nothing was going to get in their way. Willful ignorance or criminal negligence? You decide.

  53. 53
    Joshua Norton says:

    Following the admission by Bush in an ABC interview that he was "unprepared for war,"

    He was unprepared for the whole damned presidency.

    George, all those papers on your desk that you ignored? Those memos? The reason they got on your desk was to let you know things like this could happen. So that when stuff like this did happen, you wouldn’t flop around like a clueless fish, but would instead be able to, oh I don’t know, perhaps DO SOMETHING EFFECTIVE.

    The Audacity of Dope.

  54. 54
    p.a. says:

    He’s not defending Bush. He’s defending his world, for if Iraq was really truly a mistake and even Preznit 20% admits it, Ed has no reason left to get up in the morning and might as well die in his bed.

    Among my many faults, being unable to own up to mistakes isn’t one- I have friends, family who have seen to that. But my screw ups haven’t been on the order of publically encouraging and applauding homicidal stupidity to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead. Don’t know if I wouldn’t fall into ridiculous rationalizations either. I’d like to think I wouldn’t, and I hope I’m never in that position. But I don’t know for sure.

  55. 55
    Joshua Norton says:

    "And I hear that all the time, people thanking me, telling me to thank him."

    But then she takes her pills and the voices go away.

  56. 56
    Zifnab says:

    Unfortunately, as Bacevich notes in the introduction to his book, the DOD is more prepared to defend Seoul and Riyadh than it is to defend Manhattan.

    That’s not entirely in error, either. Manhattan isn’t exactly within spitting distance of a demilitarized zone or enemy nation.

    Still, I would definitely argue that the Bush Administration failed to even approach the readiness of the Clinton Administration if only because Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft were running the country. They did not have the proverbial "skills to pay the bills".

  57. 57
    Josh Hueco says:

    @Keith:

    Jeez, now I’m gonna spend all day trying to come up with an award for pundit wankery that isn’t already taken by Sully. Maybe the Kristol Egg? The Hewitt Rose Monocle? The Redstate $25,000 grant? The RandomThinkTank Medal for Peace and/or Freedom?

    How about The Chalice of Santorum?

  58. 58
    David Hunt says:

    "And I hear that all the time, people thanking me, telling me to thank him."

    I can actually believe this. Virtually everyone in the Administration only makes appearances at carefully staged events that are populated with vetted audiences. Protesters and harsh questions are kept far away from them. I would not be the least bit surprised if the people who actually get to talk to Laura Bush are saying things like that to her.

  59. 59
    That One - Cain says:

    Holy shit! A breathtaking screenshot of Obama made up to look like some kind of muslim anti-christ in an ad for some conservative radio show. Maybe someone should mention that this is not how you treat the next commander in chief during two wars. (their rules, not ours..)

    It’s pretty disgusting

    cain

    h/t Sully and Digby

  60. 60
    srv says:

    @Zifnab:

    That’s not entirely in error, either. Manhattan isn’t exactly within spitting distance of a demilitarized zone or enemy nation.

    Then it should be called the Dept. of Other Peoples Defense.

  61. 61
    John PM says:

    Using armies and air forces to deal with terrorists is just about as sensible as using a battleship to deal with bank robbers and street gangs.

    Please do not give the FBI/DHS any ideas. I do not want to see the Navy patrolling the Chicago River looking for potheads.

    As an aside, the Chicago Tribune has a story today about the Pentagon almost being finished with its plans to station 20,000 troops in the United States to assist with "disaster relief," despite what "some critics" say is a violation of the posse commitatus act. Good to see the MSM is only a month or so behind Balloon Juice.

    As a second aside, the Tribune also ran a full-page advertisement from the We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc., with an open letter to Barack Obama asking if he is a natural born citizen of the U.S. It refers to the Philip Berg lawsuit as a basis for asking the question. They do not appear to be full wingnut, as evidenced by their support of Ron Paul and their opposition to the USA PATRIOT ACT and the War Powers Act. However, it appears they are merely recycling the rumors that were discussed ad nasuem on Balloon Juice prior to the election. My question is why would the Tribune accept such an ad? I though newspapers had to have some kind of standard for advertising (e.g., based in fact).

  62. 62
    Dyzo Bandit says:

    Call it the Putzer Prize.

  63. 63
    Aaron says:

    read the comments on the hotair article. What a pity party. Poor bush. attacked by all those people with BDS.
    As if it was someone else who was responsible for lying us into Iraq.
    And of course Bush’s failure to do anything about 9/11 just doesnt count.

  64. 64
    Laura W says:

    John, after the Bacevich book, can we count on your review of Joe the Plumber’s book?
    Should we start a petition to get you on Maher or Maddow? You got tee vee appearances by your Nates and Sullys and Joans and that guy just now from Open Left, was it? (I was cooking. Er, heating food.)

    Why does Tweety continue to refer to BO as "Barack"? Does he think they are now BFF? I suspect it’s because it keeps him from calling him "Osama" on air again. After Jan 20, will he call W "George"? Sure hope so.

  65. 65
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    One of the commentors at Hot Air threw this into the list of horrible, horrible things that the Obammunist Manifesto will bring us:

    "Dems will now give DC a seat in congress"

    Can somebody explain to me why wingnuts hate the idea of DC residents getting representation for their taxation? I mean, I know they don’t want it because DC is overwhelmingly Democratic, but do they even pretend to have a rationale beyond that? I’ve never understood it.

  66. 66
    The Moar You Know says:

    Can somebody explain to me why wingnuts hate the idea of DC residents getting representation for their taxation?

    @Bubblegum Tate: DC is very, very black – about 80% of the residents are African-American if I remember right.

    At any rate, the GOP is not down with the brown, especially when the brown votes. That’s why.

  67. 67
    Tsulagi says:

    Leave it to Captain Ed to raise Bush sycophancy to unprecedented heights.

    Hey, it’s hard out there for a Bush pimp. Nobody’s buying.

  68. 68
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    At any rate, the GOP is not down with the brown, especially when the brown votes. That’s why.

    Well, yeah, but they can’t just come out and say, "We don’t want you swarthy types to be voting." They have to come up with some other rationale–one that at least pretends to be principled. I just don’t know what that rationale is (besides bullshit, I mean).

  69. 69
    DougJ says:

    Off topic, but this from Taibbi is brilliant:

    By 2004, that once-cherished ideal of political freedom and self-governance that millions of young men and women gave their lives to protect as recently as WWII had been reduced to the level of absurdist comedy. You had a millionaire Yalie in an army jacket taking on a millionaire Yalie in a cowboy hat, fighting tooth and nail for the right to be named the man "middle America most wants to have a beer with" by a gang of Ivy League journalists — a group of people whose closest previous exposure to "middle America" was typically either an episode of Cops or a Von Dutch trucker hat they’d bought for $23 at Urban Outfitters.

  70. 70
    Joshua Norton says:

    I just don’t know what that rationale is

    It’s from the "District Clause" of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, which states:

    [The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.

    In 1801, with the passage of the Organic Act, the Congress assumed the powers described in the District Clause. Since the District of Columbia was not part of any state, the District’s residents could not vote in Congressional elections. As a result, District residents have not had full representation in either House of the Congress.

    Even if the Dems got them a voting seat in the House, they still wouldn’t have representation in the Senate.

  71. 71
    anon says:

    If wankery had an award, this post from Ed would deserve the equivalent of the Pulitzer.

    would that be the putz-iler?

  72. 72
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @Joshua Norton:

    Thanks for that.

  73. 73
  74. 74

    I sure am glad John takes care of keeping an eye on this bunch. I linked a right loon for being a loon and making sure no one thought I was making it up. It back linked to his nut house, I got visitors. Attanut is reasonable in comparison.

  75. 75
    Rosali says:

    Will you have a Year in Review ceremony for the Golden McPenis awards?

  76. 76
    JR says:

    I happen to agree with Ed on that one. Is it really so hard to believe? Bush has been wrong about everything else. Isn’t it possible he’d be wrong about what he’s been wrong about too? Bush won the war and lost the peace, because he and his advisors couldn’t tell the difference between the two, assuming they were aware of the difference at all.

  77. 77
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Calculated Risk’s coblogger Tanta, RIP:

    I saw that earlier over at CR, it’s absolutely depressing to see someone so young pass away. Her wit and wisdom was priceless and she loved what she did. CR always tends to be dry in his wit and analysis, Tanta was anything but.

    She gave us the Mortgage Pig via Excel art, along with many other bits of financial wit combined with her wisdom. She will be dearly missed.

  78. 78
    Jennifer says:

    I’m gonna toot my own horn here and just point out that I was the one who invented The Clenis™ way back in late 2002. That was back in the day when I posted over at the big Blue baby’s website.

    It’s true, dudes. You can look it up in the Corrente dictionary.

  79. 79
    TenguPhule says:

    If wankery had an award, this post from Ed would deserve the equivalent of the Pulitzer.

    I thought it did, BJ’s own Golden Penis award.

  80. 80
    David says:

    I remember one of the first things Bush did was raise the limit of Arsenic in drinking water.

    What a jerk.

  81. 81
    Cain says:

    @Jennifer:

    That was back in the day when I posted over at the big Blue baby’s website.

    What website is that?

    cain

  82. 82
    TenguPhule says:

    I remember one of the first things Bush did was raise the limit of Arsenic in drinking water.

    Obviously Bush needs to drink more water.

  83. 83
    Jennifer says:

    Cain – Eschaton, of course.

  84. 84
    Cain says:

    @Jennifer:

    Cain – Eschaton, of course.

    Doh, of course..

    cain

  85. 85
    Rick Taylor says:

    There’s something I missed the first time around. What’s interesting here isn’t Ed’s post, but what Bush said:

    When pressed by Gibson, Bush declined to "speculate" on whether he would still have gone to war if he knew Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.

    "That is a do-over that I can’t do," Bush said.

    This is the first time I’ve seen Bush refuse to state unequivocally that the war was worth it.

  86. 86
    Rick Taylor says:

    And just to add, President Bush’s insistence on playing the victim is just sickening here. It wasn’t my fault. I wish the intelligence had been different. Lots of people made the same mistake. I thought it was lefties who were supposed to always be playing the victim card.

    A blogger can say that in good faith, but you’re the President of the United States making perhaps the most important decision a President can make; whether to take the country to war. You have to get it right.

    And plenty of people did get it right, despite the pathetic whining on the right. Other countries opposed our entry into the war not because they were happy with the idea of a vicious dictator possessing nukes or handing biological weapons to terrorists, despite our narcissism, they had more reason to fear such things than we; they opposed it because they disagreed with us about the danger Saddam presented. They did not buy Colin Powel’s presentation to the UN (the one our press swooned over). And they were right and we were wrong. End of story.

  87. 87

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Comments are closed.