Con Newspaper questions Bush's Mental Sanity

C

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
Wow, even Con newspapers are calling Bush unglued and delusional.

I fondly remember, mere months ago, the neocon cries of "Stop bashing Bush!", when I even suggested that Bush was losing it.


NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."

The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."

It continued: "President Bush warns that U.S. withdrawal would risk 'mass killings on a horrific scale.' What do we have today, sir?

"If the president won't do the right thing and end this war, the people must. The House has voted to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April. The Senate must follow suit.

"Our brave troops should take great pride that they rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. And they should have no shame in leaving Iraq. For it will not be, in any way, an exercise in tail-tucking and running.

"America has done its job.

"It's time for the Iraqis to do theirs."
.....


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271
Click to expand...
 
"I fondly remember, mere months ago, the neocon cries of "Stop bashing Bush!", when I even suggested that Bush was losing it. "

Hello? That was mere hours ago darling!
 
In addition to being incompetent & unqualified, I do believe that Bush IS a nutjob. When Pat Robertson said that Bush assured him there would be no casualties at all in Iraq, I believe that. I'm glad the cons are catching up, though they are a little late to the game.

I also love the ol' contention that "if we leave, it'll be chaos!", as though everything is cool as can be there, now...
 
Onceler said:
In addition to being incompetent & unqualified, I do believe that Bush IS a nutjob. When Pat Robertson said that Bush assured him there would be no casualties at all in Iraq, I believe that. I'm glad the cons are catching up, though they are a little late to the game.

I also love the ol' contention that "if we leave, it'll be chaos!", as though everything is cool as can be there, now...
Click to expand...

Wow, I thought I heard it all, but I think that Robertson/Bush conversation must have slipped by me.
 
Onceler said:
In addition to being incompetent & unqualified, I do believe that Bush IS a nutjob. When Pat Robertson said that Bush assured him there would be no casualties at all in Iraq, I believe that. I'm glad the cons are catching up, though they are a little late to the game.

I also love the ol' contention that "if we leave, it'll be chaos!", as though everything is cool as can be there, now...
Click to expand...


In addition to being incompetent & unqualified, I do believe that Bush IS a nutjob


Nah, Bush is just "folksy".

Watch out now, you're treading in water that can make some bush apologists on this board have these reactions:

:cuss: :rant: :cry:
 
Darla said:
Wow, I thought I heard it all, but I think that Robertson/Bush conversation must have slipped by me.
Click to expand...

The White House denied this, of course, but it sounds like Bush to me:

Bush Predicted No Iraq Casualties, Robertson Says
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 21, 2004; Page A09

The Rev. Pat Robertson said President Bush dismissed his warning that the United States would suffer heavy casualties in Iraq and told the television evangelist just before the beginning of the war that "we're not going to have any casualties."

Robertson related the conversation during an interview with CNN late Tuesday. He said he spoke to Bush before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and urged him to prepare the nation for heavy casualties. While Bush's response was a mistake, Robertson said, God has blessed the president anyhow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49088-2004Oct20.html
 
Onceler said:
The White House denied this, of course, but it sounds like Bush to me:

Bush Predicted No Iraq Casualties, Robertson Says
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 21, 2004; Page A09

The Rev. Pat Robertson said President Bush dismissed his warning that the United States would suffer heavy casualties in Iraq and told the television evangelist just before the beginning of the war that "we're not going to have any casualties."

Robertson related the conversation during an interview with CNN late Tuesday. He said he spoke to Bush before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and urged him to prepare the nation for heavy casualties. While Bush's response was a mistake, Robertson said, God has blessed the president anyhow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49088-2004Oct20.html
Click to expand...

Wow. And God blessed the president anway. Well, that was nice of him.
 
Cypress said:
In addition to being incompetent & unqualified, I do believe that Bush IS a nutjob


Nah, Bush is just "folksy".

Watch out now, you're treading in water that can make some bush apologists on this board have these reactions:

:cuss: :rant: :cry:
Click to expand...

Good to know words can mean anything we want them to mean.
 
Damocles said:
Watch out... You will be accused of being a :cheer: for Bush and an apologist.
Click to expand...

LOL... I'm already consider that. The irony being of course I actually have a lot of negative things to say about Bush but in such a partisan "us" vs. "them" environment they don't really come out.

To make up a new meaning for a word though is just out there. It's not like folksy is used on the streets and has a special street meaning.

For me at least this discussion turned out positive as it reminded me I need to call the Grandparents. For kicks I will ask what they think folksy means.
 
cawacko said:
LOL... I'm already consider that. The irony being of course I actually have a lot of negative things to say about Bush but in such a partisan "us" vs. "them" environment they don't really come out.

To make up a new meaning for a word though is just out there. It's not like folksy is used on the streets and has a special street meaning.

For me at least this discussion turned out positive as it reminded me I need to call the Grandparents. For kicks I will ask what they think folksy means.
Click to expand...

Ok, one more time, it's not about the definition of folksky, it's about how that word was twisted and used to cover for the fact that bush is not folksy, you are not f'ing folksy when you come from one of this country's most elite families and are a goddamned millionaire at birth, he is a D.U.M.B.A.S.S.

It made D.U.M.B.A.S.S. the new cute. Awww, look how folksy he is.

Get it?

And cawacko, you can say whatever you want to about bush, fact is, you voted for him twice baby. :tongout:
 
Damocles said:
Well, it would depend on whether you were waiving a gun when it happened. One would be "folksy" the other would be the dead Emperor.
Click to expand...

gun wavers are nutz anyway. If you pull one out you had better be ready to use it. Unless of course you want to suicide by cop.
 
Cypress said:
Wow, even Con newspapers are calling Bush unglued and delusional.

I fondly remember, mere months ago, the neocon cries of "Stop bashing Bush!", when I even suggested that Bush was losing it.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous; newspapers have been using editorial sections for 7 years to 'bash Bush' nothing new. Most news outlets are owned primarilly by conservative leaning persons. And yet liberal views have been freely allowed to exist along side conservative ones. It's commonly known by most as a free press.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top