Act Acting » Acting Lessons » 'A coward goes to Baghdad'

'A coward goes to Baghdad'

Question:

BTW, George W Bush in Baghdad on Thanksgiving day was absolutely In what way?

Goooood question! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –              Henrik Bengtsson             Armchair Mercenary Illuminati(Retired),  A.T.V. Inf.(Retired)     Political Maverick and Loose Cannon

Response:

Forget "The eagle has landed." On Thursday, the turkey landed – on many Americans dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly known as Saddam Hussein International. Well spoken.

Thank you.

Response:

BTW, George W Bush in Baghdad on Thanksgiving day was absolutely In what way?

It deflected attention from the Repugs for the brewing Medicare bribery scandal. — During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. – George Orwell

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Doug Basham: ‘A coward goes to Baghdad’ Topic: Commander-In-Thief By Doug Basham, OpEdNews.com Forget "The eagle has landed." On Thursday, the turkey landed – on many Americans dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly known as Saddam Hussein International. The stupidity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me, as well as that of the media (and the majority of the American people, come to think of it). And to MY way of thinking, no-one has got this trip right yet. Thus far, the focus has been on the secrecy surrounding the trip, the choice of Fox News to accompany the president, (which pretty much sums up his credibility level when he chooses the television equivalent of the National Enquirer to assist him in his chicanery). The focus has also been on whether or not it was a wise decision for the president to make (what? Like wisdom has been a staple of this administration thus far?) When I first learned of this trip, a couple things came to my mind immediately. First, the obvious… Remember all the times Mr. Bush told us how swimmingly things were going in Iraq – much different than the "’perceptions" we were being given by the American "filtered" media – well except Fox News of course. (Which raises the question. I wonder if the anchors and hosts at Fox have to provide their own Vaseline, or if it’s in their contract that Fox has to). Now… if things are so hunky dory in Iraq; if it’s just a handful of rag-tag Baathist loyalists and remnants who are causing all the trouble – why all the secrecy? Why even take Air Force One? Why not just book your flight with ‘Air Liberation’, so that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi populace who just LOVE our presence in their country, and think it’s just so Mohammed when their 4 and 5 year olds are frisked – they could be waiting for you at the airport with flowers and chocolates. While much of the focus of the president’s trip to Iraq (rightly so, and primarily because it is so obvious) has centered on the fact that the very nature of the trip demonstrates how dire the security situation in Iraq truly is, there hasn’t been as much mention as to how this "nature" undermines the administration’s claims to the contrary. But here’s the other thing that came to my mind after learning of his secret trip to Iraq – and the part of the equation that no-one seems to get, or simply doesn’t have the balls to articulate. Listen to this first line in a story from London’s "The Telegraph" on Friday…"President George W. Bush was back at his Texas Ranch yesterday basking in the most adulatory coverage in months, as an admiring American media described his surprise trip to Iraq as one of the boldest ever presidential forays." BOLD?!?! Doesn’t anybody get it? Let’s put the pieces together. First piece… I remember this pathetic, cowardly little man in the White House standing before the cameras and saying… "Bring ‘em On". And I remember how his mindless boot lickers praised him for his bravado – too damn stupid to realize that a comment like this was putting our troops in FAR more danger than any 10 stories the media could report – the same media who essentially handed Bush his war on a silver platter – the same media this administration and their apologists now like to blame for the deaths or our soldiers. Second piece… Last Monday at Fort Carson, Colorado… the president said "The United States of America will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs." Third piece… During his visit with the troops in Baghdad, he said "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins." Now first of all… What do you mean "we", Kemo Bushbey? The only charge you’ve led is the one against our values, intelligence, decency, reputation and civil liberties… altho’ you have been charging a lot to America’s American Express card, haven’t you? Fourth piece… On the plane, just 3 hours from Baghdad, Bush said "I was fully prepared to turn this baby around and come home." Again – YOU were prepared to turn the plane around, Mr. Resident? Is it starting to become clearer here what the main issue of this Iraq trip SHOULD be? Let me bottom line it… plain and simple. When the coward in chief is safe and sound in America, he says… "Bring ‘em On", or…"We will not be intimidated by thugs." Now don’t you think a more appropriate time to say that – if indeed you were a man of courage, honor, conviction and "boldness" – would have been if you were planning to GO to Iraq, or when you were already THERE in Iraq? But what did he say instead? First thing he said was… "Shhhhhhh." The second was, "I was fully prepared to turn this baby around and come home." Put another way – when it’s the lives of our soldiers that are at risk, Bush says "Bring ‘em on" or, "The United States will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs." When it’s HIS sorry ass that might be in peril, he says, "if anyone finds out I’m coming… I’M turning this plane around and going home." And for this act of seemingly unnoticed cowardice, he’s called… bold?! Where’s the boldness? Where’s the bravado? Where’s the… "Bring ‘em on", and "We won’t be intimidated by thugs" when it really matters? Wouldn’t THAT have been the time for the bra-a-a-v-e Commander in Chief to say "Hey, you want a piece of me? I’m coming to ‘gitcha’. Gonna’ smoke you out. Dead or alive. Take your best shot…thug! Bring it on.. THUG!! Nope. When there’s a chance he might face the same kind of danger he himself has CREATED for our soldiers; and it’s time for him to put action to words? No bravado and no courage at all. Instead there’s "Shhhhh" and "I’ll turn this baby around and come home." And yet the… "liberal media" (God, that’s one lie I am getting so sick of)… the "liberal media" absolutely gushes and slobbers all over this cowardly performance and calls it one of the boldest presidential forays EVER!! And you wonder why the majority of Americans still support this arrogant little coward? I’ll TELL you why they do. Because no-one is telling them he IS an arrogant, little coward, that’ why. They’re telling the American people… he’s bold. And actually, he IS bold. He’s bold with his LIES! That coupled with the fact that he lies so constantly – many people who ARE aware of how long his nose is are in such shock by how blatant and in your face many of his lies are – are left speechless with their jawbones dragging on the ground. Case in point – right after he went on television and admitted there was no evidence to support a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, he went back to his very effective "propaganda by segue" schtick, and the next time he tried to justify his misguided debacle in Iraq, he said it was important to learn the lessons of 9-11. RIGHT THERE – someone should have raised their hand and said "Uh, Mr. President? You’re doing it again. You just said yesterday there was no link, but now by segueing from 9-11 into Iraq, you’re implying there is. People with REAL values call that lying." But did anyone say that? Besides me? Not that I heard. And you know why he was able to say again for the umpteenth time just the other day that the Taliban were gone forever? Because the very FIRST time he said it – right after a barrage of reports that the Taliban were reconstituting themselves – no-one raised their hand and said, "Uh, Mr. President, there is report after report coming out of Afghanistan that say the Taliban are not only resurging, they actually control several provinces in the country, and that we don’t even completely control Kabul anymore. How can you in all good conscience – being a man of God yourself, in fact, the man God himself chose to lead this great nation"… (and I guess that makes sense… he certainly wasn’t the first choice of the American people in 2000)… "How can you stand before this great nation and "boldly" LIE to them?" I would like to ask the president these questions. Is this your way of making us all pay for not electing your father twice? Is it your way of making us pay for not electing you even ONCE? How badly do you feel we need to be punished for just not being smart enough to realize who God himself wanted in the oval office in the year 2000? And is this how your sick mind has justified acting like a dictator and stifling democratic dissent – because you know you were never democratically elected in the first place, so like, what difference does it make? "Bottom line is folks… we’re losing the battle. No-one seems to be able – or they don’t have the GUTS – to look past the surface of this administration’s shallow, deceitful crap and report what the REAL story is. Not one news show I watched on television, or one person I saw on any of the shows said "The main thing this trip proves is that not only is Bush a LIAR… he’s a GUTLESS liar as well!" And here’s one other element you can add to this story, just to use this administration’s blustering bulls–t against them. By including a "turn around and head home" provision in his travel plan, could not a case be made that while he was verbally saying "We will not be intimidated by thugs", what he was insinuating was "I will be intimidated by thugs"? And then, using the president’s own criteria for dissenter demonization, could not a further case be made that Mr. Bush provided aid and comfort to the enemy (now

… read more »

Response:

BTW, George W Bush in Baghdad on Thanksgiving day was absolutely

In what way? —              Henrik Bengtsson             Armchair Mercenary Illuminati(Retired),  A.T.V. Inf.(Retired)     Political Maverick and Loose Cannon

Response:

Forget "The eagle has landed." On Thursday, the turkey landed – on many Americans dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly known as Saddam Hussein International.

Well spoken.

Response:

Bitter democrats. BTW, George W Bush in Baghdad on Thanksgiving day was absolutely

  A classical example of the Fox News fed, mentally challenged American! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – " By Doug Basham, OpEdNews.com Forget "The eagle has landed." On Thursday, the turkey landed – on many Americans dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly known as Saddam Hussein International. When I first learned of this trip, a couple things came to my mind immediately.   Now… if things are so hunky dory in Iraq; if it’s just a handful of rag-tag Baathist loyalists and remnants who are causing all the trouble – why all the secrecy? Why even take Air Force One? Why not just book your flight with ‘Air Liberation’, so that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi populace who just LOVE our presence in their country, and think it’s just so Mohammed when their 4 and 5 year olds are frisked – they could be waiting for you at the airport with flowers and chocolates.

Response:

Bitter democrats.

Call Me a Bush-Hater Molly Ivins, The Progressive November 14, 2003 Viewed on December 9, 2003 Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible president. Robert Novak is quoted as saying in all his 44 years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush-haters" in Time magazine as though he had never before come across a similar phenomenon. Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to–our last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven’t let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and official misconduct. And they accuse his wife of even worse. For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows and "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts–all were given hearings, credence, and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young rightwing hit man like David Brock, who has since made full confession, took that golden opportunity. And these folks didn’t stop with verbal and printed attacks. From the day Clinton was elected to office, he was the subject of the politics of personal destruction. They went after him with a multimillion-dollar smear campaign funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the rightwing billionaire. They went after him with lawsuits funded by rightwing legal foundations (Paula Jones), they got special counsels appointed to investigate every nitpicking nothing that ever happened (Filegate, Travelgate), and they never let go of that hardy perennial Whitewater. After all this time and all those millions of dollars wasted, no one has ever proved that the Clintons did a single thing wrong. Bill Clinton lied about a pathetic, squalid affair that was none of anyone else’s business anyway, and for that they impeached the man and dragged this country through more than a year of the most tawdry, ridiculous, unnecessary pain. The day President Clinton tried to take out Osama bin Laden with a missile strike, every right-winger in America said it was a case of "wag the dog." He was supposedly trying to divert our attention from the much more breathtakingly important and serious matter of Monica Lewinsky. And who did he think he was to make us focus on some piffle like bin Laden? "The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," mused the ineffable Mr. Krauthammer. Gosh, what a puzzle that is. How could anyone not be just crazy about George W. Bush? "Whence the anger?" asks Krauthammer. "It begins of course with the ’stolen’ election of 2000 and the perception of Bush’s illegitimacy." I’d say so myself, yes, I would. I was in Florida during that chilling post-election fight, and am fully persuaded to this good day that Al Gore actually won Florida, not to mention getting 550,000 more votes than Bush overall. But I also remember thinking, as the scene became eerier and eerier, "Jeez, maybe we should just let them have this one, because Republican wing-nuts are so crazy, their bitterness would poison Gore’s whole presidency." The night Gore conceded the race in one of the most graceful and honorable speeches I have ever heard, I was in a ballroom full of Republican Party flacks who booed and jeered through every word of it. One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they’re much better haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal–milk of human kindness flowing through every vein, and heart bleeding over everyone from the milk-shy Hottentot to the glandular obese–is pretty much a strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are generally real wusses. Guys like Rush Limbaugh figured that out a long time ago–attack a liberal and the first thing he says is, "You may have a point there." To tell the truth, I’m kind of proud of us for holding the grudge this long. Normally, we’d remind ourselves that we have to be good sports, it’s for the good of the country, we must unite behind the only president we’ve got, as Lyndon used to remind us. If there are still some of us out here sulking, "Yeah, but they stole that election," well, good. I don’t think we should forget that. But, onward. So George Dubya becomes president, having run as a "compassionate conservative," and what do we get? Hell’s own conservative and dick for compassion. His entire first eight months was tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, and he lied and said the tax cuts would help average Americans. Again and again, the "average" tax cut would be $1,000. That means you get $100, and the millionaire gets $92,000, and that’s how they "averaged" it out. Then came 9/11, and we all rallied. Ready to give blood, get out of our cars and ride bicycles, whatever. Shop, said the President. And more tax cuts for the rich. By now, we’re starting to notice Bush’s bait-and-switch. Make a deal with Ted Kennedy to improve education and then fail to put money into it. Promise $15 billion in new money to combat AIDS in Africa (wow!) but it turns out to be a cheap con, almost no new money. Bush comes to praise a job training effort, and then cuts the money. Bush says AmeriCorps is great, then cuts the money. Gee, what could we possibly have against this guy? We go along with the war in Afghanistan, and we still don’t have bin Laden. Then suddenly, in the greatest bait-and-switch of all time, Osama bin doesn’t matter at all, and we have to go after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11. But he does have horrible weapons of mass destruction, and our president "without doubt," without question, knows all about them, even unto the amounts–tons of sarin, pounds of anthrax. So we take out Saddam Hussein, and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Iraqis are not overjoyed to see us. By now, quite a few people who aren’t even liberal are starting to say, "Wha the hey?" We got no Osama, we got no Saddam, we got no weapons of mass destruction, the road map to peace in the Middle East is blown to hell, we’re stuck in this country for $87 billion just for one year and no one knows how long we’ll be there. And still poor Mr. Krauthammer is hard-put to conceive how anyone could conclude that George W. Bush is a poor excuse for a President. Chuck, honey, it ain’t just the 2.6 million jobs we’ve lost: People are losing their pensions, their health insurance, the cost of health insurance is doubling, tripling in price, the Administration wants to cut off their overtime, and Bush was so too little, too late with extending unemployment compensation that one million Americans were left high and dry. And you wonder why we think he’s a lousy president? Sure, all that is just what’s happening in people’s lives, but what we need is the Big Picture. Well, the Big Picture is that after September 11, we had the sympathy of every nation on Earth. They all signed up, all our old allies volunteered, everybody was with us, and Bush just booted all of that away. Sneering, jeering, bad manners, hideous diplomacy, threats, demands, arrogance, bluster. "In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of presidential will," says Krauthammer. You bet your ass it was. We attacked a country that had done nothing to us, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and turns out not to have weapons of mass destruction. It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he’s a bad president. Grownups can do that, you know. You can decide someone’s policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that makes me a Bush-hater, then sign me up. Molly Ivins, a syndicated columnist out of Austin, Texas, is the co-author of "Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America."

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bitter democrats. What? Their semen? BTW, George W Bush in Baghdad on Thanksgiving day was absolutely " By Doug Basham, OpEdNews.com Forget "The eagle has landed." On Thursday, the turkey landed – on many Americans dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly known as Saddam Hussein International. When I first learned of this trip, a couple things came to my mind immediately.   Now… if things are so hunky dory in Iraq; if it’s just a handful of rag-tag Baathist loyalists and remnants who are causing all the trouble – why all the secrecy? Why even take Air Force One? Why not just book your flight with ‘Air Liberation’, so that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi populace who just LOVE our presence in their country, and think it’s just so Mohammed when their 4 and 5 year olds are frisked – they could be waiting for you at the airport with flowers and chocolates.

Response:

Bitter democrats. What? Their semen?

Semen…?? Isn’t that a bit too macho for the Party of the Homosexuals(Democratic)? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BTW, George W Bush in Baghdad on Thanksgiving day was absolutely " By Doug Basham, OpEdNews.com Forget "The eagle has landed." On Thursday, the turkey landed – on many Americans dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly known as Saddam Hussein International. When I first learned of this trip, a couple things came to my mind immediately.   Now… if things are so hunky dory in Iraq; if it’s just a handful of rag-tag Baathist loyalists and remnants who are causing all the trouble – why all the secrecy? Why even take Air Force One? Why not just book your flight with ‘Air Liberation’, so that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi populace who just LOVE our presence in their country, and think it’s just so Mohammed when their 4 and 5 year olds are frisked – they could be waiting for you at the airport with flowers and chocolates.

Response:

Bitter democrats. BTW, George W Bush in Baghdad on Thanksgiving day was absolutely " By Doug Basham, OpEdNews.com Forget "The eagle has landed." On Thursday, the turkey landed – on many Americans dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly known as Saddam Hussein International. When I first learned of this trip, a couple things came to my mind immediately.

  Now… if things are so hunky dory in Iraq; if it’s just a handful – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – of rag-tag Baathist loyalists and remnants who are causing all the trouble – why all the secrecy? Why even take Air Force One? Why not just book your flight with ‘Air Liberation’, so that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi populace who just LOVE our presence in their country, and think it’s just so Mohammed when their 4 and 5 year olds are frisked – they could be waiting for you at the airport with flowers and chocolates.

Response:

Doug Basham: ‘A coward goes to Baghdad’ Topic: Commander-In-Thief By Doug Basham, OpEdNews.com Forget "The eagle has landed." On Thursday, the turkey landed – on many Americans dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly known as Saddam Hussein International. The stupidity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me, as well as that of the media (and the majority of the American people, come to think of it). And to MY way of thinking, no-one has got this trip right yet. Thus far, the focus has been on the secrecy surrounding the trip, the choice of Fox News to accompany the president, (which pretty much sums up his credibility level when he chooses the television equivalent of the National Enquirer to assist him in his chicanery). The focus has also been on whether or not it was a wise decision for the president to make (what? Like wisdom has been a staple of this administration thus far?) When I first learned of this trip, a couple things came to my mind immediately. First, the obvious… Remember all the times Mr. Bush told us how swimmingly things were going in Iraq – much different than the "’perceptions" we were being given by the American "filtered" media – well except Fox News of course. (Which raises the question. I wonder if the anchors and hosts at Fox have to provide their own Vaseline, or if it’s in their contract that Fox has to). Now… if things are so hunky dory in Iraq; if it’s just a handful of rag-tag Baathist loyalists and remnants who are causing all the trouble – why all the secrecy? Why even take Air Force One? Why not just book your flight with ‘Air Liberation’, so that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi populace who just LOVE our presence in their country, and think it’s just so Mohammed when their 4 and 5 year olds are frisked – they could be waiting for you at the airport with flowers and chocolates. While much of the focus of the president’s trip to Iraq (rightly so, and primarily because it is so obvious) has centered on the fact that the very nature of the trip demonstrates how dire the security situation in Iraq truly is, there hasn’t been as much mention as to how this "nature" undermines the administration’s claims to the contrary. But here’s the other thing that came to my mind after learning of his secret trip to Iraq – and the part of the equation that no-one seems to get, or simply doesn’t have the balls to articulate. Listen to this first line in a story from London’s "The Telegraph" on Friday…"President George W. Bush was back at his Texas Ranch yesterday basking in the most adulatory coverage in months, as an admiring American media described his surprise trip to Iraq as one of the boldest ever presidential forays." BOLD?!?! Doesn’t anybody get it? Let’s put the pieces together. First piece… I remember this pathetic, cowardly little man in the White House standing before the cameras and saying… "Bring ‘em On". And I remember how his mindless boot lickers praised him for his bravado – too damn stupid to realize that a comment like this was putting our troops in FAR more danger than any 10 stories the media could report – the same media who essentially handed Bush his war on a silver platter – the same media this administration and their apologists now like to blame for the deaths or our soldiers. Second piece… Last Monday at Fort Carson, Colorado… the president said "The United States of America will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs." Third piece… During his visit with the troops in Baghdad, he said "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins." Now first of all… What do you mean "we", Kemo Bushbey? The only charge you’ve led is the one against our values, intelligence, decency, reputation and civil liberties… altho’ you have been charging a lot to America’s American Express card, haven’t you? Fourth piece… On the plane, just 3 hours from Baghdad, Bush said "I was fully prepared to turn this baby around and come home." Again – YOU were prepared to turn the plane around, Mr. Resident? Is it starting to become clearer here what the main issue of this Iraq trip SHOULD be? Let me bottom line it… plain and simple. When the coward in chief is safe and sound in America, he says… "Bring ‘em On", or…"We will not be intimidated by thugs." Now don’t you think a more appropriate time to say that – if indeed you were a man of courage, honor, conviction and "boldness" – would have been if you were planning to GO to Iraq, or when you were already THERE in Iraq? But what did he say instead? First thing he said was… "Shhhhhhh." The second was, "I was fully prepared to turn this baby around and come home." Put another way – when it’s the lives of our soldiers that are at risk, Bush says "Bring ‘em on" or, "The United States will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs." When it’s HIS sorry ass that might be in peril, he says, "if anyone finds out I’m coming… I’M turning this plane around and going home." And for this act of seemingly unnoticed cowardice, he’s called… bold?! Where’s the boldness? Where’s the bravado? Where’s the… "Bring ‘em on", and "We won’t be intimidated by thugs" when it really matters? Wouldn’t THAT have been the time for the bra-a-a-v-e Commander in Chief to say "Hey, you want a piece of me? I’m coming to ‘gitcha’. Gonna’ smoke you out. Dead or alive. Take your best shot…thug! Bring it on.. THUG!! Nope. When there’s a chance he might face the same kind of danger he himself has CREATED for our soldiers; and it’s time for him to put action to words? No bravado and no courage at all. Instead there’s "Shhhhh" and "I’ll turn this baby around and come home." And yet the… "liberal media" (God, that’s one lie I am getting so sick of)… the "liberal media" absolutely gushes and slobbers all over this cowardly performance and calls it one of the boldest presidential forays EVER!! And you wonder why the majority of Americans still support this arrogant little coward? I’ll TELL you why they do. Because no-one is telling them he IS an arrogant, little coward, that’ why. They’re telling the American people… he’s bold. And actually, he IS bold. He’s bold with his LIES! That coupled with the fact that he lies so constantly – many people who ARE aware of how long his nose is are in such shock by how blatant and in your face many of his lies are – are left speechless with their jawbones dragging on the ground. Case in point – right after he went on television and admitted there was no evidence to support a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, he went back to his very effective "propaganda by segue" schtick, and the next time he tried to justify his misguided debacle in Iraq, he said it was important to learn the lessons of 9-11. RIGHT THERE – someone should have raised their hand and said "Uh, Mr. President? You’re doing it again. You just said yesterday there was no link, but now by segueing from 9-11 into Iraq, you’re implying there is. People with REAL values call that lying." But did anyone say that? Besides me? Not that I heard. And you know why he was able to say again for the umpteenth time just the other day that the Taliban were gone forever? Because the very FIRST time he said it – right after a barrage of reports that the Taliban were reconstituting themselves – no-one raised their hand and said, "Uh, Mr. President, there is report after report coming out of Afghanistan that say the Taliban are not only resurging, they actually control several provinces in the country, and that we don’t even completely control Kabul anymore. How can you in all good conscience – being a man of God yourself, in fact, the man God himself chose to lead this great nation"… (and I guess that makes sense… he certainly wasn’t the first choice of the American people in 2000)… "How can you stand before this great nation and "boldly" LIE to them?" I would like to ask the president these questions. Is this your way of making us all pay for not electing your father twice? Is it your way of making us pay for not electing you even ONCE? How badly do you feel we need to be punished for just not being smart enough to realize who God himself wanted in the oval office in the year 2000? And is this how your sick mind has justified acting like a dictator and stifling democratic dissent – because you know you were never democratically elected in the first place, so like, what difference does it make? "Bottom line is folks… we’re losing the battle. No-one seems to be able – or they don’t have the GUTS – to look past the surface of this administration’s shallow, deceitful crap and report what the REAL story is. Not one news show I watched on television, or one person I saw on any of the shows said "The main thing this trip proves is that not only is Bush a LIAR… he’s a GUTLESS liar as well!" And here’s one other element you can add to this story, just to use this administration’s blustering bulls–t against them. By including a "turn around and head home" provision in his travel plan, could not a case be made that while he was verbally saying "We will not be intimidated by thugs", what he was insinuating was "I will be intimidated by thugs"? And then, using the president’s own criteria for dissenter demonization, could not a further case be made that Mr. Bush provided aid and comfort to the enemy (now defined as anyone who disagrees with Bush’s occupation or policies), by acknowledging how precarious the situation in Iraq really is by including a "turn around" provision?… and by demonstrating to the "terrorists" (now defined as anyone who disagrees with Bush’s occupation or policies) how successful and feared their resistance is by the "Top Goon" in the United States? When any other American does this, this … read more »

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply