I need a vacation from my vacation.

[iaafan]

I've felt this way before.

W. vacationed so hard in Texas he got bushed. He needed a vacation from his vacation.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

The most rested president in American history headed West yesterday to get away from his Western getaway - and the mushrooming Crawford Woodstock - and spend a couple of days at the Tamarack Resort in the rural Idaho mountains.

"I'm kind of hangin' loose, as they say," he told reporters.

As The Financial Times noted, Mr. Bush is acting positively French in his love of le loafing, with 339 days at his ranch since he took office - nearly a year out of his five. Most Americans, on the other hand, take fewer vacations than anyone else in the developed world (even the Japanese), averaging only 13 to 16 days off a year.

W. didn't go alone, of course. Just as he took his beloved feather pillow on the road during his 2000 campaign, now he takes his beloved bike. An Air Force One steward tenderly unloaded W.'s $3,000 Trek Fuel mountain bike when they landed in Boise.

Gas is guzzling toward $3 a gallon. U.S. troop casualties in Iraq are at their highest levels since the invasion. As Donald Rumsfeld conceded yesterday, "The lethality, however, is up." Afghanistan's getting more dangerous, too. The defense secretary says he's raising troop levels in both places for coming elections.

So our overextended troops must prepare for more forced rotations, while the president hangs loose.

I mean, I like to exercise, but W. is psychopathic about it. He interviewed one potential Supreme Court nominee, Harvie Wilkinson III, by asking him how much he exercised. Last winter, Mr. Bush was obsessed with his love handles, telling people he was determined to get rid of seven pounds.

Shouldn't the president worry more about body armor than body fat?

Instead of calling in Karl Rove to ask him if he'd leaked, W. probably called him in to order him to the gym.

The rest of us may be fixated on the depressing tableau in Iraq, where the U.S. seems to be delivering a fundamentalist Islamic state into the dirty hands of men like Ahmad Chalabi, who conned the neocons into pushing for war, and his ally Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who started two armed uprisings against U.S. troops. It was his militiamen who ambushed Casey Sheehan's convoy in Sadr City.

America has caved on Iraqi women's rights. In fact, the women's rights activists supported by George and Laura Bush may have to leave Iraq.

But, as a former C.I.A. Middle East specialist, Reuel Marc Gerecht, said on "Meet the Press," U.S. democracy in 1900 didn't let women vote. If Iraqi democracy resembled that, "we'd all be thrilled," he said. "I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy."

Yesterday, the president hailed the constitution establishing an Islamic republic as "an amazing process," and said it "honors women's rights, the rights of minorities." Could he really think that? Or is he following the Vietnam model - declaring victory so we can leave?

The main point of writing a constitution was to move Sunnis into the mainstream and make them invested in the process, thereby removing the basis of the insurgency. But the Shiites and Kurds have frozen out the Sunnis, enhancing their resentment. So the insurgency is more likely to be inflamed than extinguished.

For political reasons, the president has a history of silence on America's war dead. But he finally mentioned them on Monday because it became politically useful to use them as a rationale for war - now that all the other rationales have gone up in smoke.

"We owe them something," he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion). "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for."

What twisted logic: with no W.M.D., no link to 9/11 and no democracy, now we have to keep killing people and have our kids killed because so many of our kids have been killed already? Talk about a vicious circle: the killing keeps justifying itself.

Just because the final reason the president came up with for invading Iraq - to create a democracy with freedom of religion and minority rights - has been dashed, why stop relaxing? W. is determined to stay the course on bike trails all over the West.

[grizbeer]

Strange that article didn't mention these things that this similar story from USA today did:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200508 ... nbycritics

His vacation is not all biking and book reading. Bush has been having regular security briefings with intelligence officials. He has been visited by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice. He has jetted to New Mexico to sign an energy bill and to Utah to address a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Today, Bush planned to give a speech to an audience composed mostly of families of National Guard members in Iraq. Later he is to meet privately in Nampa, Idaho, with families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

"The presidency is probably the most stressful job in the world. It's good from time to time for him to get away to a new location," said Merle Black, professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta.

"He doesn't get away from the problems he has to deal with, he's just brings them with him to another location. I don't think most Americans begrudge him a little time off," Black said.

Meanwhile, the publicity given the anti-war crowd has prompted a pro-Bush backlash.

A patriotic camp with a "God Bless Our President!" banner has sprung up in Crawford, where anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq, had been camping out until recently. The pro-Bush camp was set up by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq who says his son was proud to serve Bush and believed in his mission.

People who support Bush's Iraq policy and groups for military families such as Northern California Marine Moms embarked on the tour Monday, calling it "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" The caravan planned rallies in several California cities before heading to Crawford.

And the left doesn't understand why the right accuses the NY Times of being a leftists rag.

iaa you do realize that that bitter taste on your lips is the hate spewing from your own mouth, right? You also realize that the 2004 election is already over, and Bush will be in office for 3 and 1/2 more years and then will be gone, right? You use so much energy hating Bush that could be used for something positive. Sad.

[WYCAT]

GRIZBEER

[Grizlaw]

Strange that article didn't mention these things that this similar story from USA today did:

*snip*

And the left doesn't understand why the right accuses the NY Times of being a leftists rag.

GB, the piece iaa posted was an editorial, not a news piece. It's not supposed to be fair and balanced; it's supposed to be the writer's opinion.

People come down way too hard on the New York Times, imo. Yes, the editorial page is predominantly liberal, and that does indicate the lens through which the news pieces are reported, but the quality of the reporting and the coverage are impeccable (and certainly several cuts above most other major daily papers, including USA Today).

The three papers I read regularly are the NY Times, the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal, and I would rate them as the three best newspapers I've read (and the WSJ, I would say, is essentially the opposite of the NYT-- its editorial page is predominantly conservative, and the news is reported through that lens, but the quality of reporting is high and the coverage is excellent). Liberals hate the WSJ just as much as conservatives hate the NYT, but if you read them both objectively, they are both excellent papers.

[SonomaCat]

iaa you do realize that that bitter taste on your lips is the hate spewing from your own mouth, right? You also realize that the 2004 election is already over, and Bush will be in office for 3 and 1/2 more years and then will be gone, right? You use so much energy hating Bush that could be used for something positive. Sad.

So posting an article critical of Bush's job performance is "hate spewing from your own mouth?"

Seeing as how Bush's approval rating is hovering in the upper 30s, I'd hate to assume that anyone who doesn't think he's doing a good job at work is filled with hate -- that would make us a pretty hateful nation.

[iaafan]

And didn't I agree from the outset. I've needed vacations from my vacation. Sometimes it's actually nice to be back at work. I'm sure you've all been there, but I doubt Bush has. I mean you have to actually do work to go on vacation in the first place.
But mostly I just want to say chill out. Good greif. You'd think I'm the only person on the planet questioning Bush. Bush is simply a bad president. He's yet to doing anything positive in his five years. How can you screw up gas prices after essentially taking over the world's second biggest provider?
Yes, I realize he does "work"outs from Crawford. It'd be impossible for any president to just disappear for five weeks, although in his case it's something we can wish for. Have a nice day.

Also did any of you know that, according to NPR, he's hasn't been to San Francisco? BAC do you know about this. How does a president just happen to avoid one of the top 10 metro areas in the US? It's one thing to hide in the national guard during Vietnam War as a young punk, but this guy is the master at avoiding conflict. What's he afraid of BAC?

[Ponycat]

How can you screw up gas prices after essentially taking over the world's second biggest provider?

That might be the most ridiculous comment I've heard outside the smack board.

Once your done listening to Air America, and drinking there Kool Aid Why don't you do a little research on refineries and our capacity to refine the oil we have.

Bashing Bush is fine but have a little substance to your arguement.

[SonomaCat]

And didn't I agree from the outset. I've needed vacations from my vacation. Sometimes it's actually nice to be back at work. I'm sure you've all been there, but I doubt Bush has. I mean you have to actually do work to go on vacation in the first place.
But mostly I just want to say chill out. Good greif. You'd think I'm the only person on the planet questioning Bush. Bush is simply a bad president. He's yet to doing anything positive in his five years. How can you screw up gas prices after essentially taking over the world's second biggest provider?
Yes, I realize he does "work"outs from Crawford. It'd be impossible for any president to just disappear for five weeks, although in his case it's something we can wish for. Have a nice day.

Also did any of you know that, according to NPR, he's hasn't been to San Francisco? BAC do you know about this. How does a president just happen to avoid one of the top 10 metro areas in the US? It's one thing to hide in the national guard during Vietnam War as a young punk, but this guy is the master at avoiding conflict. What's he afraid of BAC?

There was a big article in the Chronicle last week talking about the fact that he was the first President in XX years (about 100, maybe?) that hadn't visited San Francisco. He does tend to only go where the crowds can be filtered so that he is speaking before a purely supportive audience, so I'm not surprised by his snubbing of SF. His approval rating here has probably not been much about 20 percent since the goodwill he had immediately after 9-11.

[SonomaCat]

How can you screw up gas prices after essentially taking over the world's second biggest provider?

That might be the most ridiculous comment I've heard outside the smack board.

Once your done listening to Air America, and drinking there Kool Aid Why don't you do a little research on refineries and our capacity to refine the oil we have.

Bashing Bush is fine but have a little substance to your arguement.

I've been splitting my commute time listening to both Air America and KSFO (local right wing station), and it's pretty funny/frustating on both sides. I really wish there were some good moderate voices out there who were interested in parsing through the talking points and trying to come to some sort of independent truth, but for the most part, talk radio is just extreme propoganda from both sides. They are so blinded (or more to the point, paid off) by party politics that the information they pass off as truth is so skewed that it is useless. I usually have to switch to the opposite one after someone says something particularly stupid, so I'm constantly bouncing around (but I can't even listen to Giants baseball as a safe refuge this year because it's too depressing).

Although I did have a thought the other day that kind of amused me. I decided that if I had to pick one psycho extremist talking head from both sides of the spectrum to sleep with, it would have to be Michelle Malkin on the right and Janeane Garofalo on the left. I don't know what it is, but I am unreasonably drawn to really over-the-top irrational attractive women with dark hair, and it dawned on me that I've got a self-annoying crush on both of them. I fear that explains way too much about my past dating experiences -- I like to be with women that I can't stand in virtually every way.

Self-realization therapy session done for now.....

[iaafan]

How can you screw up gas prices after essentially taking over the world's second biggest provider?

Sorry Pony, thought I was being obvious enough to not need to use the emoticon. Yes, I'm sure there are others at work behind the high gas prices. Like Cheney.

[WYCAT]

You are correct about the approval ratings BAC (and I can't disagree with some of the reasons), but tell me, how did he ever win re-election then??????????????????

[iaafan]

BAC: I hope you aren't even thinking of not bedding both at the same time. When will BobcatNation.com have a Forum section, so we can get the details?

[iaafan]

WYCAT: He never won the first election, so he couldn't win re-election. Bu I'm sure he won his re-non-election is a new, improved way. Diebold in '04!!

[SonomaCat]

You are correct about the approval ratings BAC (and I can't disagree with some of the reasons), but tell me, how did he ever win re-election then??????????????????

Because the election happened when his approval ratings were higher ... back when fewer people had come to change their minds about the reasons for going to war.

In reality, the economy is doing great right now, and no other major issues are messing things up for him (Supreme Court nominee isn't a freak, only minor foot in mouth events have happened lately, etc.). Everything seems to be war-related in terms of his lack of support.

[SonomaCat]

BAC: I hope you aren't even thinking of not bedding both at the same time. When will BobcatNation.com have a Forum section, so we can get the details?

Ahhhh, at the same time.... I hadn't thought about that. You just lifted me up to a whole new ballgame.

[WYCAT]

WYCAT: He never won the first election, so he couldn't win re-election. Bu I'm sure he won his re-non-election is a new, improved way. Diebold in '04!!

That does not even come close to answering the question. Throwing a bunch of crap in the air and hoping I can't see through it won't work. Besides, I addressed the question to BAC - I am sure he will give me an answer soon. Thanks for your thoughts though.

[WYCAT]

You are correct about the approval ratings BAC (and I can't disagree with some of the reasons), but tell me, how did he ever win re-election then??????????????????

Because the election happened when his approval ratings were higher ... back when fewer people had come to change their minds about the reasons for going to war.

In reality, the economy is doing great right now, and no other major issues are messing things up for him (Supreme Court nominee isn't a freak, only minor foot in mouth events have happened lately, etc.). Everything seems to be war-related in terms of his lack of support.

Thanks for a real response BAC, but do you think it had anything to do with the lack of a decent option? I really think that had a lot to do with it in '04.

[SonomaCat]

You are correct about the approval ratings BAC (and I can't disagree with some of the reasons), but tell me, how did he ever win re-election then??????????????????

Because the election happened when his approval ratings were higher ... back when fewer people had come to change their minds about the reasons for going to war.

In reality, the economy is doing great right now, and no other major issues are messing things up for him (Supreme Court nominee isn't a freak, only minor foot in mouth events have happened lately, etc.). Everything seems to be war-related in terms of his lack of support.

Thanks for a real response BAC, but do you think it had anything to do with the lack of a decent option? I really think that had a lot to do with it in '04.

Oh ... yeah, I'd definitely agree that neither Gore nor Kerry were inspiring candidates. Neither election was as much a matter of picking a winner so much as deciding who was the lesser evil (in my opinion). I think the whole Swift Boat PR smear campaign really hurt Kerry in a strange way as well. That was a brilliant political move (kudos to Rove) as it really did seem to shift the whole debate of the campaigns and put Kerry on the defensive instead of letting him campaign assertively on the war issues.

[WYCAT]

Oh ... yeah, I'd definitely agree that neither Gore nor Kerry were inspiring candidates. Neither election was as much a matter of picking a winner so much as deciding who was the lesser evil (in my opinion).

I don't know what to say BAC. I think we agree almost completely on an issue - and a political one at that. This calls for a celebration.

[SonomaCat]

Oh ... yeah, I'd definitely agree that neither Gore nor Kerry were inspiring candidates. Neither election was as much a matter of picking a winner so much as deciding who was the lesser evil (in my opinion).

I don't know what to say BAC. I think we agree almost completely on an issue - and a political one at that. This calls for a celebration.

I'd buy you a beer, but it might get warm by the time fedex got it to you. How about we both promise to drink one tonight and toast each other from afar!?