Papa Bush defends Dubya before hostile Arab audience

posted at 3:20 pm on November 21, 2006 by Allahpundit

Pro forma or heartfelt?

“This son is not going to back away,” Bush said, his voice quivering. “He’s not going to change his view because some poll says this or some poll says that, or some heartfelt comments from the lady who feels deeply in her heart about something. You can’t be president of the United States and conduct yourself if you’re going to cut and run. This is going to work out in Iraq. I understand the anxiety. It’s not easy.”

Definitely read the whole thing. The man’s got — what’s the word I’m looking for?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

BALLS?

bloggless on November 21, 2006 at 3:21 PM

COJONES?

Slublog on November 21, 2006 at 3:25 PM

Loyalty to his son, not necessarily to his son’s policies.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 21, 2006 at 3:27 PM

It’s gumballs, blogless, gumballs, as MM pointed out immediately thereafter in that clip.

A phrase I thought worthy of a trip to the memesphere.

eeyore on November 21, 2006 at 3:27 PM

Testicular fortitude.

RedWinged Blackbird on November 21, 2006 at 3:29 PM

marbles

phineas g. on November 21, 2006 at 3:32 PM

stones

natesnake on November 21, 2006 at 3:35 PM

Please just cut that clip to the bleep and loop it!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 21, 2006 at 3:39 PM

babalones? As in “They’re firing guns in Iraq–8,000 miles from my babalones!” or some such thing…

robblefarian on November 21, 2006 at 3:40 PM

Nads.Brass nads.

bbz123 on November 21, 2006 at 3:54 PM

Perhaps they could make it “Bring Your Dad to Work Day” at the White House. For the next two years.

God, I never thought I’d miss the guy.

Constantine on November 21, 2006 at 3:56 PM

Yam-bag

StoutRepublican on November 21, 2006 at 4:00 PM

IT’S ABOUT TIME…!!!

areseaoh on November 21, 2006 at 4:01 PM

lol, thanks for resurrecting the “balls” clip. The best part? O’Reilly following it with “w-w-whoa..”

RightWinged on November 21, 2006 at 4:01 PM

Loyalty to his son, not necessarily to his son’s policies.

I dont think you can have loyalty to “policies”, you can agree or disagree but not have loyalty.. thats reserved for people, and sometimes dogs..

DarianCounts on November 21, 2006 at 4:10 PM

Malkins

Jaibones on November 21, 2006 at 4:18 PM

The size of Toledo

Jaibones on November 21, 2006 at 4:19 PM

The man’s got — what’s the word I’m looking for?

BRAINS

SouthernGent on November 21, 2006 at 4:31 PM

Dhimmis- both father and son.

Valiant on November 21, 2006 at 4:35 PM

I’d bet that Ol’ 41 is regretting the whole “Stop Saddam” thing right about now. I’d bet that, if spoken to slowly, he’d come to regret listening to Baker, Powell, et.al. and the whole “On To Baghdad – NOT!” crowd, too.

Then again, the camel-jockeys of Dubai, etc. don’t risk anything by raising ridicule of a man who’s stuck up for them. He’s a nice guy…and we know where nice guys finish.

Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 5:10 PM

The man’s got — what’s the word I’m looking for?

New taxes?

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Benaiah on November 21, 2006 at 5:14 PM

He’s not going to change his view because some poll says this or some poll says that, or some heartfelt comments from the lady who feels deeply in her heart about something.

I wonder who dad could be talking about there. Certainly doesn’t sound like the conniving Mrs Sheehan as described here at Hot Air.

THeDRiFTeR on November 21, 2006 at 5:42 PM

The man’s got — what’s the word I’m looking for?

Big HUEVOS!

batperez on November 21, 2006 at 5:48 PM

go-nads

ekuspa40 on November 21, 2006 at 5:52 PM

LiberalsI mean Nutz

Wade on November 21, 2006 at 5:52 PM

Chutzpah

Bill C on November 21, 2006 at 6:09 PM

STONES! For what it’s worth I support George Jr. I hope you will too.

sonnyspats1 on November 21, 2006 at 6:21 PM

…what’s the word I’m looking for?

Diligo paternus

Entelechy on November 21, 2006 at 6:31 PM

Yes.. Hefty bean-bag on that ‘ol guy. There is no way he wears briefs.

JunkCoast on November 21, 2006 at 6:38 PM

I love that clip of Michelle! Firecracker.

Zorro on November 21, 2006 at 8:19 PM

I was so disappointed when he lost in’92. But I got over it. I was disappointed in the last election cycle, but I’ll get over it. We cut and run in Iraq, I’m not getting over it.

billy on November 21, 2006 at 11:20 PM

I’m with billy.

Griz on November 21, 2006 at 11:53 PM

I was so disappointed when he lost in’92. But I got over it. I was disappointed in the last election cycle, but I’ll get over it. We cut and run in Iraq, I’m not getting over it.

billy on November 21, 2006 at 11:20 PM

I agree. I was also disappointed. He could have been the inheritor of the measures Reagan put in place that spawned the great economic boom of the 90′s. Instead, we got ‘cigar man’ whom the liberals still praise for giving us great leadership.

*cough*

All they remember is the how well the economy was doing. They fail to acknowledge why the economy was doing so well. They love to forget the horrific malaise of the Carter administration with sky-high interest rates and long lines at the gas station – and don’t get me started on international policy (American hostages in Iran!) Bush 41 – victorious in Iraq and had a fantastic foreign policy agenda – failed on his promise of “no new taxes” and, for that, we got ‘cigar man’. Let us never repeat this mistake.

thedecider on November 21, 2006 at 11:57 PM

And one more thing: Clinton failed to have anyone on staff intelligent enough to see the looming dot com failure and put measures in place to soften the blow. He just rode the wave of economic prosperity while ignoring international threats which lead to 9/11 – another blame we can lay at the feet of his lackadaisical administration.

thedecider on November 22, 2006 at 12:06 AM

I agree. I was also disappointed. He could have been the inheritor of the measures Reagan put in place that spawned the great economic boom of the 90’s.

Such a great “boom” that Clinton got elected by focusing his campaign on the economy. The bills for Reaganomics came due under Bush Sr., and he was forced to take responsibility for paying them before the national debt got completely out of control. Bush Jr.’s performance has been shameful in that regard.

Constantine on November 22, 2006 at 12:19 AM

Bush Jr’s performance has, indeed, been shameful in that regard. He is not a fiscal conservative. However, Reaganomics worked, and Clinton was the benefactor.

thedecider on November 22, 2006 at 12:31 AM

However, Reaganomics worked, and Clinton was the benefactor.

I don’t see how you can support that claim. Did the effects of trickle-down economics go dormant during Bush Sr.’s administration, then magically reassert themselves 6 years later? The only lasting legacy from the Reagan era I see here in Los Angeles is a huge increase in the number of homeless people.

Constantine on November 22, 2006 at 12:54 AM

Valiant: “Dhimmis- both father and son.”

Why do you say this?

georgej on November 22, 2006 at 11:13 AM

Constantine is lying again (as he usually does when he posts here).

1. Clinton won because he successfully used his allies in the media to portray a sound, recovering, economy as a faltering one AND because Ross Perot redirected votes away from Bush 41.

The only reason that Cigarman even got the nomination was the belief of most Democrats (especially those who were better qualified the “President Penis” was) that Bush’s 91% post Gulf War approval rating would make him unassailable.

Bill Clinton was a MINORITY PRESIDENT in both terms, never having exceeded 50% of the votes cast. Constantine’s claims are NONSENSE.

2. Reaganomics worked. Just as it did when Kennedy cut taxes two decades earlier. Maybe, had it been called “Kennedyonomics” lie-clowns like Carville and Stephanopoulos and fools like Constantine would have be unable to lie about it.

3. The “homeless” problem that Constantine is lying about was (a) deliberated overstated for political purposes by the leftwing media and lying Democrats to improve Democratic Party chances in 1984 and 1988, (b) and what increases there were, were caused by court decisions (especially the Burger Court) that forced the release of large numbers of mentally ill (but not violent) people out onto the streets; people who were unprepared to fend for themselves. Even as late as 2000 (re: Olmstead v. L.C.), the court was forcing the release of people ill equipped to live on their own.

The cause of any “homeless spike” in the 1980′s was due to LIBERALS using the courts to get these poor people tossed out of their secure homes and on to the street for partisan political purposes.

If this is the best that the howling monkey trollers can do here, they are intellectually bankrupt as well as morally. They’ll be “low hanging fruit” in 2008.

georgej on November 22, 2006 at 11:56 AM

You sure like to throw that “liar” term around, don’t you George? Does that apply to everybody whose opinion differs from yours? Most of what you state is simply that– your opinion.

1. What you’re saying is that Clinton was the candidate because everybody else backed out for fear of losing to a wartime President. Do you have a survey of everybody else who went after the nomination to support this? Further, you’re suggesting that the Clinton campaign was able to convince the voting public that they were worse off than they actually were during Bush Sr.’s tenure, which further suggests there was no downturn in the economy at that time. Fantasize much?

2. Kennedy’s tax cut for the wealthy brought the upper brackets down from an over 90% taxation rate, which was not what Reagan did. In fact, Reagan’s cut resulted in a deficit that was 2.8% of national income, whereas Kennedy’s was only 1%. If Reagan’s cut had such wonderfully long-lasting effect, why did the economy tank soon after? Oh, right… we were just tricked into thinking it did.

3. I and everybody else in the country watched homelessness increase throughout the 80′s as a result of Reagan’s assault on the social safety net. No “left wing media” has to overstate what’s right in the faces of those of us not in an intellectual fortress of solitude. Between 1980 and 1989, HUD’s budget authority was cut from $74 billion to $19 billion in constant dollars. The number of new subsidized housing starts fell from 175,000 to 20,000 a year. Not everybody on the street is mentally ill.

You’re the only “low hanging fruit” around here.

Constantine on November 22, 2006 at 4:11 PM