Home > defense, Politics > Bush on the romance of danger

Bush on the romance of danger

March 21, 2008

President Bush, speaking by video conference to military and civilian workers in Afghanistan:

“I must say, I’m a little envious,” Bush said. “If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.”

“It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You’re really making history, and thanks,” Bush said.

Tip ‘o the hat to Terry

Categories: defense, Politics
  1. March 21, 2008 at 21:37 | #1

    Yeah Right! Who is he trying to fool?

  2. March 21, 2008 at 21:47 | #2

    He’s stealing another page from the Third Reich:


  3. March 22, 2008 at 17:26 | #3

    Why wasn’t he envious when there was a conflict in Vietnam?

  4. March 22, 2008 at 18:28 | #4

    Because he would have had to put his own ass on the line?

  5. March 23, 2008 at 08:42 | #5

    On a different note: Happy Easter!

  6. March 23, 2008 at 10:31 | #6

    bubba has a lot in common with Bill Clinton in the regards of fighting a war…both did their best to avoid it. I have come to the conclsion that Heinlein was right..those who do not serve should not be able to run for office or vote..but there must be an opportunity for everyone to serve and thus gain that opportunity

  7. March 23, 2008 at 18:52 | #7

    If being on the front line is so adventurous, why was Prince Harry pulled back home to England as soon as the media learned where he was?

  8. March 23, 2008 at 21:27 | #8

    Clinton made no bones about not going; W. is just a plain liar on this one.

    Prince Harry was pulled back because when it was leaked he was in Afghanistan, he and his squad became higher value targets.  The prince was not pleased …

  9. March 23, 2008 at 21:35 | #9

    GUYK, are you familiar with the term, “Chickenhawk”?

  10. March 24, 2008 at 04:44 | #10

    Yep, I am George and as one who has been there I can assure you that the majority who are there or have been there are not crazy about wars…but they understand the need at times for war otherwise they would not be there.

  11. March 24, 2008 at 08:45 | #11

    I understand that; I only meant to draw a distinction between King Codpiece and Bill Clinton.  Bush has got us into a war that is NOT necessary – not just my opinion but that of many military men – by his constant trash-talking. 

    I don’t recall Roosevelt saying; “Talk trash and wear out your military on a stupid war.”  We should have concentrated on finishing the job in Afghanistan. That war at least made some sense.

    At least Bill Clinton saw military force as a strategic option to be avoided when possible, used when necessary, with an exit strategy.  He never claimed to be some kind of tough-guy personally.  Certainly never paraded around in a flight suit or insulted front-line soldiers by claiming to be envious of them when he clearly was not.

    Just this: getting us into an unnecessary war is about as bad as “stupid president tricks” can get.

  12. alex
    March 24, 2008 at 10:40 | #12

    yea, what breathtaking stupidity!

  13. james old guy
    March 24, 2008 at 10:41 | #13

    If Bill Clinton had done his job instead of doing Monica we probably wouldn’t be where we are today.

  14. March 24, 2008 at 11:16 | #14

    If Bill Clinton had done his job instead of doing Monica we probably wouldn’t be where we are today.

    Yes, that’s probably true.  I was very angry at him about Lewinsky, not because I care how he gets his jollies but because it’s very bad marketing.  There were more than enough bluenose American voters to tip the election Bush’s way.

    If he’d done his job instead of Monica, he could have campaigned effectively for Al Gore, who would almost certainly have won, and Gore would have put the focus on Afghanistan and just kept Iraq bottled up.

    Maybe you should send flowers to Monica!  :coolsmirk:

  15. March 24, 2008 at 11:50 | #15

    Maybe you should send flowers to Monica!

    Damn good idea!

    On a separate issue, how come every time someone has anything critical to say of a Republican Bill is always brought up? Does it piss off Repubs that Bill was doing everything the Repubs said would destroy this country, yet it only made this country stronger? Does it piss off Repubs that Bill’s military is doing a damn good (given the circumstances) job in Iraq? What is it?

    Let’s get it out of the closet so we can move past this and focus on what matters… why Bush is the worst president ever and how we can avoid round 3?

  16. March 24, 2008 at 20:11 | #16

    After the first attack on the World Trade Center (anyone remember that?) the Clinton administration tracked down the perpetrators and they were convicted without contravening FISA (while lying about doing so), enacting a “Patriot” act, etc., etc.  The neo-cons (represented by the tired arguments of GuyK and JamesOldGuy) really have no place to stand, so they post re-treaded arguments ad nauseum.  9/11 occured on Bush and Cheney’s watch after the daily briefing paper was dismissed as some sort of “quaint” piece of history.

Comments are closed.