Stop the Presses!
by matt at 6:00 am on May 26th, 2006 in Bush Man Date, Iraq WarQ: Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you’d made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You’ve looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just — I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn’t yet.
[…]
I hope I — I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
Q: Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?
THE PRESIDENT:…Saying, “Bring it on”; kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know. “Wanted, dead or alive”; that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that.
And, you know, I think the biggest mistake that’s happened so far, at least from our country’s involvement in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib. We’ve been paying for that for a long period of time.
“Bring them on” - 7/2/03
“Wanted: Dead or alive” - 9/17/01
Taguba Report on Abu Ghraib atrocities - 4/4/04
So all of the mistakes the President mentioned on Thursday took place well before the April 2004 press conference. Interesting that they slipped his mind then and are mentioned now, two full years later. Wouldn’t have anything to do with the 2004 Presidential election, would it?
JimC wrote:
Are you so eager to admit your mistakes before the billions of people in the world? When Matt C is President, we’ll see how you do…I’m not defending Bush’s mistakes, but I forgive him…besides he doesn’t need to tell you what mistakes he’s made, you know them already…
Posted 26 May 2006 at 7:10 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
What I find interesting is that none of his three “mistakes” refer to any policy decisions made by him or anyone in his administration. Nobody actually did anything that was a mistake. Bush said a couple of things that he wishes he hadn’t said. And Abu Ghraib, of course, just happened, without anyone actually doing anything to bring it about. (BTW, isn’t it about time he learnt how to pronounce Abu Ghraib?)
So do you think Bush meant that deciding to invade Iraq in the first place, and failing to have contingency plans for anything other than a candy-and-flowers reception, and failing to prevent widespread looting (of national treasures and weapons and explosives, among other things) were not mistakes?
Or do you think he meant they paled before the “Bring it on,” and “Wanted dead or alive” statements?
Posted 26 May 2006 at 9:08 am ¶
jamie wrote:
sarabeth — did you just respond to JimC? Or was it just a coincidence that your “unrelated” comment followed his?
Posted 26 May 2006 at 10:33 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Ok come on jamie….where is the love? I thought the neo-cons were the “haters”…
Posted 26 May 2006 at 11:00 am ¶
Spiddy Goodlegs wrote:
I’m sorry. I know the rule around here is to ignore JimC in the hopes he will finally choose to wrap his lips around the tail pipe of his car but…
Are you on crack? For Abu Ghraib and the atrocities committed there you forgive him?
Also Abu Ghraib is not a “mistake.” A mistake is when you forget your secretary’s birthday. A mistake is when you leave your American Express card at the strip club. A mistake is NOT when you’re president and you allow your high ranking officials to authorize “corrections” to the rules set down by the Geneva Convention in order to allow heinous acts of degredation and torture to be used as an “interrogation technique.”
I will never understand the bizarre simplicity of the Rethuglican “No really, I’m an independent” mind. You forgive your Führer for atrocious human rights violations but a blow job is worthy of impeachment.
Sometimes I think the gas shortage is because your kind has been sneaking away somewhere to sniff it.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 11:15 am ¶
matt wrote:
I like Spiddy’s way better than the ignoring.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 11:18 am ¶
Spiddy Goodlegs wrote:
I like to think of it as “Lynndie England-ing” someone into answering for themselves.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 11:44 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Spiddy Goodlegs said: ….a bunch of crap…..
Abu Ghraib was a mistake. We need to be able to interrogate prisoners; we need to have the ability to extract information that may save American lives from further attack. The mistake was not having clear parameters and the men (and women) there went beyond what they were supposed to do either by direct orders of their superiors, lack of direction from superiors, or direct violation of orders. Is it Bush’s fault for Abu Ghraib? Ultimately yes, but it is also his job to fix it and make sure that it doesn’t happen again. But have no doubt, if we have a person in custody and we know he has intel that we need to save American lives, get out the pliars…
Well you liberals have bogarted all the good stuff…
Posted 26 May 2006 at 11:54 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Ahh yes because you are so darn clever, you little rascal you…
Posted 26 May 2006 at 11:56 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Forgot to comment on this remark…
Calling Bush the “Führer” really shows how twisted you librul mind works and furthermore, Clinton was not impeached on “blow job” grounds, he lied under oath while giving testimony, just in case you were playing nintendo at the time and didn’t catch that part…
Posted 26 May 2006 at 12:01 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
No, I’m still clean. That was a comment on Matt’s post. (I wouldn’t respond to JimC without asking for your forgiveness.)
Posted 26 May 2006 at 12:14 pm ¶
Spiddy Goodlegs wrote:
Good Lord. Are you done or do you need more time to read?
…We need to be able to cover them in their own feces and take photos of ourselves dragging them on leashes, degrading them sexually and mugging with their corpses for laughs.
I mean did you watch this video or are you shitting me? They aren’t extracting information, you dipshit. It’s a bunch of drunk-with-power soldiers having a giant buttfuck-a-thon with the blessings of their superiors! Meanwhile, Iraq didn’t attack us but here nor there.
So when Abu Ghraib commander Janis Karpinski names Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as the co-author of memos to Abu Ghraib authorities allowing “departures from the Geneva Convention” and Rumsfeld as one of the signatures on a memorandum at Abu Ghraib permitting these “departures” as well as the notation
your octane fume snorting mind perceives that as opposition to orders? You should switch to unleaded, friend. I’m not a doctor but I think Premium Plus is causing hemorrhaging in your helpless little brain.
I don’t understand your use of “but” in this sentence. I presume you mean “and” as in “…AND it is also his job to fix it by firing Rumsfeld and Gonzalez for their participation in order to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” All of this assuming Bush had no idea this was going on which of course, would be impossible.
DOPE! WE CAUGHT BIN LADEN??? AWESOME! Wait… oh.
Seriously, dude. What crazy Bruce Willis movie are you living in? Ignoring the fact that no one in Abu Ghraib had the secret code that was going to disarm the bomb set to take these hypothetical American lives, you simply don’t have the right to do anything you want under the blanket of “saving American lives.” Because if you do then I do and I think covering you in shit and walking you around on a leash will save American lives. So hit me up when you want to play the Blanket Of Saving American Lives game. I’ll be waiting.
Also, I love how you use the term “we” here. “But have no doubt, if we have a person in custody and we know he has intel that we need to save American lives, get out the pliars (sic)…”
You don’t have any idea what you are talking about which is why you should not have the authority to make decisions that go against the Geneva Convention that WE all agreed on. This is real life, Copernicus, not Fox’s “24.”
Sorry. Did I forget to say “Zeig Heil?”
Giving testimony about a blowjob.
Hmmm. Testimony about a blowjob vs. approving violations of the basic tenets of the Geneva Convention…
Riiiight. I’ll let you get back to your gas rag now.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 1:15 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Spiddy Goodlegs said: …a bunch more stupid crap…
Where did I say that what happened at Abu Ghraib was right?
Scoop that bovine excrement out of your head, wipe last night’s puke from your Pearl Jam shirt, and wake up, in the REAL world, people are dying so that you can continue to write a stupid blog. It is people like you who think it is brave writers that keep America free, no its the military, they die so you can continue to be stupid…
And you do?
Perhaps you and Charlie Sheen can get together and swap stories how the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition…and how the Israelis knew about it ahead of time and got everyone out…if you still think something other than a plane hit the pentagon, well then, I’ll leave you and Elvis alone to chat amongst yourself…
Posted 26 May 2006 at 1:45 pm ¶
sac wrote:
…
Agreed. That is exactly what they are fighting for, and that is exactly what Spidey is exercising, so your problem with his comment cannot be the fact that he is expressing a dissenting viewpoint from the Bush administration. So it must be with the content of his viewpoint. Which point is he wrong on?
You didn’t, but you did seem to let Bush off the hook on it.
As for torturing, interrogation experts have been quoted countless times in the past 3 years on how incredibly ineffective torturing someone is in getting good information. Sure, it’s emotionally satisfying in a massively misplaced kind of way, but it’s entirely ineffective. Apparently, and I say apparently as I’ve never interrogated anyone, so I’m relying on the words of people who have.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 2:10 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
His subtle insinuation that the military and those that are in command are the problem, perhaps my comment was an emmotional response to
He might have meant only these soldiers at Abu Ghraib but somehow I doubt it…
What hook did I let him off of? Where has Bush been recorded as authorizing the kind of behavior at Abu Ghraib, now don’t take liberty with authorizing forceful interrogation with what happened there…
I view this as like the many incidents in the history of armed conflict. There are attrocities that happen, however, those incidents do not negate the effort nor does mean that all invloved endorsed or knew about it. If Bush’s response was “So what? They’re towel-heads” well then that would be different, but from what I’ve read and seen in news reports is that the lessons of Abu Ghraib have been taken seriously…
Posted 26 May 2006 at 2:27 pm ¶
matt wrote:
so everyone knows: spiddy = not a man, baby
Posted 26 May 2006 at 2:29 pm ¶
Spiddy Goodlegs wrote:
Bovine excrement? Last night’s puke from my Pearl Jam t-shirt? Are you serious? Wake up, grampy. It’s medication time.
First of all, my whole family is military so respectfully go suck a dick. Don’t go cloaking yourself in your “I’m With The Troops” bullshit. It’s not kevlar. You and your “freedom fighters” who gave orders to the peons at Abu Ghraib no more speak for the military or me or my country than any other member of the Hitler youth. So take that logic and your “these colors don’t run” bumpersticker and choke on it.
Second, what does my discussing the conspiracy theories of 9/11 on my site more than a week ago have to do with the flag waving episode you just had in this thread about Abu Ghraib? STAY ON TOPIC, ASS.
And how did you manage to put me at odds with American soldiers because I consider Der Commendant’s “mistake” to be atrocious? Oh that’s right. ALL YOUR KIND LIKE TO DO THAT. If you question the right, you hate the troops. If you don’t back our president, clearly you’re with the terrorists. As far as I can tell the only person who wants to take away our rights is you, pig.
Third, your idiot boy child sent troops to Iraq so I can have a blog? Are you fucking joking? You mean to say that if we had not invaded Iraq so that we can inject them with this delicious dose of yummy yummy freedom they so desperately (do not) want, right now I would not have a blog? Please stop. I’m laughing so hard at you right now my ribs hurt.
And lastly, your support of torturing prisoners is touching, really. But please don’t act like it helps or ever has.
Amrit Singh, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union
Now hop aboard the short bus and go home. School is out.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 2:32 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
They must be proud of you…
Shows your dementia and disqualifies you for making any rational or reasoned comments on real world events….
Like I said, it might have been a emotional reaction to
Maybe you were only talking about Abu Ghraib storm troopers, maybe not, not sure…
Perhaps you need to read some of these recently translated captured Iraqi documents from Saddam’s regime, I know Libs ‘R Us didn’t put this on the “approved” reading site, but give it a chance…
Sorry, I blacked out there for a second when I read who wrote that statement…
Does that mean you’re already on it? No thanks, I will drive my monster truck with my “Bud and Sissy” window stickers down to red neck ho’ down, and play “stretch” without buck knives…mmmkay?
Posted 26 May 2006 at 2:57 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Just to show off my vast knowledge of international affairs, a little known fact: “Amrit Singh, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union” is the daughter of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Grokking that totally made my day the first time I heard it.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 3:16 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Many posts ago, Spiddy went:
Seems to be a rule only for people whose name includes “Beth”.
However, both Jamie and I are empowered to Bethanize anyone who applies. So all you really need is a willingness to publicly take the pledge. And to accept that you will be castigated when you fall off the wagon. (We’re realistic; we don’t say “if”.)
Posted 26 May 2006 at 3:20 pm ¶
Spiddy Goodlegs wrote:
They are. Thanks.
I see. Sort of like your struggles with basic spelling and your inability to locate the photo of the shiny gender revealing tit in the “About Me” photo on my blog you pretended to read, shows your inability to process facts and reveals a cause for you to be ignored in public. Gotcha.
Yes, I was. You see I was discussing what’s known as the topic and not one of your notorious mind farts you love smelling so much.
Gee. I thought you and your homies preferred to fire translators or did you guys get this done at Kinkos?
Trust me. It’s a symptom of your tragic brain injury.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 3:20 pm ¶
Spiddy Goodlegs wrote:
I hereby accept the pledge, sarabeth.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 3:21 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Jamie, you know how the guys are always going “nullus”?
Maybe we can set up a one word incantation to be invoked as shorthand for “Real and honorary Beths, forgive me for responding to JimC this time”?
Posted 26 May 2006 at 3:23 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Arise, Sir Spiddy-beth!
Posted 26 May 2006 at 3:25 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Yeah, spelling is not my strong point, stupid MS Word has me spoiled, add fat fingers, man, there’s no hope…as far as the “teat”, I just assumed it was some homage to porn by a “male” blogger, my mistake. Oh crap, I admitted a mistake, well, I won’t make that mistake again…DOH! Well, anyway, based on that picture, clearly I retract *all* my comments and humbly submit to your superior knowledge and insight into world affairs, your worshipfullness….
…clearly I jest…
Posted 26 May 2006 at 3:29 pm ¶
An Amused Canadian wrote:
People like Jim C is why the rest of the world is appalled by the US. He seems to be a proponent of the “America — right or wrong” theory political justification. Bush scares the crap out of me and has done more to damage the reputation of the US on the world stage than anything in recent memory (though I admit, we’ve been spoiled for choice). I’m with Spiddy Goodlegs on this one.
Posted 27 May 2006 at 11:19 am ¶
JimC wrote:
An Amused Canadian said: …nothing surprising…
Dear Canadian,
Thanks for your input but it is no surprise that the extreme liberalization of Canada would produce such a view point. I imagine you as well do not believe that the World Trade Center was hit by Islamic extremist, like Spiddy, you live in a fantasy world whereas in the real world people want to KILL you for nothing more than being you. It does not matter that you hate Bush like these extremists do, for they may give you a quick nod before taking your head off with a dull knife.
Who is this “rest of the world” anyway? Those who are sympathetic to Islamic fanaticism? If so, then fine, be appalled, we left the appeasement business back in Hitler’s day. Unfortunately, you and your socialist friends are in favor of appeasement or worse absolute denial of the these extreme Islamic factions. Look at how it has worked out for the French. Seems like they wish they had taken it more seriously long ago.
In the end, I really don’t care what the rest of the World thinks of Americans, the next time some disaster occurs, some war breaks out, or some financial crisis occurs, they will come knocking, including, oh Canada, eh….
Posted 27 May 2006 at 6:20 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i find this hilarious. the next time a financial crisis happens, it will be because we caused it. the next time there is a war, it will be declared by dear leader (and i don’t mean kim jong il). in both cases, it will be he US either begging red china to hold our paper, or begging lithuania + costa rica to be part of coalition of the willing 2.
Posted 27 May 2006 at 7:23 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
And Maggie finally tells the truth! I’ve saved this one off. You hate America! You equate America as The Enemy of the World, don’t ya, Maggie!. Hey Margaret, Is Islamic extremism the enemy? No, it’s the selfish arrogant Americans, not me of course, I a sympathetic liberal who wants to “understand” what we did to tick off the Muslims so much. It’s not that they are lunatics with a genocidal death wish; it’s our fault because somewhere along the way we wronged them. Can’t we just give them a hug and a kiss and make up???? Surely, taking down the WTC was a cry for help; a cry for recognition….NOT!
It’ll be our fault….lol….sweet, got a luv the libruls, otherwise who else would we make miserable…
Posted 27 May 2006 at 8:18 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i see you don’t care to engage on the substance, and have regressed back into deliberate hallucinatory mis-translation of my words. past that, i feel the need once again to remind you that no matter how deluded you are, america ≠ george w bush.
call me by another name that isn’t mine and you will surely get your badge (ban) of honor. i have allowed you to slide recently because i have more pressing business, don’t take advantage.
Posted 27 May 2006 at 8:34 pm ¶
Spiddy Goodlegs wrote:
Wow. That’s tragic.
Posted 28 May 2006 at 1:09 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Oh, oh! It is my painful duty, Spiddy, to issue castigation number 3.01. (3 is your official Beth Society i.d., and the society has concluded that it may be to the benefit of all concerned if your castigations are serially numbered.)
Try to be strong. You can do it. Girl power is all it takes.
Posted 28 May 2006 at 4:58 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Oh, I am sorry for that, perhaps calling you one of the many foul names you’ve called me in the past is ok then? hmmm?
Again, don’t hesitate to ban me. You’ve called many hateful foul names, if you can’t handle being called Maggie, then by all means, bring out the Ban…
Posted 28 May 2006 at 5:58 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
(Forgive me, my Beth-ren)
A real man would have put his money where his mouth is, and called him Maggie again.
Posted 28 May 2006 at 7:32 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Sarabeth, I’m touched, even a little bit choked up, you, you replied to me….
Anyway, it is Matt’s site, he can lay down the rules, but I wanted to point out the hypocrisy of banning me for calling him Maggie when I have been called much fouler abusive names by himself and others and if he is ok with that, then by all means, ban me.
Posted 28 May 2006 at 11:02 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Matt, I see you corrected your comment after I posed my question… ;-)
Posted 28 May 2006 at 2:08 pm ¶