Man, oh, man! John Gibson had Javier Rodriguez on The Big Story today to talk about the arrest and deportation of well-known criminal illegal alien, Elvira Arellano. She’s the criminal that not only came to the country illegally, but also used a false social security number to gain employment at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport! Yes, she had access to all the airplanes and every part of the airport.

Gibby, as usual, was fairly calm, then all of a sudden, activist Javier Rodriguez started to blame George Bush. He called George Bush the biggest criminal! What the heck is he talking about? Bush WANTED the Amnesty bill to pass, but yet he’s the villain here? I just don’t get it. Well yeah, I do. Everything is always George Bush’s fault.

Watch Gibby go nuclear on Javier here.

Today President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair held a joint press conference to discuss the findings of the ISG and of the situation in the Middle East in general. There were several very interesting points of the speech, and one verbal near-fisticuffs with a reporter from the BBC.

Both Bush and Blair are very clear about one thing: failure is not an option. I don’t know how well that’s going to go over with the dems or the ISG today, but they both showed clear resolve in how they feel about the outcome for Iraq.

Here’s the exchange between the BBC reporter and Bush:

Nate Robinson, BBC News: Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as “grave and deteriorating.” You said that the increase in attacks is “unsettling.” That will convince many people that you’re still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq and question your sincerity about changing course.

Bush: (angrily) It’s bad in Iraq. (long pause and stare at BBC reporter)

Robinson: (nods head)

Bush: (long pause) Did that help? (laugh)

Robinson: Why did it take others to say it before you’d be willing to acknowledge it to the world?

Bush: With all due respect, I’ve been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is, and I’ve been telling the American people how tough it is, and they know how tough it is. And the fundamental question is, ‘do we have a plan to achieve our objective?’ Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed?

What the Baker-Hamilton study has done, is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward; all aimed to achieve our objective. Make no mistake about it; I know how tough it is, sir. I talk to the families who (have loved ones who’ve) died (sic). I understand there’s sectarian violence. I also understand that we’re hunting down Al Qaeda on a regular basis, and we’re bringing them to justice. I understand how hard our troops are working; I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are; and therefore they’ll have the full support of this government. I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands, and mothers and fathers; particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.

I also believe we’re going to succeed. I believe we’ll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. But, I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail, and one way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust and to say it’s just not worth it, if we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.

And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we’re in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists. And when you throw into the mix a radical Shi’ia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple modern governments with energy, which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America or anybody else who doesn’t kow-tow to ‘em, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives, historians will look back and say “How come Bush and Blair couldn’t see the threat?” That’s what they’ll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat. And I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It’s in our interests.

And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy, is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us. And September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe-havens in a part of the world. And what happens is, people can die here at home.

And so, no…I appreciate your question. As you can tell I feel strongly about making sure YOU understand that I understand it’s tough. But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we’ll prevail; I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn’t have our troops in harms way if I didn’t believe that: 1) it was important, and 2) we’ll succeed. Thank you.

Robinson: Prime Minister, if I may, briefly.

Blair: (laughter) You’re not going to do a follow-up are you?

(general laughter in the press corp)

Robinson: No, no…(nervous laughter)

This is toward the end of the first segment, and you can literally see the fire in Bush’s eyes. He wants Mr. Robinson to know that yes, it may be bad in Iraq, but damnit! That’s not the only thing that matters - it’s not the overall war; it’s the impact on individuals and free countries - not your narrow-minded desire to have the American President admit to something the mainstream media (and the BBC) makes sure everybody knows every day of the year.

Blair also acknowledged President Bush for being the first U.S. President ever to work toward the 2-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

It’s quite clear, and a relief to me, that this talking to Syria and Iran business is going nowhere with Bush. He said that Iran already knows what the conditions are for us to talk to them: “Abandon your desire for uranium enrichment program and build-up of nuclear weapons, and we’re at the table!” And he said the talk with Syria is even more simple: “Stop destabilizing the Senoira government” and we’ll talk! He said both countries know what it will take for us to talk with them, and we won’t talk to them before. (YAY BUSH!)

I was truly glad to hear this because in recent days I’ve felt he’d become somewhat defeatist about everything, and might swallow the whole ISG complete and adopt all 79 ISG “Commandments.”

Then a jackass from the LA Times stands up and asks President Bush that since the Baker-Hamilton Commission report is SOOOOO bipartisan and close to the Administration, shouldn’t it deserve more weight than other studies? Sit down and shaddup, you idiot! Like one reporter asked yesterday, why should Bush listen to them, who have been over to Iraq one time, over the Generals on the ground?

Feeling feisty I guess, an I-TV reporter reminded Bush the ISG Report recommended that leaders be more “candad,” and said that he was going to test Bush on that asking “Are you capable of admitting failures?”

Ack! I’m DONE with the Press! How does Tony Snow or the President do this? No wonder Bush dislikes them and stays away from them whenever he can. They’re a detestable lot of ignoramuses.

Watch the presser and Q&Q, segment #1 here and segment #2 here.

Check out Webloggin for the coverage there.

Tonight, Special Report’s own final “comedic” segment was an exchange between President Bush and New York Times’ Reporter, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, at today’s oft-contentious press conference on the White House lawn between the President and reporters. This was truly a good laugh, and even for the rest of the press who were obviously amused, as well (except for maybe David Gregory, who had previously been spanked by the Commander in Chief).

Watch the clip here.

Allah at HotAir has the full video via Mary Katherine Ham. Too funny.

Check out Thespis Journal’s write up on this - brilliant!

Everybody read the story yesterday about the British “docudrama” being premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, “Death of a President.” However, it wasn’t until today in a second article about it that I’m starting to see pieces of the puzzle. It’s more than villifying President Bush and mocking the War on Terror - it’s insidiously trying to make Bush and his entire administration the villains of all world events; past, present and future. It took me twice reading the passage to figure it out, but sure enough, there it was. And don’t tell me this piece of the puzzle was chosen arbitrarily. The chances of that happening in a movie specifically about the assassination of George W. Bush are about as likely as France ever growing balls.

You may think I’m making too much out of this, but I will bet you that the more information that comes out about this piece of garbage, the more we’re going to see his “murder” being linked to events for which the world would LIKE to blame on him. In this observation, it’s obvious to me.

So, what do we have today? (h/t Drudge) We have Mark Almond, who is a “Reader in Modern History at Oriel College, Oxford” giving his take on what would really happen if President Bush was shot (from a “historian’s” point of view).

From the article, “What If Bush Was Really Assassinated?“:

BEFORE that fateful day — November 9, 2006 — historians liked to say the world could never again lurch into global crisis because of one man’s death, as it had in 1914 when Austria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered in Sarajevo, sparking World War I.

The assassination of John Kennedy at the height of the Cold War hadn’t led to Armageddon in 1963, so why should things spiral out of control now if a president was murdered? That confident view was shattered as global communications networks froze from overload while transmitting round the world the picture of the 43rd President of the United States slumping forward after being fatally shot in the stomach.

The murder of George W. Bush set off a global crisis with which we still live today, ten years after he was killed.

Oh, so we won’t have a global crisis until and unless George W. Bush is murdered? I thought all you idiots thought Bush was a global crisis.

The article goes on to envision more:

Few people in America needed to know more than that the suspected killer of their President was Syrian-born. As the spotlight of blame focused on Syria, regarded by Americans as Iran’s poodle, the Iranian Foreign Ministry didn’t help its cause by issuing a perfunctory statement expressing regret that the President had ‘died in a violent manner’ and hoping that the American people would soon choose a new one who would be more peace-loving.

It outraged Americans and George W’s mother Barbara was overheard at the state funeral telling Cherie Blair: ‘It was like what you say to the maid when her dog gets run over. Get a new one, dear, you’ll get over it.’

The American public wasn’t interested in the formal regrets from Damascus and Tehran. Television coverage showed scenes of jubilation on the streets of Syrian and Iranian cities.

The new President, speaking from a ’secure location’ soon nicknamed Bunker One, announced that ‘those who celebrate death will learn to taste it soon enough’. Dick Cheney appeared unfazed by the day’s gruesome events.

While America closed ranks and mourned, across the Islamic world Bush’s death was greeted with outpourings of joy. American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan got into firefights with local militias shooting in the air. Saddam’s trial was suspended as the defendants hugged each other in the dock.

But what hurt Americans most was the Europeans’ lack of grief. Officially, Europe, from Brussels to Berlin and Paris, expressed sorrow and outrage, and President Chirac led the EU mourners in Washington.

But there was nothing like the sadness which greeted Kennedy’s murder four decades earlier.

And toward the end of the piece, Almond visualizes this:

‘I thrive on crisis,’ Cheney explained, ‘it was peace that got me tense.’ Occasionally he was short of breath, but Cheney even turned this to his advantage. Images of President Cheney in a wheelchair at Thanksgiving 2010 were carefully choreographed to recall Franklin Roosevelt in charge of the war effort 70 years earlier.

I feel like I need a shower after reading the whole article, which is long, by the way, but I won’t subject you to more of it here. You’ll have to click the link above to read the rest for yourself. I wonder why this article is so long? It’s almost as if the writer is euphoric in envisioning his fantasy of what Bush is responsible for that is happening in this world. Historian? No. Schadenfreude? Most definitely.

Ooops! I almost forgot. What’s the hidden inference? Check out the date of President Bush’s “assassination” above; November 9, 2006. Or in Europe, “9/11” of ‘06. Remember, after all, everything is always Bush’s fault.