BLOG MyyyyyAsssss

Pictures taken recently of President George Bush are revealing the lines under his eyes and the speed up of his hair turning completely gray. George is looking old and haggard!
Mr. Bush has been under a lot of pressure of late with his 'War on Terrorism' having lost the support of the majority of his American voters. Bush's support has reached the worst it has ever been and he is now faced with a Congress that is out to defeat any further spending on American foreign policy in Iraq.
The President appeared on national television, but I was unable to watch it - the wife wears the pants in this family and her watching As The World Turns or something just as important took priority. The transcript of Bush's speech is available here from Fox News.
Fox News went on to report:

"Among Americans and Iraqis, there is no confusion over one basic fact: It is the Iraqis who are responsible for what kind of country Iraq will be. It is they who must decide whether Iraq will be characterized by national unity or sectarian conflict," Gates said. (Defense Secretary Robert Gates) "The president has conveyed to the Iraqi leadership that we will support their good decisions, but that Americans' patience is limited."
"America has to be committed because of the enormous stakes in Iraq and enormous stakes not just for the Iraqi people, but for our interests. We have to remember that an Iraq that is a terrorist safe haven in the Middle East would be devastating to our own interests," Rice told FOX News
Gates announced that the United States not only will beef up its presence in Iraq, but the Pentagon will seek to add 92,000 troops to its overall force structure — 65,000 Army soldiers and 27,000 Marines.
"First, we will propose to make permanent the temporary increase of 30,000 for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps," Gates said. "Then we propose to build up from that base in annual increments of 7,000 troops a year for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps until the Marine Corps reaches a level of 202,000, and the Army would be at 547,000."

Bush was off to Georgia to address his troops at Fort Benning
as the rest of his team rushes to Staples for 'an Easy Button'
but instead they should be stumbling over eachother for this one

Blog MyyyyyAsssss wishes to point out that The War on Terror is not a laughing matter, but as time passes by it seems this president's foreign policy just might be.
In fact, the foreign policy of countless presidents throught the history of the United States is the reason we are where we're at. So George, "Take heart - it's not entirely all your fault."
The mouseover and link if you clicked on the 'easy button' was put there for your entertainment. I racked my brains out on the 'panic button' but came up empty for an appropriate link.

Meanwhile just when you figured nobody else could be pissed with Bush:

Troops seize 6 Iranians in Iraq AP http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/news/raid.php BAGHDAD: U.S.-led multinational forces detained six Iranians Thursday at an Iranian government office in the northern city of Irbil, Iraqi officials said. The U.S. military said it had taken six people into custody in the Irbil region but made no mention of a raid on any Iranian government office. The forces entered the building about 3 a.m., detaining the Iranians and confiscating computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. Irbil is a city in the Kurdish-controlled northern part of Iraq, 350 kilometers, or 220 miles, from Baghdad. A person who lives near the building said the troops had used stun bombs and brought down an Iranian flag from the roof. As the operation went on, two helicopters flew overhead, the resident said on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. At the Pentagon, a senior U.S. military official said the building was not a consulate and did not have any diplomatic status. The six Iranians were taken in a "cordon-and-knock" operation, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. An Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said that Baghdad was seeking clarification from the United States and Iran "about these people and what they were doing there and whether they were employees." The regional Kurdish government condemned the arrests and called for the immediate release of the Iranians. It added that the government "was not aware in advance of the raid." The Iranian Foreign Ministry summoned the Iraqi and Swiss ambassadors in Tehran and "demanded an explanation" about the incident Switzerland represents American interests in Iran, where there is no U.S. embassy. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Muhammad Ali Hosseini, said on state-run radio the raid was "against a diplomatic mission" since the "presence of Iranian staffers in Irbil was legal." Hosseini claimed the action by coalition forces reflected a "continuation of pressure" on Iran, aiming to "create tension" between Iraq and its neighbors. Late last month, U.S. troops elsewhere in Iraq detained two Iranians and released two others who had diplomatic immunity. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. military would continue to target networks of individuals, regardless of their nationality, that were providing weapons designed to kill American troops in Iraq. "I think it's instructive that in the last couple of weeks two of those raids that we conducted to go after these folks that are providing these kinds of weapons — two of those raids had policed up Iranians. So it is clear that the Iranians are complicit in providing weapons," he said. The arrests come as tensions are high between Iran and the United States. The Bush administration has accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons and of helping fuel violence in Iraq. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, is trying to expand Tehran's role in Iraq as a counter to U.S. influence in the Gulf region. Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said any improvement in relations between the United States, Syria and Iran would only help Iraq. "Sometimes we pay the price for the tension in relations between Iran and the United States and Syria," he said, adding that it was in Iraq's interest "that these relations improve, but not at the expense of Iraq." Bush's new strategy ignores key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which in December called for a new diplomatic offensive and an outreach to Syria and Iran. Instead, the president accused both countries of aiding terrorists and insurgents in Iraq.

There seems to be some confusion on the interet. The Iranians are saying their embassy was illegally attacked. The Americans say it was an office. Let's hope that it was not an embassy as that would be grounds for impeachment if the order came directly from the White House.

Just to make this extremely long post even longer, the following textarea is relative to George Bush's image:

The New 'If' In Iraq The Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0112/p08s02-comv.html For a commander with "zero tolerance" for terror and a teeth-gritting drive for "victory" in Iraq, President Bush has introduced a big "if" in his new war plan: The US may end its support " if the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises." With that two-letter word in his speech Wednesday, Mr. Bush has now tied this nearly four-year-old war to both steady progress by Iraq's leaders and to the impatient public mood reflected in US politics - specifically to the presidential primaries in one year or, if the war persists, the hand over of power to a new American president in two years. "I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended," Bush said, and that they may "lose the support of the American people." Before this speech, Bush did not really have a clock ticking for this war. Now he has one. The reason may lie in his own looming exit, last year's escalation of violence in Iraq, or the election last November of many "pull out" Democrats in Congress. Whatever the reasons, the commander in chief now acts as a marathoner in a final, last-effort sprint to the tape. Perhaps he hopes that his humble admission of past mistakes in the war, a troop increase, new generals, more aid, and the lack of a unifying exit plan from Democrats will allow him to leave office with a victory of some sorts. Or, if Iraqi officials can't make good in disbanding Shiite militias and making political concession to Sunnis, he'll have an excuse to explain why the war failed. His message to Iraq's leaders is this: The next president, come Jan. 20, 2009, may abandon Iraq altogether. So it's best to work with me before that happens and show that this war is winnable. This wouldn't be the first time that a pending change in the occupant of the White House has hung like a sword of Damocles over another nation. In 1979, President Carter was fumbling to either rescue or arrange the release of 52 American hostages held in the US Embassy by radical Islamists in Iran. On the campaign trail, candidate Ronald Reagan was beating the drums for strong US action. As one hostage told his captors: The first day Reagan's in office, "he'll go back to the White House and say, 'OK, tell the Iranians if they don't let those hostages go by midnight tomorrow night, it's war.' " On Jan. 20, 1980, at the moment Reagan was taking the oath of office, a plane carrying the hostages was leaving Iran. The ruling clerics had gotten the message. Iraq's rulers, too, have now gotten the message that the protecting presence of US troops is conditional on their actions and the next act in American politics. The new top US commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, is well aware of how wars of insurgency end. His PhD dissertation was on the lessons of Vietnam. He supervised the new manual of counterinsurgency warfare. And he backs this "surge" of troops to secure Baghdad's streets. But even he has asked, "How does this end?" According to his own field manual, success "depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule." That is Iraq's big "if."