What is wrong with George saying such a thing as this? Nothing:
Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God"."President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'" Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the meeting in June 2003 too, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."If that is what is in his brain, why can't he put it that way. Consider that its pretty much accepted that he uses such language as a tool of communication and that he pretty much is convinced of its truth. So why can't he say it - given he doesn't get voted for again and even if he did the atheists were never lining up to back him in the first place? If we can accept Manny being Manny, can't we now just accept George, too?

Comments
Kateland - October 7, 2005 9:43 AM
If you use a Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister or Mr. I have a Ph'd in Holocaust denial Abbas as a credible sources for recounting the state of GWB's mental state, I have radioactive toys, bananas, zionist death rays and Mossad trained spy dogs to sell you. For a few more dollars I can arranage a meeting with someone who can give out the Zionist/Sudanese handshake that will make your penis disappear as well.
Alan - October 7, 2005 11:06 AM
Yah, yah. You have your beliefs that they are liars, liars, liars. So just say that - why extrapolate or illustrate - despite the fact that it could well fit the external context regardless of your belief system. Jeesh. Find yourself an emoticon.<p>[Ed.: <i>I am going to put an implicit IMHO at the beginning of this comment, young man. Everyone has their point of view</i>.]
'nee - October 7, 2005 6:59 PM
Dubya IS saying it; he's saying it to the people who matter, people in his social caste. Why should he bother with everybody else? Seriously, one of the most interesting hallmarks of this administration is its utter contempt for anybody who is not rich. I'm not being sarcastic or reactionary, it's just a solid fact for Bush that these are the people who <I>really matter.</I>
Alan - October 7, 2005 10:41 PM
Aren't you forgetting that she is nice <i>and</i> wonderful?
Alan - October 8, 2005 1:19 PM
More to not consider for one mo. ;-)
Arthur - October 8, 2005 4:47 PM
Aren't you forgetting that she is nice and wonderful?
Who is 'she'? The president?
[confused]
Alan - October 8, 2005 5:19 PM
The person Bush appointed from his caste.
Alan - October 8, 2005 5:19 PM
[/confusion]
Arthur - October 8, 2005 8:45 PM
The person Bush appointed from his caste.
OH. So this wasn't about Geena Davis then...