George Bush Crying on God's Shoulder - Comments Page 3

The President explains why he's right and everyone else is wrong.

As George Bush's time in office winds down, he's found time to sit down and reflect on his tenure with author Robert Draper. The resulting book is called Dead Certain, the title an apparent reference to Bush's defiance and stubbornness in the face of harsh reality.…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 76 - Lee Richards

    Sep 05, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Bush has become a self-parody, just about the worst thing that can happen to a public figure. Still, if Bush Sr. & Clinton can make the book sales/speaking fees, surely GWB will as well.

    Dave, I agree that Carter was a weak and unsuccessful president but, in person, he is completely different. I have seen him deliver speeches and interact with audiences;believe it or not, he is forceful, knowledgeable, and articulate, with a grasp of detail, clarity 0f thought, and understanding of events and forces that he never projected on TV.

  • 77 - Baronius

    Sep 05, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    Also, Carter desperately needed acceptance, and would do anything to get it. He's quite a pathetic figure. I don't see Bush having that same craving.

  • 78 - handyguy

    Sep 05, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    I'd prefer to express it as: Carter is a first-class human being but he was an ineffective president.

    GWB is apparently very charming and likable in person. Politically, he's been a polarizing radical, and some of his most visible policies have exploded in his face. And ours.

    Clinton is one of the smartest and most charismatic men ever to hold the office, and yet he accomplished relatively little of what he and his supporters [me included] would have hoped. Certainly he squandered major political capital through his own missteps, and a venomously partisan opposition in Congress made sure he didn't regain enough to accomplish more.

    In the current poisonous political atmosphere, it's hard to imagine a president most of us could agree on, a president who has the support of nearly everyone.

  • 79 - Clavos

    Sep 05, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    "In the current poisonous political atmosphere, it's hard to imagine a president most of us could agree on, a president who has the support of nearly everyone."

    Food for thought there, handy, which also begs the question, what will the political atmosphere be like beyond the election?

  • 80 - REMF

    Sep 05, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    I guess the main difference being, Carter and Clinton didn't send 3,600 Americans (and counting) to their deaths and waste over 449 billion dollars (and counting) on a shithole like Iraq.
    - MCH

  • 81 - Baronius

    Sep 05, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    Carter was a classless partisan hack who has tried to undermine every subsequent Republican administration by dealing with enemies of the US. A saner generation would have long ago had him arrested for treason.

    Not even Pat Robertson wears his religion on his sleeve the way Carter does. But no one calls him on it.

    Carter has supported and endorsed thuggish regimes, and thus is indirectly responsible for innumerable deaths and human rights abuses. You name it, he's praised it: Yugoslavia, Syria, the PLO, Ortega, basically any rat that's ever ruined a country.

    Why the kinship with dictators? Because Carter is at heart a bully - an ineffective bully, but a bully. He also seems to hate elections. That could be personal or ideological; either way he disgraces America when he supports tyranny.

  • 82 - REMF

    Sep 05, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    Jimmy Carter:
    **Enlisted in the U.S. Navy, serving from 1946-53
    **Bachelor of Science Degree, U.S. Naval Academy
    **Served on submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets
    **Executive Officer and Engineering Officer, USS K-1, nuclear submarine program, 1951
    **Resigned at the rank of Liuetenant
    **Honorable Discharge..."Golden"

    GW Bush
    **Used influence to jump ahead of a waiting list of 500 men to get into the Texas National Guards
    **Was automatically awarded rank of Lt. after boot camp, despite having never attended Officer Candidate School
    **Permanently grounded from flying for missing a mandatory physical, thus wasting $1 million on his training
    **Failed to report for duty to Dannelly AFB in Aug. 1972, and then skipped his final two years of obligation, thus committing Desertion
    **Honorable Discharge..."Bogus"

  • 83 - Baronius

    Sep 05, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    REMF, if Bush can be wrong after 4 years of military service, Carter can be treasonous after his years.

  • 84 - Baronius

    Sep 05, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    Actually, now that I look at that, REMF, Carter's military record is amazing. Annapolis graduate, war years, and he only made it to Lt.? Wow, old Goofy Tooth was a lousy sailor as well as a terrible president and pathetic human being.

  • 85 - Clavos

    Sep 05, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    Damn, Baronius, you beat me to it!

    That's a VERY low rank for a Middie, especially when you consider that he served in wartime, and for seven years.

    OTOH, when you look at his presidential track record, it's not so surprising.

  • 86 - REMF

    Sep 05, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    "Annapolis graduate, war years, and he only made it to Lt.? Wow, old Goofy Tooth was a lousy sailor..."

    How high did you get, Baronius?

  • 87 - Lumpy

    Sep 05, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    I believe REMF meant to type . Lt
    Commander, but I can understand his lack of familiarity with military ranks. Lieutenants don't get to be XOs of nuclear subs.

  • 88 - Baronius

    Sep 05, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    Never served, never called to, never tried to subvert US foriegn policy. Carter corresponded with the USSR, encouraging the Kremlin to embarrass Reagan in 1984 for the sake of Mondale. He lobbied nations on the Security Council to oppose the Gulf War. If you blame Bush for desertion after his military service, you have to blame Carter for his treason.

  • 89 - Baronius

    Sep 05, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    Lumpy, as near as I can tell, Carter really never made it farther than Lieutenant. I can only guess how far REMF got, since he can't spell "Liuetenant".

  • 90 - REMF

    Sep 05, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    "but I can understand his lack of familiarity with military ranks. Lieutenants don't get to be XOs of nuclear subs."

    Care to make a wager?

    ----------------------------

    "Never served, never called to..."
    "Wow, old Goofy Tooth was a lousy sailor..."

    I can't be the only one who sees the hypocrisy there.


  • 91 - Dr Dreadful

    Sep 05, 2007 at 7:59 pm

    Carter's presidency would have been more fun (bearing in mind his naval service) if:

    - he'd insisted on being referred to as 'Jamaica Jim'
    - in his State of the Union addresses, instead of beginning 'my fellow Americans', he'd started out with 'ARRRRRRR!!!'
    - his Press Secretary had been a parrot
    - he'd handed out extra rations of rum at the DNC
    - he'd announced that there really was a treasure map hidden on the back of the Declaration of Independence

    Worth thinking about...

  • 92 - Matthew T. Sussman

    Sep 05, 2007 at 8:05 pm

    Sorry, Doc. John Hodgman did not list Carter as one of the nine American Presidents who had hooks for hands.

  • 93 - Dave Nalle

    Sep 05, 2007 at 8:19 pm

    I don't find any record of Carter ever being XO of a nuclear sub. He seems to have been allowed at the helm, but never without supervision. And after 7 years he did indeed never get higher than a plain old Lieutenant, which is longer than average, but only a little. Remember, unlike the Army Lieutenant is not the lowest rank of Navy officers. He presumably started out as an Ensign. He was also self-admittedly an underachiever.

    Dave

  • 94 - REMF

    Sep 05, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    In typical BC fashion, three of the four guys who've mocked and/or judged Carter's military record have conveniently never served themselves...
    (MCH)

  • 95 - Clavos

    Sep 05, 2007 at 9:59 pm

    Lieutenant in the Navy is the O-3 rank (third from the bottom, with the first, Ensign, automatic with the commission); it is equal to a Captain in the Army.

    Pretty low rank for an Annapolis graduate with seven years of wartime service. Wartime, after all, is when promotions flow like water.

    Again, not surprising that the Navy didn't see much potential in Carter; there wasn't much, as the American voters discovered during his only term in the WH.

  • 96 - Baronius

    Sep 05, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    Well, Carter was in the Academy for four years, so he wasn't going to get any promotion then. But 1950-1953 was a pretty busy time for the military, and the cream rises to the top. Carter didn't.

    Besides, even Carter's defenders consider him a lousy president. And therein lies the lesson for you, REMF: we judge a president on his presidency. We judge a military man on his service.

  • 97 - Doug DeLong

    Sep 05, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    You know, it's kinda pathetic that the only way the Bushies can feel better about their man is to run down a former president.

  • 98 - Dave Nalle

    Sep 05, 2007 at 11:35 pm

    Doug, we'd be running down Carter regardless of who was president now, just as you'll be running down Bush 20 years from now.

    Dave

  • 99 - Clavos

    Sep 06, 2007 at 12:23 am

    "You know, it's kinda pathetic that the only way the Bushies can feel better about their man is to run down a former president."

    Running down carter doesn't make me feel better about bush. Running down bush doesn't make me feel good about clinton.

    Can't feel good about any of those bozos.

  • 100 - Doug DeLong

    Sep 06, 2007 at 12:28 am

    "Doug, we'd be running down Carter regardless of who was president now, just as you'll be running down Bush 20 years from now."

    In 20 years, Bush will simply be known as "He Who Must Not Be Named."

  • 101 - REMF

    Sep 06, 2007 at 12:32 am

    "And therein lies the lesson for you, REMF: we judge a president on his presidency. We judge a military man on his service."

    Please, spare the sanctimony. And a lesson for you, Baronius: I judge a hypocrite on his rhetoric.

  • 102 - Baronius

    Sep 06, 2007 at 5:24 am

    No, REMF, you judge every butcher, baker, and candlestick maker by their military service. Indeed, you claim to judge me as a hypocrite, but that's not based on my rhetoric. It's based on my lack of military service. The sanctimony shan't waver an iota, lest you fail to learn from it.

    Doug - Dave and I got on Carter as we discussed Bush's post-presidential life. He came up for comparison purposes. I feel great about Bush without mentioning Carter. I also thought Carter was pathetic before Bush became governor.

  • 103 - Doug DeLong

    Sep 06, 2007 at 8:12 am

    I feel great about Bush...

    Seriously? George W. Bush, the so-called president, that Bush? Really?

  • 104 - Nancy

    Sep 06, 2007 at 9:11 am

    For the record, I think Carter is a wuss & a failure as well. His performance during the Iran Hostage Crisis was craven & waffling. His whole life for the most part has been a pitiful performance of just shufflin' along, & wringing his hands ineffectually. The only time he seemed to find himself was after the WH, at which point he assumed for himself the role of Senior Stateman & then he started to 'bloom', as they say. I do have to give him credit for his charity work, of which he does do a lot. But that's all.

    Doug, you feel GOOD about Bush? Why? The only (& it's reaching pretty desperately) reason I could think of to feel good about Bush is, that it will feel so good after he leaves. He's certainly made it so that whoever comes after him will have to set a pretty low standard to look as incompetent & vile as he (& his admin in general) have been.

  • 105 - Doug DeLong

    Sep 06, 2007 at 9:14 am

    Doug, you feel GOOD about Bush?

    No no no no no....oh my god no...

    That was a quote from Baronius that I was responding to.

  • 106 - Nancy

    Sep 06, 2007 at 9:55 am

    Well, I did think that was an odd comment, coming from you after your previous postings, but thought perhaps you were being sarcastic, ironic, or maybe a little loopy....

  • 107 - REMF

    Sep 06, 2007 at 10:26 am

    "No, REMF, you judge every butcher, baker, and candlestick maker by their military service."

    Wrong Baronius, I judge every macho war-wimp who has never served who:
    1) mocks or critiques the service of those who've actually served;
    2) dodged the draft or Deserted during Vietnam, but are now responsible for sending others to their deaths;
    3) refers to anyone opposed to the war as a "commie" or a "pinko";
    4) pontificates military strategy and pretends to know what combat is like;
    5) claims to "support" the invasion/occupation, but promotes someone else fighting their battles for them;
    6) mocks the appearance of a dismembered combat vet;
    7) regurgitates (draft-dodger) Rush Limbaugh ad-hominens like "the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things."

  • 108 - Clavos

    Sep 06, 2007 at 11:13 am

    "Rush Limbaugh ad-hominens like "the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.""

    That's not an ad hominem (no hyphen), emmy.

    "Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
    Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
    1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"


    This has been a public service announcement.

  • 109 - Nancy

    Sep 06, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Well, truth in advertising I was never in combat either, altho we DID chase down & catch several drug runners when I was on active. Mostly we patrolled & bailed out sinking boats or sent drunks back to shore that shouldn't have been out to begin with, or boarded foreign fishing vessels inside our perimeters.

  • 110 - REMF

    Sep 06, 2007 at 11:46 am

    Nancy;
    Thank you for your service to our country, it was more than I did. I knew a guy from h.s. (a great athlete) who lost his life in the Coast Guard attempting to rescue some fishermen caught in a terrible storm off the coast of the Alaskan panhandle. Left behind a widow and four children.
    (MCH)

  • 111 - Nancy

    Sep 06, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Ah, well, that WAS the dicey part of it, the weather. The rest of it was fun, actually. Well, the drunks weren't fun, but all the rest was fairly interesting.

  • 112 - REMF

    Sep 06, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    ^ The irony (and tragedy) was, the two fishermen survived, while the three Coasties did not.

  • 113 - Nancy

    Sep 06, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    I am sorry for that. Too many good people - cops, firemen, CG, soldiers - loose their lives trying to save those who aren't worth saving, IMO.

  • 114 - Baronius

    Sep 06, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Yeah, Doug, I feel great about Bush. It's possible. You say that the US and the world has agreed that Bush is a failure, but we haven't. I'm proud of voting for him twice. He's overseen a great economy, done some good things in education and the judiciary, held to a solid pro-life position, and led the fight against terrorism.

  • 115 - bliffle

    Sep 06, 2007 at 7:17 pm

    Erroneous Baronius steps to the plate again and whiffs, as usual:

    "You say that the US and the world has agreed that Bush is a failure, but we haven't."

    The triumph of bullheadedness over reason.

    " I'm proud of voting for him twice."

    I voted for him once and was totally deceived about his policies. I can admit I was fooled: one time.

    " He's overseen a great economy,"

    Borrowed a trillion $$ to create a party for the most powerful that our grandchildren, the most powerless, will have to pay for.

    " done some good things in education"

    Such as? Where's the evidence of improved education? And this should be a slam dunk, as they say, because it was in such horrible shape after 40 years of weakening by PC liberals.

    " and the judiciary,"

    appointed cronies.

    " held to a solid pro-life position,"

    What a stupid issue!

    " and led the fight against terrorism."

    No, he invented the WOT to justify his yen to invade someone, like, Iraq.

    Bush is a bum.

  • 116 - Doug DeLong

    Sep 06, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    How can anyone take Bush seriously when he keeps saying really stupid things? Latest example...he reportedly told Australia's Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, who had inquired about progress in Iraq, "We're kicking ass."

    WTF? Forgetting for the moment about his crude language, is he looking at the same war as the rest of the world? The man lives in a fantasy world.

  • 117 - Clavos

    Sep 06, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    I love this one!

    "WTF? Forgetting for the moment about his crude language"

    What does "WTF" mean, Doug?

  • 118 - Doug DeLong

    Sep 07, 2007 at 2:24 am

    I have nothing against crude language. In fact, I'm an avid fan of it. I just expect the president to be a little more refined in his analysis of a war that's killing people every day. And, oh yeah, telling the truth would be a refreshing change, too.

  • 119 - Doug DeLong

    Sep 07, 2007 at 2:33 am

    the King: De Long is short on reasoning capacity
    thus it is spoken


    Care to elaborate on your comment, or have you reached the limit of your vocabulary?

  • 120 - Clavos

    Sep 07, 2007 at 7:56 am

    "I just expect the president to be a little more refined in his analysis of a war that's killing people every day."

    Why? What difference does it make?

    That's silly.

    Oh, and BTW, "killing people every day" is what war is about; that's why so many are opposed to it.

  • 121 - Doug DeLong

    Sep 07, 2007 at 9:22 am

    Why? What difference does it make?

    Well, because he's the friggin' president, that's why! Shouldn't he be able to offer an analysis that's more than something you'd expect to hear from some drunken frat boy? Let's put this one up on the wall right next to "Bring 'em on!"

    By the way, are you willing to endorse his assessment that "we're kicking ass" in Iraq?

  • 122 - Clavos

    Sep 07, 2007 at 10:02 am

    I have no problem with his manner of speech, which is aimed at the American people, who, as I mentioned in another thread recently are by and large, a crude and loutish lot.

    He's just speaking their language.

  • 123 - Nancy

    Sep 07, 2007 at 10:13 am

    His comments are aimed at Americans when he's making broadcasts TO Americans specifically. Otherwise he's engaging in offical US business to the world public - in which case such language is NOT called for. As you are aware, I don't hesitate on occasion to use it myself. But I try to use it appropriately; most people do. He doesn't. Despite all his money, he's an ignorant lout himself, a lowlife, a boor, and an idiot. He shames us by his boorish, loutish behavior when he's abroad - as ANY American who behaves badly would & does.

  • 124 - Nancy

    Sep 07, 2007 at 10:13 am

    His comments are aimed at Americans when he's making broadcasts TO Americans specifically. Otherwise he's engaging in offical US business to the world public - in which case such language is NOT called for. As you are aware, I don't hesitate on occasion to use it myself. But I try to use it appropriately; most people do. He doesn't. Despite all his money, he's an ignorant lout himself, a lowlife, a boor, and an idiot. He shames us by his boorish, loutish behavior when he's abroad - as ANY American who behaves badly would & does.

  • 125 - Nancy

    Sep 07, 2007 at 10:13 am

    His comments are aimed at Americans when he's making broadcasts TO Americans specifically. Otherwise he's engaging in offical US business to the world public - in which case such language is NOT called for. As you are aware, I don't hesitate on occasion to use it myself. But I try to use it appropriately; most people do. He doesn't. Despite all his money, he's an ignorant lout himself, a lowlife, a boor, and an idiot. He shames us by his boorish, loutish behavior when he's abroad - as ANY American who behaves badly would & does.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 28, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs