BottleOfBlog

Bush Proposes New Three Cent Presidential Salary

"Government should not decide the compensation for America's corporate executives. But the salaries and bonuses of CEOs should be based on their success at improving their companies and bringing value to their shareholders," Bush said in his "state of the economy" speech before a Wall Street audience in New York.

From a guy who made a very nice living for twenty years by bankrupting his own companies and losing his shareholders a fortune.

Never mind the two trillion dollars he's lost us.

It's Like Joe Strummer All Over Again

AUSTIN, Texas -- Best-selling author and columnist Molly Ivins, the sharp-witted liberal who skewered the political establishment and referred to President Bush as "Shrub," died Wednesday after a long battle with breast cancer. She was 62.

And, yet, David Broder will live to be, like, a hundred and fifty years old.

The right thinking people of the world are all whomper-jawed tonight.

What The American People Don't Like

WASHINGTON, Jan 29 - President George W. Bush said on Monday he did not intend to insult Democrats by failing to pronounce their party's full name in his State of the Union address.

"I didn't know I did it," Bush told NPR in an interview.

I'd almost believe that, considering, that in the six years he's been in the White House, Bush has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that he doesn't know what he's doing.

Though, you know...once is an accident.  Twice is suspicious.  Having your own White House archives littered with...um..."accidents" makes you a big ol' bullshitter.

Bush called it an oversight and said he was "not that good at pronouncing words anyway." He said he was surprised at the level of distrust in Washington.

One, yeah, it's surprising that if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over again people might think you're doing it on purpose.  It's remarkable that if you keep lying about stuff that people might not trust you anymore.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

Two, did the President of the great United States just actually say that he was "not that good at pronouncing words anyway"?

What is he?  A stupid seven year old?  He weren't learned to talk too pretty?

Christ, who are the 38% of Americans who still aren't embarrassed that they voted for this shithead to be President of the great United States of America?

Stop voting for your team.  Vote for your country, for the love of God.

"There is a lot of politics in Washington -- in my judgment, needless politics. And it's almost like, 'If George Bush is for it, we're against it,' and 'If he's against it, we're for it.' And the American people don't like that," Bush said.

After six years of repeated and consistent bullshit and fuckups from the Bush administration, yeah,  people naturally feel that if George Bush is for it, they should be against it.  That isn't partisan.  That isn't politics. 

That's common sense.

If a guy's almost always wrong and mistaken, you're initial reaction to anything he says should be, "That's probably wrong."  If that's not your reaction, you're an idiot.  You're a fucking rube.  A sucker.  You're the jerk who keeps loaning money to your good for nothing brother in law who, rather than paying his rent, keeps blowing it on hookers and race horses.

And then keeps coming back for more money.

For rent.

Over sixty percent of the American people disapprove of the job Bush is doing and think the country is heading in the wrong direction.  The American people are not against reflexively opposing George W. Bush's dumb ideas.  The American people are reflexively against George W. Bush's dumb ideas.

They don't want him running their country.  They don't want him doing anything else in countries he can't pronounce too good.  And they sure as shit don't want him speaking on their behalf.

Because if there's one thing the American people don't like, that thing is George W. Bush and his awful, awful presidency.

Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the Football

Top White House officials are scrambling to prevent a showdown over the Iraq war that could tear apart the Republican Party and severely undermine President Bush's plan to increase U.S. troop levels…

On a more substantive level, White House officials are arguing that U.S. commanders are confident the escalation will work, but only if Iraqis and world leaders understand the plan has congressional backing. The White House has sent signals that it would stomach a resolution establishing firm deadlines and accountability requirements as long as it does not outright condemn the surge, congressional sources said.

Good Christ.  That's the same shit these dumbasses said to get us into this horrendous mess:

"It's important that Congress send that message before the U.N. Security Council votes," [Rumsfeld] said. "Delaying a vote in Congress would send the wrong message, in my view, just as we are asking the international community to take a stand and as we are cautioning the Iraqi regime to respond and consider its options."

Congress has to go along with Bush just so the rest of the world goes along with Bush.  But the rest of the world never goes along with Bush.  And then, after Congress goes along with Bush, despite the fact that nothing else Bush promised happens, Bush does what ever stupid thing he wants and then says, "Well, Congress approved it.  Even John Kerry voted for it!"

No, let the Iraqis and the world get behind it and make it work, and then Congress will give its full backing.

For The Thousandth Time

DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 25 (Reuters) - The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an "idiot decision" and Iraqi troops now need to secure Baghdad to ensure the country's future, Vice-President Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Thursday…
"If we can win this war in Baghdad then I think we can change the course of events," Mahdi told a panel on the state of affairs in Iraq.

"As Iraqis, we think we need more (Iraqi) troops in Baghdad, and we are calling for some regiments to come from other parts of the country," he said.

Mahdi's party, the powerful Shi'ite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was one of the exiled opposition parties consulted by Washington as it planned the invasion.

There it is.

There is no winning.

If we surge, if we stay in Iraq for another two years or another ten years, if we spend a trillion dollars and ten thousand American lives, that's it.  Even if Bush's dumbass surge works, that's the best you can hope for.

The Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq will finally secure Baghdad.

It's idiotic. 

Even if you believe the hysterical right wing nuts, we are going to win World War IV against Islamofascism by spending a trillion dollars and ten thousand American lives to hand over Baghdad to the Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq???

That's winning?

It might happen one way or another.

But do you want to pay for that?

Dick Cheney To Bi-Partisanship: Go Fuck Yourself!

Q Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good President?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I don't.

Q Why?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Because she's a Democrat.

For those of you too stupid--Joe Lieberman, David Broder, Unity '08, and the entire Washington press corps--to understand what uber right winger Grover Norquist meant when he compared bipartisanship to date rape, there it is for you.

Get it?

Now shut the fuck up about it.

Only Dick Cheney...

...could make me honestly concerned that something might happen to George Bush.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, this is a argument that there wouldn't be any problem if we hadn't gone into Iraq. Now --

Q Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran –

Q But he was being contained as we all know --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He was not being contained. He was not being contained, Wolf.

Good Christ, Cheney’s still pushing the Saddam had WMDs!

Dick Cheney, this is Earth calling!  Saddam didn’t have any WMDs!  Hans Blix didn’t find any.  The Iraq Survey Team didn’t find any.  Kay didn’t find any. Duelfer didn’t find any.  One hundred and forty thousand Americans in three years haven’t found any.  Hell, even Crazy Curt Weldon couldn’t find any.

That’s contained, muthafucker.

The funniest thing is that Republicans still think Al Gore is a crazy liar because all that stuff that Gore didn’t say wasn’t true.

But they’re okay with this lunatic.

One second he’s claiming Saddam, who three years ago hardly had conventional arms, would be in a nuclear arms race and the next  moment he says:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground.

Hooooo-hooo!

Dick Cheney:  Dealing With Reality.

This is the guy who was still peddling the totally, exhaustedly debunked Atta/Iraqi meeting in Prague even after Bush, on television, admitted it never happened.  This is a guy who a year and a half ago was saying the insurgency was in its last throes.  This is a guy who about a year ago said that “last throes” often go on for years, and years, and years.  This is a guy who accused John Kerry of undermining our military by voting for Defense spending cuts that Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, proposed!

And his motto is:  You’ve got to deal with reality!

It’s almost worth having him in the government just for the belly laughs.

My favorite part of the interview, though, is this:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Remember, remember me -- remember with me what happened in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the '80s supporting the effort against the Soviets. The Mujahideen prevailed, everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan, within relatively short order, the Taliban came to power, they created a safe haven for al Qaeda, training camps were established where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late '90s. And out of that, out of Afghanistan, because we walked away and ignored it, we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa, and 9/11, where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East.

Everyone walked away from Afghanistan and, because of that, 3000 Americans were killed.

Okay.

So, in Dick Cheney’s mind, who’s ultimately responsible?

Well, it couldn’t be the Soviets—they were supposed to walk away.  That’s why we armed and trained the Mujahideen.

So it must be someone else.

Who could it be?

Let me think…when did the Soviets finally leave Afghanistan?  Oh, that’s right! February of 1989…and we walked away…and that led to warlords fighting for control of Afghanistan which eventually resulted in our good friends and allies in the War On Terror, the Pakistanis, aiding the rise of the Taliban.

Which led to September 11th.

Well, Jesus!  Who was the jackass Secretary of Defense in 1989 who failed to recognize the strategic importance of denying Islamic fundamentalists a nation of their own???

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.  That would be Dick Cheney.

Quick!  Someone call Dinesh D’Souza!  We now know who really caused September 11th!

It was Dick Cheney.

At least as far as Dick Cheney is concerned.

Only Dick “Go Fuck Yourself” Cheney could possibly try to prove his point by drawing a stark contrast between what Dick Cheney has done as opposed to what Dick Cheney has done.

(as for Cheney's insane assertion that numerous blunders have hurt the administration's credibility on Iraq are simply "hogwash", I would invite everyone to read Imperial Life In the Emerald City:  Inside Iraq's Green Zone and State of Denial:  Bush At War, Part III.  Read them.  Weep for a while.  And then decide for yourself if them ol' blunders aren't just a big ol' bunch of hogwash.)

What Is The Precise Parliamentary Procedure For Sticking A Fork In Someone's Done Ass?

LONDON, Jan. 23 -- Global opinion of U.S. foreign policy has sharply deteriorated in the past two years, according to a BBC poll released on the eve of President Bush's annual State of the Union address.

Nearly three-quarters of those polled in 25 countries disapprove of U.S. policies toward Iraq, and more than two-thirds said the U.S. military presence in the Middle East does more harm than good. Nearly half of those polled in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East said the United States is now playing a mainly negative role in the world…

"It's been a horrible slide," said Doug Miller, president of GlobeScan, an international polling company that conducted the BBC survey with the Program on International Policy Attitudes, an affiliate of the University of Maryland. He said views of U.S. policy have steadily declined since the annual poll began two years ago…

A horrible slide?  Oh, God.  Dude, you've only been tracking it for two years.  I'm not even sure the English language has a word for the kind of free fall America's prestige and good name has undergone in the last six years.

Maybe, like, the Nepalese or the Sherpas have a word for it.  You know, something to what happens to some drunken, stupid Texan when he buys his way to the summit of Everest and then plummets to the bottom.

The Sherpas don't have a written language.  But I'm pretty sure their description for that event sounds like "bush". 

As in:  "Stupid Texan reach the summit of Chomolungma and then, like crazy man, bush all the way down into Tibet!  Splat!"

"I thought it had bottomed out a year ago, but it's gotten worse, and we really are at historic lows," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes. Kull attributed much of the problem to a growing perception of "hypocrisy" on the part of the United States in such areas as cooperation with the United Nations and other international bodies, especially involving the use of military force.

"The thing that comes up repeatedly is not just anger about Iraq," Kull said, adding that the BBC poll is consistent with numerous other surveys around the world that have measured attitudes toward the United States. "The common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to be: 'You were a champion of a certain set of rules. Now you are breaking your own rules, so you are being hypocritical.' "

It's remarkable!  It's not just the anger about Iraq, but, like the majority of Americans, a dismay at the hypocrisy.  It's remarkable that so many people around the world, like the majority of Americans, are not right, but, rather, blinded by their irrational Bush hatred!

The BBC survey found that a majority of those polled hold negative views on U.S. policies on a wide range of issues. Sixty-seven percent disapproved of U.S. handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Sixty-five percent disliked the U.S. stance on last summer's military conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, 60 percent opposed U.S. policies on Iran's nuclear program, 56 percent opposed Washington's position on global climate change and 54 percent disapproved of U.S. policies toward North Korea.

"If this keeps up, it's going to be very difficult for the United States to exercise its moral suasion in the world," Miller said…

Well, who cares?  We've lost our moral authority?  Who needs it?  We have nuclear authority!  Who really gives a shit what a bunch of primitive, ignorant heathens say about us anyway?  The only opinion we really care about are the people who understand the importance of our victory in World War Seven against Islamofascisterrorism:  the thirty percent of die hard Bush fans and our good friends across the pond, who right wing nuts have creepily taken to calling "the Brits".

Like we're on a pet name basis now.  Because we're both in Iraq.  We're the Yanks!  They're the Brits.  And we're all with us and not at all against us.

Although Prime Minister Tony Blair has been Bush's chief foreign ally in the Iraq war, British views of U.S. policies were particularly negative. Fifty-seven percent of Britons surveyed said the United States plays a mainly negative role in the world; 33 percent said the U.S. influence was mainly positive, down three percentage points from last year.

Eighty-one percent of Britons opposed U.S. actions in Iraq, while 72 percent said the U.S. military presence in the Middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents. Just 14 percent of Britons said the United States was a "stabilizing force" in the region.

D'oh!

Let's wrap this turkey up.  He's wrecked everything.  He's horrible.  He can't do anything right.

Fuck all this crazy, loony tune bipartisanship talk.

It is not sensible, serious, reasonable, or productive to let George W. Bush participate in shaping our future in any way at all.

American Turd

WASHINGTON - When President Bush delivers his next-to-last State of the Union address Tuesday night, he will confront this reality, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans appear to have given up on success in Iraq and also on his presidency.

In addition, the poll finds that nearly another two-thirds believe he shouldn’t move ahead with his troop increase to Iraq, if Congress passes a non-binding resolution opposing it. And it shows that just two in 10 want Bush taking the lead role in setting policy for the country.

“Essentially, the president is really in the cellar of public opinion,” says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this poll with Republican Bill McInturff…

No, no, no.  There’s stuff in the cellar most people can use!  A lot of people put stuff in the cellar that, well, they’d like to bring back upstairs someday.

Bush is in the toilet of public opinion.

He’s in a place where The People would like him to remain.  And, preferably, disappear from.

Why Don't You Read It, Asshole?

RUSSERT: [quoting The Economist] ‘Adding around 20,000 to the 132,000 currently there will increase U.S. capabilities but not enough to stabilize the country.’ Do you agree with that?

MCCAIN: I am concerned about it, whether it is sufficient numbers or not. I would have liked to have seen more.

I looked General Petraeus in the eye and said is that sufficient for you to do the job? He assured me he thought it was and that he had been told if he needed more, he would receive them. I have great confidence in General Petraeus. I think he’s one of the finest generals that our military has ever produced, and he has a proven record on that. He wrote the new army counterinsurgency manual.

Yes, General Petraeus is a very brilliant and capable general.  And, yes, he wrote the new army counterinsurgency manual.  And do you know what Petraeus wrote in his manual?  No?  That's okay.  Neither does McCain.

Petraeus and his co-authors discussed this strategy at great length in the Army's counterinsurgency field manual. One point they made is that it requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area's population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.

Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 would leave the force well short of the minimum required—and that's with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad.

There are 25 million people in Iraq.  According to Petraeus, who McCain has great confidence in, the United States would require a half million combat troops to pacify the country. 

If McCain is going to call for and endorse escalation, if he's going to get on Tee Vee and use his entirely unwarranted reputation as a straight talker to both back Bush's plan and hedge his own bet, and, while doing so, is going to talk about General Petraeus' new army counter-insurgency manual, don't you think he has a responsibility to actually read the fucking thing and tell the American people what it actually says?

Doesn't he have responsibility to do that?