Bushmonkey's response: "We're not going to have any casualties!"
CNN Story
Full Version: Pat Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties
Wow! How arrogant does he get? I thought I'd heard it all on Shrub, but this is a new low.
He really does think he's the Second Coming. frown
He really does think he's the Second Coming. frown
Robertson: "I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."
Wait, I thought the Lord spoke to Bush also, wonder why he didnt pass this info on to him?
________________________________________________
Look for an explanation from Scott McClellan;
"Oh, the president was referring to "casual tee's" as in t-shirts. All is well in Iraq, no news there, carry on."
Wait, I thought the Lord spoke to Bush also, wonder why he didnt pass this info on to him?
________________________________________________
Look for an explanation from Scott McClellan;
"Oh, the president was referring to "casual tee's" as in t-shirts. All is well in Iraq, no news there, carry on."
I guess only someone who ducked a war in the past would be naive enough to say, "We won't suffer any deaths. War is fun!"
As you all know I am not a bush fan, but do you really think he would say to anyone that there would be no "cashulties". bush is an airhead but i trust robertson even less. i think robertson is once again tryng to say that he is better than everyone and that spreads out to his minions of christian coalition /nazi coalition members. they are so superior that only they know the "truth" and everyone else is below them and going to hell unless they obey robertson blindly. this includes giving all you money to support his ministry. they give Christ a bad name and need to change the name of the organization. ughhh!!!
btw, why would robertson say this on national telly if he supports the shrub? who does that serve?
Why - how - could anyone possibly listen to either one of those parties and think that there was ANY credibility or even competence that could come from either one?
Like listening to two fifth graders discuss European Communitty foreign trade implications and their effect on the Euro - Yen market.
Might as well listen to Rush Limbaugh for advice on Gay dating...
Rob
Like listening to two fifth graders discuss European Communitty foreign trade implications and their effect on the Euro - Yen market.
Might as well listen to Rush Limbaugh for advice on Gay dating...
Rob
I'm sure Karl Rove has the discredit machine up and running. What is it this time? A book to sell, he's crazy, he's a disgruntled former adviser, he's a plant from the Dems . . . ?
The possibilities are endless. Oh, wait how about this one--he's telling the truth. The best reason to believe Robertson is the very fact that he has nothing to gain from this. When your biggest supporters start exposing your lies and hypocrisy, your goose is cooked.
The possibilities are endless. Oh, wait how about this one--he's telling the truth. The best reason to believe Robertson is the very fact that he has nothing to gain from this. When your biggest supporters start exposing your lies and hypocrisy, your goose is cooked.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
Robertson: \"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy,\" Robertson said. \"I warned him about casualties.\"
Wait, I thought the Lord spoke to Bush also, wonder why he didnt pass this info on to him?
________________________________________________
Look for an explanation from Scott McClellan;
\"Oh, the president was referring to \"casual tee's\" as in t-shirts. All is well in Iraq, no news there, carry on.\"
Bush claims God directs him, yet bin Ladin makes the same claim... it makes you wonder which if the two is the more delusional fanatic. wink Robertson: \"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy,\" Robertson said. \"I warned him about casualties.\"
Wait, I thought the Lord spoke to Bush also, wonder why he didnt pass this info on to him?
________________________________________________
Look for an explanation from Scott McClellan;
\"Oh, the president was referring to \"casual tee's\" as in t-shirts. All is well in Iraq, no news there, carry on.\"
I saw a good bumper sticker this morning: "God is not a Republican".
Outsports brethren and sistren, if you have not yet read Ron Suskind's piece in Sunday's NY TIMES about W's "faith-based" presidency, please, please do. It bears out almost exactly what Robertson is saying. Suskind isn't even "attacking" W so much as reporting what others said already, and what has become so alarming to many Americans who fear or worry about W's actions.
Obviously Robertson now realizes that the Iraq war was wrong, and that true Christian humility and lack of vanity before God have been cast aside. So he's speaking out. Too bad it took him so long.
Suskind: The Faith-Based Presidency
Obviously Robertson now realizes that the Iraq war was wrong, and that true Christian humility and lack of vanity before God have been cast aside. So he's speaking out. Too bad it took him so long.
Suskind: The Faith-Based Presidency
I caught him on "Hardball" talking about this on Tuesday night. It is scary indeed.
This is funny:
In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''
[ October 20, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
QUOTE
In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''
[ October 20, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
Robertson joins John McCain as one who puts the ends above the means. They both apparently believe Bush is incompetent, but want his supporters whether he wins or loses and are positioning themselves to have their cake and eat it too. Many in the USA now are willing to 'send a thief to catch a thief'. They see Bush's limitations but believe he is stronger against terrorism. The problem with that old adage is that you still have a thief to deal with at the end of the day. Better to send the marshall IMO.
Actually, Tom, the word I would use to describe it is "scary".
QUOTE
TomFord:
This is funny:
I've read that as well. I find it more saddening than funny. It suggests Bush's ignorance is not entirely an act. 'Bonhomie' is nice, but there are too many lives at stake if he wins not to take his lack of information about the world more seriously. Not only national security but the health of people around the world would be better off with someone else at the helm of the most influential and powerful nation on the planet, currently that is.
This is funny:
QUOTE
TomFord:
This is funny:
Well, hell, cowpoke, they both start with "S"...how is the dummy supposed to tell them apart? This is funny:
That said, if Suskind's right, you have to lay some of the blame at the feet of his cabinet ministers and aides. I'm sure Washington is teeming with eager boot-lickers in junior positions, but there's something ridiculous about seasoned pros who feel they have no choice but to play along with tightly-scripted meetings, disdain for facts, etc.
The other good line in that article is the Christie Todd Whitman one (which made me think of WMD even though it's a different subject):
The other good line in that article is the Christie Todd Whitman one (which made me think of WMD even though it's a different subject):
QUOTE
As Whitman told me on the day in May 2003 that she announced her resignation as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: ''In meetings, I'd ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I was accused of disloyalty!''
The official White House response regarding this story from the WH's Press talking head, " The President never said that". Really? So either Robertson lied, or the Prez. did. Whom do you believe. Well since Shrub's credibility is zero with me, take a guess!
So, you would take the man that said 9-11 was God's punishment for America's support of homosexuality? yikes
Oh, don't get me wrong, I am sure PR is hearing voices, but they are not coming from above. He could probably teach Linda Blair a thing or two. He would definitely be worth watching if he spit some green pea soup and his head did a 360.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I am sure PR is hearing voices, but they are not coming from above. He could probably teach Linda Blair a thing or two. He would definitely be worth watching if he spit some green pea soup and his head did a 360.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.