Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Bush: World War III if Iran Gets Nukes

Recs

13

October 18, 2007 – Comments (22)

From the guy who brought you "nuk-yoo-ler" weapons in Iraq, and "mission accomplished." Oh, and "go out and shop."

Quite possibly the most pompous, ignorant and unintelligent U.S. President in history. (If you've got a nominee that beats Shrub on these metrics, I'd love to hear it.) 

Wondering why oil costs $90 a barrel? Look no further than this smug joker.

Hat tip to housingpanic

22 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 18, 2007 at 1:46 PM, TMFAleph1 (94.89) wrote:

Bush doesn't say categorically that World War III will occur if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. The implication is that the risk of war increases once that occurs -- I wouldn't disagree with that. However, I do think it's generally wiser to avoid this  type of language.

Btw, your embedded videos are more function-rich than mine, displaying the url and code to embed after viewing -- how do you do that? 

Report this comment
#2) On October 18, 2007 at 1:48 PM, TMFAleph1 (94.89) wrote:

Doh! Forget my question -- my video looks just the same as yours.  I just hadn't watched it to the end within the post.

Report this comment
#3) On October 18, 2007 at 1:52 PM, floridabuilder2 (99.33) wrote:

stop posting blogs tmfbent.... i almost always read yours and hit the rec button 90% of the time... problem is i am trying to pass you on most recommended... it wasn't part of my new years resolution goals, but some how it is now...  anyways as a conservative... republican by default because the dems are idiots and the libertarians just can't get elected...  i agree bush is an idiot..... but until the democrats become more centric, i either don't vote or vote republican...  what a terrible choice i have to make every 4 years

Report this comment
#4) On October 18, 2007 at 2:33 PM, TMFBent (99.81) wrote:

What, Flabuild? You don't like having to choose between dumb and dumber?

Thanks for posting the language on that house bill that would let judges arbitrarily reset mortgage terms. That will gum up lending so bad that home prices will drop like rocks and only high-scorers (like me!) will be able to get loans. So, like you, I'm in the ironic position of hoping for passage of a terrible piece of knee-jerk legislation full of consequences uncomprehended by the liberal nitwits who wrote it.

Sj

Report this comment
#5) On October 18, 2007 at 4:09 PM, StockBender (53.15) wrote:

Wow . . . and the fearmongering continues. This douche and his douchebags of an administration are those who's really going to bring WWIII, or as they like to call it at times, "the Rapture". My god, if I'm going to have to hear about the evils of the world from these subhumans once more, I think I'm going to hurl.

Anywho, didn't Putin earlier this week insinuated that he'll bring back the Cold War if we molested Iran? "Don't mess with Iran, Texas!"

Report this comment
#6) On October 18, 2007 at 4:35 PM, Imperial1964 (97.77) wrote:

Vote 3rd party if you don't like the choices.

I don't always vote 3rd party, but I vote for the guy I like.  Regardless of his/her electability.  If nothing else, when 3rd parties get enough votes, their issues start to get addressed by the major parties.

Report this comment
#7) On October 18, 2007 at 5:02 PM, TMFCrocoStimpy (95.53) wrote:

Vote for Stephen Colbert!

At least that way our billions of anti-terrorism dollars can go to protecting us from the real threat: Bears!

Report this comment
#8) On October 18, 2007 at 6:06 PM, TMFBent (99.81) wrote:

Let the bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer tax.

Report this comment
#9) On October 18, 2007 at 6:36 PM, JereBear1 (90.59) wrote:

Here's my nominee.  Try these metrics: over his head, weak, indecisive, and dangerously ineffective.  Using those metrics you will find that the worst US president in the past 50 years is clearly Jimmy Carter.  This was the guy who made the term "national malaise" necessary and tried to convince the citizenry that the way to face our problems was to learn to be content living a more austere lifestyle.  I'm not without blame, I voted for him the first time, but, along with a landslide majority, didn't make that mistake a second time.

Report this comment
#10) On October 18, 2007 at 6:43 PM, TheGarcipian (60.73) wrote:

Bears, bears and bears! The penultimate #1 threat on the ThreatDown (as of last night's show, eh?). Yes, Colbert for Prez! At least then we'd have a President who's capable of talking his way out of a paperbag. "Childrens do learn" but apparently some Presidents do not.

Report this comment
#11) On October 18, 2007 at 6:59 PM, AnomaLee (28.52) wrote:

Well, this is definitely the worst presidency of the past 50 years. Seriously, are they writing his speeches with Crayola Crayons?

It shows that as a self-proclaimed democratic nation we accept the smoke screen of the electoral college equaling a free election. There are many other well qualified candidates who never stand a chance, but we have come to accept all of this as being "just politics."

No one else finds it sad that you can pick the next president with strikingly good odds 2-3 years before an election? Seriously, we should just say that this is the race for national homecoming king, and that the committee of people who get you elected will actually be the ones dancing once you're elected.

I love & enjoy this country, but I also find it odd that now people think it's unpatriotic to think it's not perfect.

Report this comment
#12) On October 18, 2007 at 7:15 PM, AnomaLee (28.52) wrote:

Well, this is definitely the worst presidency of the past 50 years. Seriously, are they writing his speeches with Crayola Crayons?

It shows that as a self-proclaimed democratic nation we accept the smoke screen of the electoral college equaling a free election. There are many other well qualified candidates who never stand a chance, but we have come to accept all of this as being "just politics."

No one else finds it sad that you can pick the next president with strikingly good odds 2-3 years before an election? Seriously, we should just say that this is the race for national homecoming king, and that the committee of people who get you elected will actually be the ones dancing once you're elected.

I love & enjoy this country, but I also find it odd that now people think it's unpatriotic to think it's not perfect.

Report this comment
#13) On October 18, 2007 at 7:20 PM, TDRH (99.65) wrote:

Jere, not a Carter fan here, but I believe any president would have been over his head during the economic cycle of his presidency.   

Report this comment
#14) On October 18, 2007 at 10:15 PM, TMFBent (99.81) wrote:

I don't think pompous and unintelligent can possibly apply to Carter. Ignorant, perhaps, of the beltway politics. Unsuccessful too. But for sheer mental misfires coupled with incredible hubris, there's no one who beats Shrub.

Report this comment
#15) On October 18, 2007 at 11:25 PM, folgore (63.72) wrote:

Worst presidency of the last 50 years?  Bush isn't even close.  Even worse than Carter was Lyndon Baines Johnson.  Not only did he mess up in Vietnam at a cost of 50,000+ American dead, through his "Great Society" social programs, he succeeded in creating a permanent underclass -- a problem that we're still dealing with today.

Regarding Iran, Bush stated the problem correctly if inarticulately.  Ahmadinejad has spent the last several years doing his very best Hitler impressions.  He has acted provocatively in Iraq and Lebanon.  He has been defiant with respect to any monitoring of Iran's nuclear program.  If he gets the bomb, it's a good bet he'll use it.  With effective nonmilitary options blocked by Russia, I think some kind of strike against Iran is inevitable. 

Report this comment
#16) On October 19, 2007 at 4:27 AM, saunafool (98.81) wrote:

Carter was ineffective and a weak leader, but asking Americans to live a more austere life was not a fundamental blunder with decades-long consequences.

Bush had definitely consolidated power within his administration and has enacted his policies decisively, making some people think he's an effective leader. However, he has been very effective in enacting policies, then totally screwing up the execution of the policies because they are delegated to party or ideological loyalists instead of competent professionals. I believe "heroic amateurs" was the term used to describe the effort in Iraq in one of the many books that describes what went wrong. Sometimes, when you follow your leader into the flames, you just end up dying in the fire.

On that basis, the parallel between Bush and LBJ is very good. Bush has enacted the same sort of hubris-driven macro-policies that will have long-term consequences. History will have to be the judge of which one was worse, but I'm thinking Bush will get the prize.

Can you think of any consequence from the Carter administration that lasted beyond the Reagan years? The mess that Bush has made will be with us for decades.

Report this comment
#17) On October 19, 2007 at 11:02 AM, ByrneShill (77.15) wrote:

The sad thing is that you guys elected him not once, but twice. There's a saying here that goes "We got the politicians we deserve".

You can make a mistake once bu when you elect the same madman twice you really deserve what you get.

Report this comment
#18) On October 19, 2007 at 11:30 AM, TMFRoyal (98.67) wrote:

At the risk of sounding vapid, I say, "Don't blame me. I voted for Kang."

Report this comment
#19) On October 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM, StockBender (53.15) wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think he was elected once. He was technically appointed by the Court the first time.

That's our excuse and we're sticking to it.

Report this comment
#20) On October 19, 2007 at 4:49 PM, folgore (63.72) wrote:

Interesting comments, saunafool, but I couldn't help but notice how you and just about everyone else on this blog got sidetracked from the initial issue of this post:  "Iran, nukes, and what to do about it?"  Many have stepped forward to say how much they hate Bush, but so far, none of the Bush haters have stepped forward to say what -- if anything -- they think should be done on Iran.  Too bad, this is a far more important topic than trying to rate Bush versus Carter.

Regarding your comments, "Bush has enacted the same sort of hubris-driven macro-policies that will have long-term consequences. History will have to be the judge of which one was worse, but I'm thinking Bush will get the prize."   Way too premature if for no other reasons than A) Bush is still president and B) the war in Iraq continues; declaring defeat is premature.  Hard to get any historical perspective on current events.  (And exactly what negative long-term consequences from Bush's policies do you see exceeding those of LBJ?)

Report this comment
#21) On October 19, 2007 at 8:44 PM, TMFBent (99.81) wrote:

Actually, the original challenge wasn't to find a president who did worse, it was to find one who was: less intelligent, more ignorant, and more pompous.

Still no contenders that I've seen.

Report this comment
#22) On October 23, 2007 at 4:37 PM, ByrneShill (77.15) wrote:

the war in Iraq continues; declaring defeat is premature

Don't you know that victory was declare like 3 years ago?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement