Bush: I'm in Charge -- And We're at War
I don't think we'll be hearing a lot about GSAVE anymore from the Bush Administration after today. Here's Bush, in Texas:
"Make no mistake about it, we are at war. We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill..."
Advertisement












Of course we have to be at war as far as El Presidente is concerned. It is the vehicle he uses to get policies in place that he wants. War time presidents are always given deferrence when it comes to fighting any given war. If we all of a sudden say that our efforts against terrorist extremists aren't part of a "war" it would undermine Bush's authority at home and in the world, make dissent permissable, and call into question all that Bush has done in his public relations created "faux war". That is a completely unacceptable option for Bush. He needs to stay wrapped in the American Flag with the authority of a war time president or lest he will lose public support. And it makes no difference what the Pentagon knows/thinks...it's a war.
August 3, 2005 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is not at war. He's on vacation.
August 3, 2005 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Between this and his comments about Creationism/Intelligent Design, etc., Bush is simply proving the ultimate American Dream -- that anybody, ANYBODY, any bozo can grow up and be President!
August 3, 2005 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Make no mistake about it, we are at war. We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill..."
Huh..?? So where exactly did the Iraqies attack us on September 11? Or was that another September 11, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.....??
Must have been in that same far away galaxy, through a parallel universe that these alien Iraqies have continued to kill, too.
We thought it was ridiculous at one time to have an actor in the White House. What do you call it when Elmer Fudd and Porky Pig have the run of the place?
ds
August 3, 2005 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
". . . ANYBODY, any bozo can grow up and be President!"
At least as long as they preserve that special affirmative action program that allows rich idiots to get into Yale and Harvard . . .
August 3, 2005 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The nation that was most behind the attack on us on 9/11 is Saudi Arabia, but, inconveniently, Saudi Arabian rulers are Bush best friends. So, Iraq just has to stand in for them. Bush holds hands with the ruler of Saudi Arabia, our real enemy, while killing innocent women and children in Iraq, who would have liked nothing better than to be our friends. Isn't it supposed to be possible to replace a mentally ill President?
August 3, 2005 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was surprised when the GSAVE thing came up -- I can't imagine Bush giving up the mantle of "war time President." Being "at war" is essential to his strategy and it's worked -- he doesn't have to actually ask for the sacrifices of a nation really at war (no draft, no rationing, no increased taxes) but he can still give handouts to defense and energy companies, as if he has no other choice.
August 3, 2005 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, it isn't possible to replace a mentally ill president. You're thinking of a Star Fleet vessel, where the chief medical officer can relieve the captain of command.
August 3, 2005 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's Karen Huhges when you need her.
Comr to think of it, did she come up with GSAVE? If so, not an auspicious beginning for Bush's Propagandess in Chief.
August 3, 2005 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrapped in the flag, clearing brush (which is really important for his Reaganesque PR image), while 14 Americans are killed west of Baghdad.
August 3, 2005 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you call it when Elmer Fudd and Porky Pig have the run of the place?
Loony Tunes!!!
Th-th-th-that's all folks...
August 3, 2005 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
..especially if you get billions of dollars from supporters and make sure the Secretaries of State in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) are co-chairs of your campaign in their respective states, making stealing the election for you so much easier.
August 3, 2005 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it is possible to replace a mentally ill president. I read a book by, I think, Jules Witcover, which told about some members of Reagan's staff being so concerned about the President's wandering focus that they were considering trying to have him replaced by George H. W. Bush. I believe it was Howard Baker who told them to forget-about-it.
What about replacing a terminally dumb President?
August 3, 2005 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
..now watch this drive.
August 3, 2005 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Cpt. Kirk on communicator from the WH)...
"Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life here."
August 3, 2005 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy can call his ass a turkey but it ain't gonna make it Thanksgiving...
As the bluster continues to spew from the toughest talking Texas Sheriff for the benefit of the most base dittohead mouthbreathers of his base:There are others who are driving this whether ol' cow-poker like's it or not- and it ain't old Rummy no matter what folks wish to think: As I pointed out here in your other post related to the latest smoke and mirrors surrounding the Commander-in-Grief there's more to this than meets the press...
Wanted! Dead or Alive!
August 3, 2005 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can be reasonably sure that this gang will react to the deaths of the 20 Marines in Western Iraq by doing exactly the wrong thing. How easy to blame Syria for the porous border, and then extend the war across the border, Cambodia-style. A couple of weeks ago there was a ridiculous threat to attack Aleppo. Watch out!
August 3, 2005 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he still says we're at war. He doesn't want to give up his "wartime powers," which have evolved into being judge and jury and emperor. What's amazing to me is that the military is actually going out and contradicting the president, in public. In fact, they say they never agreed with him!
August 3, 2005 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
One...two...five.
August 3, 2005 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone brought this up on Daily Kos -- wondering how many Americans will be killed while Bush is on his five-week vacation. Believe me, the longer you think about it, the more sickening it gets.
Incidentally (and speaking of RR), during this vacation, GWB will break Reagan's record for most vacation days taken while president -- and GWB's still got several years to go.
August 3, 2005 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to mince words, the guy is mad as a hatter.
August 3, 2005 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The funniest event? "We traded Sammy Sosa?"
Much like the change from GWOT to GSAVE: "Well no one consulted ME on that".
August 3, 2005 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks 20 dead marines from one battalion played havoc with the timing for marketing a positive portrayal. While GSAVE may well be a trial balloon that popped, it also doesn’t have to be an either or. A five-week vacation in Texas wouldn’t have anything to do with Fitzpatrick, would it? With getting in the way? Or mutiny among the troops? Is 5 weeks enough?
As for "being in charge", what happened to Cheney and Rumsfeld? When i think of Rove and Bush, the imagery of "My Fair Lady" always comes to mind.
August 3, 2005 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush isn't clearing brush just yet...today he stopped by the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center in Grapevine to give a speech. The White House's transcript is titled "President Discusses Second Term Accomplishments and Priorities."
Given the fact that the conditions of post-invasion Iraq are not exactly a great accomplishment, and that bringing our troops home safely doesn't seem to be a high enough priority, you'll excuse the President for failing to mention the loss of 14 Marines during the speech.
August 3, 2005 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001
The Bush Doctrine: brown heathen are fungible.
August 3, 2005 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're at war?? Really?? With whom??
These "bad guys" (that's the official military name for them nowadays) exist only at the outer most periphery of imagination and consciousness. They are elusive and melt into the ether without a trace. When I was a kid, my mommy said he was the boogie-man.
There is not argument from me there are people who do wish harm to the US of A and its people, however. is this the first instance of such hostility? What is the reason for the public agnst? Or is the public consciousness being manipulating for politicaal purpose/gain?
The sad fact is that no one is talking about Congress pencil-whipping the GOP party line and allowing Bush unprecedented powers. Powers that require and outside checks and oversight.
The real "bad guys" are the one's behind the curtain. The "war" is nothing more of an internal power grab for absolute power over the US of A by a single political party.
Cheers.
August 4, 2005 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I excuse this president nothing - particularly the deaths of the 14 marines, the deaths of nearly 1,800 of their comrades and the thousands of wounded men and women who went to Iraq in good faith and on his word. My heart can only ache for their families and friends and for the futures that might have been.
Now that His Petulancy has cleared up that we still at war with terrorism, I wonder how General Myers will walk back from his comments last week? Unfortunately the general's comments sounded much to much like John Kerry's plan for pursuing the "violent extremists" who perpetrate terrorist acts in the name of Islam. Dubya just can't have that, and he cannot appear to be backing down or away from the war that he named and invoked so often. Yet, somehow we will be drawing down the troops just in time for the mid-term elections... Each passing day I wonder how my country (and the rest of the planet) will survive the train wreck that is this man's utter incompetence.
August 4, 2005 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush cannot give up GWOT, "Ah'm a WAR president." The only time that he is fluent in English is when he is speaking malice. If he weren't a WAR president threatening, always threatening, he would have to spend the next 3 years stuttering and stammering while pretending that he cares about domestic issues, about people.
August 4, 2005 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Each passing day I wonder how my country (and the rest of the planet) will survive the train wreck that is this man's utter incompetence.
As bad as things are, I always try and remind myself just how fearful I was for the survival of our country and our world back in 1983, when Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published their first models of nuclear winter, during the tenure of Ronald "We begin bombing in five minutes" Reagan.
Not to mention the contemporary hijinks of James Watt, Oliver North and Ed Meese. When we got through that era, I decided that our country and our government had a level of resiliency that could get us through just about anything.
Not that Dubya isn't testing my optimism...
August 4, 2005 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh it's hard work, Dan, hard work . . . "
Your pal, GB
August 4, 2005 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . as pointed out Monday by George Lakoff (see http://www.alternet.org/story/23810/):
"If this is not a "war," does the president still have the war powers given him by Congress? If there is no "war" anymore, how can there be "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo, whose imprisonment without due process is being justified by "war." If there is no "war," will we still need to call up the reserves and the National Guard? And is the new framing retroactive? Was there ever a "war" on terror? Was it just a mistake to think so?"
In this instance, Bush (or whoever is pulling his strings on this one) is right. Replacing GWOT with GSAVE would give up ground he can't afford to surrender.
August 4, 2005 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"any bozo can grow up and be President!"
As a Virginian, I can only warn, wait until you see George Allen in the White House.
August 4, 2005 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
As G WB attacks the party-line talking points, he will appear to the men in charge to be dangerous for their cause and out of control.
August 4, 2005 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine, you hit the nail on the head. This is all about domestic politics, not defeating terrorists.
August 4, 2005 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Ohio, here's what one father, Paul, of a dead soldier, Edward August Schroeder II, had to say after hearing of his son's death:
I hold the Bush administration responsible, from the president through the secretaries of state and defense and all those who have had a hand in starting this war.
I also hold every Democrat in Congress who voted to authorize this misadventure as accomplices.
(snip)
To honor him, I no longer can sit still, just keeping quiet and being politically correct.
Democrats in Congress need to take the words of this father to heart, and to understand that it is time to step up and say, "I was wrong; I am sorry." Make no mistake, Democrats, as well as Republicans, who voted for the war will be called to account.
Here's the link to the Newhouse article.
August 4, 2005 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although most of the hi-jackers were Saudi, the nation that backed them, gave them safe haven, and helped in the planning, was---IRAN---that is clear.
I guess Bush is really proud that in his war he only missed the right country by one letter!
Help us all! And they just re-elected that bitchy republican woman over the anti-Bush vet in Ohio! What is wrong with this country of sheep? I heard her talk; she just recited talking points, and won!
August 4, 2005 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's quite simple.
Now Bush has one more flourish in his rhetorical arsenal.
War when that's what he needs.
GSAVE when he needs to say he's working on all fronts.
August 4, 2005 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not just domestic politics Glendon. Bush is still trying to bully the rest of the world too. Whether the next conflict is Syria or Iran or whoever else is in our gunsights, our terrorism efforts needs to be a "war"...
August 4, 2005 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it became a Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, that
would make W a struggling president instead of a war prez.
Can't have that.
So much for the genuises in the boiler room.
August 4, 2005 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This latest rhetorical navel contemplation shows that the White House is really only interested in the Global Struggle for the Poltical Opportunity of Terrorism (G-SPOT).
The real issue here is not about semantics but about a new strategy to actually win the war against Al Qaeda. For more, see:
"The Global War on Error"
August 4, 2005 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard of it, thanks to Josh Marshall's TPM link, weeks ago
But nobody told Bush and he's in charge.
August 4, 2005 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone really believe a military solution is still possible in Iraq, and the issue now is not how to save face?
These early pronouncements are still in the trial stages. As Andrew Card stated in a NYT interview, when asked why the WHIG waited until September to begin their "mushroom cloud"
campaign:
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new
products in August."
August 4, 2005 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
War works for him. This is a WAR PRESIDENT not a STRUGGLES PRESIDENT Jon Stewart
We are at war make no mistake and we will do whatever it takes. We will remain true to Amrican principles - W, Daily Show Moment of Zen
August 10, 2005 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
War Messages That Don't Quite Match
By Ronald Brownstein and Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writers
"I think we are going to end up where the Pentagon wants to end up," said Ivo H. Daalder, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution who was a National Security Council aide to President Clinton
Except for the last part...I don't circumstances these days allow such liesurely rationality. And from the looks of things over the past two years, the winter will be little different if not worse.
The W has gone forth...the bell cannot be unrung.
It is only a matter of time. So where ARE the democrats????
August 13, 2005 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
this one:
But, Daalder said, the recent rhetorical tension might reflect the president's desire to announce troop withdrawals after next winter's election of a permanent Iraqi government rather than against the backdrop of this summer's violence. That way, Daalder said, the president could argue "we are leaving in a position of strength."
The strain between the Pentagon and White House has emerged as steady violence and a sharp increase in American casualties exposes Bush to increasing political pressure over Iraq.
That one!
Need coffee nurse, STAT
August 13, 2005 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink