1
   

Bush 41's Crying Game: Dubya Destroyed Family Name

 
 
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 12:58 am
Bush 41 Crying Game

Quote:
Justin Frank
Bio
Blog Index RSS
12.05.2006
Crying Time (13 comments )
READ MORE: Iraq, Bob Woodward, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush

One of George W. Bush's deepest unconscious wishes has finally come true - he publicly brought down his own family, particularly his father. He had been building up to this point throughout his public and private life - most famously when he told Bob Woodward that he never consulted his father about invading Iraq, and that he preferred a "higher Father." To make matters worse he wouldn't let his father speak at the 2004 Republican Convention and soon thereafter consigned him to tour the world with the man who had defeated him in 1992 - Bill Clinton.

This time, W didn't have to do anything. He has already destroyed his father's legacy of international cooperation. He continues practice what Bush 41 once derisively labeled "voodoo economics", driving America into irrevocable debt. As usual, W was nowhere to be found when his father broke down while attempting to celebrate brother Jeb's career - Jeb, who may be the real man of the family.

When Bush 41 started talking about Jeb's 1994 gubernatorial loss in Florida he wept openly, sputtering that Jeb didn't whine or complain about losing; that how a person handles victory and defeat is the true measure of a man. He choked up on the word "defeat," a word he must feel applies to his entire dynasty.

For it is not simply that W is a failure, which he is. He is also a success - he breaks things more thoroughly than any president in history. And now W has branded his entire family as failures, Jeb's defeat becoming the prototype for future family humiliations. While Bush 41 defends his firstborn, he reveres his third-born. And in his heart of hearts he knows that the firstborn has murdered not only our sons and daughters, but his family's hope for a lasting legacy of honor, courage, and real public service.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,493 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 06:31 pm
Why is it that I don't feel any sympathy for Bush Sr?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 06:33 pm
All the Bushes can burn in hell as far as I'm concerned.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 06:34 pm
Oh, maybe that's why.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 06:51 pm
It's old news now but always bears repeating. http://www.nhgazette.com/shop/uploads/dam.gif The Bush family history of Trading with the Enemy and getting rich off the blowback is so well documented and Poppy Bush may be crying over Dumbya's failures because they could lead to greater public awareness of that nasty Bush/Walker history. http://nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 06:51 pm
Kinda remined me of Billzeebubba a'slobberin & biten his lip. yuck
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 06:59 pm
Some people just don't know the difference between a blow job and trading with the enemy.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 07:32 pm
I always was impressed with this Gore speech. Poppy Bush has as much to answer for as his boy. October 27, 1992

Exerpts from the remarks of
SEN. AL GORE
Rally at the University of Wisconsin
Oshkosh, WI

President Bush claims credit for successfully prosecuting the
Persian Gulf war, so he should be prepared to have the record of his
activities leading toward that war examined, particularly now, as he
asks the American people for their support for four more years.

The pattern of President Bush's own public statements on these
issues is itself worthy of special attention and the reasons are
increasingly evident. U.S. policy toward Iraq has been a first class
disaster. Even more disturbing is the fact that blended in with
violations of common sense may well be violations of law.

The President has tried to divorce himself from any connection
with events during the Reagan Administration, and he is also running
from the truth concerning his policies and actions during his own
time as President. Error can sometimes be excused, although when the
error is so great that it brings us to the edge of disaster, a
harsher judgment may be in order from the people. That the President
erred is one thing. The fact he has not leveled with the American
people is another.

The facts show, with increasing clarity, that as Vice President,
George Bush was centrally involved in the sale of weapons to Iran as
payment for release of U.S. hostages who were being held in Lebanon
by groups under Iranian control.

President Bush denied for years in the most categorical terms
that he was involved in the crafting or the execution of this policy.
In his words, he was "out of the loop." But a growing weight of
evidence points clearly to just the opposite conclusion. George Bush
wasn't "out of the loop," he was right in the middle of it.

That's what we know from the two most senior members of the
Reagan cabinet -- then-Secretaries of State and Defense, George
Shultz and Caspar Weinberger -- who registered shock and dismay that
Vice President Bush, who they knew to be a proponent of the arms sale
to Iran, was denying all knowledge.

And that's what we know from a former member of the National
Security Council staff, who says he personally briefed then-Vice
President Bush on the details of the arms for hostages deal with
Iran.

And, now we are being told - in a major article just published
in a national magazine -- that as Vice-President, George Bush not
only knew about the arms for hostage deal, but was a central player
in a plot that taught Saddam Hussein something about deception and
double-double-crosses.

Specifically, the article says that at the request of the late
CIA Director, William Casey, Vice President Bush used a trip he took
to the Middle East in the summer of 1986, to convince the timid Iraqi
air force to bomb deep into Iran and increase Iran's need for
American anti-aircraft defenses. That way, the U.S. could get more
favorable terms in the arms for hostages deal.

The arms for hostages deal must have rocked Saddam Hussein when
he discovered that he was dealing with people who were capable of
showing him a thing or two about deception and ruthless cynicism.
Here he thought that the U.S. government was squarely in his corner,
and then all of a sudden he discovers that his good friends were busy
arming his deadly enemies in Iran. As a result, the Reagan
Administration found itself obliged to increase earlier benefits to
Saddam Hussein, to make-up ground lost by the arms for hostages deal.
This is the process that George Bush pushed hard as Vice President,
and then even more vigorously, as President, coddling Saddam Hussein
and ignoring the warnings.

As a result of that program of favoritism for Iraq, billions of
dollars of credit flowed from our country to Saddam Hussein. Some of
that money was guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers, and U.S. taxpayers are
now holding the bag for almost $2 billion in these loans. Many
billions more were siphoned off from the Atlanta branch office of an
Italian bank. The Bush Administration had plenty of warning that
these funds were being misused: specifically, that they were being
diverted to military purposes by Saddam Hussein, and even more
alarmingly, that they were being used to help him in a global effort
to purchase the means to create chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons.

The Bush Administration has denied that it proceeded recklessly
in financing Saddam Hussein, and claims that it was merely trying to
coax him into the "family of nations." President Bush himself has
specifically and categorically denied that there was even a scintilla
of evidence that U.S. money and U.S. exports helped to build up
Saddam Hussein's military power. But the steady and quickening
stream of new information raises serious questions about the
President's explanations.

Those explanations fall short for example in justifying how the
Administration continued to push for loan guarantees to Iraq despite
clear warnings from the federal prosecutor investigating fraud at
that Italian bank funneling money to Saddam Hussein. New documents,
just released, show that the Chief Prosecutor in the bank case told
the Bush-Quayle Administration in the fall of 1989, that there had
been a multi-billion dollar scam involving the bank, and that the
Iraqi government was not only a party to fraud, but had been using
the money to buy military goods, and also machines that could "among
other things, remove burrs from nose cones of missiles and compress
nuclear fuel."

Now does that sound like someone you want to loan a lot of money
to? It doesn't to me and it wouldn't to most of us. But to George
Bush, unbelievably, Saddam Hussein still seemed a good bet.
Despite this fire-bell warning, and others similar to it that we knew
about before this latest revelation, the Administration went on to
force through more than one billion dollars in new loan guarantees to
Iraq.

All this took place after the end of the war between Iraq and
Iran, when our strategic need for Iraq had lessened. It took place
despite our knowledge of Saddam Hussein's use of poison gas against
Iraqi Kurds, and despite our knowledge of Saddam Hussein's continuing
hospitality to terrorist groups. And the reason it took place is
because of George Bush's fundamental misreading of Saddam Hussein.
George Bush thought he could turn Saddam Hussein into a tame stooge.
Instead, he got a raving and dangerous dictator.

The result is that, like a pilot flying in dense fog, who
refuses to believe his instruments, George Bush wound up flying
upside down. He disregarded every warning right until the bitter
end.

President Bush would have us believe that Saddam Hussein invaded
Kuwait despite tough warnings against any invasion. George Bush says
he made it clear to Saddam that he meant business. But the text of
President Bush's final message to Saddam was made public just last
week, and it is not a warning but a plea. Even top officials in
Bush's own Department of Defense thought George Bush's message to
Saddam was so soft and misleading that it ought to be stopped. They
tried but failed.

With 30,000 troops massed on Kuwait's border, Saddam Hussein had
to weigh the chances of a serious US response. He knew, what the
American people did not: that George Bush had, as Vice President and
as President, invariably accepted whatever abuse Saddam wanted to
hand out. Not only that, he knew from experience that George Bush
responded to such abuse not by cutting back on his secret generosity,
but by redoubling it. And at the decisive moment, he had in hand a
final message from an American President that deserves to be
described as base appeasement.

And so, Saddam Hussein invaded, and within months, the armed
forces of the United States began to move into position for what
ultimately would be a famous military victory. But let me remind you
that the Iraqi forces we were preparing to deal with had been
strengthened by the Bush Administration itself. President Bush
denies this. But again, we know the truth: the Iraqis were
particularly interested in obtaining high tech items from us, and the
Bush Administration swept aside objections from the Department of
Defense to make sure that the licenses were issued. The door was
gladly opened to send Iraq a broad array of goods -- sophisticated
computers and machine tools, and many other items that wound up in
military production facilities and labs.

Today, the Senate Banking Committee is holding a hearing to
explore the manner in which the Bush Administration dealt with Iraq's
export requests, and even more information has now become available.
Very little dignity remains to the President's assertion that there
was not "one scintilla" of evidence that U.S. exports had added to
Iraq's war machine. He has been contradicted by no less an authority
than the American who headed the U.N. inspection team, David Kay.

Meanwhile, it is clear that thanks to political interference,
the effort to get to the bottom of the Italian bank scandal has been
set back for many months. Prosecutors in Atlanta as well as the
original judge in the case have discovered that the Justice
Department may well have interfered with their access to vital
information. Now we have the spectacle of the Justice Department,
the CIA, and the FBI involved in mutual recriminations -- it would be
funny, if the result were not obstruction of justice, and if it
didn't mean that the truth will not come out until after the
election.

At the very bottom of all this are two central issues: George
Bush's foreign policy skills and our ability to trust him. George
Bush brags about his expertise and experience in foreign policy, yet
presides over a massive foreign policy failure and a cover-up that's
even larger than Watergate -- fueled by his own mis- statements. Now
he says he's going to do for our economy what he did for our foreign
policy. It makes you wonder how much worse he could make this
recession.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 07:34 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people just don't know the difference between a blow job and trading with the enemy.

Or in Billzeebubbas case sleeping with the enemy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 07:43 pm
"Enemy?" Jeezuz curriste; where do you live?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 08:26 pm
I thought W. only did what Daddy Bush wanted him to do? Thats what the libs have been saying.....and now this spin? Which is it?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 08:30 pm
okie wrote:
I thought W. only did what Daddy Bush wanted him to do? Thats what the libs have been saying.....and now this spin? Which is it?

What is today? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:01 pm
okie wrote:
I thought W. only did what Daddy Bush wanted him to do? Thats what the libs have been saying.....and now this spin? Which is it?


Leave it to okie to come up with really dumbass straw argument and LSM to agree with iot. If anything, Dubya takes after his mean, old bitch mother.
If only Dubya had taken after his father or the smart one (Jeb) had been elected instead of the sociopathic George W.

Remember when Bush 43 was asked about consulting with his dad on Iraq. The madman answered that he consulted with a higher fatherly power?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 11:55 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
"Enemy?" Jeezuz curriste; where do you live?

Oh my goodness, you mean when several of clintons aids said that it was monicas fault, it wasn't? I thought she was the enemy.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 11:57 pm
I would think that it would be hard for any parent to see their kid in a horrible situation, people calling him all kinds of names, death threats, hate, then there's the foreign enemies.
Whether your kid is right or wrong, you still hurt when they're hurt, no matter how old they get. then too, Mr Bush is in his 80's, maybe you'll cry when you reach that age.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:11 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Oh my goodness, you mean when several of clintons aids said that it was monicas fault, it wasn't? I thought she was the enemy.

Who are these "Clinton's aids" of whom you speak? Name three
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:43 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I would think that it would be hard for any parent to see their kid in a horrible situation, people calling him all kinds of names, death threats, hate, then there's the foreign enemies.
Whether your kid is right or wrong, you still hurt when they're hurt, no matter how old they get. then too, Mr Bush is in his 80's, maybe you'll cry when you reach that age.


Except that Bush 41 was crying about his favorite son, Jeb who will never get his chance and that the legacy of the Bush name will be forever ruined by the crimes of Dubya.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:47 am
Anyone notice how Bush 41 expressed concerned over what his mean old bitch wife would think about his crying? There is a real pathology going on between them and this dysfunctional family.

Compared to Dubya and the bitch mother, George HW and Jeb are fairly decent human beings, or at least close to decent.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:49 am
There's not a decent soul in that family. They are evil, corrupt people, and, as I said earlier, I hope every single one of them burns in hell.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:50 am
And I hope they are raped by demons and have pitchforks shoved up their...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush 41's Crying Game: Dubya Destroyed Family Name
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2020 at 12:42:37