From the Mouth of a Pro-Life President…
June 2, 2008
George Bush in 2004, as witnessed by Ricardo Sanchez, ex-commander of U.S. troops in Iraq:
“Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal. There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!”
I guess this is what erring on the side of life means. Would Msgr. Lisante regard this too as “magnificent”? Only seven more months…
31 Comments
Comments are closed.
“If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them!”
Did he plagarize that one from Robespierre?
Dominick Donahue
I anticipate the days whenever various Bush Administration officials are rightly arrested for war crimes in Europe.
John Bolton barely escaped such a citizen’s arrest just last week.
I hate to get in the way of the anti-Bush parade around here at VN, but one must consider the source of this recollection. If I were defending the President in court concerning this statement, I would feel obligated to cross-examine the author concerning (1) how his recollection was so clear concerning the language used, (2) whether there are any corroborating witnesses, (3) what he said and did in response to this alleged utterance (resign? protest? question? make notes for my tell-all autobiography to be released during the election season?), and last, but unfortunately not least, (4) the author’s grievance with the Bush administration concerning being hung out to dry over the Abu Ghraib abuse. His autobiography was recently criticized in the Washington Post for this bias and self-promotion.
I hate to get in the way of the anti-Bush parade around here at VN, but one must consider the source of this recollection.
That’s crazy talk. Let’s get on with our two minutes hate.
I would feel obligated to cross-examine the author concerning (1) how his recollection was so clear concerning the language used,
Although the language does not surprise me coming from our “bright” president, I have the same question about the accuracy of the wording.
As happens in every single administration since Washington, upset former officials who feel personally slighted suddenly gain grand memories and seek out media outlets. From Hamilton to Mark Felt and beyond until the end of time.
But what a useful tool for partisan preening!
I love the Americanists eager willingness to defend their master.
It’s funny how some Ratzinger lovers charge “hate”, with very little reflection about how their own anti-Obama words come across on their own blogs
The sentiments the president allegedly expressed don’t surprise me, but the vocab and syntax doesn’t sound right at all. I suspect that, four years on, the ex-official is getting a little creative with his “direct quote.”
Oh, yes, Mark, they still defend him… remarkable, isn’t it? He is the most unpopular president since the advent of polling (below Nixon at his zenith), and to criticize is somehow an excercise in partisanship? I would also suggest that some of these people canvass some opinion outside the US for a while.
And I believe the vocabulary fits perfectly with a man driven by an adolescent form of machismo.
As the article from the Washington Post asks, I ask myself too about McLellan: Why now? And why not then? He should’ve done right after he left that job. Not write a book about it and to get money but rather come out, write an article for the NYT, WP, I don’t know… and just say it!
Truman, in his last two years, is the most unpopular president since the advent of polling. It’s true – look it up.
There can be many reasons. First, writing a book and getting it published is not a quick thing to do. Second, he might have taken time to consider what he can and can’t say. He had to figure out how bad things got. Reading it, I think he thinks Bush believed what he did was good and he is not against Bush as much as thinking there was manipulation via Cheney and Rove. And he probably had to figure out how much it was so he wouldn’t say too much, which is, of course, understandable.
An Anxious Anglican: “If I were defending the President in court concerning this statement, I would feel obligated to cross-examine the author concerning (1) how his recollection was so clear concerning the language used …”
The certainty of Sanchez’s recollection could have something to do with Bush having made this statement during a videoconference with his national security team and generals.
The conversations here are always entertaining.
I get to read words like “Americanist,” an excellent pejorative, and phrases like “eager willingness to defend their master,” which implies a (gnostic?) knowledge of people’s hearts and consciences.
I have to say, no other website fosters such interesting and provocative conversations.
I love the Americanists eager willingness to defend their master.
Yes, they use quite the hermeneutic of suspicion when Bush says something absolutely demonic. Must not have really said it. Their level of media criticism suddenly rises to previously unknown heights.
I get to read words like “Americanist,” an excellent pejorative…
Just as excellent as your favored “anti-American,” eh?
“Just as excellent as your favored “anti-American,” eh?”
Point taken. I should have made my point without that term. I apologize.
I appreciate that.
MM, why are you still surprised by this guy? That’s vintage Bonehead for ya. The nightmare will be over soon enough.
Truman deserved those low poll numbers. What did he do to deserve the high marks he presently gets. Drop Atomic Bombs on civilians? After defeting one European dictator surrendered half of Europe to another? Engage the US in a a war in a country where it did not belong?
HST was just a potty mouthed idiot (and ex-Kluxer) who stumbled into the presidency – kinda like you know who (except for the Kluxer part).
I love how the love of war and the imperial presidency has led “conservative” Republicans to worship at the shrines of New Deal Democrats.
Yes, I’m with Anscombe on that one: Truman was a war criminal, even worse than Bush and Cheney (and that’s saying a lot…)
It’s funny how some Ratzinger lovers…
I guess when it comes to those who love Ratzinger and those who don’t, we now know which side Mark DeFrancisis is on.
As the article from the Washington Post asks, I ask myself too about McLellan: Why now? And why not then? He should’ve done right after he left that job. Not write a book about it and to get money but rather come out, write an article for the NYT, WP, I don’t know… and just say it
Election year.
HA,
Please do not let this be a prelude to your usual flood of bitterness.
I was referring to a blogger who, by the way, has been at odds with the two most recent popes (Benedict included) on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
I have read nearly all of Ratzinger,btw. And intellectually, I do not like the “for or against” approach.
I anticipate the days whenever various Bush Administration officials are rightly arrested for war crimes… I love the Americanists eager willingness to defend their master.
Say, what was that about floods of bitterness?
HA,
War crimes were committed. It is an objective fact.
Mark – When these people insist that Saddam die for his crimes against humanity, it’s “justice.” When you insist that Bush and company be merely arrested for their crimes against humanity, it’s “bitterness.” You clearly don’t understand the difference between americans and people, you know, from… that region… over there.
It is an objective fact.
Given your comments on this thread I would say that objectivity is not exactly your strong suit. I would guess the same could be said of whatever sources you have to back up that claim (more Slavoj Žižek, perhaps?), which is presumably why you didn’t even bother linking to any of them.
When these people insist that Saddam die for his crimes against humanity, it’s “justice.”
Huh?
“Given your comments on this thread I would say that objectivity is not exactly your strong suit. I would guess the same could be said of whatever sources you have to back up that claim (more Slavoj Žižek, perhaps?), which is presumably why you didn’t even bother linking to any of them.”
HA,
All you ever do is use fallacious attak the man arguments.
How do you carry around such a supply of vitriol?
A.Was the Iraqi invasion just? No
B. Was torture authorized from the very top down? Yes.
The Vatican judgment about A is on record.
The media has well documented B.
Please inform yourself of the basics before coming to the table.
Still waiting for those sources, but feel free to keep changing the subject (with Michael’s help, of course, given that he seems to think you need it) to Vatican judgments about the justness of the invasion, Saddam’s hanging, and so forth. As for myself, I think I’ll call it a night. I guess carrying around all that vitriol and “fallacious attak the man arguments” does wear one down.
Come to think of it, you might could stand a few winks yourself.
HA,
It only took you two exchanges. You are in top form tonight.