The source was precisely what I thought it was. CM folks conveniently stuck the link at the top...

As for the Texas - as I said, I could be right or wrong... and the same goes for you, since neither of us knows precisely what was said, how it was said and under what context.

The Texans I've met seem to be a proud bunch and proud people typically, not always, but typically don't act like that, that's all. I realize that all of the commenters here are dying for this to be true and discount any possibility that it's not (as if your breathing depended on it), but the reality could very well be the opposite of your cries and accusations. Although that wouldn't be the first time or the last ...

The source was precisely what I thought it was. CM folks conveniently stuck the link at the top...

As for the Texas - as I said, I could be right or wrong... and the same goes for you, since neither of us knows precisely what was said, how it was said and under what context.

The Texans I've met seem to be a proud bunch and proud people typically, not always, but typically don't act like that, that's all. I realize that all of the commenters here are dying for this to be true and discount any possibility that it's not (as if your breathing depended on it), but the reality could very well be the opposite of your cries and accusations. Although that wouldn't be the first time or the last time, I imagine... so since it makes you feel better (if such thing is even possible) - do your thing...

Texans are a proud bunch and that's why it means something when friends of the President are willing to report what they witnessed and the major paper of the state, the Dallas Morning News, is willing to print it. They don't easily turn on their own. Most have seen through the facade of W, but apparently not all.

It's not at all unbelievable as W has a history of going into rants. One in particular during his father's administration when Lee Atwater posed for a magazine cover in undershorts with a tie dangling between his legs like a phallic symbol. W was shouting through the White House "I hope your satisfied Lee".

From 2005 - [url=http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7...

Texans are a proud bunch and that's why it means something when friends of the President are willing to report what they witnessed and the major paper of the state, the Dallas Morning News, is willing to print it. They don't easily turn on their own. Most have seen through the facade of W, but apparently not all.

It's not at all unbelievable as W has a history of going into rants. One in particular during his father's administration when Lee Atwater posed for a magazine cover in undershorts with a tie dangling between his legs like a phallic symbol. W was shouting through the White House "I hope your satisfied Lee".

From 2005 - Link

They describe a President whose public persona masks an angry, obscenity-spouting man who berates staff, unleashes tirades against those who disagree with him and ends meetings in the Oval Office with “get out of here!”

In fact, George W. Bush’s mood swings have become so drastic that White House emails often contain “weather reports” to warn of the President’s demeanor. “Calm seas” means Bush is calm while “tornado alert” is a warning that he is pissed at the world.

Texans aren't any different than anyone else they just live in a glorified Hollywood myth.

W strikes me as petulant. He strikes me as believing he comes from a family with the divine right to be president regardless of his true abilities.

In business he was a constant failure until saved by people with a vested interest in the family. He was picked to be president by controllers and puppet masters and wants everyone to recognize that "He is president" although most of us know he was just a name, face and symbol. Just as Kissinger kept information away from Nixon and ran foreign policy behind his back so do Cheney and the PNAC neo-conservatives.

It's embarrassing really. Even Poppy Bush knows and has said that Jeb was the smarter of the two and should have been the one that asce...

W strikes me as petulant. He strikes me as believing he comes from a family with the divine right to be president regardless of his true abilities.

In business he was a constant failure until saved by people with a vested interest in the family. He was picked to be president by controllers and puppet masters and wants everyone to recognize that "He is president" although most of us know he was just a name, face and symbol. Just as Kissinger kept information away from Nixon and ran foreign policy behind his back so do Cheney and the PNAC neo-conservatives.

It's embarrassing really. Even Poppy Bush knows and has said that Jeb was the smarter of the two and should have been the one that ascended. W has burned those bridges. W constantly has wanted to best his Dad and be the dominant figure in his family. He has failed on both accounts.

Don't kid yourself. For someone who has thrived on attention, cheerleader at Andover in High School, and being ringleader of his fraternity in college, it's devastating for W to be unliked, and relegated to the trash heap of history as a failure even though he is convinced of his righteousness.

Well said, BobbyRutan
This weeks cover of Newsweek (June 11,2007) exclaims in big letters "AFTER BUSH How to Restore America's Place in the World" There is an American flag on the cover with a big eagle on top. This lenghty article was written by Fareed Zakaria. Fareed immagrated from India to the United States as an 18 year-old student. His observations and comparisons of the atmosphere in the United States then and now is very telling. He pulls no punches in exclaiming how Bush uses scare tactics and fear to get his way, and how the current crop of Republican cannidates for 2008 are doing the same thing. AFTER BUSH (AB) should be what we all are looking forward to. Bush and Co...

Well said, BobbyRutan
This weeks cover of Newsweek (June 11,2007) exclaims in big letters "AFTER BUSH How to Restore America's Place in the World" There is an American flag on the cover with a big eagle on top. This lenghty article was written by Fareed Zakaria. Fareed immagrated from India to the United States as an 18 year-old student. His observations and comparisons of the atmosphere in the United States then and now is very telling. He pulls no punches in exclaiming how Bush uses scare tactics and fear to get his way, and how the current crop of Republican cannidates for 2008 are doing the same thing. AFTER BUSH (AB) should be what we all are looking forward to. Bush and Company has been a disaster for this country in many ways. What is disturbing about this report is that his mental state may be in question. Our country has been resiliant through many challenges. The Constitution, and our system of government has survived the assasinations of Presidents, and other leaders. We have survived the Vietnam War, and the resignation of Nixon. I just got my fingers crossed that we can survive Bush. It amazes me how one man or a small group of men can do so much damage to an entire nation. I will be one among many in the United States and in the World who will breath a sigh of relief when the cowboy from Texas leaves office.
Check out the newsweek article at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/

Schreibe - you've seen too many movies... It's interesting how you read an article like that one and subscribe to it head over heels, yet you do not offer a single example of what was done that was so 'damaging' to the country.

US survived Vietnam - what does that mean? US left with the tail neatly tucked in the wrong place, millions died as an after-effect and you call it 'survived'? Nixon could easily be blamed for starting the whole China situation that's going on right now. I don't think he could've predicted just how bad his 'trip' abroad would come out for the US, but that sorry saga ain't over by any stretch.

Bush inherited a crappy economy from your wonder boy, who couldn't even...

Schreibe - you've seen too many movies... It's interesting how you read an article like that one and subscribe to it head over heels, yet you do not offer a single example of what was done that was so 'damaging' to the country.

US survived Vietnam - what does that mean? US left with the tail neatly tucked in the wrong place, millions died as an after-effect and you call it 'survived'? Nixon could easily be blamed for starting the whole China situation that's going on right now. I don't think he could've predicted just how bad his 'trip' abroad would come out for the US, but that sorry saga ain't over by any stretch.

Bush inherited a crappy economy from your wonder boy, who couldn't even do 9to5 without resorting to extramarital activities on the job. But you love the guy, I'm sure... he was a fabulous President with inordinate amounts of scandals and even impeachment for lies under oath. Libby gets indicted for crime he didn't commit and for not being honest gets 2.5 years in the slammer - your boy gets no time for lies about things that he did do. Bush manages to get the country back economically after 9/11 - an unprecedented tragedy in US history.

If Bush should be accused of anything - it would be of not being a Truman-like leader in this war. If Bush is bad - I can only imagine what you'd call Truman with your sentiments. What about FDR, stating over and over that US won't get into the war with the nazis... and then going full bore, losing 40,000+ (although not strictly Americans) on the FIRST DAY of the conflict. Would you give him your favorite sticker 'FDR lied - people died'? It's amazing to me how you people look at all of this stuff. You have no concept of what good and bad is.

Bush inherited a strong economy from Clinton that was due for a correction but W and Cheney exacerbated the stiuation by going on the Sunday talk shows and cheerleading a recession. It was pathetic to see "boy wonder" grinning ear to ear about how bad the economy was and looking for over his shoulder to Big Dick for approval "did I do good Big Dick?". The correction would not have been nearly as severe if W and Cheney weren't pushing to get a huge tax break for their donors as a reward following the election.

It's also interesting how the conservative side never gives Clinton credit for doing anything economically but somehow W saves the economic world. Fact of the matter is that the econom...

Bush inherited a strong economy from Clinton that was due for a correction but W and Cheney exacerbated the stiuation by going on the Sunday talk shows and cheerleading a recession. It was pathetic to see "boy wonder" grinning ear to ear about how bad the economy was and looking for over his shoulder to Big Dick for approval "did I do good Big Dick?". The correction would not have been nearly as severe if W and Cheney weren't pushing to get a huge tax break for their donors as a reward following the election.

It's also interesting how the conservative side never gives Clinton credit for doing anything economically but somehow W saves the economic world. Fact of the matter is that the economy would have recovered much more quickly had the tax breaks gone more proportionally to the middle class and lower class. In effect he postponed our recovery. Gee thanks W.

If anybody actually inherited a crappy economy it was Carter and not W but you can't find a breath in your body to give credit to Carter for anything. Carter is head shoulders above W in every regard, as an intellect, as a statesman, and has a human being.

Nixon had a slew of bad qualities but the flip side is to imagine what would have happened if China was not prodded into the world community. That we will never know but North Korea comes to mind.

Leaving Vietnam was the correct thing to do because we would never win a war that was about nationalism and not communism. The Vietnamese have fought all of their occupiers, the French, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Americans. Would have been just more dead soldiers who died for politicians egos like what is going on in Iraq.

If any millions died they died in Cambodia after Nixon destablised their country by expanding the war. Yet another brilliant Republican move.

Bush never did 9 to 5 as governor of Texas and still has to knock off early for bed time now. He probably should spend more time asleep and the US would be better off for it.

@bobbyrutan
Why don't you look at the economic stats for that time frame, instead of watching who winked at whom at what shows. The info is publicly available. You can also see how the economy was beginning to rise right before Clinton stepped into the office.

As for his economic savvy - if you want to be accurate - you should be referring to the Fed, Mr. Greenspan. He's the real reason for economic expansion in that timeframe.

As for why Bush gets the credit for economic turnaround - very simple, it's the tax cuts. We have huge tax intake despite tax cuts. That's why he gets a nod there. Where he doesn't get the nod, at least not from me, is from spending like crazy... although he i...

@bobbyrutan
Why don't you look at the economic stats for that time frame, instead of watching who winked at whom at what shows. The info is publicly available. You can also see how the economy was beginning to rise right before Clinton stepped into the office.

As for his economic savvy - if you want to be accurate - you should be referring to the Fed, Mr. Greenspan. He's the real reason for economic expansion in that timeframe.

As for why Bush gets the credit for economic turnaround - very simple, it's the tax cuts. We have huge tax intake despite tax cuts. That's why he gets a nod there. Where he doesn't get the nod, at least not from me, is from spending like crazy... although he isn't the only one to blame there, since he doesn't control the purse. So, the Congress is more to blame in this area for spending like the did/do.

As for your definition of Carter, he might be somewhat taller than W (I'm not sure if he is or not), but that's about the extent of it - he had absolutely horrible economy and even if what you say is true about him inheriting it (I didn't look into it) - he sure the heck didn't squat to fix it. He does get a nod for Begin/Sadat deal, since he was part of it, but absolutely pathetic marks in dealing with our hostages in Iran. The guy doesn't even have the class of every other President to shut up about the sitting President. He endorses Chavez and critiques Bush - that should be enough right there to see just how deranged the man is.

Vietnam was winnable and many people who've been there say so. The problem was with how the war was handled, same problem we have in Iraq now. Both are run politically, instead of militarily. That's why both were unwinnable.

Do you actually listen to yourself? Or your political agenda blinds you to anything else? Why aren't you bringing up Kennedy, the Democrat, who started the Vietnam war? Why is it only Nixon, the Republican, who did something wrong?

RecordSage you are as blinded as anybody. You are definitely in the minority in regards to W and the assessment of his abilities yet you continue to be his apologist constantly.

I was not inaccurate about the economy at the time W was selected by the Supreme Court. I acknowledged that the economy was due for a correction but that is far different than the doom and gloom Bush and Cheney advertised on the talk shows that worked to destroy consumer confidence making the effects of 9/11 even worse than they should be.

Gore and the Democrats included tax cuts as part of the platform for the 2000 election but they would have gone proportionately to the middle class and the poor instead of W's ...

RecordSage you are as blinded as anybody. You are definitely in the minority in regards to W and the assessment of his abilities yet you continue to be his apologist constantly.

I was not inaccurate about the economy at the time W was selected by the Supreme Court. I acknowledged that the economy was due for a correction but that is far different than the doom and gloom Bush and Cheney advertised on the talk shows that worked to destroy consumer confidence making the effects of 9/11 even worse than they should be.

Gore and the Democrats included tax cuts as part of the platform for the 2000 election but they would have gone proportionately to the middle class and the poor instead of W's favorite group, the rich (don't you remember him, W, telling them "You are my voter base".)

The Democratic tax cuts would have worked much quicker than trickle down economics does. It took 5-6 years to get back in the markets where we were. To me that isn't a great record of accomplishment.

Vietnam being winnable is out of the question. It would have been a decades long war of attrition. Those who claim that is was winnable are history revisionists. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did during the entire period of World War II. If the US ever advanced on North Vietnam, China would enter the fray with troops and you have the Korean stalemate all over again. All of Vietnam was folly Democrats and Republicans alike. I am very happy that the liberal/progressive branch of the Democratic party won out in the debate on Vietnam. The Republican party has sucked up the conservative war hawk wing of the Democratic party of those days through Reagan's embrace of Strom Thurmond's southern strategy. Good riddance.

All you have to do is ask yourself if you would ever give up trying to depose an occupier of your own country.

It's kind of hard for Carter to be effective in getting back the hostages when Reagan's boys were negotiating hostage for arms deals behind Carter's back.

I'm not his apologist at all. I disagree with him on how he conducted the war, I 100% disagree with him on the latest immigration reform bill. But that does not mean that I will take Carter as an example of positives for the USA, when I actually lived here during his tenure, just because he's on my side of political isle. There are loyalties, but then there's also common sense, reality and the facts.

No, it wasn't a 'correction', the words I remember were 'recession' that was flying around and it wasn't coming from Bush back in 2000. The Bush tax cuts were NOT for the rich, as you continuously misinform the public here. They were across the board, which financially of course would be...

I'm not his apologist at all. I disagree with him on how he conducted the war, I 100% disagree with him on the latest immigration reform bill. But that does not mean that I will take Carter as an example of positives for the USA, when I actually lived here during his tenure, just because he's on my side of political isle. There are loyalties, but then there's also common sense, reality and the facts.

No, it wasn't a 'correction', the words I remember were 'recession' that was flying around and it wasn't coming from Bush back in 2000. The Bush tax cuts were NOT for the rich, as you continuously misinform the public here. They were across the board, which financially of course would benefit some more than others, but they were across the board. Again, check your sources. If you were poor and didn't pay taxes - you didn't get a break - nothing strange about that.

As for how the Democratic cuts WOULD have worked - you have no clue, it's pure theory on your part. The reality was that Clinton was in office for 8 years and he left with a declining and pretty crappy in most places economy. If they were so capable - why didn't they make it work for the 2000 election. According to most , the ONLY reason Clinton got elected was due to sour economy, which was coming back but not quick enough. Bush Sr. had one of the highest approval ratings after the Gulf War, the economy killed him. That plus the lies that Clinton didn't play with Jennifer Flowers or whoever the floosie of the day was at the time, which of course he did. Gary Hart wasn't as lucky just a few short years back.

As for getting the economy back - it's almost unbelievable that you don't realize just how much of a hit 9/11 was and how much economic damage was done and how amazingly quickly things came back to life. Do you not recall exactly what buildings went down, do you not recall the airline industry afterwards, as well as the stock market etc.? Perhaps you don't...

As for Carter... it's amazing to me how you excuse the guy. Carter was the President - he could've done anything he wanted regardless of what Reagan or anyone else did. And he did try and it was pathetic and the hostages were released on the very day Reagan came in power. And if you for a second thing that this had ANYTHING to do with any negotiations - you're definitely in a different reality, my friend. The pipsqueek and his buddies knew damn well that it would be the end of them if they weren't released. With Carter - it was obviously not a problem, with Reagan - a totally different story. As much as I dislike them - I have to give them credit for at least knowing that much and doin...

As for Carter... it's amazing to me how you excuse the guy. Carter was the President - he could've done anything he wanted regardless of what Reagan or anyone else did. And he did try and it was pathetic and the hostages were released on the very day Reagan came in power. And if you for a second thing that this had ANYTHING to do with any negotiations - you're definitely in a different reality, my friend. The pipsqueek and his buddies knew damn well that it would be the end of them if they weren't released. With Carter - it was obviously not a problem, with Reagan - a totally different story. As much as I dislike them - I have to give them credit for at least knowing that much and doing what's expected for their own good. Reagan was NOT the President at the time, he wasn't even in the Cabinet and you want to tell me that he had more pull than the entire government machine of the USA, including the President? Come on!

Finally, about your question regarding deposing the occupier of your own country? We don't have the scenario in play, so it's an faulty question to ask. Regardless of the number of disagreements I have with the President, I know that a) I can vote for whomever I want (and so can you) and b) he won't be there for more than 2 terms. If you want an example of real occupation of the country with real problems for people - I recommend reading the history of USSR. That'll put some perspective into your life... provided of course you have an inkling if interest in being fair as opposed to being... left, for a lack of a better word...

You live in some alternate reality RecordSage. It is a well known and documented fact that the Reagan camp (not Reagan directly) negotiated with Iran to hold the hostages because Iran would get a better deal from the Reagan administration. Arms were traded and sold to Iran and the money was diverted through Oliver North to go to Nicaraguan Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. The Reagan diaries released this month even document that fact. The Iranians wanted to deal with who was leading in the polls although it was speculated that it would have been a much closer election if the hostages were released while Carter was in office. You really aught to brush up on your American history....

You live in some alternate reality RecordSage. It is a well known and documented fact that the Reagan camp (not Reagan directly) negotiated with Iran to hold the hostages because Iran would get a better deal from the Reagan administration. Arms were traded and sold to Iran and the money was diverted through Oliver North to go to Nicaraguan Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. The Reagan diaries released this month even document that fact. The Iranians wanted to deal with who was leading in the polls although it was speculated that it would have been a much closer election if the hostages were released while Carter was in office. You really aught to brush up on your American history.

I'm well aware of what took place on 9/11 while Bush and Cheney were asleep at the wheel. The fact that the economy came back says more about the American economy then it says about W's abilities. It would have come back quicker with the Democratic tax plan.

I hardly see how it can be faulty to ask if you would try to defeat an occupier of your country. You don't have to be occupied to know the answer to that question. Vietnam was not winnable.

And yes I actually was born overseas, lived overseas, and am well aware of conditions that exist in other countries.

I experienced those same difficulties in the late 70's but Carter had to deal with inflation coming from the US spending about 10% GDP in Vietnam and OPEC finally realizing the power they controlled over an oil reliant US during the Yom Kippur War. He should be given credit for having the foresight to begin programs that would rid us of our reliance on imported oil. Too bad those programs were killed by Reagan and we find ourselves fighting wars today from our continued dependence. W never had to face those problems when he went on his television campaign to destroy consumer confidence so he could push a tax cut that has predominantly rewarded the rich.

You deal with all sorts of hypotheticals - Vietnam winnable? That's pure hypothesis.

There is far more history to support that Vietnam was unwinnable then winnable.

Getting back to Carter and the situation with the hostages I'll let him say it in his own words.

Carter, however, makes no apologies for his restrained use of American power. "I kept our nation at peace," he says, as if there is no greater success a president can achieve. "We never dropped a bomb, we never launched a missile."

Some advisers urged military action when Iranian militants seized 66 US hostages in 1979. But Carter stands by his patient handling of the crisis, which ended with the hostages' r...

read more»

You deal with all sorts of hypotheticals - Vietnam winnable? That's pure hypothesis.

There is far more history to support that Vietnam was unwinnable then winnable.

Getting back to Carter and the situation with the hostages I'll let him say it in his own words.

Carter, however, makes no apologies for his restrained use of American power. "I kept our nation at peace," he says, as if there is no greater success a president can achieve. "We never dropped a bomb, we never launched a missile."

Some advisers urged military action when Iranian militants seized 66 US hostages in 1979. But Carter stands by his patient handling of the crisis, which ended with the hostages' release on the day he left office. "I could have destroyed Iran," he says. "But it would have resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Iranians and they would almost certainly have assassinated our hostages so I think to resolve the crisis peacefully was the right thing."

Here, here. Sure wish there were more statesman today. Starting wars are the easy things. Controlling the unforeseen effects that follow require real leadership.

As for Clinton handing W a recession let's take a look at the facts. Let's see what our current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, member of the National Bureau of Economic Research, had to say about economic conditions during March 2001 in W's administration.

Q: The NBER has dated the beginning of the recession in March 2001. Does this mean that the attacks of September 11 did not have a role in causing the recession?

A. No. Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession.

The correction taking place was minor and mild. Bush and Cheney destroying consumer confidence through irrational fear to push a tax cut favoring the rich c

Economists always talk like that. You ever listen to any of Greenspan's testimony? What it does imply is that prior to the 9/11 attacks they did not have sufficient indication to determine that a recession was taking place. What it also indicates, as fact, is that there was not economic contraction at anytime during Clinton's administration because contraction started in 2001. Your claims bear no facts. You made it sound like America was in the crapper when W took over.

Another fact is that Clinton finished with the highest end-of presidency approval ratings for any president since these measurements have been taken. Hardly an indicator that the US was in the crapper. The same can hardly b...

Economists always talk like that. You ever listen to any of Greenspan's testimony? What it does imply is that prior to the 9/11 attacks they did not have sufficient indication to determine that a recession was taking place. What it also indicates, as fact, is that there was not economic contraction at anytime during Clinton's administration because contraction started in 2001. Your claims bear no facts. You made it sound like America was in the crapper when W took over.

Another fact is that Clinton finished with the highest end-of presidency approval ratings for any president since these measurements have been taken. Hardly an indicator that the US was in the crapper. The same can hardly be said about your boy Bush.

How in the world can our Fed Chairman and his expertise in his field be discounted but you can say Vietnam being winnable is hypothetical to SOME. It's pure hypothesis. Sure no one knows 100% but that doesn't prevent us from coming to educated and logical conclusions, and the evidence is that NO occupier remains in Vietnam.

Is your world really black and white?

If your limiting your discussion solely to what has happened than you are going to be very limited to what you can say. How can you say anyone did a bad or good job because you have to judge against some possible outcome. And since the possible outcome did not actually occur you can't comment on it? I find that preposterous.

Here are the things you have hypothesized: you hypothesized the reasoning for the release of the hostages, you hypothesized that Reagan would have a better course of action, you have hypothesized about events in Clinton's life that you know no facts about because you weren't there, you have hypothesized that Alan Greenspan was singularly responsible for the 8 years of economic fortune under Clinton, you hypothesized Bush's level of excitability, and you hypothesized that the only reason for Clinton's election was the state of the economy and no other factor.

Most of the things you stated about me were not 'hypothesized' by me, but stated by a number of people, much more in tune with the details and much smarter than you and I.

As for my world being black & white? Got me on that one. If you think about it - pretty much everything is one way or the other. You could be right, you could be wrong, but you can't be 'semi-right'. Gray area is an excuse for people who lack in the responsibility department - it's their way to bend the rules and justify doing so.

In terms of my stuff being hypothetical and yours not - you're being completely dishonest there. And as for the historical facts - you indicated that Iran/Contra situation occurred while...

Most of the things you stated about me were not 'hypothesized' by me, but stated by a number of people, much more in tune with the details and much smarter than you and I.

As for my world being black & white? Got me on that one. If you think about it - pretty much everything is one way or the other. You could be right, you could be wrong, but you can't be 'semi-right'. Gray area is an excuse for people who lack in the responsibility department - it's their way to bend the rules and justify doing so.

In terms of my stuff being hypothetical and yours not - you're being completely dishonest there. And as for the historical facts - you indicated that Iran/Contra situation occurred while Carter was in office, which is totally false. It was in the mid 80s when Reagan was in power.