Just More Bush/Mainstream Media Stupidity

There are a few important points in this article from cnn.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/29/bush.ap/index.html

The first important point to be made about this article -- which is the same important point that needs to be made about any article involving George W. Bush -- is that George W. Bush is a complete asshole.

There are two other relevant points in this article. The first involves this quote by Bush: "You do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism." OK, well, let's assume for argument's sake that Bush is correct in this belief. Do you believe it? Good, now let's tear it apart for its utter lack of relevance to the Iraq War. You see, President War-monger, the reason your critics say that the Iraq War is creating terrorists is that we weren't fighting terrorists there, you big dummy -- there were no fuckin' terrorists in Iraq when you invaded it, remember? Almost every single piece of evidence -- most of which had been made available to you but conveniently ignored by you before the invasion -- has made this fact extremely clear. Therefore, if you invaded a country without terrorists (or at the very least without terrorists tied to Osama Bin Lade and Al Qaeda), then technically speaking, you were not fighting terrorism. This being the case, you therfore have no logical basis to assert your belief that we have not created terrorists by going to war with Iraq because you didn't go to war with terrorists in the first place. And, that Mr. Fuckface President, is how one creates terrorists: by lying to Congress and the American people in order to start a war to protect Daddy and Mr. Cheney's oil investments and, in the process, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent Muslims whose families will never forget the sight of their dead relatives' mangled corpses -- and the person who gave the command to make that sight possible -- and thus hold a lifetime of hatred for the country responsible for it all. Yeah, that reminds me, assface: thanks for making some of these people hate me! I didn't do anything to them, including not having voted for your stupid ass. Again, much gratitude, cocksniff. So, do I believe we would we end all terrorist activity by stopping all of our military action and playing nice? Of course not -- even naive liberals know that! So you can stop peddling that myth as well, you piece of toasted shit. No, there is simply no way to stop everybody from becoming a terrorist by playing the game more fairly -- some people are crazy and just want to hate and lash out with that hatred -- but you can minimize the chances of creating terrorists by being respectful of other people's cultures and beliefs and, at the very least, their heartbeats. If you believe otherwise, you probably don't understand any of the teachings of that Jewish carpenter you claim to consult for advice on such matters.

Now, let's get to the second relevant part of the article: those moronic Democrats. Bear in mind that this part of my entry might exist only because of the lazy work of the media; there is a chance that the Democrats did counter Bush's latest act of fear-mongering electioneering with concrete logic(like I just did) instead of the few useless pre-recorded retorts found in the article. That said, the Democratic responses in the article simply aren't enough to effectively counter Bush's latest ludicrous claims about empowering terrorists through the Democratic Party's proposed policies. Here's Nancy Pelosi's response: "It was yet another example of how he is in denial over what is happening in the war on terror." OK, but how, Nancy, how is he in denial? Give us facts and logic! And what about Howard Dean? The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee offered up this same-old song-and-dance: "President Bush's election-year attacks are the product of a desperate White House with no credibility left with the American people." Why does the Bush administration lack credibility, Howard? Most reasonable people know he lacks credibility -- hell, anybody who stopped and looked at the War-monger's resume back in 2000 could tell he didn't have the political credibility of a Wal-Mart cashier -- so tell us why, Howard, please! "How" and "why" are extremely effective, my friends. Granted, they won't work on at least one-half of the general population -- no matter what political party they have registered with -- but those two bits of reasoning might come in handy when trying to persuade at least a quarter of the general public. So use them, you Democratic sissies. Stop being so damn spineless and dish out the common sense with some fucking venom for once.

The Anti-Lieberman

Joe Lieberman has long considered himself a Democrat even though there is plenty of evidence suggesting that he is a Nazi. OK, so that was a bit exaggerated. The evidence really suggests that he's a Neocon Republican who admires Hitler's charisma and political savy.

Now let's look at incumbent Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee. Yes, he is a Republican -- in name, at least. And he very likely is a Republican in most arenas of the political world. Mr. Chafee, however, does not always act like the typical Republican: he was the only GOP member to have voted against the Iraq War as well as against the appointment of Justice Samuel Alito. He is also the only known Republican Senator to support same-sex marriage at this time. Mr. Chafee, who favors keeping the Estate Tax, also voted against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. But wait -- that's not all! He is a vocal advocate of women's right to choose, the environment, and stem cell research. The topper, however, is this gem: Lincoln Chafee did not vote for George W. Bush in 2004. Not that he did much better, of course: he ended up writing in his vote for George H. W. Bush as a protest against the current President Bush's misguided policies. The National Journal (an economics/political publication aimed almost exclusively at the powerful elite) rated Mr. Chafee a more liberal politician than Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and my own Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (big surprise). Perhaps the best compliment one can give Senator Chafee, however, is that Ann Coulter thinks he is stupid.

In short, then, Senator (and former blacksmith) Lincoln Chafee might just be my new idol.

George W. Bush: Willful Ignorance or Unparalleled Stupidity?

George W. Bush just doesn't get it, either out of extraordinarily willful ignorance or unparallelled stupidity, the kind of stupidity previously unseen in the annals of humankind. I'm going to go with the former, by the way, because I fall into the camp that believes the only thing greater than Bush's lack of intelligence is his unwavering faith in the wisdom and decency of Dick Cheney. OK, never mind -- it is his stupidity!

Anyway, here's the latest bit of stupidity Bush has spoken with a straight face, this time to a national television audience on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, a tragic event that probaly could have been avoided if Bush hadn't been so . . . Bush. And not I'm going to tear apart his speech line-by-line, which anyone with a shred of common sense could do, because it would take too much time. Instead, I will comment on this one line here:

"If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden," Bush said, "our enemies will be emboldened, they will gain a new safe haven, and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen."

Bush is more than likely correct about one thing in this quote: terrorists will gain a new safe haven if we lose Iraq. The important word in this quote, however, is "new." Yes, it will be a "new safe haven" because it was never a fuckin' safe haven for terrorists before you invaded it, you fuckin' dolt!!!! How many of the 9/11 terrorists were born and raised in Iraq? Zero. How many of them had ties to Saddam Hussein? Zero. How many weapons of mass destruction did Saddam Hussein have? Zero. So what was the logical approach to rounding up terrorists and bringing them to justice after 9/11? Oh, how obvious: why not start a war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place? Yeah, this is a win-win situation: we'll "bring freedom and democracy" to those poor schleps in Iraq who haven't been able to do it for themselves and fatten our Haliburton-filled pockets while we're at it! Catching Bin Laden and his network of terrorists? Fuck that! That can wait until we secure the oil fields in Iraq for our own personal gain! Great fuckin' plan, you bunch of assholes. Never mind that anyone with a freshman's insight into the the situation knows that Bin Laden and Hussein not only harbored different kinds of hatred for the U.S., they harbored some dislike for each other as well. Never mind, then, that because of this dislike Iraq was never the safe haven for terrorists it has become since the Bush brain trust decided that Saddam Hussein had to pay for his complete lack of involvement in 9/11. And never mind that a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers came from our oil-rich friends in Saudi Arabia; no, we don't want to piss them off, do we? No, because that's another great source of Bush and Cheney's income courtesy of the safety and income of every U.S citizen! I mean, when is enough enough for these assholes, anyway? What the fuck is wrong with this society? And why the hell am I a part of it?!!? FUCK!!!

SERENITY NOW!!!

Alright, I think I've calmed down a little. Do you see why I chose only one quote from the War-monger's speech to tear apart? I could go on for hours with logical responses to this idiot's stunning lack of intelligence and common sense, but what would be the point? Besides, the Saints won! They're 1-0! Life is sweet! I shouldn't want to kill myself just because the most unqualified man for the job of Most Powerful Person in the Free World received the position (not "earned" or "won" the position, mind you) not once, but twice! God help us all. Oh, wait, I don't believe in god. Oprah help us all!

I think she meant to use the word "moron"

Here's yet another article from cnn.com that I find very interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/southern.women.ap/index.html

Yeah, it sounds like some of these Scarlett O'Hara's are starting to see the big picture. And then there's poor little Clydeen Tomanio, a self-described Replubican of forty-three years -- which makes her, what, about sixty-one and hopelessly set in her ways? Yeah, so here's her reason for staying the course in her support of the Warmonger:

"There are some people, and I'm one of them, that believe George Bush was placed where he is by the Lord," Tomanio said. "I don't care how he governs, I will support him. I'm a Republican through and through."

Oh, you sad, sad thing. To think you get as many votes as I get when it comes to electing the President. Now that's sad! The Lord didn't place Bush there; the United States Supreme Court -- with the help of George H. W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Katharine Harris and all their minions of the insidious GOP -- placed George W. Bush where he is today. Ms. Tomanio and I could argue 'til the end of time about who put Bush where he is today, but at least she seems to realize that W himself had absolutely nothing to do with getting himself into his current position! Whew -- that's a relief.