Bush: I ain't gonna fire anyone over Iraq


OMG that’s like blaming the populace.

The election ratified the Iraq policy? The accountability MOMENT is over?

Jesus, someone needs to write his speeches better.

As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, “Because he’s hiding.”

Well, I’m satisfied. I mean, that’s all the American people need to hear about that, right? He’s hiding, how can you expect us to find someone who’s hiding? I mean, didn’t you hear me? He’s HIDING, the clever fiend. We never expected that kind of unbeatable technique.

The irony of this is just a few days ago, Bush said in the 20/20 interview that he regrets saying some of the stuff he said off-the-cuff, like “Bring it on!” Guess you can’t teach a dumb dog new tricks.

Frankly, I think he’s right. By endorsing this president they endorsed his policies regardless of whatever ‘doubts’ they might have had about Kerry. Let’s face it, if the reprocussions of a needless war, remember this means the death of thousands upon thousands of people - most of them noncombatants, incited on a questionable premise and driven entirely by ideology isn’t the top of a voter’s issues then, well, he or she is a moron. This is a huge moral, fiscal and security issue. But wave a red flag in front of a bull and…toro! Masterfully done.

But just because he’s right, whether we like it or not, doesn’t mean that the ranks won’t break eventually once people who supported the war and Bush figure out a pleasing, and self-absolving, way of blaming someone else for the problem. Like Bush’s advisors or neoconservatives if not Bush himself - there are some airports and federal buildings left not named after Reagan so they won’t want to sully the ringleader’s name. And when that translates into voters threatening Republican majorities in the House and Senate - there will be investigations and some people will be held accountable. Count on Bush to get off scott free though - unless something really diabolic turns up and wasn’t shredded or deleted before it saw the light of day.

shrug. actually, i blame the populace, too. i mean, they’re the ones who feel he hasn’t done that bad a job.

As long as you win there is no accountability? That is beautiful. A lesser president might have hidden that message, but what a real man bush is. I hope everyone who voted for bush gets to drink that mystical beer with him. I am almost sad bush nerfed it a little, he should have just said, “I won, fuck you, I can do whatever i want because I can’t run for another term. Don’t like the way things happened? Fuck you. Details are meaningless, fuck you. Did I say fuck you? Let me pass on a message from Dick, Fuck You.”

Just because the people didn’t feel there was anyone better to do the job, doesn’t absolve him of guilt when he fucks up. If a parent employs a nanny to look after their child, and that nanny subsequently lets little Johnny fall off a bridge and drown in a river, is that the parent’s fault? Partly, for sure, but the nanny surely burdens the most of the blame?

The irony of this is just a few days ago, Bush said in the 20/20 interview that he regrets saying some of the stuff he said off-the-cuff, like “Bring it on!” Guess you can’t teach a dumb dog new tricks.[/quote]

That’s just what he wants you to think.

Bush isn’t dumb. He even knows on some level that’s he’s a pawn. He’s an archetypical example of the Conservative sell-out to the Neocons.

“Bring it on” served the political goals of that moment, just like “Regretting it” serves the political goals of THIS moment.

That is absolutely what you can count on Bush doing. Whatever the Neocons devise serves the political needs of the moment.

By thinking Bush is “dumb”, the idea is that there is no directed leadership. Bush is supposed to be the Everyman, just a guy in office doing guy-like things. Just like every man, he makes mistakes. He’ll keep representing Everyman though! Its the perfect cover for what is in actuality a radical agenda which serves a small minority of Americans and non-Americans (and even them only at considerable cost) at the cost of everyone else.

See, Bush is dumb! The White House is harmless!

Here’s an interesting question. Why does the media and popular culture still focus on Bush at all? Shouldn’t we be looking at the puppeteer and not the puppet? If THAT happens, the whole “dumb Bush” thing won’t be as relevant.

That’s absolutely right. Except for extremely rarely (and never if the President’s party also controls Congress), the President’s accountability for his actions is measured exclusively in votes. A majority of the voting populace refused to hold him accountable for his actions. So yeah, he’s absolutely right to take that as a sign that he can do pretty much whatever he wants, unfortunately.

Oh, quite surely. But if the nanny lets little Johnny fall off a bridge and drown in a river, and the parents don’t fire her, and then she lets little Suzie and big Jimmy and medium-sized Tina fall off the same bridge and drown in the same river… that’s mostly the parents’ fault.

There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once…

And through inaction the nanny is therefore not to blame, no matter how many children she kills?

Fear the nanny of death!

She’s to blame, sure, but the parents are more to blame than she is, because they should have fired her the first time. And she’s not being held accountable, that’s the point.

Bush is being (as usual) a huge dick by shouting out loud that he can do whateve he wants without fear of repercussion, but it’s absolutely true. He let our son drown in a river and we let him keep his job; not only that, we renewed his contract, which actually says that we can’t fire him for the next four years, no matter how many of our children drown. We had a chance to punish him, to hold him accountable, and we didn’t. So he’s right.

Haven’t the Iraq firings already happened? Did he miss someone?

Ok, extarbags, if you are so keen to take the blame for Bush, whether or not you voted for him, that’s fine with me :). Personally I think Bush is to blame, and only those that voted for him share a part of the burden.

from my memory of the pbs frontline episode, rumsfeld got control of the iraq occupation from powell by basically phoning up bush and saying, “look, gimme iraq and i’ll take full accountability for it.” this impressed bush so much that the occupational responsibility went from state department (which typically handles occupations) to defense (which last had control of occupation in 1952).

so, how would you rate the iraq occupation?

I mean the people that voted for him, not the people that voted against him, as individuals. But a majority of the voting populace as a whole voted to not hold him accountable for everything he’s done wrong, so the voting populace as a whole is responsible when he does it again.

What, he’s going to fire himself?

apparently he tried, but he was hiding at the time and couldnt be given his P45 (pink slip?).