Bush: More Dangerous and Unpredictable Than Ever
The Republicans lost the election last November. Bush’s “Surge” plan has been ridiculed and condemned by practically everybody. The Bush Administration will be investigated mercilessly by the new Democratic Congress. And yet Bush is more headstrong and more belligerent than ever. Not to mention that he’s stark raving mad.
Like they say, an animal that’s been wounded and cornered is more dangerous than ever.
The neocons are still lusting for world dominion, and George W. Bush is running the most secretive presidency in our history. This combination makes the rumor mill go crazy. Are we about to invade Iran? A former Middle East analyst for the State Department said “I’ve seen some of the planning ... You’re not talking about a surgical strike. You’re talking about a war against Iran that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years.”
Or maybe we’ll invade Syria. North Korea maybe? Venezuela?
And Bush’s solution to Iraqmire is to send more troops?!?!? That’s right, when you find yourself in a hole, keep on digging. Dig deeper! Faster! Two months ago the Iraqi prime minister asked Bush to withdraw American troops in Baghdad to the outskirts of the city. He told Bush Iraqi troops were ready to handle the security of central Baghdad.
Against the advice of the Iraqi prime minister, the Iraq Study Group and his own generals, Bush wants to send in MORE American troops.
So Iraqmire keeps getting more hopeless, and we have the constant tension and fear that any day now we’ll be invading Iran or Syria or God-Knows-Where. And on top of that, Bush’s invasion of America is getting scarier all the time.
Let’s see, what’s his latest assault on American values? Oh great, new rules allowing detainees to be convicted — even executed — based on hearsay testimony and coerced statements. Not in my America.
To make matters worse, Bush only hires people who share his contempt for civil liberties and the democratic process. The one prerequisite for joining the Bush Administration: you have to keep telling him that he’s the president and he can do anything he wants.
Attorney General Electrodes “Alberto” Gonzales is the worst thing that ever happened to the Justice Department (and we thought John Ashcroft was bad). Our top law enforcement officer thinks the Geneva Convention is quaint and outdated, and that federal judges are unqualified to make rulings that affect national security.
And Dick Cheney never met a domestic spying program he didn’t love.
The voters, Congress, the courts and even the Religious Right are moving further away from that stench in the White House. What’s our deranged “leader” gonna do next? Hell hath no fury like a spoiled pampered trustfund baby scorned. Watch your back.
posted by Tom Harper @ 5:22 PM
18 Comments:
Yes oh so true, you are full of shat and this blog is too!
I think you're right. I get the sense Dubya wants to go out with a bang...
Dtoteen: Glad you liked it. Fuck you very much for stopping by.
J. Marquis: Yeah, I just get that uneasy feeling that Bush is like some desperate gunman surrounded by a SWAT team. Will he surrender or will he panic and shoot all his hostages?
Alberto Gonzales may have already violated the 4th amendment in order to violate the 1st amendment.
Free Speech Beneath US Homeland Security
http://wwwfreespeechbushs.blogspot.com
http://wwwfreespeechbeneathushs.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_wwwfreespeechbeneathushs_archive.html
well put.
and what the hell is "shat???"
Douglas: True, but this is the exact same comment you left at my previous post.
I.M. Dedd: A lot of bloggers seem to be "swearing" without swearing. Shat, shite, sh*t, feck -- I just figure if you want to swear, go ahead and swear and let it out.
Gee Tom, don't get your panties in a wad.
The left for was FOR the troop increase, before they were against it. Ooopps, that is before Bush mentioned it. All the poor guy was trying to do is bond with his liberal friends and give 'em a piece of cake.
I mean all them whiney liberals going macaca crazy over the ISG.. saying Bush better listen to it... did you miss the part where the study group recommends a troop increase?
Oh, or did you miss this?
House "Intelligence" Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes(Dhimmicrap extraordinaire),in an exclusive interview with Newsweek "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.'" This was WAAAAYYYYY back on December 5th 2006.
And everyone on the left was saying Yup sireee Bob.
You crazy kids have short memories.
Hey, by the way, I started the Feck off thing, it's actually the same as saying FUCK, just in a drunken Iris accent *(Google feck off/Father Ted)
It's useful when you want to swear on a public blog that small eyes and ears may read, and can be used in any occasion. I mean, I could say, Hey Tom, fuck you, you fucking fucktard fucker.
Or, Hey Tom, Feck off. It's just a bit "kinder".
Jenn: I figured you'd be stopping by, since I was dissing your hero. I think adding more troops is a stupid idea, regardless of whether it's liberals or conservatives who are for it. It's true that a lot of liberals have flipflopped on Iraq, and were for it before they were against it, etc. But I'm not one of them. I was against the Iraqi invasion from the getgo. Adding more troops is just a variation on that neurotic cliche of "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
Now, fuck off. Er, I mean, feck off :)
Lively one.
Isn't shat just past tense for shit?
As far as the increase goes, I guess I'm in the "you-democrats-screwed-the-pooch-when-you-authorized-the-war-so-now-you-have-to-let-the-executive-execute-the-plan-so-there-will-be-no-finger-pointing-later" camp.
Think of it as saving future soldier's lives.
I've been against it from the beginning too, Tom. I even thought about going to the anti-war rally for 24 hours to be absolutely sure. But you know, one of the reasons I was against invading is because once you are in, your options are limited.
Pulling out now would be a mistake. We own that problem now, like it or not.
Hopefully next time we won't be so collectively stupid.
Good for you Tom, at least you can say your are a consistant ostrich. :)
By the by, I wouldn't vote for Bush right now if someone paid me to. Dude's too liberal for me. And I've explained my reasonings for that a multitude of times, but I know how you like to label people.
Prague Twin: Unfortunately you're right that we own the problem of Iraqmire. But I don't think most people over there want us there, and there seems to be an endless supply of terrorists and extremists flocking to Iraq so they can fight the American occupiers. I can't imagine any positive ending to this, no matter how long we stay.
Whatever we end up doing, I hope this will teach our government not to invade a sovereign nation that wasn't a threat to us (not that they ever learn).
Jenn: I see you've carbon copied your exact same comment over to my cross-post at Bring It On! I've also cross-posted this post at another blog too. Betcha can't find it.
Why does Jenn think ANYONE is going to buy the latest stupid Chimpleton meme? News Flash: "the left" is not a nameless, faceless mass of automatons, and for every example of "the left" that these Shrub-worshipping repeat-o-parrots come up with saying wee need a troop increase, I can come up with 100 that say otherwise. For Christ's sake, don't make yourself look any dumber. And try to write something the other 100 of you isn't writing, please.
El Shrubbo revealed to us tonight that he is bereft of ideas, does not grasp the realities of either America or Iraq, and will soon enough probably have to be "led," as the masterful Jim Webb promised him he would be if he doesn't get a clue.
It is a catch 22 if there ever was one.
Iraqmire... How appropriate... I will credit you and this post for it's use when I manage to slip it in to a bush bashing post...
Ain't dto and Jenn just something else. they feel the need to spew their two cents worth of 23%er's lame arguments on some of my posts too...
I feel for um but I just can't reach um... Must be terrible to have invested all your capital in a loser like Bush... And then not be able to let go of the rope as he pulls all the wingnuts under with him...
Regards
- fc
Jolly Roger: That’s the trouble with rightwing “reasoning.” Since they do everything in unison, they project that same process onto everyone else too, unable to grasp that Liberals (a lot of them anyway) arrive at their own conclusions; they don’t need a mentor to tell them what to think. I can’t believe how often a rightwinger has countered my argument with “first you liberals wanted this, now you want that,” or “oh, I know, you read so-and-so’s column and that’s why you’re saying that.” Liberals don’t think in unison and they don’t wait for a Big Giant Head to tell them what to do.
It was nice of Bush to sound all nice and accommodating, but Webb still kicked his ass with his followup speech.
“repeat-o-parrots” LOL.
Prague Twin: That’s for sure. Joseph Heller couldn’t have dreamed this one up.
FC: Thanks for the credit, but I didn’t think up Iraqmire; I’ve seen that term a lot of places. Yeah, rightwingers must feel like they’ve made a terrible investment in Bush and the neocons. Talk about throwing bad money after good. It’s hard to believe 23% of them are still holding onto the rope.
More dangerous and unpredictable than ever, indeed. I can't wait to see what he has in store for Iran. I am sure that whatever he is going to do will really result in the world being a more peaceful place.
Re. the State of the Union address, I thought it was nice to see Bush at least pay lip service to Darfur and the African AIDS epidemic. And he only got into his unbearable Texas accent thing when he needed to be folksy, that is, when he was praising the props in the audience. I have to commend him for that, and for not smirking too much. He did say "nucular" a few times, though. For that I can't forgive him. 8-)>
Just after 9/11/01, the whole world was on our side, ready to help us. It didn't take long for our illustrious leader to squander just about all of that good will. How and why did that happen? I submit that it was not because "the terrorists made Dubya do it", but because of the manner in which he and his neoconservative PNAC friends pursued an Iraq plan that had nothing to do with "9/11" or the "war on terror".
The ISG would be good for Bush to listen to (in large part because ISG group member Uncle Baker helped deliver Florida to him in 2000), and it might also do him good to pay attention to the results of the 11/06 elections. Weren't the results basically about him and about Iraq? If he examines matters carefully through his sadly narrow, myopic lens he might notice that Democrats are now in control of the House and Senate.
As the GOP has been saying to us lefties for the last 12 years about their control of Congress: Get over it! There's nothing you can do about it! Bwahahahaha!!! Evil liberals rule!!! Yeah!!! And the issue that is swinging the pendulum back to the left? Dubya's precious war. The majority of the American people don't want it. The righty kookballs can "get over" that one too. The choir to which their loony pundits preach is decreasing in number by the second. And isn't it about time! I wallow in schadenfreude!
Dubya also claims he doesn't pay attention to polls. That's good, because if he realized his approval rating was 28% and dropping, his fragile psyche might be damaged. At least he probably won't find out about his low rating by reading the newspaper, because I understand he has people who read the papers for him. But if, as it has been reported, people around the White House have to walk on eggshells around him because it doesn't take much to get him into a loud, expletive-laden tirade... they probably won't bring him very much bad news.
I am guessing his aides probably watch TV for him too, and then report to him on what they saw (or not, depending on how mad they think it might make him).
He doesn't read, but he wants to read my mail. I pose no threat to America, but who knows if he has people listening to my phone calls or reading my e-mails, or checking on what kind of books I buy or check out... He talks about how government shouldn't interfere in people's lives, and then he wants to spy on us.
I am greatly looking forward to all the wonderful tell-all books that will come out about Dubya and his administration after he and they are out of office. There may even be some really good ones in print before the creeps are all gone! I will relish reading those books, and as I read them I will feel vindicated in knowing that left-wing Americans such as Tom and myself have been correct about Bush all along... and that the wingnuts have been sadly misled, not knowing they have been drinking neoconservative Kool-Aid for the past six years.
As more stones are turned over, Americans will know more about what has been going on. Sure, there will be a few Democrats under some of those stones, but most of the people hiding under there will be Republican leaders. A whole lot of stones may have to be overturned before a majority of Republican voters see the light. But I am confident this will happen.
Snave: Yeah, Bush’s SOTU speech was all kind and gentle and accommodating (at least in tone). But Webb’s counterspeech really kicked his ass. And he has to say “nucular,” because his 23-percenter supporters wouldn’t understand him if he pronounced it right. Bush keeps claiming he isn’t interested in polls, even though Rove calculates every move according to his latest research and micro-targeting.
And yes, it’s definitely our turn to tell the wingnuts “you lost, get over it!” I’m sure there'll be lots of tell-all books about the Bush adm. There already have been some, but they’ll really be hard-hitting once the deranged one is out of office. And yes there are still many stones that need to be overturned, no matter who is hiding underneath them.
Post a Comment
<< Home