George W. Bush wipes handshake off Bill Clinton's shirt

I found this through Shakesville, and I don't know what else to say about this, but OMFG! From YouTube:



The video was taken by a BBC film crew as both former presidents, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, were visiting Haiti for the earthquake relief. Bush shook hands with a Haitian, and then wipes his hand on Clinton's shirt sleeve. I can probably see that Bush shook the sweaty hands of a Haitian, then didn't know how to dry his hand. He could have wiped it on his shirt, or pants. Instead he wipes his hands on Clinton's shirt.

Incredible.

President Bush gives his farewell address

Goodbye and good riddance.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Bush purchases home in Dallas neighborhood

Does that mean Bush will leave his ranch in Crawford? From MSNBC News:

From NBC's Abby Livingston and John Yang.

President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush will be moving back to Texas after the president's term ends, and they have purchased a home in the upscale Dallas neighborhood of Preston Hollow, the first couple tells NBC News in an interview to air tonight.

The home is valued at just over $2 million, according to county property records and reporting by the Dallas Morning News. It is within Dallas city limits and is located in close proximity to Southern Methodist University, the future site of Bush 43's presidential library.

Preston Hollow is the same neighborhood where they lived prior to Bush's election as Texas governor in 1994.

Within blocks of the neighborhood live other notable Dallas-ites, including the Dallas Mavericks' legally embattled owner Mark Cuban, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, former presidential candidate Ross Perot, and Tom Hicks, a businessman who has Bush's old job-Texas Rangers' owner.

Elizabeth Taylor, a Dallas realtor, describes the neighborhood as, "a very upscale, older neighborhood. Many older homes are being torn down and big new ones, mega mansions, are being put up in their place."

Or maybe he just wants to be close to his presidential library, where he can check out "My Pet Goat."

Bush: Wall Street got drunk

When you are President of the United States, you should at least be careful of what you say at a public or private event. Because everything will be recorded and posted on YouTube. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush has never learned that lesson, and continues to show the world what a juvenile ass he still is.

ABC television station KTRK sent reporter Miya Shay to a Bush private fundraiser for Republican congressional candidate Pete Olson. And during that July 18th fundraiser, President Bush went about cracking some very bad jokes about how Wall Street got drunk over the excessive greed of the housing boom. You can watch the video through YouTube:



There is not much more to comment, except that Bush finds so much glee in the economic hardships that many Americans are facing due to this mortgage mess, and jokes about Wall Street got drunk with greed? Pity the poor peasants who have lost their homes to those same drunks on Wall Street. President Bush really shows just what an arrogant, insensitive, and stupid ass he is.

Dumb and Dumber?

Check this YouTube video on the similarities between John McCain and President Bush:

Bush rallies GOP base to support McCain

I read this Washington Post story, and again wondered if I'm in Bizarro World. President Bush gave some remarks at the CPAC conference today. From the Washington Post:

With the race to succeed him reaching a critical juncture, President Bush this morning began rallying the Republican base around its presumptive nominee, John McCain, and in the process tried to define his own legacy for the general election campaign to come.

In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Bush offered an implicit endorsement of McCain's bona fides as a true conservative in the face of deep skepticism on the right. Although he did not mention McCain by name, the president said whoever ends up being the Republican nominee will represent conservative values.

"We have had good debates and soon we will have a nominee who will carry a conservative banner into this election and beyond," Bush said. "The stakes in November are high. . . . Prosperity and peace are in the balance. So with confidence in our vision and faith in our values, let us go forward, fight for victory and keep the White House in 2008."

The stakes in November are high. Prosperity and peace are in the balance. Who writes this stuff for King George The Deciderer? Bizarro World. Let us look at the Bush administration's "prosperity and peace." First up, prosperity:

Stocks slammed by economic outlook; The Dow fell more than 60 points due to traders' uncertainty surrounding bond insurers and whether they will be able to handle the huge losses due to the value of mortgage-backed bonds.

Consumer borrowing slowed again in December; The Federal Reserve reported that consumer borrowing slowed to a rate of 2.1 percent in December after a jump of 8.2 percent in November. It is the weakest showing since April's 1.6 percent. Economists forecast that total credit would rise by $8 billion. The actual increase was $4.5 billion to $2.52 trillion.

Oil prices rise back above $91 a barrel; Oil futures rose above $91 Friday, building upon concerns that oil exports would fall in Nigeria, the North Sea oil production, and Russian crude oil fields.

Service sector contracted sharply in January; The Institute of Supply Management reported that the nation's service sector contracted for the first time in five years. The ISM's new composite index for measuring the health of the service sector was 44.6 in January. A number below the level of 50 indicates an economic contraction. Non-manufacturing business activity fell to 41.9 in January, from a revised reading of 54.4 in December. The last time the ISM reported a service sector slowdown was in March 2003.

U.S. employers slashed payrolls in January; The nation's employers cut 17,000 jobs in January. This is the first such reduction of jobs in more than four years, renewing fresh signs that the economy is in danger of heading into a recession. The Labor Department's report showed that the unemployment slipped slightly to 4.9 percent, from 5 percent, showing that the civilian labor force shrank slightly. Job losses were widespread in manufacturing, construction, professional and business services. These job cuts swamped the job gains in education, health care, and retail.

Consumer spending anemic in December; The Commerce Department reported that consumer spending rose slighly up to just 0.2 percent during the Christmas shopping season of December. This was down sharply from a 1 percent gain in December.

Economy nearly stalled in last quarter of 2007; The Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy nearly stalled in the fourth quarter with a growth rate of 0.06 percent. For all of 2007, the economy grew by 2.2 percent--the weakest performance in five years.

This is prosperity, according to King George The Deciderer in his speech at the CPAC conference.

But what about peace? Surely the U.S. is at peace with King George at the helm. Let us look at how our nation is at peace:

Gates: Europe still angry over Iraq invasion; Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that European allies are reluctant to heed the Bush administration's calls for more combat troops in Afghanistan due to lingering anger over the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

US military: 5 soldiers killed in Iraq; In an MSNBC news story, "The U.S. military said five soldiers were killed Friday in two separate incidents in Iraq. Four soldiers died when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device while the troops were on a combat patrol northwest of Baghdad, the military said. In violence near Tikrit, another soldier and killed and three others wounded in an explosion near their vehicle as thy carried out operations in Tamim province, the military said in a statement."

Fear of Iraqi upheaval in Shiite cleric’s twilight; Fears are starting to grow in Washington and Baghdad about the health of Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and the potential danger of a power vacuum exploding in the Shiite region after a possible death of al-Sistani. The worst-case scenario for the Bush administration would be that if al-Sistani's clout wanes, the Shiites could splinter into factions that could "rattle Iraq's Shiite-led government and boost militias openly hostile to Washington." Al-Sistani has not been seen in public since a brief appearance in August of 2004.

U.S.: Al-Qaida video shows boys in training; U.S. raids on suspected al-Qaeda hide-outs in Iraq have revealed videotapes that show the terror group training young boys to kidnap and assasinate civilians. This videotape footage show "an apparent training operation with black-masked boys — some of whom appeared to be about 10 years old — storming a house and holding guns to the heads of mock residents. Another tape showed a young boy wearing a suicide vest and posing with automatic weapons."

US military deaths in Iraq at 3,953; This headline really says it all. We are rapidly approaching 4,000 U.S. dead in this failed Bush war in Iraq.

So is this peace, as according to King George The Deciderer?

Or am I living in Bizarro World, where up is down, war is peace, depression is prosperity? And King George is the greatest president since....George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Ronald Reagan?

Update: Here is a nice little story from Countdown, where Kieth Olbermann talks about President Bush's CPAC speech, and his "endorsement" of John McCain. From YouTube:

Friday Fun Stuff--Great Moments In Presidential Speeches Compilation

The title really says it all. From YouTube:



How did this idiot ever got elected president for two terms, I really cannot say.

House passes new war funding bill tied to withdrawal

This is on MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.

The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate — let alone overcome a presidential veto — Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren't giving up.

"The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option."

The White House pledged to veto the bill, and Republicans said they would back the president.

"These votes, like the dozens of previous failed votes, put the interests of radical interest groups ahead of the needs of our military and their mission," an administration statement said.

The bill represents about a quarter of the $196 billion Bush requested for combat operations in the 2008 budget year, which began Oct 1.

It would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and "not to extend or prolong the war."

The measure also would set government-wide standards on interrogation, effectively barring the CIA from using such harsh techniques as waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

So far, we're looking at symbolic politics being played here by the congressional Democrats on sticking another withdrawal timetable in the war funding bill. President Bush vetoes the bill, then the Democrats will cave and give Bush the war funding bill he wants--without timetables, restrictions, or standards on torture. We've seen this little game take place on war funding, telecom immunity, domestic spying--it is endless congressional rubber-stamping for King George The Deciderer! Think about it. The congressional Democrats pass a war funding bill with a withdrawal timetable. Bush vetoes the bill, saying that the Democrats are weak on fighting the Great War on Terror, are not supporting the troops, are unpatriotic Americans who side with the terrorists, and are losing the war in Iraq to the terrorists. The Republican Party and Faux News will jump on the president's bandwagon, reiterating and re-amplifying these stale, distorted arguments. The congressional Democrats will become so worried over the GOP claims that they are "weak on terrorism," and become so worried that they will lose to the GOP in the 2008 elections on this theme, that the Democrats will again cave to President Bush's demands for war funding without restrictions. And again, the congressional Democrats will show to the American people that they really are "weak on terrorism" because they continue to cave to Bush over the Iraq war funding issue. For once, I would love to see the congressional Democrats say no, and not give President Bush the war funding until he agrees to withdrawal the troops from Iraq. But I'm not holding my breath on this latest Iraq war funding bill with the withdrawal timetables, because looking at the Democratic leadership's past experience over the course of this year, they have continually caved to the Bush administration on practically everything. So I expect them to cave on this war funding bill as well.

I wish I could be wrong here.

Bush: "Strong Asset" for Republican candidates?

I found this YouTube video off Americablog, and I just had to smile at it. It is fascinating how the Republican presidential candidates have so distanced themselves away from President Bush that they even refuse to mention President Bush's name in their stump speeches. According to this Salon.com article:

MACKINAC ISLAND, Mich. -- Republican presidential candidates can't be any more clear: President Bush isn't welcome on the campaign trail.

Competing to succeed him, top GOP candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain barely utter Bush's name. They essentially ignore the lame-duck president, or give him only passing credit, as they rail against the status quo and promise to fix problems he hasn't solved.

[....]

The candidates are walking a fine line. They are trying to tap into the deep discontent those voters feel about the state of the country without alienating any who hold Bush in high regard. At the same time, they have to counter the Democrats' powerful arguments for a new direction.

How candidates handle the 800-pound elephant in the room now could have implications beyond the primary. Privately, Republican strategists agree their nominee will lose next fall if the general election is a referendum on Bush. They say GOP candidates are wise to distance themselves from the president now, given his unpopularity among the public at large.

The Republicans presidential candidates are in a no-win situation here. In order to get the GOP nomination, they have to court the 28 percent conservative base that still approves of Bush's job performance by tactfully praising Bush. However, if they go too far in courting the base, they risk alienating the moderates and independents who oppose the Bush administration--especially the Bush war in Iraq. So the GOP candidates are trying to walk this fine line of criticizing President Bush without specifically naming him, that they can show the way for the Republican Party to become "the party of change," even as these candidates quietly support the Bush administration's policies, and the Bush war in Iraq. It is a fascinating type of campaign spin here.

President Bush, of course, thinks otherwise. From YouTube:

Bush set to break the presidential vacation record

I found this through Think Progress, which sourced this Houston Chronicle story:

President Bush tries to set an example for Americans whenever he can, in terms of physical fitness, faith, optimism and a certain overall moral rectitude. He also sets an excellent example on taking vacation.

On Thursday, Bush left for a weekend in Kennebunkport, Maine, and his family's summer compound, Walker's Point. On Monday, he heads to his Crawford retreat, where he has spent all or part of 418 days of his presidency, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS News White House correspondent and meticulous record-keeper.

[....]

Bush's August sojourn will be his 65th trip to Crawford, according to Knoller.

The 1,600-acre ranch has proved a durable haven for Bush, who often disappears into its varied landscapes for days or weeks at a time without public appearances. He has an attractive stone house, shaded swimming pool, miles of rugged bike trails and law enforcement at every entry point keeping people out.

"I fell in love with it the minute I saw it," Bush said of his ranch in 2001. "I like being out here. I like spending a lot of time outside."

The presidential vacation-time record holder is the late Ronald Reagan, who tallied 436 days in his two terms. At 418 days, and with 17 months to go in his presidency, Bush is going to beat that easily.

[....]

Still, all this governmental time off is more than most Americans are taking. A recent survey by Yahoo Hot Jobs found nearly half of American workers did not take all of their vacation days last year.

So, you wanna take bets to see if President Bush will take 500 days of vacation?

Judge questions Libby's probation after Bush clemency

The Bush clemency of Libby's sentence just took a turn into the Twilight Zone here. I found this story through DKos user Pontificator. Pontificator reports that U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton is asking for legal clarification regarding President Bush's clemency of Scooter Libby's sentence, since Bush issued the clemency before Libby even served a single day in jail. And now because of this action by the president, it may be that Scooter Libby would not have to serve probation, since under federal law, probation can only follow a prison sentence. Pontificator includes the link to Judge Walton's court order here. Walton writes:

On July 2, 2007, the President of the United States commuted the term of incarceration imposed upon the defendant by the Court, "leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence." Grant of Executive Clemency at 1. It has been brought to the Court's attention that the United States Probation Office for the District Court of the District of Columbia intends to contact the defendant imminently to require him to begin his term of supervised release. Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of the supervised release indicates that such release should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment....That is, despite the President's direction that the defendant's prison sentence be commuted and his term of supervised release remain intact....

President Bush issued a clemency on Libby's sentence before Libby even served a single day in jail. The U.S. Probation Office requires that a "supervised release" can only occur after a defendant has served a term of imprisonment. And yet, the Bush administration's clemency statement clearly states that President Bush is granting clemency on Libby's prison sentence, and not clemency on Libby's fine or probation:

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

What a contradiction here!

CNN has also picked up on this story:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from prison, and his clemency order may wipe out Libby's 2-year probation as well, the trial judge told lawyers Tuesday.

Strictly interpreted, the statute authorizing probation indicates that supervised release "should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment," U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton wrote.

Walton ordered lawyers to weigh in with their arguments on the matter by Monday.

Walton had sentenced Libby to 30 months in prison for perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators probing the 2003 exposure of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Libby was prosecuted for actions during the investigation of the leak, not for the leak itself.

Bush commuted Libby's sentence Monday, calling the term too harsh.

I'm not sure if President Bush expected this little legal contradiction to occur, or if President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were both so worried about Scooter Libby singing to federal prosecutors on the Bush scandals, that they wanted to keep Libby completely out of jail, rather than have Libby serve a couple of days first before granting clemency. According to The New York Times, President Bush supposedly "spent weeks thinking about the case against Mr. Libby and consulting closely with senior officials, including Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff; Fred F. Fielding, the White House counsel; and Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush’s departing counselor." And yet, Bush did not consult the Justice Department, or perhaps even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the issue of Libby's clemency:

Pardons are typically reviewed by the Justice Department and sent to the president for a final determination. But a former administration official said that in this case the White House had sent a message of “we’re not going through the usual pardon scrub, we’re going through this one ourselves.”

President Bush never consulted with the Justice Department lawyers on this clemency, which the Justice Department lawyers could have quickly seen through this contradiction. Instead, the Bush White House wanted to do this one themselves, creating another legal confrontation, and a political scandal.

Bush in a bunker?

I've seen this story posted on four different blogs--Carpetbagger Report, Crooks and Liars, McJoan at Daily Kos, and Digby. The original source is a Dallas Morning News column by Georgie Anne Geyer on the subject of terrorism spreading throughout the Middle East. Geyer argues that terrorism is spreading throughout the Middle East because of "weakened societies" that are "vulnerable to the 'new answers' of 'new insurgencies,'" and Iraq has been "set up as a school for terrorists with American troops and policy providing the constant inspiration for their fight." In other words, the historical, societal and political environment of the Middle East has set up this breeding ground for terrorism. Geyer then points out that the Bush administration rejects this argument, claiming that terrorists are "Born, not created by history, bearing the mark of Cain, not the mark of circumstance. There is a scarlet "T" written on their foreheads at birth and the only answer is to destroy them. This kind of thinking, of course, relieves the thinker of any responsibility for the presence of the insurgent-terrorist-whatever in our innocent midst."

That is the contrasting arguments of the reasons why terrorism is spreading. Geyer then writes:

What's more, there is not much real give in the administration's policies. True, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other American diplomats met Memorial Day weekend with the Iranians in Baghdad (a good first move but limited, since the Iranians have most of the power because of our incredible stupidity in Iraq). But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny." [Emphasis is mine.]

This is beyond President Bush becoming the Bubble-Boy President, or even the Bunker-Boy President. I fear that President Bush has gone into a state of delusional thinking here, practically screaming that not only does he want to be remembered as "the war president," but also for maintaining a permanent U.S. occupation--and a permanent war--in Iraq. In a sense, this delusional thinking does provide and explanation to yesterday's post on President Bush's envisioning the U.S. occupation of Iraq to be similar to South Korea. President Bush can not admit that he was wrong in invading Iraq--even as the analysis, the news reports, and the public opinion polls, all show otherwise. If Geyer is correct with this Bush rant, then I fear it is going to get worst for our country, over the next couple of months. Remember, September will be the next round of war funding before 2008 and the elections. If there are 25 GOP senators who are worried more about their political careers than Bush's war, and who pass a veto-proof funding bill which includes withdrawal timetables, I can't even speculate what President Bush's state of mind would be in September, or even what irrational acts he may commit (Attack Iran?).

Think Progress picked up on this story, and included another interesting piece of information. Apparently this is the second time that President Bush has lashed out in response to criticism on his Iraq policy during private meetings. Think Progress posted an article sourcing a subscription-required Nelson Report story:

[S]ome big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he’s doing things would be OK…etc., etc. This is called a “bunker mentality” and it’s not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.

This is scary.

Bush banging the drums

I don't think I even want to try to comment on this YouTube video:



Fox News has the story on this video here:

WASHINGTON — The White House turned its attention Wednesday to preventing and eradicating malaria, a big killer of African children.

But it wasn't all serious business: President Bush pounded on the drums for a West African dance troupe and had some fun at Congress' expense.

The Rose Garden event with Bush and his wife, Laura, was the first time the White House has marked Malaria Awareness Day alongside observances elsewhere in the world.

"On this special day, we renew our commitment to lead the world toward an urgent goal, and that is to turn the tide against malaria in Africa, and around the globe," the president said.

More than 1 million people die each year from malaria. The mosquito-borne disease is the leading cause of death of African children under age 5. Tens of millions of people suffer chronically.

"Defeating malaria is going to be a challenge, but it's not going to require a miracle," he said.

He pointed to Washington's experience prevailing over malaria a century ago. It had been such a problem that many diplomats received extra hardship pay for assignments to the hot, swampy U.S. capital and, Bush said, "Congress would often flee the capital for months at a time."

"Other than that," he said, "the consequences were all negative."

In 2005, Bush undertook a five-year, $1.2 billion effort that challenges the private sector to join the U.S. government in combatting malaria in the hardest-hit African nations. Its aim is to slash the disease's mortality rate by half in targeted nations.

[....]

[Bush] ended the event on a much less-severe note.

After a few songs from the colorfully and traditionally dressed KanKouran West African Dance Company, the president and first lady joined the dancers and drummers on stage for a picture.

In no time, it was Bush who was enthusiastically choreographing the moves. Flashing a big grin, Bush pounded on the drums to set the rhythm and led the women and men of the group in a little dance.

Friday Fun Stuff Part Deux--Bush muses on marriage, chicken-plucking

I found this through ShakesVille, and I'm not even sure how to comment on this. This is an actual headline from Yahoo News:



And here is the entire news story:

WASHINGTON - Strange things sometimes come out of
President Bush's mouth. "Polls just go poof." "Remember the rug?"

When Bush went to Ohio on Thursday to talk about terrorism, he ended up musing about marriage and chicken-plucking plants, the agony of death and his Oval Office rug, which resembles a sunburst.

About his legacy, Bush said historians are still assessing George Washington, the nation's first leader. "My attitude is, if they're still writing about (number) one, 43 doesn't need to worry about it."

On being married: "A good marriage is really good after serving together in Washington, D.C."

Maybe the president just felt like jabbering at the town hall-style event in Tipp City, Ohio. He began talking about terrorism and ended 90 minutes later after chattering about everything from life after the White House to Vietnam War and the brutal Khmer Rouge regime.

Some highlights:

_"Politics comes and goes, but your principles don't. And everybody wants to be loved — not everybody. ... You never heard anybody say, `I want to be despised, I'm running for office.'"

_"The best thing about my family is my wife. She is a great first lady. I know that sounds not very objective, but that's how I feel. And she's also patient. Putting up with me requires a lot of patience."

_"There are jobs Americans aren't doing. ... If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about."

_"There are some similarities, of course" between Iraq and Vietnam. "Death is terrible."

_"I've been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times."

As he has before, Bush told the story about how his first presidential decision was to pick a rug for the Oval Office, a task he quickly cast to his wife. He told her to make sure the rug reflected optimism "because you can't make decisions unless you're optimistic that the decisions you make will lead to a better tomorrow."

Later, when he talked about his hope for succeeding in Iraq, Bush said, "Remember the rug?"

I'll let you make your own conclusions on this story.

Texas showdown at the White House--Bush verses Reid, Pelosi

I found this through ShakesVille, so I went to the original source. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid a visit to the White House to talk with President Bush regarding the Iraq funding bill, and the president's veto threat over the withdrawal timeline. Now here is the New York Time's story on this meeting:

WASHINGTON, April 18 — After weeks of acrimonious sparring over financing the next phase of the war, President Bush and Congressional leaders softened their tone on Wednesday but failed to resolve their differences over a timeline for removing most American combat troops from Iraq next year.

Mr. Bush met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the White House for nearly an hour, the first face-to-face discussion since the House and Senate passed emergency Iraq spending bills last month with provisions to end the war. Democrats said they would send the president legislation by the end of next week, despite his pledge to veto it.

“We believe he must search his soul, his conscience, and find out what is the right thing for the American people,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, told reporters after the meeting. “I believe signing this bill will do that.”

The White House, though, said Mr. Bush had no intention of signing any legislation that included a call for a troop withdrawal. Democrats do not have enough support to override a veto, so the debate over financing the troops remains at an impasse.

[....]

At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Bush declared, “People have strong opinions around the table and I’m looking forward to listening to them.” And for the next hour, according to participants and aides in the room, a frank conversation unfolded between the president and the 10 legislative leaders seated around the table in the Cabinet Room.

A White House official who attended the meeting, and spoke on condition of anonymity in order to describe details, said Mr. Bush’s first question to the Democratic leaders was, “When can you get me a bill?”

[....]

The House passed a bill calling for troops to be withdrawn no later than Sept. 1, 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet a series of benchmarks. The Senate measure would begin a gradual redeployment of troops in four months, but set a goal for troops to be removed by March 31, 2008.

According to several participants at the meeting, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered to accept the Senate timelines. But Mr. Bush and Republican leaders said they would not support any deadlines.

As she left the White House, Ms. Pelosi called the session a “productive meeting.”

“We came here in a spirit of hope,” she said, “recognizing that this is an historic opportunity for the executive branch, for the president and the Congress to work together to wind down this war and to ensure the security of our country and the stability of the region.”

Gee--a very productive, very civil meeting between President Bush and the congressional Democrats Reid and Pelosi. Everyone is playing nice in front of the TV cameras. But what really went on behind the closed White House doors? How about some very harsh, nasty words spoken in that meeting? The NY Times only made a passing reference to the terse, anger that reverberated within the meeting:

During the meeting, Mr. Bush was the only administration official who spoke, though he was accompanied by Vice President Dick Cheney, the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and others.

Members of the group, which included four senators and six representatives, all spoke, including Mr. Reid, who compared the Iraq war to the Vietnam War and suggested to Mr. Bush that he should not continue with the war simply to protect his legacy. The president was visibly angered by the comment, according to aides, but he did not respond directly.

The way the NY Times reports this comment, it is almost like poor little President Bush is being beaten up by that bad bully Harry Reid. And while Bush was angered by the comment, he took it like a man and did not attack Reid for this comment. But I would say that there is more to this story. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent provides some juicy details of this meeting:

A source familiar with the meeting -- at which no compromise of any kind was reached, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi said publicly today that it had been "productive" -- shares a few interesting tidbits. First, the source says, Bush bristled and was taken aback when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid compared the current situation to Vietnam; he also appeared irked by those who said the war couldn't be won.

Second, according to the source, Reid told Bush that he understood that the White House would come after Congressional Dems after the veto of the bill with everything they had; Reid vowed to respond every bit as aggressively.

"Reid talked about a recent conversation he had with a retired general where they talked about the similarities between the current situation and Vietnam," the source relates. "He talked about how the President and Secretary of Defense [during Vietnam] knew that the war was lost but continued to press on at the cost of thousands of additional lives lost."

"The analogy to Vietnam appeared to touch a nerve with the President. He appeared a little sensitive to it," the source continued. "And he clearly didn't like to hear people in the room say that the war couldn't be won militarily."

More: "Reid made it clear to the President that he understood that the President and Vice President after the veto would come after him and Speaker Pelosi with everything they have. Reid said that he and Pelosi would respond just as aggressively. He said he was convinced that they were on the right side of the issue."

It would appear to me that Bush has been caught playing his own bluff. For seven years, this administration has gotten whatever it wanted through bullying, outright threats, and political smear tactics. With a Democratic Congress, President Bush is now faced with not just a strong, revitalized opposition party, but also his own inability to seek or accept compromise. Look at this meeting itself. Reid and Pelosi attend a White House meeting with a president who declares outright that he will only accept a blank check troop funding bill with no timelines or restrictions. This is a president who wants to continue this Iraq war until after his predecessor (More than likely a Democratic president) takes office, thus absolving any blame on the Bush White House for "losing" Iraq and safeguarding President Bush's "legacy." Harry Reid told President Bush that this is the way things are now--Iraq is like Vietnam, it is a war that was lost by President Bush himself, and young Americans are no longer going to die uselessly in Iraq just so that this president can salvage his failed, presidential legacy here. It is no wonder that Bush got angry at Reid

He couldn't handle the truth.

There is just one more detail to talk about regarding this meeting. Both Reid and Pelosi just about told President Bush to go ahead and veto the troop funding bill. Because if President Bush does veto the troop funding bill, then both Reid and Pelosi will aggressively go after the president on Iraq. President Bush is stuck in a very weakened position here. The war in Iraq is a complete disaster. The Bush surge plan is failing, the American public has not only turned against the war, but also are siding with the Democrats in Congress over the president regarding the standoff in the war funding. The Bush Bubble Boy is not only completely isolated here, but his world is now falling apart.

Bush almost blows himself up with a hydrogen-powered hybrid car

Ford President Alan Mulally, right, had to be quick on his feet to make sure President Bush plugged a power cord into the right socket on a Ford hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid. Mark Wilson / Getty Images

I found this story through Crooks and Liars, so I went to the original source at The Detroit News:

Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation.

Mulally told journalists at the New York auto show that he intervened to prevent President Bush from plugging an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of Ford's hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid at the White House last week. Ford wanted to give the Commander-in-Chief an actual demonstration of the innovative vehicle, so the automaker arranged for an electrical outlet to be installed on the South Lawn and ran a charging cord to the hybrid. However, as Mulally followed Bush out to the car, he noticed someone had left the cord lying at the rear of the vehicle, near the fuel tank.

"I just thought, 'Oh my goodness!' So, I started walking faster, and the President walked faster and he got to the cord before I did. I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him up to the front," Mulally said. "I wanted the president to make sure he plugged into the electricity, not into the hydrogen. This is all off the record, right?"

The only comment I would have on this story can be perfectly expressed with this classic YouTube video:



God bless Monty Python.

Cheney lurking behind The Shrub

All I'm going to say is this is creepy....From YouTube:



Are we looking at The Puppetmaster pulling the strings on his puppet?

The New York Times has got a great picture here:

President Bush in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Ann Coulter references John Edwards as "a faggot."

Well, it appears that one of our favorite right-wing wackos, conservative pundit Ann Coulter, has really stuffed her foot in her mouth. Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Coulter called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "a faggot." Here is the exact quote from Coulter, from Media Matters:

COULTER: Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I'm -- so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards. So I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions.

You can view the video of Coulter through both Media Matters and Think Progress.

Americablog has published a letter from The Human Rights Campaign, which demands that the GOP presidential candidates publicly condemn Coulter's remarks against Edwards.

First I'll say that I find Coulter's remarks vile and disgusting. There is no place for that kind of gutter-talk within our political discourse. But at the same time, I'm not surprised at how the hard-lined conservatives have descended into this slime-pit of homophobia, crass insult, and extreme hate. The problem with these hard-lined conservatives is that they have no presidential candidate which has the neoconservative ideology and religious conviction that President George Bush has. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain are all viewed with suspicion by the hard-lined conservatives. According to a February 24, 2007 New York Times article:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.

But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.

Many conservatives have already declared their hostility to Senator John McCain of Arizona, despite his efforts to make amends for having once denounced Christian conservative leaders as “agents of intolerance,” and to former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, because of his liberal views on abortion and gay rights and his three marriages.

Many were also suspicious of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; members have used the council as a conduit to distribute a dossier prepared by a Massachusetts conservative group about liberal elements of his record on abortion, stem cell research and gay rights. (Mr. Romney has worked to convince conservatives that his views have changed.)

And some members of the council have raised doubts about lesser known candidates — Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Representative Duncan Hunter of California, who were invited to Amelia Island to address an elite audience of about 60 of its members, and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who spoke to the full council at its previous meeting, in October in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Although each of the three had supporters, many conservatives expressed concerns about whether any of the candidates could unify their movement or raise enough money to overtake the front-runners, several participants in the meetings said.

Finally, in a measure of their dissatisfaction, a delegation of prominent conservatives at Amelia Island tried to enlist as a candidate Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a guest speaker at the event. A charismatic politician with a clear conservative record, Mr. Sanford is almost unknown outside his home state and has done nothing to prepare for a presidential run. He firmly declined the group’s entreaties, people involved in the recruiting effort said. A spokesman for Mr. Sanford said he would not comment.

The conservatives do not have a champion similar to George W. Bush. They are forced to choose among three front-running moderate Republicans, each which has a more liberal stance than they are willing to accept, and each of these three front-runners have been courting the hard-liners and Religious Right. Both Romney and Giuliani attended the CPAC conference. And while McCain did not attend the CPAC conference, you can find plenty of references of McCain's pandering here. And finally, the Republican Party has some serious political and electoral problems here--namely the Bush White House. The Bush administration has been plagued with the constant political scandals, the disaster of the Iraq war, and the falling poll numbers. This is not going to help the current crop of Republican presidential candidates. The American people have decided that this country is on the wrong track, and yet the Bush administration is just about forcing the Republican Party to toe the Bush policy line. So there is a lot of anger within the hard-lined conservatives and the Religious Right. Their ideological champion of George Bush has become a presidential failure, and a political albatross for the Republican Party. Americans are trusting the Democrats more than they are trusting the Republicans. The Iraq war will be the big debate for the 2008 elections. And the only way for the hard-lined conservatives and Religious Right to express their anger is to lash out, uncontrollably. Hence, Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a faggot, and the CPAC crowd cheers in approval.

UPDATE: Here's Ann Coulter's remarks through YouTube:

Friday Fun Stuff--What is wrong with this picture?

This is going to be fun. Let's start with a question of what is wrong with this picture?

New Topps baseball card. From Yahoo News.

Give up?

Here's the Yahoo News caption:

In this undated digitally altered image provided by the Topps baseball card company President Bush smiles and waves from the stands, right, and Mickey Mantle looks on from the dugout at left, as Derek Jeter swings his bat. A spokesperson for the Topps company said that somewhere between the final proofing of the card and its printing - when it was too late to stop it - someone within the company played a joke and inserted Bush and Mantle into the photograph. (AP Photo/Topps)

So not only has President Bush been digitally placed into the seating, but Mickey Mantle is looking out from the dugout. The card was printed--it is in the Topp baseball card sets and packages. It is an error card, on the manufacturer's part--yes, even if it is considered a joke by one of the Topps employees. This card will be worth some money, depending on how many cards have been printed and packaged into the Topp sets.

MSNBC News has more of the background story here:

NEW YORK - Derek Jeter drew quite a crowd for this at-bat — President Bush waving in the stands, Mickey Mantle studying from the dugout.

Made for a perfect picture on Jeter’s new baseball card. Of course, the game never happened.

Instead, this Topps triple play was just someone’s idea of a visual gag. It was a card trick — somebody at the company produced it through digital manipulation.

“We saw it in the final proof and we could have axed it,” Topps spokesman Clay Luraschi told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “But we decided to let it run, we wanted to print it. We thought it was hilarious.”

The card will be changed when Topps issues a complete set at midseason, Luraschi said.

Jeter said he had not seen the card, which shows him swinging at Yankee Stadium.

“I don’t know anything about it,” the All-Star shortstop said after New York’s workout Tuesday in Tampa, Fla. “I can’t tell you anything.”

Luraschi did not identify the person at Topps who made the alteration on Jeter’s card, No. 40 in the set. Luraschi said that fixing it before it was released would have caused shipping delays.

It’s not the first card to have silly errors or odd prints, said T.S. O’Connell, the editor of Sports Collector’s Digest.

“For collectors, there’s a real giggle factor for something like this,” he told the Daily News.

The Daily News put the picture on its front page Tuesday and Newsday also reported the story.

The Jeter card could join other famed oddball cards, like the 1969 Topps of Aurelio Rodriguez. That one featured a photo of a bat boy instead of the infielder.

Another collector said the joke would raise the price of the card, which currently goes for $2 on eBay.

Topps will issue 660 cards in this set, and Luraschi said they were all getting a close look. So are any other strangers showing up?

“Not that I know of,” he said.

Bush: I'm still The Deciderer!

This is a short story from The Washington Post:

President Bush today rebuffed congressional opponents who want to stop his plan to increase U.S. troop strength in Iraq, declaring that "I'm the decision-maker" on the war effort and challenging skeptics to produce their own plan for success.

Bush also vowed forceful action to prevent Iranian operatives in Iraq from harming U.S. troops, but he denied that he wants to expand military action beyond Iraq's borders, and he said his administration would continue working to resolve issues with Iran diplomatically.

Bush made the comments in a brief question-and-answer session with reporters following a White House meeting with top defense officials. Among them was newly promoted Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate this morning as the next commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

[....]

Asked why he was going ahead with his plan without congressional support, Bush said, "One of the things I've found in Congress is that most people recognize that failure would be a disaster for the United States. And, in that I'm the decision-maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster."

[....]

Bush said he recognizes that "there is skepticism and pessimism" in Congress, but he added that "some are condemning the plan before it's even had a chance to work." He said critics "have an obligation and a serious responsibility, therefore, to put out their own plan as to what would work."

Got to love King George The Deciderer--I'm the decision-maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster. [Some] some are condemning the plan before it's even had a chance to work....[Therefore, the critics should] put out their own plan as to what would work. Your Failed Majesty, there is a another plan out there besides your escalation plan. It is called the Iraq Study Group. If you want another plan, how about Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now. That little book is written by William R. Polk and George McGovern. Democratic Congressman John Murtha has his own plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. So, your Failed Majesty--there are alternative plans out there for consideration. The problem is that these plans want to pull U.S. troops out of the meat grinder that's Iraq, not to send them in. But you're The Deciderer. And you have decided to do whatever you damn well please--screw the Congress, screw the American people.....

Screw the country.