Bush refuses to set timetable....

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Dr. Zhivodka, Apr 4, 2007.

  1. Bush Refuses To Set Timetable For Withdrawal Of Head From White House Banister

    April 2, 2007 | Issue 43•14

    WASHINGTON, DC—Though critics have argued that he does not understand the futility of his current situation, President Bush announced today that he has no plans to remove his head from its current position: wedged painfully between two balusters on a White House staircase.
    Bush Refuses

    Bush has refused to budge from his position.

    "Setting a timetable for withdrawal of my head would send mixed messages about why I put my head here in the first place," Bush said at a press conference on the Grand Staircase. "I am going to finish what I set out to accomplish here, no matter how unpopular my decision may be, or how much my head hurts while stuck between these immovable stairway posts."

    Democrats, emboldened by electoral victories that gave them control of both houses of Congress, are calling for Bush to begin withdrawing his head from the banister immediately.

    "Why does the president refuse to pull his head out of that banister?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a speech yesterday. "Hasn't he had his head in there long enough? We'd all like to know just how the American people are being served by him keeping his head in that banister."

    Entering its fifth day, the president's incursion into the banister is now widely considered a quagmire. Bush initially told the nation that he was going to stick his head through the banister in order to secure stockpiles of cashews on the other side. Though intelligence reports cited by the president seemed to indicate the presence of these cashews, a comprehensive probe by White House personnel revealed that no such nuts existed.

    "If the president truly believed there were cashews, why didn't he ask a staffer to go around to the other side of the staircase and check for cashews first?" Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) said. "Or even just look through the banister before slamming his head in there in such a way that it can't be extricated."

    Many Republicans who supported Bush early this week are now publicly criticizing the president for the way he got into the banister.

    "I stood by the commander-in-chief's decision to stick his head in this banister from the beginning," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). "But now I'm beginning to think he may have rushed into this without thinking through all the consequences of his actions."

    Voters are also voicing concerns about this latest predicament. Chicago resident Peter Colby, 41, who recently took part in a tour of the White House, said he thought Bush's actions were hurting the country's image abroad.

    "It's embarrassing to see the president of the United States with his head stuck in a banister," Colby said. "He just looks stupid."

    The few supporters Bush has left are privately concerned that he will go down in history as the president who wedged his head through a banister and refused to take it out despite widespread negative public sentiment and political pressure for him to do so.

    For his part, Bush has scoffed at such suggestions and accused his critics of exploiting the issue without providing any viable alternatives.

    "I hear a lot of criticism from the other side of the aisle, but what is the Democrat plan for victory here?" Bush said. "Some suggest rapid withdrawal, but that will most likely hurt my ears by bending them the wrong way. Others have suggested turning my head from side to side and slowly working my way out, which we all know is a recipe for failure."

    In recent days, the Bush administration has been attempting to sell a new plan based on a strong forward surge.

    "The only way for the president to successfully remove himself from this situation is not to pull his head out of the banister, but to push his whole body through," White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten said. "We're asking Congress and the American people to give the commander-in-chief a chance to try this new plan, which involves forcing his shoulders, torso, arms, and legs through that banister."

    Bush's perceived stubbornness and refusal to accept the intractable nature of the problem only further fanned the flames of opposition.

    "This administration needs to face the reality that some places are simply too narrow for the president to jam his head into," Newsweek columnist Michael Isikoff said. "President Bush is acting like a small child who, even after doing something terribly ill-advised—namely putting his head in that banister—still refuses to admit any error."

    "This whole thing's just incredibly fucking stupid," Isikoff added.



    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_refuses_to_set_timetable_for
     
  2. Are you addicted to The Onion also?

    Great minds think alike! :D
     
  3. In recent days, the Bush administration has been attempting to sell a new plan based on a strong forward surge.

    "The only way for the president to successfully remove himself from this situation is not to pull his head out of the banister, but to push his whole body through," White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten said. "We're asking Congress and the American people to give the commander-in-chief a chance to try this new plan, which involves forcing his shoulders, torso, arms, and legs through that banister."
     
  4. What a fuxxing tool this guy is. The last 28% should be rounded up and interned ....and then shot....and then shot again.
     
  5. Sam321

    Sam321

    War timetables are set by victories, not by loser Democrats running Congress.
     
  6. Victories? Like pushing ones entire body into an intractable postion.... head, sholders, torso, legs and all completely through the banister?

    =============================
    Are you seriously trying to maintain that at this point, in year five, of this fucking abortion of a war that there is still something to be had called "victory?" Good God what a fuxxking idiot.

    You remind me alot of hapadouchebag.



     
  7. Sam321

    Sam321

    You are a TOOL to CNN and NPR. You buy their Vietnam/Watergate propaganda.

    I’m still waiting for this civil war that never happened. I’m still waiting for all the mayhem to cascade out of control. Funny how so many urban battles have been won by a single squadron against hundreds of “insurgents” and it goes predictably unreported.

    Our urban warfare tactics have improved astronomically, which only happens when the military is actually fighting a war.

    We initially had that Arab general running the show because he was an Arab, not because he was the best. They finally had the sense to replace him with Petraeus.

    Just because a conflict happens longer than what you are comfortable with is your problem. I personally don’t want the puppets of Putin taking over Iraq’s oil fields. Do you?

    You people keep thinking our enemy is smarter. Just stay out of positions of power. Please.
     
  8. 411 douchebag.....even the Pentagon and DIA and CIA call the Sunni, Shia'a conflict in Iraq a Civil War.

    They're averging 80 deaths per day. On a per capita basis...that's about 1000 deaths per day in USA.

    Ya think you would move past your right wing-dick-sucking-feel-good-news-outlets if America was experiencing 1000 deaths per day in civil war?


     
  9. The essence of good leadership is avoiding getting into intractable situations, like we are in now in Iraq. The best case scenario and the White House's announced goal is to see that the current Iraqi government can function without internal interference. That would entrench a pro-Iran, shia government that is riddled with corruption and is deeply involved in death squads. That is the best case scenario. The worst is some combination of somalia/afghanistan, only with huge oil revenues.

    I don't feel we are accomplishing anything worth losing US troops for, and I have real issues with the strategies they seem to be pursuing. Just pulling out and leaving a vacuum doesn't make a lot of sense either.
     
  10. why did you support him for a second term ... this was an obvious outcome
     
    #10     Apr 5, 2007