Bush Who?

On the Bush Redemption Circuit:

Lowry: I just want to go back to Richard’s point about the no attacks
on U.S. soil. U.S. soil is a big caveat. I mean, that is a key thing.
And in our exit interview with President Bush, you’re just struck by
the extent to which he was a war president. I mean, that’s what drove
him most passionately. And when you talk to him about it, you feel as
though he’s just sort of been left behind by the public and by history.
And I think that’s because of the very success in preventing another
attack on U.S. soil…

Oh, they are so fucking tiresome. It’s the same as every other bit of nonsense that they spout, taking a deliberately nasty position and expecting some kind of kudos for it. “Nobody else is willing to say that‘Barack the Magic Negro’ is just funny, and I know it’s not popular but THERE I SAID IT BOW BEFORE MY COURAGE.” They make me want to lay down.

And I think the rest of the country agrees. When Bush leaves office there may in fact be a short burst of affection for the chewy little creep, along the lines of how when Nixon died people struggled to find something nice to say for a minute before shrugging and going, “Eh, asshole.” I don’t think it’s anything to be terribly upset about. The only reason the TownHall and Corner fucktards need to go on their BUSH REUNION TOUR 09 MOTHERFUCKERS trip is that fluffing up Bush gave them the strength of purpose they needed to make catty remarks about liberals without the excuse of The Clenis.

The rest of the country? Already thinks Obama is president, likes him just fine, and anyway does not depend on the opinions of those at the Corner for a reason to get up in the morning.


4 thoughts on “Bush Who?

  1. What is this constant BS about “no attacks on American soil” since 9/11??
    I guess this means thatthis was just a figment of my imagination???
    Andthis, the work of two deranged criminals but initially attributed to some sort of nefarious Islamic terror plot, also doesn’t count?? (It did do the job of askeering many congresscritters into giving Shruba blank check for war, tho’.)
    So let’s just stop saying they were no attacks on American soil since 9/11, yes?

  2. Although I realize that a lot of diplomacy is best done in privacy, I am amazed at the low level of indicated Bush concern – it is almost as if he wants there to be a conflict (or at best, is neutral to the proposition).
    Add to this that the WH press machine have noted that Bush gave both sides a roadmap to peace. (admittedly the world would be better if everyone did as I told them?). And Bush has made claims to have been **THE** prez who crafted the way to mideast peace (huh? Bush is the first and only? What about Camp David?).
    And C. Rice recently said that Bush gets an A+ (not just an A but an A+) for foreign policy.
    So if this is the area he gets an A+ in, what are the areas like where he only got an A?
    And let me ask, there is already a news interview with Rice and Mrs Bush, etc. declaring that Shrub has done such a good job. Can anyone else remember in the December of an ending presidency where the incumbent was already releasing pressers about how good they are / were?

  3. The standard of ‘no terror attacks’ somehow starts after 9-11, and fails to include the anthrax attacks. If this were a democrat, methinks the standards and start-dates would be different.

Comments are closed.