GWB Administration: Then and Now...

By: KathyinBlacksburg
Published On: 12/20/2006 1:15:00 AM

First "Then..."

Many of us remember the laundry list of Bushisms, ably catalogued by Jacob Weisberg of Slate Magazine here.Today, political cartoonist Jim Morin of the Miami Herald, revived some of Bush/Cheney's) confident utterings about how things would go with his hegemony project.  Here they are:

1. We will be greeted as liberators.

2. Iraqis will embrace democracy.

3.  Mission accomplished!

4.  The insurgency is in its final throes.

5. As the Iraq's stand up, we'll stand down.

6.  This is not a civil war.
Many of us can think of more:

7. Iraq continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

8. "The danger is, is that they work together"-an assertion that he exaggerated even further by saying that "in the war on terror, you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam" (Washington Post, 9/26/02).

9.Powell "will talk [to the UN Security Council] about al Qaeda links, links that really do portend a danger for America and for Great Britain" (www.whitehouse.gov).

10.We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons (Mar. 16, Meet the Press).

11. After Sept. 11th, the doctrine of containment [of Iraq] just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned.

12. Watch what you say.

"Now..."

Nothing they said turned out to be true.  They bungled protecting the homeland from both assault and natural disasters.  We have two years left of Bush-hell.  And we can only pray that the Dems can clean up at least part of the mess.  So, instead of saying to Bush, "Watch what you say," I'll say to his listeners, that tiny minority still thinking he's doing a heck-of-a-job: Take everything he says with a grain of salt.  Oh, and yes.  We told you so!


Comments



A new one to add . . . (JPTERP - 12/21/2006 9:25:27 AM)
Remember all that stuff that GWB has said about how the war is being run in Iraq and not in Washington?

Well, he finally put that lie to rest yesterday too . .

According to the Washington Post

  http://www.washingto...

At an end-of-the-year news conference, Bush said he agrees with generals "that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished" before he decides to dispatch an additional 15,000 to 30,000 troops to the war zone. But he declined to repeat his usual formulation that he will heed his commanders on the ground when it comes to troop levels. . . . .

By yesterday, however, Bush indicated that he will not necessarily let military leaders decide, ducking a question about whether he would overrule them. "The opinion of my commanders is very important," he said. "They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot." He added: "I agree with them that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy."

A senior aide said later that Bush would not let the military decide the matter. "He's never left the decision to commanders," said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so Bush's comments would be the only ones on the record. "He is the commander in chief. But he has said he will listen to those commanders when making these decisions. That hasn't changed."




I Repeat: It's still; "Stay the Course" for "W"... (cycle12 - 12/21/2006 10:34:00 AM)
...and probably will be until January 20, 2009, unless, of course, Congress takes appropriate, responsible action beginning next year.

Please keep a close eye on the "CIA leak" hearings starting none too soon next month.

Thanks!

Steve