First off, as Bush’s approval ratings continue to slide, (even Fox “News” is forced to report that thier own polling finds a measly 36% still drinking the kool-aid), he heads off to Asia, in an attempt to appear presidential while thanking Mongolia for their 125 troops that are bolstering his ever-dwindling Iraqi “Coalition” over Camel Bortz and Buuz. Needless to say, he’ll make a side trip to China, where he will engage in a bit of rhetorical sabre-rattling over China’s downright horrific human rights record, after which, the Chinese will remind him that they own more US debt than any other country on earth, and he’d do well to keep his mouth shut.
While the asians are usually far more polite than those rascally latinos that made his recent trip to the FTAA talks in Argentina a horrific embarassment, It’s doubtful that Jesus Junior will be able to walk away from this road trip with little more than the trots and a few nice photos to put up on his website. More as that develops.
Secondly, As Bush headed off to his picadillo with our soon-to-be chinese overlords, he took advantage of Veterans day to deliver the worst speech of his “presidency”.
Man- I wonder what went through the minds of the assembled men and women- all veterans- all who had given so much for the defense of this country, when, instead of hearing a ringing call to service and a pat on the back, they were subjected to a half-hour hysterical screed against “anti war activists and democrats”.
Now- first off, before I examining his insane comments, I have to say- Jesus Junior has gone over the edge. His recent relapse into drinking, the cocaine use, and the pressures he’s under have finally caused him to crack wide open, and all of his pent-up frustration is oozing out, for all to see.
In a follow-up speech, delivered at Elmendorf base in Alaska, he assumed the haggard, slumped posture that has become his hallmark, since Cindy Sheehan gave him a bad hair day that’s now lasted well onto four months. Clinging to the podium for support with one hand, and using the other to point accusingly at his audience, his “speech” was a spray of one-line accusations and well-worn talking points delivered in an almost hysterical, high-pitched nasal bleat that his handlers probably thought sounded “commanding”, but came out sounding, well, desperate, in the extreme.
But on to the refutation of his statements:
Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war.
Actually, we’ve been asserting this, for years- even before you led us into war, you dolt. This assertion has long since been proven as fact, by many sources, not the least of which is the Downing Street Memo.
These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.
Actually- that’s a lie. The bipartisain senate investigation hasn’t completed, as of yet- the republicans were stonewalling the process, and it took Harry Reid’s invocation of rule 21, effectively shutting down the senate, to force the issue.
They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.
This, to a certain degree, is correct- but only up to a point. Yes- a lot of other nations bought into the Iraq WMD lie- why? Because the intelligence they used to formulate these opinions was supplied by- well- the United States. They made the mistake of buying into the lie we were trying to sell. It’s doubtful our word has much weight, in world opinion, after that blunder.
While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
Bollocks. You wanna talk about re-writing history? First, we went to war over WMDs, then, it was “Weapon-related program activities”, when, it was about “bringing freedom to Iraq”, then, it was “The central front in the war on terror.”
We who oppose this war are not re-writing history- we’re the only ones who have our argument firmly couched within historical fact- but then again, that’s why you disdainfully call us the “reality-based community”
These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.
Ya wanna know what a “baseless attack” is? Sending us to war against a nation that wasn’t a threat, and had never attacked us, on cherry-picked intelligence supplied to you by a jordanian felon and an alcoholic that we still only know as “curveball”.
And, as far as the “signals” we’re sending- yeah, it’s downright horrific the signal we’re sending to the troops:
“We want you out of harm’s way, and to come home, alive- we don’t want any more of you to die for a lie” God DAMN us all- how could we be so damned selfish and irresponsible?
The “enemy” Asshat speaks of, has no doubt of our will- you’ve proven our “will”- let’s look at the signal you sent, Mr. Bush: we’re willing to spend 200 billion dollars, and callously waste the llives of 100,000 Iraqis, and over 2,000 americans, so you can prove to your daddy that you have a larger penis than he has.
Way to go.
Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough.
Absolutely- for once, I aggree with you, jerkoff. I support them, by wanting every last one of them home, today, back with their friends and families, and ensured that they recieve the veteran’s benefits that you’ve taken a chainsaw to, since the day you walked into office. You support them by sending them off to die.
Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: (Blah, Blah, Blah)
First off, I’m sick of this “democrat” thing. Back in the 50’s and 60’s, using the term “democrat” rather than “democratic” to describe the opposition party was an affectation that the most rabid republicans would use as a “wink and a nod” to their fellow neaderthals- now, it’s an common use, among the right wing. Do I call Bush, McCain, et al as “republic” politicians? No- because it’s ridiculous.
Now, yes, many of the DEMOCRATIC leaders and politicians, leading up to the war, fell into line and voted to hand away their power to declare war to the executive branch. Dismissing, for the moment, the unconstitutionality of this turn of events, let’s look at the nature of the intelligence that the congress was given:
First off, the CIA found out, long ago, that the prewar intelligence was “cherry picked” and manipulated.Secondly, the claim that Congress had the “Same Intelligence” as the white house is patently false.
So, any claim that the democratic members of congress backed up Bush’s prewar intelligence is laughable.
Now-as is always the case, when republicans are in trouble, they bring up Clinton as a scapegoat. Yes, Clinton had much of the same intelligence that Bush later cherry-picked to justify his war. The difference between the two?
Well- Clinton didn’t use this intelligence to START A DAMNED WAR. Clinton, mistakenly, saw a threat in Hussein’s regime, and, rather than plunging us into war, he decided to initiate something called the Iraq Liberation Act. This bill allocated funding and intelligence resources to aid Iraqi Opposition groups, because he realized, correctly, that the only people who could liberate Iraq, were the Iraqis, themselves.
So, thus ends the easiest column I’ve ever written. I heard that Bush was rolling out a counter-propaganda campaign against the growing opposition against his war, but I didn’t think it would be such a weak and transparent effort.
Until next time…
Cool facts about Uranus
