A First: Bush admits we’re not winning

On the other hand he said we’re not losing…

“We’re not winning, we’re not losing,” Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, “Absolutely, we’re winning.”

Bush also disclosed he has ordered DoD Secretary Gates to “develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps” and “he confirmed that he is considering a short-term surge in troops in Iraq.”

Bush explained his We’re Winning remarks prior to the election…

Asked yesterday about his “absolutely, we’re winning” comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. “Yes, that was an indication of my belief we’re going to win,” he said.

Thus we’ll have two more years of war courtesy of Carnac the Magnificently worst president evah.


In a separate WaPo article are remarks from the interview on domestic issues. Bush wants to “talk about big issues” (read as I need to get me some legacy) citing social security and immigration. And he claims to now seek bipartisanship stating…

“I view the election as an opportunity to say to all of us in Washington, ‘Let’s work together,’ ” he said. “People want that.”

Yeah right. People want out of Iraq but he fails to act on that.


Another WaPo article on the Bush interview with this richiness…

Clad in a gray suit and red tie, Bush was relaxed and engaged during the 25-minute interview, going out of his way to say how much he enjoys his relationship with the media despite indications to the contrary. At the end, he talked a bit about recent books — he mentioned having just finished “King Leopold’s Ghost,” an account of the plundering of the Congo in the late 19th century — and expressed some befuddlement at the suggestion that some people do not think he reads.

He gestured at the portrait on his office wall of Abraham Lincoln by George H. Story when asked why he has fired no generals when Lincoln fired a number before settling on Ulysses S. Grant. “Is that what triggered your questioning, looking at Abe?” he asked, before explaining how important it was, in his view, to adhere to the command structure at the Pentagon.

Is there any other political figure in recent memory who is so completely out of touch with who he is? A great reader (implied thinker)? Enjoys the media? (Well true if he means as in sadistic pleasure)

It’s pathological.

3 thoughts on “A First: Bush admits we’re not winning

  1. I’ll give him an answer to why people don’t think he reads: because he talks like an illiterate, utterly uneducated person. Someone who reads extensively knows how to speak English correctly, and has some understanding of the world around him or her.

  2. >>he mentioned having just finished “King Leopold’s Ghost,” an account of the plundering of the Congo in the late 19th century…
    that doesn’t count as reading – i’d wager that’s practically porn to him.
    -dan mcenroe

Comments are closed.