Blogcritics Comments on The Bush Tapes

Comment by HW Saxton

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:58:23 EST

I've heard an excerpt from this tape (on Letterman's show 2/23/05)and it really does sounds like GWB to my ears. Sounds a bit buzzed even, actually. I can't help but feel for the guy as a human being. Being betrayed by someone that is supposedly a confidant hurts & I can't see it being any different for George. As much as I dislike the current administration and their policies (both foreign & domestic)I dislike snitches of all stripes even worse.

Comment by Mike Kole

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:49:07 EST

Actually, as a candidate, you assume that you are bugged all the time, so you should only say the things you really don't mind coming out. But you are right in that you should expect that from the opposition rather than those you count as your friends. Truly, there is a discipline required of being a candidate, and being 'on' all the time is part of the game, especially as you seek higher offices.

Comment by Sue Davis

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:38:28 EST

I'm no fan of Bush, but I heard an excerpt and it sounds NOTHING like Bush - the voice is completely different. Sounds like a fraud to me.

Comment by bhw

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:06:33 EST

The thing that bothers me, as someone who is a candidate for office, is the seemingly automatic assumption that if the office holder gets behind positions you disagree with, then the office holder must certainly be dishonest and lack integrity. I would think you, as a candidate for office, would be more bothered by the realization that your private conversations might be secretly taped by people you trust and then "accidentally" released to the media. Kinda creepy that there's literally no integrity left in the political process, even among/between allies.

Comment by Ayman

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:11:36 EST

Delusional - 1 a : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded b : an abnormal mental state characterized by the occurrence of psychotic delusions. http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Delusional+ When I read this cr@p that's all I can think.

Comment by ping

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:43:21 EST

does anybody really believe Rove & co. didn't approve the release of these tapes beforehand? after the threats to anyone not playing the good, loyal soldier in this admin, are you seriously believing that they didn't bless this entire thing? once again, reporters/journalists simply lapping and slurping uncritically from the hands that continue to slap them from the right and stroke them from the left. From Psst to Oops: Secret Taper of Bush Says History Can Wait By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK 2/24/05 http://nytimes.com/2005/02/24/politics/24wead.html In Secretly Taped Conversations, Glimpses of the Future President By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK 2/20/05 http://nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20talk.html

Comment by Mike Kole

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:55:57 EST

Conspiracy crapola like the above is another reason people protective of their good name are hesitant to run for public office.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:09:44 EST

I think it's enough to remember that the Anonymous Coward is an Anonymous Coward. Odd how the most vehemently outspoken critics of the Bush Administration are not dead or even close to it. I'd be curious to see a couple of examples of Bush critics who have died 'mysterious' Vince Foster style deaths. I won't hold my breath while I wait for your response. Dave

Comment by Anonymous Coward

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:58:35 EST

time to start the "suicide watch" for Doug Wead. more than a few Bush biographers have been kil...er, um...committed suicide. I predict that Doug Wead will be erased by the W Administration and it will be labeled a suicide. I'm sure this will happen before the end of his 2nd term. When it happens I'll be back here to remind everyone that the Anonymous Coward was, is right.

Comment by Dennis

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:44:05 EST

"Such recordings are illegal in every state under the Federal Wiretap Law passed after the Nixon administration. Dave" Have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Dave. In Texas, all that's required to legally record a telephone conversation is the consent of one (not both) of the parties involved. So far as the content of the tapes, Bush once again reveals that he considers telling the truth an option to be used rarely, if ever. By his peculiar moral standards, to mislead people is different from lying. If lies must be told, that's what 'the help' is for, and he bears no responsibility to set the record straight. He'd better hope St. Peter agrees with this argument. Dennis

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:08:39 EST

in the saged words of Was Not Was: "woodwork squeaks and out come the freaks"

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:55:27 EST

And the conspiracy nuts come out! And did he have sex with men in front of the giant owl idol at the Bohemian grove too? Dave

Comment by kuros

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:44:54 EST

In my second-to-last communication I talked about a male "escort service" operating in DC for the edification of the very senior Beltway people. I have, locked up in my office safe, copies of the credit card receipts with names, card numbers and signatures of: two Supreme Court and one Appellate Court judges {Have you heard about the two judges who tried each other?} eight Senators, five Congressmen, two former and one current White House aides, a number of very prominent DC lawyers, several senior members of the RNC, four general officers and one Admiral, three of whom are still on active duty , five local newspapermen, eight ministers, high level employees of: State Department, Commerce Department, Justice Department, HEW Department, DC police department, NSA, DIA, and most especially, a number of pundits from Georgetown University and a nice collection of CIA people. The proprietor of this stud farm was one Todd Blodgett and there was a front-page story on one of his male whore establishments in the Washington Times. Blodgett was a Reagan White House aide, was fired from both the WH and later, the RNC, for aggressive homosexual behavior and then tossed out of the University Club in DC. Information that has been kept very quiet at the highest levels would indicate that George W. Bush was heavily involved with gay groups while at Yale, had a significant affair with another man while at HBS, was a "very close friend" of a black drag queen and, according to three different inside sources, is no more a Pentecostal Christian than Saddam Hussein. The sex material about our pure, God-intoxicated President, comes from one arrest report and several "counseling" reports now sequestered (by order of Karl Rove) at Yale (Bush's records there have been sealed) There is the temptation to run with this but there at least has to be something factual here. The Republicans are trying to plant obvious lies on everyone in the hopes that others like the nutty Rather will take them up and make Bush look like a wonderful but persecuted man. According to one report, made long before Bush was Governor of Texas, he could not have any kind of sex with women unless at least half drunk and was a practicing advocate of physical abuse. He likes to beat people, according to this. But not be beaten in return. Some of this is not only difficult to believe but downright repulsive." http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2408

Comment by Mike Kole

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:33:48 EST

The thing that bothers me, as someone who is a candidate for office, is the seemingly automatic assumption that if the office holder gets behind positions you disagree with, then the office holder must certainly be dishonest and lack integrity. That's a sobering thought. I know that some of my positions are unpopular, but I believe in them, and I run for office to try to convince people with reason, and to win the vote. I can see my future, especially if I win, where I am labeled dishonest and lacking integrity. I won't like it a bit. Who would? Don't those who throw these epithets around so easily have any concern that maybe their actions keep good honest people of integrity *away* from running from office?

Comment by kyle raglin

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:50:43 EST

I'm really disappointed with the fact that Wead (gotta love that name) didn't make this public a year or two ago. I didn't vote for GW because of a mulititude of other reasons, but I'd bet money we wouldn't be living under his rule today, if the tapes were released a while back.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:08:14 EST

Please pay attention, Darrow. I didn't say that the mistreatment of prisoners was laughable, I said that his links were laughable as evidence of war crimes, which they are. If you want to make a serious accusation, come up with some credible evidence. Yes, there have been some problems with treatment of prisoners. Yes, there are procedural questions which need to be resolved about Guantanamo. But there's no reasonable evidence to support any kind of War Crimes charge under the Geneva Convention or otherwise. The Geneva Convention is very clear, you know. It doesn't even apply to non-uniformed combatants who are engaged in fifth-column activities like terrorism or assassination, which describes almost all of the Guantanamo detainees. BTW, your link to votetoimpeach.org is even more ludicrous than the ones George posted. Have you READ their supposed articles of impeachment? They're a joke or at best a lunatic fantasy. They were drafted by Ramsey Clark who is a radical left activist and known to be unhinged. Let me just point you to article 6 which attempts to claim that the president should be impeached because he violated the UN charter which it cites as "the Supreme Law of the Land". Clark should be disbarred for trying to pass off such a fraud. The supreme law of the land in the US is the Constitution and it's what Bush is answerable to, not the UN. The UN charter is meaningless in an impeachment proceeding and any qualified lawyer should know that. Article 17 is even more ridiculous. It claims it's an impeachable offense not to sign on to international treaties promoting 'peace' and that he's impeachable because he let the ABM treaty expire. Come on - time to get out of fantasy land. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you advocate arrant idiocy like this. If you don't like Bush, why not do something constructive to stop him instead of climbing aboard the loony wagon and shouting 'yeeha'. Dave

Comment by Darrow

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:34:11 EST

Dave: It would not be laughable for you if you were the detainee who had been tortured without recourse to a lawyer and no charges made against you. Don't laugh at the messenger or be cynical. There are war crimes or are you in denial. Check out votetoimpeach.org

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:03:52 EST

Wait, let me be more specific, because your claims of war crimes are particularly laughable: >>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/<< This is an absurdly speculative article which among other things points out clearly why and how President Bush has avoided doing anything which might result in an actual War Crimes accusation of any merit. The entire Geneva Convention argument is absurd and no one who has any idea what he's talking about would take it seriously. >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20986-2004Dec22.html<< This is a virtually contentless editorial, totally speculative, and mostly about Abu Ghraib in which Bush and other administration leaders are not implicated in any way. It's got a couple of references to unsubstantiated second hand rumors about things that have gone on at Guantanimo. There's nothing here. >>http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm<< This is the funnies one. This is a link to an accusation of war crimes filed with the ICC by a bunch of ultraleftist nutcases and representatives of totalitarian regimes around the world and it doesn't even name George W. Bush, it names his FATHER. Do you not even READ the things you link to? Furthermore, it was never acted on by the ICC, nor were any actual trials held. This is just total specious garbage. Better luck next time. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:52:39 EST

Being accused of war crimes by a pack of loons on the net who are pushing a political agenda doesn't make the war crimes real. Do you have no critical filtering capacity? Dave

Comment by George

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:10:22 EST

Dave: Wow, you got me. There sure are no details of war crimes. Not in my house and not on corporate television either. Good thing there is the internet. You should check it out. A simple "Bush war crimes" search will give quite a bit of reading material. Here are a few of links to start with. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20986-2004Dec22.html http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm Edgar: Hello? What the heck are you reading in my message where I promote war?

Comment by Darrow

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:52:37 EST

War is not the answer. Or is this the lack of historical information that fogs the mind of W and allows him to ignore diplomatic means and continue to rattle the sabre. Of course he is guilty of war crimes. Just talk to the wounded survivors, soldiers and civilians alike. There were alternatives to war and he misled us. That's a crime against the people and is a violation or our constitution. Bush is short changing our domestic programs that strengthen us and giving it to the war mongers who will never succeed. Impeach Bush.

Comment by J Edgar Ashcroft

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:07:13 EST

Here's a newsflash George: You set a far more dangerous example for children when you try to solve problems with violence.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:23:10 EST

Brilliant, George. Let's here about those war crimes in detail? Oh wait, there are none. Good job there, troll. To address the one thing in your post which wasn't ludicrous - people change over time. Many people, like GWB outgrow their youthful indiscretions and develop new interests and motivations. It's not at all uncommon for the drunks or the stoners to become the most vehemently anti-alcohol or anti-drug people around. Does this make their position in later life invalid? I don't think it's hypocritical, it just means they have learned from experience. I'd rather be told not to do drugs by a reformed drug user than by a self-righteous person who has never used drugs at all. Dave

Comment by George

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:15:48 EST

OK, so he too smoked pot. That is a good thing. Smoke pot and become president! Proof that marijuana should be legalized. It certainly didn't diminish his ability (nor Clinton's) to become president. It also hasn't hurt millions of other people that have smoked. What exactly IS he ashamed of? Nothing, he has no morals. He is so dishonest he can't tell the American people the truth about anything. He is afraid of the truth. He should be ashamed of that. He is a hypocrite for promoting sending thousands of people to prison for drug use - when he used his privilege and elitism to stay out of jail. Due to being rich and white instead of poor and black. Bush is no friend of the American public. Impeach Bush! For war crimes - not smoking pot.

Comment by Jim Labdon

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:03:34 EST

I think the LSD and coccaine use he acknowledges explains Bush's imparied reasoning and perception skills. Who better than George Bush to warn us of WMDs and Mushroom clouds? It all seems clear to me now.