I kind of liked that when I first read it in the comment section on Daily KOS. Winger says it should be likened to the flap about the Dean Scream (BURNING BUSH <=> DEAN SCREAM ) and used to batter and destroy Bush as unfit. I truly believe this is related to his fitness for office, however, unlike the absolute debacle that lay behind the Dean scream (ie. the microphone drowned out the crowd that he was shouting over, which none of the media audiences heard), Bush truly seems to have no clue about how to ACTUALLY answer questions — and it seems amazingly apparent that he has no further knowledge with which to combat probing questions about his failures, other than to repeat the same mantras over and over and over. Dean’s “Screams” were audio distortions; Bush’s impatient flailing of arms and grimaces are the product of being up a creek without a paddle. “The President isn’t a big reader” and it shows. His former Yale buddies recount how amazingly “unserious” he was. And he stayed this way, apparently. The “Rove window dressing” makeup job he now has can only cover up so much. It doesn’t take real issues discussions very long to hit the substance (or lack therof) below a thin veneer of spin and deception.

BTW, what was the deal with this picture (above) on this post? It looks like Bush is going off on someone who asked him something that confronted him with any one of his many lies or coverups)
Daily Kos :: Pundits agree: BUSH WAS ANGRY!

BURNING BUSH <=> DEAN SCREAM (none / 1)

We need something more catchy. DEAN SCREAM works well because it (pseudo-)rhymes. How about BURNING BUSH as a tag for marketing this incident?
[Guilty: I posted the same idea earlier, downthread. Moved it upthread to get the idea out there.]