...what about the damage to your Presidency?

Bush: Anger over war won’t change U.S. policy
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq

Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".

Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.

Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.

On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:

Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.

I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.

Fear and Running

in the Republican Party. 
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.

Amendment 1-  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2-  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution.  But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument.  "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**.  But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.*** 

Post asterisks:  The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]

* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality.  But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.

[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one.  But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation.  It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments.  Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]

[Follow-up of sorts.  But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term.  I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above.  However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch.  Guns don't kill people, people do.  Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law?  Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad?  And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric.  I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course.  This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]

[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]

[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]

Files of the

Third Kind? 
Snowden
War'ren
This pentagonal* file was unintentional but did not just happen.  There was an order in the linking, not that they were the order of the words.*  Inserted this order. 3, 4~5(1, 2) where the ellipsed were from an earlier browse of my in-box, and the last line was furc'8ed by choice.  Not to avoid any CH,  Buffeting, or labelism.  Not to mention, but I guess I am, a lost(~)reference from a counter(~) perspective, speaking of W)~(B . 

(~) not sure which ~)(~
Hint: Monty Python, Life of Brian

*3-6-15  Way off the Mark, but maybe to avoid the X-files, that's not the ticket.  And certainly not Platonic**. The P or point is or maybe the pythagornomics***. 

** OW ~ The irony of p[!] Or is it Pi?  AnyHow, a`tension may have been implied. (3/4)~**

*** coined Word? (P)~(F) ?[!](~) (F`P`?)

 

[Need caption/credit(...)]

Hume or Hegel

(~)^?

Egg-Road-Sky ?



Flat Kind ? 

(~) ?: alt image to be f(R)OWnd