Bush '41' endorses McCain but does it matter?

Jeez, if it wasn't for McCain's trophy wife, the average age on that podium would be about 75.

Unbelievable that the Swamp would use headline language to suggest that the endorsement of a former president of the United States doesn't matter.

Why don't you guys just change the name of this "blog" to "what can I do to help that plagiarist Obama?" Sign up today!

I can't wait to hear and see how Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter's endorsements don't matter.

I agree with Jeff, the title of the article is an insult and an indication of this blogs bias.

You should apologize for the title- it's insulting to our former President and America.

Very insulting and unprofessional for a journalist.

This is great News!!!...for the Democrats.

Talk about a bad week for crazy John McCain/Bush.

The Bush family endorsements should be about as welcome and useful as a porqupine at a nudist retreat.

Crazy McCain:
Happy belated Valentines Day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE3jLCC_rwo

With love,
The Bush Crime Family

Jeff and CJ,

Gee, I guess you are looking for equal access. I have no problem with that. So you want to start with Fox News, or Michael Savage or Rush or . . .

The balance that you want is one of the things that has caused news broadcasts to be more entertainment than investigative news. We don't need the high priced news announcers. Anyone can simply read the same stories that everyone else is reading.

I want to see the 4th estate go back to actually being a service to the people of this country.

One Republican who knew nothing about the economy, endorses another Republican who knows nothing about the economy (and admits it).

"So it's unclear how exactly Bush the elder will help McCain."

Maybe he'll help with his shuffleboard score. He certainly hasn't done to well in smacking his ne'er-do-well son up the side of the head.

Let's hope Barbara gets a microphone put in front of her to speak her "beautiful mind". It will be McCain's kiss of death.

I agree with John E--endorsements like this can't be good for McCain.

I just can't get that clip of McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" out of my head every time I see his face. There will be no way I would ever vote for the likes of him. I'd rather stay home.

Did plagiarist McCain say he was "fired up and ready to go" this time?

Why would anyone with half a mind vote for a plagiarist?

"BIG POPPY SR. SPEAKS"

JOHN JOHN HE'S OUR MAN, IF JOHN JOHN CAN'T NO ONE MAN ON THIS PLANET CAN!

NOT LIKE ME, JUST LIKE ME. "NO NEW TAXES" WE WILL CONTINUE OUR "CONSOLIDATION OF THE CONSTITUTION" TO PAY THE "SERPENT" DOWN GOES YOU MIDDLE CLASS "SAGGY BOTTOM NO BELT WEARING" MIDDLE CLASS STUDENTS.

JOHN JOHN HE'S OUR MAN, IF JOHN JOHN CAN'T NO MAN ON THIS PLANET CAN. THE "STAKES ARE HIGH"

WE STRUCK ON ON SATAN S-BILL 1639. WE STRUCK ON "RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY" FOR OUR "LISTENERS"

WHAT NEXT, TELCOMS ASKING CONGRESS FOR A "TELL ALL IMMUNITY" FOR THEMSELVES.

COME ON NOW, JOHN JOHN HE'S OUR MAN, IF JOHN JOHN CANNOT REUNITE THE TOM DELAY, JACK ABRAHOFF, AND THE REST OF OUR GOP LAW BREAKING CONSTITUTIONAL CIRCUMVENTORS.

THEN WHO CAN AMERICA! "THE SECRETARY" AKA CHERTOFF

Has anyone seen a live picture of Cheney since the State of the Union Address? Something tells me he's not with us anymore and the Pentagon is still having software issues with the robot stand in, Cheney 5000. I hear the resemblance is uncanny except the roboCheney 5000 can smile and wish you happiness and prosperity.

Jeff,

I'd find this all a lot more amusing if weren't for lot of Americans getting killed in Iraq for no good reason. (Notice I didn't say Afghanistan because you know who is there. Or nearby.)

It makes me plenty mad all the way around when dead troops are an f'in afterthought, if at all, in the news.

I'd like to see a law that says Iraq and Afghanistan combat actions and their aftermath (read that casualities) are required lead stories for every g'd news organization with a readership of more than 2.

Your thoughts?

lochness,

Here it is, here's Crazy McCain doing his best Beach Boys impression:

Bomb bomb Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

Here's a better version of bomb bomb Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

Doug Doug Doug... Zook
While deaths are not to be celebrated with any glee, they are to be celebrated for the mission they died for and dedication to something bigger. Obviously we disagree on the value of the mission, but the deaths in our wars get very honorable treatment, but to report every death is not only inpractical, but unnecessary. That sounds cold hearted, but the time will come to give the honor to the fallen troops. That time is when the mission has been completed. To take our eyes off the ultimate end goal will end up softening our position and their death may have been in vain.
Again, we disagree on the goals of the battle, but my point still stands. Honor our troops in general, and then lick our wounds and bury/honor our dead when the battle is done. I think the honorably sacrificed soldier would agree with this.

Didn't the greatest Republican president give Stinger missiles to Iran? Lets hope they don't use them against us when McCain bomb bomb bombs Iran. How quickly we Americans forget.

Like it or not John McCain is the man conservatives must work with this season. Showing support for anyone else is a boost for Hillary or Obama, higher taxes, and a weak commander-in-chief in a time of war.

A McCain/Romney ticket would appease the talk show hosts, unite the GOP, and win the election in November.

http://mittromney.townhall.com/

He's back...It's pappy George Herbert Walker "read my lips" Bush. The guy who raised taxes on middle class Americans and pardoned the Iran Contra criminals. It was also Bush #41 who was having a gossipy lunch with the bin Ladens at the Ritz Carlton in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 as the tragic events unfolded. Thirty six hours later, the bin Ladens were flown back to Saudi Arabia.
The Republican party is a party of queer smelling liars, hypocrites, and crooks.

McCain will:
Reinstate the draft
Attack Iran
Give illegals amnesty
Eliminate Amtrak.

That's for starters.

I wish Bush 43 would have listened to Bus 41 and John McCain. We wouldn't be in Iraq if he had. Though McCain supports the war now, he did not in the planning stages.

Bush 41 raised Bush 43--IMO--DAMION--the worst prez in history. Both men seem to love their "ties" more than they care for America. I think we should just ASK Bush 41 where Ossama is.  For me, nothing that Bush 41 says, with regard to what is good for America, is significant. He should  continue to fly around the world indefinitely with Bill--42. 

****************************BREAKING NEWS***********************
US troops come home with victory.  No WMDs found.  Saddam located and brought to justice.  McCain wrong to say he wants troops to come home in victory--since they already are victorious. Iraqi Government found incompetent for refusing to implement political solutions.  All US military troops exist under same immunity as Blackwater.

Again, we disagree on the goals of the battle, but my point still stands. Honor our troops in general, and then lick our wounds and bury/honor our dead when the battle is done. I think the honorably sacrificed soldier would agree with this.

Posted by: Steve S | February 18, 2008 5:18 PM

Stevey,

Why don't you tell the kiddies what those "goals" for Iraq are/were, before and after the pre-emptive invasion?
...and McCains plan to stay in Iraq for 100 years, who's going to pay for that? and how is he going to fix the tanking economy on top of all of his war-mongering??

Crazy McCain is an idiot...

Jonnie E and the rest of the most intelligent left...

Please explain to me, referencing both UN Resolution 1442 and Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, as well as the terms of the cease-fire of the 1st Gulf War, how indeed Bush '43 is a war crimminal?

Please, enlighten us.

Also (cringe) in your analysis, explain the Clinton attack on a sovereign country (Yugoslavia) without any UN authorization, and any comparison or difference to the current "war crimminal's" actions.

Please, enlighten us.

Also (cringe) in your analysis, explain the Clinton attack on a sovereign country (Yugoslavia) without any UN authorization, and any comparison or difference to the current "war crimminal's" actions.

Posted by: Trey | February 18, 2008 8:52 PM

Bush 41 - is NOT the President anymore...THANK GOD!

Bubba 42 - is NOT the President anymore..

...and useing either of them as an excuse to cover up for the Bush/Cheney crime families actions won't fly in the court of public opinion and definately wouldn't fly in a court of law (The Hague).

Case closed.

NEXT!

John E the deranged calling anyone else an "idiot" is just a situation where you have to shake your head and say to yourself "wow" at the hubris. Remember that John E went to the military school of GI Joe and he's saying McCain, a lifelong military man, should have his position on Iraq ridiculed. It would be shocking, really, if the angry left could be taken seriously.

Trey, don't ask John E to think or be rational. As he is an escaped refugee from the Elgin Mental Health Center, any attempt at normal human thinking only makes John E flip out even more than he already does.

3 Pointer,

You never answered the main question. Explain, in the context of Resolution 1442, under chapter 7 of the UN Charter, how Bush 43 is a war criminal??

So please enlighten, explain the crimes?

Hey, how's that impeachment going?

McCain, a lifelong military man, should have his position on Iraq ridiculed. It would be shocking, really, if the angry left could be taken seriously.

Posted by: Jeff | February 18, 2008 10:36 PM

Crazy McCain isn't going to get a free pass because of his military racord Jeffy, if he wanted a free pass he should never have gotten into politics and sold his soul to the GOP.

Posted by: Trey | February 18, 2008 10:49 PM

I see your still talking to yourself..

This case is closed

You lose...

John McCain may claim he knows war and foreign policy, but to keep U.S. troops in harms way to be maimed and killed over political errors in judgement??? The most obvious rebuttle Mr Obama could use to that is, "The best way to keep our troops safe is to get them out of Iraq, like when President Reagan withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon in 1984."

Keep in mind that the playing field has changed tremendously since 2004. Polls show that Americans want the Iraq War to end. Polls show that Americans believe the tremendous financial costs of the Iraq War are leading us into an economic recession.

Don't forget that Barack Obama's likely VP running mate will be Virginia Senator Jim Webb, the Vietnam Veteran who was Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan. That'll signficantly bolster Obama's national security credentials.

If Hillary Clinton is John McCain's opponent, McCain will have a much easier time winning due to the fact that Hillary is despised by about 50% of the electorate. If Barack Obama is McCain's opponent, McCain will have his work cut out for him.

In the 2000 GOP primary campaign, George W. Bush didn't get into specifics. John McCain got into specifics. Bush won. In the 2000 general election campaign, Bush didn't get into specifics. Al Gore got into specifics. Bush won. In the 2004 general election campaign, Bush didn't get into specifics. John Kerry got into specifics. Bush won.

The American electorate doesn't seem to care too much about hearing specifics. Hillary Clinton has been laying out specifics in her Democratic primary campaign and it hasn't worked very well. Obama has been using a more generalized optimistic change theme and it's worked extremely well.

If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, he'll have the creme de creme of Democratic policy advisers getting him primed and ready to get into specifics when needed during the general election campaign. Obama will be more than able to out-debate McCain by the time September rolls around.

Endorsements or not, Huckabee would be the better GOP nominee and President.

McCain's campaign thinks that with "more work", real conservatives will vote for McCain. They are dreaming.
It's like saying with "more work", true christians would be willing to support abortion or to divorce "the wife of thy youth" and be cursed by God. It won't happen, McCain!

Unless GOP delegates wake up and nominate Huckabee, the GOP will lose election in November.

John McCain may claim he knows war and foreign policy, but to keep U.S. troops in harms way to be maimed and killed over political errors in judgement??? The most obvious rebuttle Obama could use to that is, "The best way to keep our troops safe is to get them out of Iraq, like when President Reagan withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon in 1984."

Keep in mind that the playing field has changed tremendously since 2004. Polls show that Americans want the Iraq War to end. Polls show that Americans believe the tremendous financial costs of the Iraq War are leading us into an economic recession.

Don't forget that Barack Obama's likely VP running mate will be Virginia Senator Jim Webb, the Vietnam Veteran who was Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan. That'll signficantly bolster Obama's national security credentials.

If Hillary Clinton is John McCain's opponent, McCain will have a much easier time winning due to the fact that Hillary is despised by about 50% of the electorate. If Barack Obama is McCain's opponent, McCain will have his work cut out for him.

In the 2000 GOP primary campaign, George W. Bush didn't get into specifics. John McCain got into specifics. Bush won. In the 2000 general election campaign, Bush didn't get into specifics. Al Gore got into specifics. Bush won. In the 2004 general election campaign, Bush didn't get into specifics. John Kerry got into specifics. Bush won.

The American electorate doesn't seem to care too much about hearing specifics. Hillary Clinton has been laying out specifics in her Democratic primary campaign and it hasn't worked very well. Obama has been using a more generalized optimistic change theme and it's worked extremely well.

If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, he'll have the creme de creme of Democratic policy advisers getting him primed and ready to get into specifics when needed during the general election campaign. Obama will be more than able to out-debate McCain by the time September rolls around.

Posted by: Logic Prisoner | February 18, 2008 7:37 PM

The GOP is hanging on by a thread, followed closely by the Clintons. I see no reason why I should vote for John McCain. I must also say I would never have voted for that nut Mike Huckabee either. Just want to avoid that jerk getting anything more than the nominal fee's he deserves for his speaking engagements. He is doing great harm to the GOP. What happened to the republican party the last few years?

This is so impressive.

A president the people effectively threw out of office endorses McCain.

Canadian, please go back to paying 24% sales tax and shut up.

You had to be president in the first place to get "kicked out." Just ask Jimmy Carter.

What courage President 41 just displayed! He waited until after it became apparent that McCain would be the nominee before he gave his endorsement. Again I say, what courage. And his favorite football team is probably the NY Giants.

Frank James wonders in print whether the Bush endorsement matters to Republicans.

The better question is: Does anything written by Frank James matter to Republicans?

The few Republicans who still bother to read the Democratic National Committee's Swamp affiliate (Swamp motto: "We don't report on the Republican race") only read it to find out what the other side is thinking.

Brucie:

What Republican race???

I see Poppy also said that McCain would not be afraid to reach across the aisle to work with the Democrats. Why didn't he teach that to his own kid first???

Johnny D:

Is it true that you have been in and out of the Manteno Mental Health Facility so frequently that they have a wing there named after you - naturally one of the right wings.

People are sick of the war and the Bush family. The endorsement will hurt McCain with independent voters.

(Swamp motto: "We don't report on the Republican race")

Posted by: Bruce | February 19, 2008 9:47 AM

Way to inject race, you racist.

Look at that picture,is anyone there under a 100?

I wonder where they got the name " Angry Old White Man Party".

Another 'Bob Dole" senator running for president. He will get his ass kicked by Hillary or Obama. Conservatives remember his big Pro Amnesty immigration bill and will not turn out to vote for him.

You never answered the main question. Explain, in the context of Resolution 1442, under chapter 7 of the UN Charter, how Bush 43 is a war criminal??

So please enlighten, explain the crimes?

Posted by: Trey | February 18, 2008 10:49 PM

First of all, it was 1441. 1442 dealt with some issue regarding Cyprus.

Anyway, Sadaam was in reasonable compliance with 1441. The UN inspectors were in Iraq in the days leading up to the invasion. Bush '43 knew he was not going to find anything, therefore, he launched a pre-emptive strike and forced the UN inspectors to leave prior to the invasion.

Also, 1441 explicitly states “ This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.”

While there was a convening of the security coucil to discuss invasion, several security council members said they would veto anything that included force, so no vote was ever taken. Bush, therefore, acted outside the bounds of international law. This is a fact.

This article, actually written several months before the invasion, sums it up perfectly.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew74.php

My mistake, 1441 yes. But, it was passed under Article 7 of the UN Charter, which permits the use of force to enforce. Also, by just firing on US planes, as Iraq did on a regular basis long before Bush was in office, was a violation of the 1991 cease-fire and thus allowed the resumption of hostilities between the US and Iraq.

1441, as your article stated, was a beautifully drafted piece of work, which gave the US the ability to invade.

The actual article the US submitted for "use of force" in March of 03 was not only badly made, but unnecessary.

Again (cringe) Bush is actually much less a war criminal than Bill Clinton, who bombed and killed civilians in another country without UN authorization.

You may not like this war, but its fully legal. Hence no "legitimate" challenges or charges against the members of the Bush admin.