Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Bush, Inside His Bubble, Didn't Learn About Haditha Until A Reporter Called ... Four Months After The Incident


President Bush, it has been said, doesn't read newspapers or news magazines, preferring oral briefings provided by his staff. Like others in the administration, he prefers administration-friendly Fox News Channel. On the road, Bush often speaks before partisan crowds -- some of whom had to take loyalty oaths -- with questioners hand-picked to lob softball questions. At one point, the White House filled a room with interns posing as reporters.

From inside his bubble, Bush can probably rationalize that he is making good decisions, doing everything he can to fight the war on terror. Who will argue?

The problem, of course, is that the real world exists ... outside that bubble. And Bush's lack of knowledge of the world around him can at times be baffling.

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary (and Fox News Channel alum) Tony Snow told reporters that Bush learned of reports that U.S. Marines killed two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians at Haditha only after reporters asked about it.

Asked when Bush was first briefed about Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in western Iraq, Snow said: "When a Time reporter first made the call."

Time was first to report, in March, that the U.S. military was investigating a dozen Marines for possible war crimes in the November incident. The killings, which included women and children, came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine.

Is this competent leadership? Shouldn't the president know abput a major military investigation regarding an incident that could provide additional momentum to the seemingly endless insurgency?

Bush says his administration is doing "everything we can" to fight the war on terror. Clearly, that's just empty spin.

16 Comments:

Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Echoes of Katrina, where Bush said he first learned of the hurricane's devastation via media reports.
Bush likely instructs his staff not to inform him of anything going on in Iraq unless it is good news. That way, as an ignoramus, Bush figures he can make all those speeches about progress in Iraq with a straight face.

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Gen. Patton said...

It really does matter when he found out about it. It took him less than five minutes to turn his back on the Marines and basically declare them guilty before all the facts are out. They guys fighting and dying for this country get less respect than murders on trial. Liberalism truely is a mental disorder.

1:19 PM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

Patton, there is NOTHING more USELESS than quoting Savage.

If not for liberalism, we'd live in a police state. Free speech? Free thought? Free religion? We'd have none of it. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT???

JABBS NEVER SAYS THE MARINES ARE GUILTY, PATTON. AND THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!!

The question is:

"Shouldn't the president know about a major military investigation regarding an incident that could provide additional momentum to the seemingly endless insurgency?"

Are you capable of ANSWERING the question, or do you need to ASK SAVAGE FIRST?

This isn't LIBERALISM. This is Tony Snow ADMITTING how little Bush KNOWS ABOUT IRAQ.

Get your HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!

2:24 PM  
Anonymous More Gen. Patton said...

Temper, temper, Evil Twin. Sounds like you might need a little less patton leather and a lot more Gen. Patton to show you the right path. Liberalism, but its very nature has robbed this country of its nationalistic pride not to mention its manhood. Bush is a perfect example of this. He is a leaderless fool. By essentially blaming the Marines before the evidence is fully revealed, he has sided with our enemies, which should make all Dim-witted, foul-mouthed liberals like yourself happy. Everyone knows Liberals love our Enemy more than those who fight for the very freedoms Liberals love to flout.

3:51 PM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

USELESS CRAP. Absolutely USELESS.

You believe "liberals love our enemy?" THEN YOU ARE THE ENEMY of DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, SPEECH and CHOICE.

I also think your READING COMPHREHENSION SKILLS are sorely LACKING.

4:58 PM  
Anonymous Sniffer said...

oH GOD Angelina please stop, your killing me your "If not for liberalism" quote was so funny I was rolling on the floor in tears.
I had to put your quote on top of my blog.
I always knew you liberals thought that crazy mess but I figure you would keep that quote quiet and only share over a puff, puff pass session.

5:53 PM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

This is just another effort to CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Don't talk about anything Bush might be doing wrong. CHANGE THE SUBJECT to stupid, empty, baseless crap about liberals. LOOK THE OTHER WAY, and then you don't have to DEAL WITH THE TRUTH.

Without liberalism, we'd still have slavery. We wouldn't have freedom of religion. We wouldn't have freedom of speech or freedom of the press. We wouldn't have a representative government.

You want to live in a place that doesn't embrace liberalism? Go to NORTH KOREA. Or CUBA. Or MAINLAND CHINA. Then you can be a XENOPHOBE just like Michael Savage, and you can saying demeaning, hurtful, untrue things about anything that SCARES YOU ... like FREEDOM.

It's PAINFUL how badly you guys twist and turn the truth in order to AVOID an honest discussion. You'd rather MOCK than debate. You rather DEMEAN than say something meaningful. Why do you bother? Stay inside your BUBBLE!

6:14 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Aw, Sniffer, you mock, but you don’t offer anything meaningful. The above statement — if you follow the classic definition of “liberal,” is absolutely true.

Here ya go:

lib·er·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr–lzm, lbr-)
n.
The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

>>>>>

Autonomy — Pronunciation Key (ô-tn-m)
n. pl. au·ton·o·mies 1: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence [syn: liberty] 2: personal independence [syn: self-direction, self-reliance, self-sufficiency]

Civil liberties — civil lib·er·ties (lbr-tz)
pl.n.
Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

>>

On your site, someone responded to my post by bashing liberals -- or at least their mythical, stereotypical version of liberals.

Let's admit two things;

1) This is just an exercise in changing the subject. You can't answer David's question, so instead you turn this into a futile exercise.

2) Nothing that Angelina said is wrong. You may not agree with her, but she is absolutely correct. And repeating the mind-numbing "liberalism is a mental disorder" is just a cop-out. It's a tag line by Savage, a way to sell books and tapes and get ratings for his show. It's catchy, and he's successfully used it for personal profit and fame.

But what does it mean. If the definition of liberalism is autonomy of the individual, then what does Savage want? I'll tell you: he wants followers. He wants people to adopt his way of thinking, rather than thinking for themselves. To do so, he offers catch-phrases and half-truths. He doesn't offer context or a true debate. Even what we are doing here is impossible in Savage Nation -- he talks over you, calls you a name and hangs up on you the first time you swerve from his precepts.

That is the opposite of liberalism. Rathar than accepting freedom of speech or freedom of expression, Savage wants one form of speech -- one that includes bashing women, blacks, gays, foreigners, etc. -- and one form of expression (his!)

10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, Sniffer. Too bad she is absolutely right.
I will add, if not for liberalism there would be no United States of America.
There would also be no ability for you and your ilk to contaminate an otherwise intelligent discussion with such completely clueless and baseless statements as:
"Everyone knows Liberals love our Enemy more than those who fight for the very freedoms Liberals love to flout"

10:59 PM  
Anonymous Gen. Patton Returns said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:05 AM  
Anonymous Sniffer said...

You know I am seriously thinking about attending the Yearly KOS event in Vegas next week. Not to raise a stink but to observe you liberals and try to understand what makes you folks tick.
I wish some of you were going to be there.
You guys rant on liberalism is just plain funny, but typical. I love the line by Angelina "liberalism ended slavery", You could not have banged that phrase on your keyboard with a straight face. Just priceless!
Anywho I invite you to read the following articles. You liberals refuse to read insightful conservative commentary you get you views of republicans from the New York Times and the DNC website.
This is again why I read so much liberal material. The more I know about liberals and liberalism the more distance I want to have from your views.

If you want to know EXACTLY my thinking on conservative issues across the board read anything by Thomas Sowell.


George F. Will: Post-Katrina Liberalism - http://politicalpartypoop.com/?p=612

Preserving a vision - Must read for liberals! - http://politicalpartypoop.com/?p=606

Ammunition for poverty pimps - http://politicalpartypoop.com/?p=611

Liberal attitudes - http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/04/05/15020.html

1:20 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Sniffer, the most I've gained from reading your Thomas Sowell links is understanding clearly why Sowell has never been able to attract mainstream thought.
He makes plenty of attempts to connect an alleged surge in murder rate, riots, sexually-transmitted diseases to a surge in liberal policies but completely neglects to account for the sweeping changes in economic and social forces in effect at the relevant times.
He insists blacks were better off economically before government passed the sweeping social changes during the sixties. So the social reforms passed during the sixties were a waste of time?
If this is Sowell's position, then why, in the same breath, does he credit Republicans for voting for more the reforms than Democrats?
He criticizes government-tax policies without putting into any context the purpose behind those tax policies.
I also do not find his argument and supporting examples that "liberals" find attitudes more important than principal very convincing. "Liberals" take action when the principal is flawed. Period.
Here we have even more stereotypical, misguided, close-minded attempts to subscribe "Liberal" thought to "Liberals" when if Sowell was really concerned all he would have to do is talk to the people he perceives to be "Liberal."

The greatest enemy to human progress after all is ignorance.

12:36 PM  
Anonymous Sniffer said...

“Sniffer, the most I've gained from reading your Thomas Sowell links is understanding clearly why Sowell has never been able to attract mainstream thought.”

You have to explain that one to me because Thomas Sowell is regarded as the one of the top conservative thinkers in the country. What exactly is out of the mainstream about his thoughts and views?

“He makes plenty of attempts to connect an alleged surge in murder rate, riots, sexually-transmitted diseases to a surge in liberal policies but completely neglects to account for the sweeping changes in economic and social forces in effect at the relevant times.”

War, what sweeping changes? This is at the core of why I neither like nor trust liberals especially liberals in power. When touching specifically on issues that faced black America there was no sweeping changes economically or socially for blacks in the 60's. All what most of the civil rights era did was to shame white Americans into accepting the reality of inevitable change. The changes had already started, but not because of anything liberals were doing specifically.
The civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights Americas politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do for the greater good of the nation.
The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions world wars, plus the work ethic of millions of blacks trying to be on par with white folks trying to feed their families. More specifically the strength of black churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed. NOT ANY SPECIFIC LIBERAL PHILOSOPHY OR LEGISLATION. Although many white liberal folks, particularly those who are too young to know better sincerely believe that liberalism, shined a light on the civil rights struggle and saved black folks. Plez!
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
That tis not my opinion that is fact look it up.
Even look at JFK’s record on Civil rights. I bet many of you liberal whites still believed that JFK and black folks walked in lock step but the fact is JFK only evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. When Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was tabled.
The bottom line is neither political party has the right to claim it was responsible for making civil rights for blacks happen. Changing times and the efforts of blacks themselves, plus the thousands of TV pictures blazing across the screens on national television, finally brought it home to white America that injustices were being done to their brethren who happened to be black.
But the republicans were the minority party and they were consistent in their actions.

The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the civil rights act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity.
Look at what Angelina said the other day, do you folks understand how silly that sounds to Negros who know better.

He insists blacks were better off economically before government passed the sweeping social changes during the sixties. So the social reforms passed during the sixties were a waste of time?
If this is Sowell's position, then why, in the same breath, does he credit Republicans for voting for more the reforms than Democrats?

SEE ABOVE, but go back for yourself an look at how blacks were doing economically, socially and educationally PRIOR to the 1960's. You see War and others all you have to do is read and study.
Don’t let some bullshit liberal college professor spin that crazy shit that liberal policies put mony in black folks pockets and improved their living conditions, that tis simply a joke.

But getting back to the tax thing War, since you are on the left do you not believe that if you don't vote for massive transfer payments from one group to another or high taxes, then you must be a racist. If you don't believe in preference for any group of Americans or the expansion of government programs, then you must be racist?
If so explain to me how this helps black folks? How does the “transfer” of wealth aid in economic development.

“I also do not find his argument and supporting examples that "liberals" find attitudes more important than principal very convincing. "Liberals" take action when the principal is flawed.”

That is 100% true!
Lets use the Iraq War shall we. Without going into how you feel about Bush’s policies and the war itself, if liberals and Democrats thought that this war was wrong, immoral, criminal.
Then why TODAY, THIS VERY DAY are Democrats and liberals not fighting more vigorously to end the conflict?
John Kerry has either or will introduce a bill to withdraw the troops from Iraq at the end of the year. If the Democratic party stance is just that then why don’t every damm one of the Democrats in the House and Senate standing up on the mountain tops screaming for this legislation.
I should not matter that it won’t pass, it’s a matter of principal! So where is the action War, others who read this. Democrats are all about sticking a finger in the air. All you have to look at is Clinton, and how she is purposely shifting right in her actions. She know ans do all Democrats that they MUST shift right to win elections. This is about attitudes and perception.

The greatest enemy to human progress after all is ignorance.

A LIBERAL WOULD KNOW, THAT TIS WHAT YOU PEOPLE THRIVE ON!

2:03 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Sniffer, I've read your comments, but will not bring up my counterpoints here.
I'm going to side with Angelina who said conservatives bring up these side topics about "liberals" to take the discussion away from the failure of their current leadership.
I've been sucked into it.
From now on I'm going to stick only to the JABBS' topics.
The topic at hand now is why did Bush learn about Haditha -- an incident with major implications of further fueling the insurgency in Iraq, four months after the incident?
Whether Bush is liberal, conservative, or purple with pink polka dots, the act shows a pitiful lack of leadership, as well as a dangerous, hypocritical position from someone purporting to save America from terrorism.

1:55 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

What I would like to read is what opinions the repuke bunch have about the subject matter of Bush's severe lack of leadership on every policy that affects our nation here and abroad. No need to bash liberals,Democrats,or anyone that disagrees with you. We already know how you feel about humans that think for themselves. Please participate in debate not Gossip or repeated "spin" statements.

8:06 PM  
Anonymous Shalana said...

What's amazing is that this is not the first time that Bush has pleaded ignorance on a matter of state, saying he didn't know about it until he read it in the papers.

Last year, he expressed surprise over a bill that HE signed into law, that would require American, Canadian, and Mexican citizens to show passports in order to enter the United States. Even though HE signed the bill into law, he said he learned about the re-entry requirement after reading it in the newspaper. He told the American Society of Newspaper Editors "When I first read that in the newspaper, about the need to have passports, for particularly the day crossings that take place — about a million, for example in the state of Texas — I said, 'What's going on here?"'

I talked about it here: http://progressiveminds.bloghi.com/2006/05/30/the-clueless-commander-in-chief.html

9:50 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares