Yes, another post solely focusing on Bush. But once again I’d like to point out that while single articles give you an indication, multiple articles start to paint a clear picture. So I’ll use another pair today, both from moonbat blogs, but still reporting nothing but reality.

Case #1: Bush for some reason thinks that America’s concern and the actual problem is just how grateful the Iraqis are.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we’ve endured great sacrifice to help them. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq.

PELLEY: Americans wonder whether . . .

BUSH: Yeah, they wonder whether or not the Iraqis are willing to do hard work.

B… zhgng…

Okay, I will not claim to know to any deep level what the American people are thinking at any given time, but one thing I am willing to bet is that the abysmally low numbers concerning pretty much everything connected to both Bush and the Iraq Fiasco do not indicate a problem with the Iraqis themselves.

Of course, as I’ve said before, how grateful do we expect them to be? We removed Saddam in a manner akin to removing a rotten tooth with a sledgehammer. Sure the tooth’s gone, but now your whole mouth is broken. And then you scoff at the person for being ungrateful, while you start staple-gunning his wounds shut.

Moving on, in another interview that apparently wasn’t transcribed.

On how he doesn’t know what the country thinks:

Pelley: “I had mentioned that a lot of people were angry. And you seemed a little bit surprised by that, as if you weren’t quite sure that was true.”

Bush: “I think anger is a very strong word. And it was in context about my decision. And my reaction was, first of all I don’t expect everybody to agree to it, but I do expect people to take a deep breath and to find out why I made the decision I made. As I told you, I don’t know how to characterize people’s reactions. I suspect a lot of people are saying ‘Show me that it’ll work.’”

…

Bush forgets the 2000 popular election results:

Bush: “You can’t get elected unless at least 50% of the people who vote say ‘We want you to be in office.’”

This is why a number of us in the liberal radical-o-sphere tend to label Bush as an idiot, moron, nincompoop, imbecile, boob, dimwit, simpleton, dunce, or general dumbass.

I’d also like to add something, namely that he not only forgot the 2000 popular election results, he forgot how our country works in general. As a matter of fact, a number of presidents have been elected with under 50% of the vote, such as:

• Bill Clinton
• Richard Nixon
• John Kennedy
• Harry Truman
• Woodrow Wilson
• Grover Cleveland
• Benjamin Harrison (hey, he got less votes than Cleveland but still won! Strange…)
• James Garfield
• Rutherford B Hayes (also less popular votes but still won!)
• Abraham Lincoln
• James Buchanan
• Zachary Taylor
• James Polk
• Andrew Jackson

And if you want to get really technical about it…

the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed;

…referring to electoral votes, here, not popular votes. If you want to get really strict with the math, it’s entirely possible for someone to win the presidency with around 30% of the popular vote while his opponent has around 70%. All that has to happen is for him to narrowly win just enough states to get the electoral majority and lose in a landslide in all of the rest.

So to recap. The President doesn’t understand how our electoral process works, what the American people think, or what the concern in Iraq is. Just another normal day in the ol’ USA.