It has been red meat for die-hard Bush bashers, but many Americans could sympathize with both the offender and the offended in this story: After his Rose Garden press conference Wednesday, the president learned that a Los Angeles Times reporter he’d teased about wearing sunglasses has the degenerative vision condition Stargardt’s disease and is legally blind. “Are you going to ask that question with shades on?” is how the president started the exchange with Peter Wallsten. By day’s end, the gaffer in chief had called Wallstein to apologize. For his part, Wallstein said: “I wish people would talk instead about my question. It was a worthwhile question” — one related to Karl Rove’s unindictment, which Bush wouldn’t discuss.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
26 Comments
Gaffer in chief is cute, but wouldn’t doofus in chief be a better fit?
I prefer coconut in chief, RD.
V.L.R.B!!!
“Unindictment.” Kind of like NBC’s David Gregory, “Rove eluded prosecution.” Hey libs, another word is “innocent.” Deal with it. Better luck on your wild goose chase next time.
“innocent.” ?
Innocent and Karl Rove together are an afront, as much as his “war on terror” crap.
His “Gitmo” mentality has cost us our standing in the world, 25,000 soldiers dead and maimed, 300,000 Iraqi dead with countless lives shattered.
The “fat-boy” needs to go to jail or twist in the wind.
“Innocent” is what he isn’t.
An undicted top republican is a reare breed indeed! Be proud!
Try: fugitive from justice, because some-one’s solemn oath to uphold the law had to be broken for Karl Rove to “get=off.”
Not particularly a time for celebration, except, of course, in the law-breaking disgraceful Bushco Camp.
I dont think bushco is celebrating. It’s just another dirty day at the office for them.
Oh, and before I forget….
Late yesterday, the Grand Jury declined to indict Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Like the rovester, she is now “free and clear” of charges.
But I bet we wont get a thread on THAT on this blog!!!!!
Isn’t bush the same moron who waved to Stevie Wonder?
bush APOLOGIZED to the guy??? Wow now that is news!
He is just getting started?
For one reason or another, he has about oh a billion or so more apologies to go.
I hate Bush. Bush lied. Bush is stupid. Rove is bad. Cheney is in charge. Republicans are evil. This crap makes for good shirt sales but too bad that’s your only campaign message for 2006.
Marty, get with the program, will ya? I’ll bet you’re still bashing Clinton, every chance you get.
So are you insinuating that Bush isn’t stupid, Marty? Let me pull a Nathan, “What proof do you have that he’s smart”?
He was obviously smart enough to become President twice.
Nope Nathan I think it is more like “too many of you and the other ignorant voters cast their ballots for him”. I’m not even going into the voter fraud aspects.
So…
He was smart enough to rig the elections twice and you Democrats complaining about it are still either too stupid or too lazy and incompetent to do anything about it besides sit here and cry.
If I were you guys and I had the information and evidence you all claim to have about him stealing the election I wouldn’t be sitting here on the blog like a bunch of cry babies.
I would be out there actually doing something to prevent it from happening again.
So what is your excuse? What is your parties excuse?
Are you too lazy?
Do you just not care enough to do something?
Are too incpometent to prevent this voting fraud?
Bush is what can happen to the US when a plurality of voters get fooled by a Big Government conservative running disguised as a Small Government Conservative.
Massive growth in government after promising to rein it in: check.
Massive increases to the public debt while promising fiscal responsiblity: check.
Nationbuilding as a domestic political device after promising no nationbuilding: check.
Corruption after insisting on integrity and personal accountability: check.
Incompetence: check, but that’s owned 100% by Bush and his “leadership” “skills.” After the events of 8/11/01-9/11/01, anybody who believed Bush was competent just wasn’t watching closely.
And it’s now obvious that enough Americans actually like this treatment enough to defend Bush even today.
By the way, 38 people were killed in Baghdad on Sunday.
Looks like the security crackdown in the capital must have been planned by the Gaffer in chief himself (given the spectacular if predictable failure to date).
Also, 2 US soldiers were captured by insurgents in an ambush in Yusufiya, just south of Baghdad, that killed another US soldier.
More evidence, if anybody needed any, that Bush’s ability to grow a coalition is likely exceeded only by his ability to foretell Mississippi levee strength.
Under President Bush’s “leadership,” the US is woefully short of friends at a time when we sure could use some more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/world/middleeast/18iraq.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Damoon, Try this: What proof do you have that your proof is proof and having proof of that?
Flike,
What would success be for you in the security of Baghdad?
It seems pretty easy for you to exploit any bad thing that happens and call if a failure. So what is success?
“…It seems pretty easy for you to exploit any bad thing that happens and call if a failure.”Posted by: Nathan | June 18, 2006 at 02:50 PM
There is no doubt that the president has hozed up Iraq so badly that Monday morning quarterbacking our adventures in Iraq probably dominates the spare time of many Americans to a point that threatens American foreign policy. Hell, let me take that one step further: it probably threatens US economic productivity as well.
That, however, is the sole fault of President Bush and Congress. The president and his party have completely politicized the war in order to maintain domestic political power. They’ve been able to do this because they control all 3 branches of federal government.
If the president were interested in helpful opinions, then I’m sure that he and his party could find smart people who are thinking about solutions (if they exist).
The president and his party aren’t interested in outside help, though, because any honest ideas offerred now are just fodder for Congressional elections in November.
The president and his party seem to prefer it this way, frankly.
If the president and his supporters truly want to guarantee a successful outcome in Iraq, by any standard of success, then let them first admit their mistakes, hold the responsible parties accountable for failure there, apologize, and ask *all* US citizens honestly for their sacrifice and their help.
I think the president would be delighted with the outpouring of support if he did so; this is equivalent to saying “if he had any real leadership skills as an executive.” Please note that doing so is to merely meet well accepted standards of American performance and duty. It’s not like I’m asking him or you to exceed these standards, just meet them.
“…What would success be for you in the security of Baghdad?”Posted by: Nathan | June 18, 2006 at 02:50 PM
Like I said, who cares what I think, Nathan.
Since you support President Bush wholeheartedly, what do YOU consider success in the security of Baghdad?
Do you consider Baghdad secure today?
If not, then why do you fail to call for holding accountable those who’ve failed to secure the capital city 39 months after our occupation began?
flike……..I’m sure Nathan will have something extremely sanctimonious to say about your comments!
Has Bush even told us what his definition of success in Iraq is? Seems that every time we hear something, they’ve moved the line of success a little farther down the road. I always hated it when parents or teachers did that.
“Clean your room and then you can go out and play.” (This would later mean a thorough seasonal purging of all closets and drawers. Or, you should’ve done it faster. It’s dark outside now. Maybe tomorrow.)
“When the Iraqi’s vote!” (Uh-huh. And how many times have they done this? So maybe we should be asking WHICH elections are they referring to?)
I think what they’re hoping for from the voters in this country is complete apathy.
Looks like that hoping for apathy thing is working out. Just read this blog to see it for yourself. Except it is worse than apathy. It is supporting bush no matter what.
Two words. Hammered kitten.
Bush could hammer a kitten to death and some of these guys would still support him as the hammerer in chief after he deciderered to kill that terrorist kat.
Of course, williams will note it is a leftist and/or socialist western kansas farmer democrat kitten that deserved to die for not being a capitalist and/or from subsidy poisoning.
Nathan will say the kitten was justifiably hammered to death because it was gay and didnt read the bible enough. Just letting that kitten live was giving it special privledges, and if the kitten just would have kept on slinking in the shadows, it could have lived.
Nathan will also ask why we support terrorist kittens, why we hate america, and then say the dead kitten incident is just an excuse for the liberals to bash bush…and all christians.
GMC will note that if the kitten had a gun, it could have premptively shot the president to protect itself. It was probably a fred hating kitten anyway,and besides, you all know kittens dont meet gmc’s standards for civility, so the damn kat had it coming for being so hateful. The kitten should have carried a concealed weapon and used it to stand it’s ground. It would still be alive if it had a big enough gun, according to gmc.
Ruby will blame it all on governor leadership or the activist judges in kansas who were educated in the hated kansas public schools. If we just had vouchers, a wingnut gov, and no courts, that kitten could have lived. But only if it promised not to gamble and to only go to private kitten school.
Unless of course, outlander shows up and says it is all the fault of teaching science and evolution instead of the bible and the creation myth. Heckler will note the kitten could never prove the swiftboaters were lying, and Hank will suggest that if the kitten had just served in the military and carried an assault rifle, the incident would have never happened.
Just what WILL it take for some of you to be less predictable?
Bush could in fact hammer an innocent kitten to death, and you all would sing his praises.
Oh, and did I mention it was an immigrant kitten?
LOL
Damn kfg you nailed ‘em all!
EXCEPT for values boy, who would probably write a column blaming the kitten for being hammered and demanding that the kitten should have more personal responsibility!
Oh yeah JR, values boy would say the kitten had no values and therefor, who cares if it gets hammered to death.
Had it been a member of the christian coalition, and had it still been sending money to ralph “I heart abramoff” reed, the preznit would not have hammered that kitten to death.
however, the white house would refuse to release any logs of the kitten’s visits to “staff” level meetings, and no pictures would be released of the preznit shaking the kitten’s paw in happier times.
The kitten only attended a few holidy parties at the white house anyway.
And terry, joe and fred would picket the kitten’s funeral.