Welcome!
Where are the liberals? Why are they all wimps, whiners, and wusses? O'Reilly eats Krugman alive. Hannitty bitch slaps Colmes night after night. When are the lib/progressives going to realize that they have play as dirty as Karl Rove? Let's take off the gloves and start pointing our collective finger at O'Reilly's fat face. Let's tell Kerry and Edwards to quit mincing around the edges and go for the jugular.
posted by jvmuss at 9:26 PM
24 Comments:
I'm feeling nauseated. Four interminable days of "Bush Rex", "W, the Messiah", "Terror Warrior", "Compassionate Conservative"--my God!. Watching McCain, the freshly-minted supplicant, reduced to whoring for the draft dodging/coke snorting/beer guzzling/frat boy deserter is sickening, to say the least. While the Swift Boat Liars continue to stir the waters with more and more crap, Kerry lays low, waiting for advice from one of his soon to fired advisors. Where is Edwards? Is he wearing a cloaking device? Jeez!
I'll talk about the flute when you begin to punctuate correctly, using the possessive apostrophe, (...where's my flute?).
Holy cow! Cleveland, 22, New York 0! The Indians kick the crap out of the Yanks and tack on an extra point! Boston's now three-and-a-half out! Steinbrenner must be apoplectic. I'm gonna have a stroke! I told everbody back in July that the Sox weren't dead, that the Yanks pitching was shaky. But this? Ay, Madre de Dios!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
There could have been fifteen Boy Scouts from Milwaukee on those hijacked planes and GW would have still found a way to go after Saddam Hussein. Perhaps some obscure connection between the Miller Brewing company and Al-Qaida operatives funneling suds through the Sunni Triangle. Hell, Bush could have said anything and everyone would have beat the appropriate war drum. On Monday he admitted that the "war on terror" was un-winnable, only to recant on Tuesday (after a severe scolding from Karl Rove, you can bet). Can you say flip-flop? I'll sleep easy tonight knowing that Our Great Protector, the One who keeps us safe, the One who guards our Homeland, (anyone remember the Republic), George Walker Bush, has stated that we will win the war on terror. I was worried for a moment.
Regarding Iraqi casualties in "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
The latest figures from: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/:
Minimum - 11,717
Maximum - 13,724
Why in God's name don't they appreciate what we're doing for them?
National defense! National Security!! Weak on defense! Weak on security!! Defense! Defense!! Defense!!! Defense!!!! Defense!!! We need more defense!!!!!!
400 billion? That's not enough to protect ourselves from evildoers with boxcutters and dirty bombs? Watching the GOP (Zell Miller, Dick Cheney), on TV you would think that the security of this country was as rickety as a grass hut in a Vietnamese monsoon.
As they have for the past fifty years, the Republicans, (more correctly, the right wing of the party), have framed the national debate around the central issue of national defense. We are under constant threat. Danger lurks at every corner. We must keep our powder dry in anticipation of the imminent attack.
The people quail and quake. Candidates pander to the fearful multitudes. Pundits pontificate and bloviate their self-aggrandizing opinions upon the huddled masses--the tired, huddled masses--who quietly succumb to the incessant marketing tactics of the slick and powerful, surrender their collective will to the perceived wisdom and competence of the powerful few, and march, in a state of delusional confusion, to the polls. Such is the state of "democracy" in America.
Bush is shameless, still drilling the "Iraq was a threat" mantra into the empty heads of what must obviously be described as an audience of amnesiacs. There was never a threat; no connection to al-Quaida, no "weapons of mass destruction", no "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programs, no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Bush knew it then, he knows it now and we know it too. One-thousand dead American soldiers, over 6,000 wounded. Over eleven-thousand Iraqi civilian casualties. Over one-hundred-fifty billion dollars, (and counting). Yet the adoring audience cheers this little man as though he were the messenger of some divine truth, Charlemagne for the new millenium. It's the ultimate truimph of mass marketing. This country is in big trouble.
If Kerry doesn't respond to Zell Miller's blathering slander from Wednesday night, in which the Georgia bulldog more or less implied that Kerry is a traitor and a danger to the security of the country, than I will wash my hands of him and throw in with Nader. Miller one upped the Swift Boat Nuts with so much angry fire and self-righteous brimstone that I expectes the balloons to explode throughout the hall. Yet, only three years ago he called Kerry "one of this nation's authentic heroes" and a "great" leader of the Democratic Party. Huh? Is W's aura that intoxicationg, Zell?
As usual the Bush mob brought in John McCain--who announced Kerry fit to serve--to placate any testy swing voters who might have been offended by by Miller's angry rant.
Can you imagine if Howard Dean had made a similar speech in Boston? The tremors at Fox News, the Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page would have been felt nationwide. We would have beeen reminded for weeks, (with the endless re-playing of choice soundbites), of the angry, "Bush-bashing" Democrats, of the party that offers nothing but anger.
The Bush hit squad could strike fear in the Corleones. It's time for Kerry to get as mean and nasty and remind the voters that Bush and his party have offered nothing but fear.
I'm soooooo sick and tired of one of the Bush hit squads favorite Kerry bits: "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it", which is followed by the familiar smirk from W and Vice, and peals of derisive laughter from the choir.
The context of the senate vote, (like most votes), was more "nuanced", however.
From "Media Matters for America" (http://mediamatters.org):
In fact, Kerry voted against the $87 billion appropriations bill on October 17, 2003 -- the day after he clearly stated that his vote would not be a vote against funding American troops' efforts in Iraq, but instead would be a vote "to hold the president accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq." In addition, Daily Howler editor Bob Somerby has noted: "Six days after Kerry voted 'no' -- rejecting a form of the bill he disfavored -- [President George W.] Bush said he would veto the bill if it included provisions which he didn't like."
Bush got his politically beneficial bill and Kerry had to make the politically risky vote. Kerry's vote wasn't "against the troops" as the Bushies would have you believe. Like almost every vote that a senator must make, it involved certain provisions that the senator could not support, none of which adversley affected the troops.
This type of obfuscation is what Bush depends on to dupe the electorate into prolonging his administrative train wreck for four more years.
LibertyFreedom is right on the money. We now have a new Cold War for the new millenium, and indeed, it may last for a thousand years. With the collapse of the 'Evil Empire" in 1989, the radical right lost it's raison d'etra, its perpetual bete noire: "The Soviet Threat."
In the aftermath of 9/11 the neocon rightwingnuts have succeeded in redefining a new enemy to stoke the paranoia and fear of a confused, over-stressed, under-employed, and increasingly angry electorate, and, in turn, guarantee success at the polls for years to come. Think of it as the anti-New Deal--all the energy of the federal governmnent now focused on the "War On Terror", with federal spending tilted to Lockheed, Boeing, and the Pentagon, instead of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Social Security, and the WPA.
Unlike Roosevelt's New Deal, Bush's anti-New Deal will use the power of federal government spending, (your taxes), to employ and enrich the corporate militarists and their constituents. The debt-financed larghesse will lead to even more monstrous deficits, further stressing the economy, and will eventually have to be dealt with. The true "conservative" base of Bush's party will demand true "conservatism". The answer? Cut everything but the bloated, turgid, military budget. A finacial crisis will ensue, and in the interest of "national security" the commander-in-chief will appeal, FDR like, to the better angels of the patriotic masses to sacrifice for the purpose of the greater good.
The beleagured masses may comply in the short term, but if the social contract that exists between government and the governed, in programs such as Social Security and Medicare, is violated, the patriotic masses may turn into an angry, vitriolic mob.
Meanwhile, the Yankees continue a taispin that, if reaching its more and more likely conclusion, will go down as one of the greatest collapses in baseball history. 10 and 1/2 up on Boston on August 16th. Now 2 and 1/2 and sagging. Shutout twice in the last week. Pitching in the tank. Can it get worse? YES! Kevin Brown, (he of the china-like physique that has landed him on the DL for much of the season), throws a fit and BREAKS HIS LEFT HAND on a locker room wall. Out for three weeks, at best. The club may fine him. They should fine him and FIRE him! Contracted terminated by his own stupidity. I'm sure the player's union will see thing's differently, however.
Watching "Meet The Press"--Newt Gingrich..."stay the course"..."moral courage"..."cut and run", blah, blah, blather.
Pat Buchanan, a Republican loyalist, states the obvious, that the whole Iraq venture is a fiasco based on incompetance at every strata of the national security state, and that, ultimately, it falls in the lap of George W. Bush.
Amazingly, Buchanan goes on to address the actual reasons for anti-Americanism in the region, pointing to the very real motivation for bin Laden to declare his "fatwa". I'm stunned. In the three years since 9/11 I've rarely, if ever, heard any figure, local or national, mention that there might be some rationale behind the deeply held hatred of the U.S. among many in the Arab world, other than "they dislike our values" and our "freedom".
Even Russert is momentarily tweaked. "Are you prepared to state...(the obvious)"?, he interjects. The tone of Russert's question, which betrays his own incredulity regarding the offending idea, is remarkable. Buchanan responds with his usual steadfast conviction. You have to give him him credit.
Gingrich chimes in with his usual boiler-plate crap that, while adhering to the party line, sounds increasingly hollow with each press release from Iraq.
Carville and Matelin. Matelin defends Zell Miller's hateful carpet bombing of John Kerry's character and patriotism at the Republican National Convention as "passionate". Uh, Michael Moore is "passionate" in his beliefs, and makes no apolgies. Why is he a "Bush-bashing bomb thrower"?, and "disingenuous", (according the saintly John McCain). Why is Howard Dean's passion reduced to "anger"?
No matter. Bush has sealed the deal. We are a nation at war (of his choosing). Everyone should fall in behind the resolute, unwavering, commader-in-chief/terror warrior as he leads the legions of the righteous against the evildoers. That seems to be the only thing on most people's minds these days, if you are to believe the shouting heads that rule the airwaves.
It's still find it remarkable how the Bush marketing machine has succeeded in turning this ne'er-do-well son of privilege into a hero for our time. The message is not "we", but "me"; not "we will", but "I will", as though we are utterly hopeless without "him". Vote for Bush or you will be killed by a terrorist.
I would expect that in a second term the neocons will push for a repeal of the 22nd amendment so that the "Great Terror Warrior/Liberator", fresh from victories in Iran, Korea, Syria and Cuba (maybe Venezuela thrown in for added emphasis), can be re-elected for as long as he is able to accept a campaign contribution.
The neo-cons are still smarting from 1988, when, without that damned 22nd Amendment, they could have had Reagen for a third term, maybe a fourth. FDR redux. Fifty years of Republican dominance at every level, much like the Democrats in the aftermath of the New Deal.
Don't underesiimate W. He has the power of BIG money, HUGE political muscle, VAST media resources, and a confused, fearful and angry electorate. The timing couldn't be better for a national savior, which is what the machine is making him out to be.
The latest excretion from the Republicans on the "unwavering leadership" of George W. Bush comes on the heels of Vice's (himself a heel with considerable credentials) comments regarding the ever present danger of the imminent terrorist attack. To wit, "vote for Kerry/Edwards and expect to be attacked", or, more succinctly, "vote for John Kerry and you will DIE!". Was Cheney (gulp!) politicizing the War On Terror!? Do ya think?
Before the words had barely left Vice's sneering lips the RNC dispatched its foot soldiers, a familiar cast of sycophants, supplicants, and apologists, to cable TV, including the perennially gnathotic Congressman David Dreier (R-CA). Dreier is as loyal a toady as a toady can aspire to be. On Kieth Olbermann's cable show "Countdown", Dreier was quick to point out the mite's mass of validity in Cheney's comments. After all, we haven't been attacked since September 11, have we?
Well, yeah. Wouldn't you say that we all were caught completely by surprise that September morning? That in the intervening three years we have been, perhaps, a little more diligent in keeping our eye on the eight-ball? Other than the terror alert color-wheel offered us by Tom Ridge, what, if anything, has the Unwavering One and his sinister sidekick done that has been so extraordinarily effective in keeping you and me "safe"? (Answer: "well...we haven't been attacked again").
Why didn't the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor a second time? Maybe because the Americans would have been watching and waiting, (we were expecting bombs over Los Angeles, weren't we?).
Al-Qaeda prepared for years to pull off the attacks of September 11. Given the element of surprise, we're damn lucky that there weren't planes falling in every major city that day. They had their moment of opportunity and they used it very effectively. Now they're on everyone's radar, even the CIA's, the FBI's and that of the White House, (I won't rehash all of the chatter that the "Unwavering Leader" and his heroic henchman chose to ignore while vactioning in Crawford during August of 2001. Read the "9/11" report. It's no "Warren Report".)
It's not surprising to me that there hasn't been a subsequent attack on US soil. What's surprising is how this "war president" has shamelessly used the attacks to inflate his craven image to comically heroic proportions.
What's even more sadly comical is the image of the fugitive bin Laden and his lieutenants, God (Allah) knows where, patiently planning their next hit, while the princely Bush and his cabal of PhDunces, in control of the massive resources of the mightiest military force in the history of the world, frantically attempt to anticipate the shadowy shieks' next move, of which they haven't a clue.
The latest excretion from the Republicans on the "unwavering leadership" of George W. Bush comes on the heels of Vice's (himself a heel with considerable credentials) comments regarding the ever present danger of the imminent terrorist attack. To wit, "vote for Kerry/Edwards and expect to be attacked", or, more succinctly, "vote for John Kerry and you will DIE!". Was Cheney (gulp!) politicizing the War On Terror!? Do ya think?
Before the words had barely left Vice's sneering lips the RNC dispatched its foot soldiers, a familiar cast of sycophants, supplicants, and apologists, to cable TV, including the perennially gnathotic Congressman David Dreier (R-CA). Dreier is as loyal a toady as a toady can aspire to be. On Kieth Olbermann's cable show "Countdown", Dreier was quick to point out the mite's mass of validity in Cheney's comments. After all, we haven't been attacked since September 11, have we?
Well, yeah. Wouldn't you say that we all were caught completely by surprise that September morning? That in the intervening three years we have been, perhaps, a little more diligent in keeping our eye on the eight-ball? Other than the terror alert color-wheel offered us by Tom Ridge, what, if anything, has the Unwavering One and his sinister sidekick done that has been so extraordinarily effective in keeping you and me "safe"? (Answer: "well...we haven't been attacked again").
Why didn't the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor a second time? Maybe because the Americans would have been watching and waiting, (we were expecting bombs over Los Angeles, weren't we?).
Al-Qaeda prepared for years to pull off the attacks of September 11. Given the element of surprise, we're damn lucky that there weren't planes falling in every major city that day. They had their moment of opportunity and they used it very effectively. Now they're on everyone's radar, even the CIA's, the FBI's and that of the White House, (I won't rehash all of the chatter that the "Unwavering Leader" and his heroic henchman chose to ignore while vactioning in Crawford during August of 2001. Read the "9/11" report. It's no "Warren Report".)
It's not surprising to me that there hasn't been a subsequent attack on US soil. What's surprising is how this "war president" has shamelessly used the attacks to inflate his craven image to comically heroic proportions.
What's even more sadly comical is the image of the fugitive bin Laden and his lieutenants, God (Allah) knows where, patiently planning their next hit, while the princely Bush and his cabal of PhDunces, in control of the massive resources of the mightiest military force in the history of the world, frantically attempt to anticipate the shadowy shieks' next move, of which they haven't a clue.
The latest excretion from the Republicans on the "unwavering leadership" of George W. Bush comes on the heels of Vice's (himself a heel with considerable credentials) comments regarding the ever present danger of the imminent terrorist attack. To wit, "vote for Kerry/Edwards and expect to be attacked", or, more succinctly, "vote for John Kerry and you will DIE!". Was Cheney (gulp!) politicizing the War On Terror!? Do ya think?
Before the words had barely left Vice's sneering lips the RNC dispatched its foot soldiers, a familiar cast of sycophants, supplicants, and apologists, to cable TV, including the perennially gnathotic Congressman David Dreier (R-CA). Dreier is as loyal a toady as a toady can aspire to be. On Kieth Olbermann's cable show "Countdown", Dreier was quick to point out the mite's mass of validity in Cheney's comments. After all, we haven't been attacked since September 11, have we?
Well, yeah. Wouldn't you say that we all were caught completely by surprise that September morning? That in the intervening three years we have been, perhaps, a little more diligent in keeping our eye on the eight-ball? Other than the terror alert color-wheel offered us by Tom Ridge, what, if anything, has the Unwavering One and his sinister sidekick done that has been so extraordinarily effective in keeping you and me "safe"? (Answer: "well...we haven't been attacked again").
Why didn't the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor a second time? Maybe because the Americans would have been watching and waiting, (we were expecting bombs over Los Angeles, weren't we?).
Al-Qaeda prepared for years to pull off the attacks of September 11. Given the element of surprise, we're damn lucky that there weren't planes falling in every major city that day. They had their moment of opportunity and they used it very effectively. Now they're on everyone's radar, even the CIA's, the FBI's and that of the White House, (I won't rehash all of the chatter that the "Unwavering Leader" and his heroic henchman chose to ignore while vactioning in Crawford during August of 2001. Read the "9/11" report. It's no "Warren Report".)
It's not surprising to me that there hasn't been a subsequent attack on US soil. What's surprising is how this "war president" has shamelessly used the attacks to inflate his craven image to comically heroic proportions.
What's even more sadly comical is the image of the fugitive bin Laden and his lieutenants, God (Allah) knows where, patiently planning their next hit, while the princely Bush and his cabal of PhDunces, in control of the massive resources of the mightiest military force in the history of the world, frantically attempt to anticipate the shadowy shieks' next move, of which they haven't a clue.
The latest excretion from the Republicans on the "unwavering leadership" of George W. Bush comes on the heels of Vice's (himself a heel with considerable credentials) comments regarding the ever present danger of the imminent terrorist attack. To wit, "vote for Kerry/Edwards and expect to be attacked", or, more succinctly, "vote for John Kerry and you will DIE!". Was Cheney (gulp!) politicizing the War On Terror!? Do ya think?
Before the words had barely left Vice's sneering lips the RNC dispatched its foot soldiers, a familiar cast of sycophants, supplicants, and apologists, to cable TV, including the perennially gnathotic Congressman David Dreier (R-CA). Dreier is as loyal a toady as a toady can aspire to be. On Kieth Olbermann's cable show "Countdown", Dreier was quick to point out the mite's mass of validity in Cheney's comments. After all, we haven't been attacked since September 11, have we?
Well, yeah. Wouldn't you say that we all were caught completely by surprise that September morning? That in the intervening three years we have been, perhaps, a little more diligent in keeping our eye on the eight-ball? Other than the terror alert color-wheel offered us by Tom Ridge, what, if anything, has the Unwavering One and his sinister sidekick done that has been so extraordinarily effective in keeping you and me "safe"? (Answer: "well...we haven't been attacked again").
Why didn't the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor a second time? Maybe because the Americans would have been watching and waiting, (we were expecting bombs over Los Angeles, weren't we?).
Al-Qaeda prepared for years to pull off the attacks of September 11. Given the element of surprise, we're damn lucky that there weren't planes falling in every major city that day. They had their moment of opportunity and they used it very effectively. Now they're on everyone's radar, even the CIA's, the FBI's and that of the White House, (I won't rehash all of the chatter that the "Unwavering Leader" and his heroic henchman chose to ignore while vactioning in Crawford during August of 2001. Read the "9/11" report. It's no "Warren Report".)
It's not surprising to me that there hasn't been a subsequent attack on US soil. What's surprising is how this "war president" has shamelessly used the attacks to inflate his craven image to comically heroic proportions.
What's even more sadly comical is the image of the fugitive bin Laden and his lieutenants, God (Allah) knows where, patiently planning their next hit, while the princely Bush and his cabal of PhDunces, in control of the massive resources of the mightiest military force in the history of the world, frantically attempt to anticipate the shadowy shieks' next move, of which they haven't a clue.
The latest excretion from the Republicans on the "unwavering leadership" of George W. Bush comes on the heels of Vice's (himself a heel with considerable credentials) comments regarding the ever present danger of the imminent terrorist attack. To wit, "vote for Kerry/Edwards and expect to be attacked", or, more succinctly, "vote for John Kerry and you will DIE!". Was Cheney (gulp!) politicizing the War On Terror!? Do ya think?
Before the words had barely left Vice's sneering lips the RNC dispatched its foot soldiers, a familiar cast of sycophants, supplicants, and apologists, to cable TV, including the perennially gnathotic Congressman David Dreier (R-CA). Dreier is as loyal a toady as a toady can aspire to be. On Kieth Olbermann's cable show "Countdown", Dreier was quick to point out the mite's mass of validity in Cheney's comments. After all, we haven't been attacked since September 11, have we?
Well, yeah. Wouldn't you say that we all were caught completely by surprise that September morning? That in the intervening three years we have been, perhaps, a little more diligent in keeping our eye on the eight-ball? Other than the terror alert color-wheel offered us by Tom Ridge, what, if anything, has the Unwavering One and his sinister sidekick done that has been so extraordinarily effective in keeping you and me "safe"? (Answer: "well...we haven't been attacked again").
Why didn't the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor a second time? Maybe because the Americans would have been watching and waiting, (we were expecting bombs over Los Angeles, weren't we?).
Al-Qaeda prepared for years to pull off the attacks of September 11. Given the element of surprise, we're damn lucky that there weren't planes falling in every major city that day. They had their moment of opportunity and they used it very effectively. Now they're on everyone's radar, even the CIA's, the FBI's and that of the White House, (I won't rehash all of the chatter that the "Unwavering Leader" and his heroic henchman chose to ignore while vactioning in Crawford during August of 2001. Read the "9/11" report. It's no "Warren Report".)
It's not surprising to me that there hasn't been a subsequent attack on US soil. What's surprising is how this "war president" has shamelessly used the attacks to inflate his craven image to comically heroic proportions.
What's even more sadly comical is the image of the fugitive bin Laden and his lieutenants, God (Allah) knows where, patiently planning their next hit, while the princely Bush and his cabal of PhDunces, in control of the massive resources of the mightiest military force in the history of the world, frantically attempt to anticipate the shadowy shieks' next move, of which they haven't a clue.
The latest excretion from the Republicans on the "unwavering leadership" of George W. Bush comes on the heels of Vice's (himself a heel with considerable credentials) comments regarding the ever present danger of the imminent terrorist attack. To wit, "vote for Kerry/Edwards and expect to be attacked", or, more succinctly, "vote for John Kerry and you will DIE!". Was Cheney (gulp!) politicizing the War On Terror!? Do ya think?
Before the words had barely left Vice's sneering lips the RNC dispatched its foot soldiers, a familiar cast of sycophants, supplicants, and apologists, to cable TV, including the perennially gnathotic Congressman David Dreier (R-CA). Dreier is as loyal a toady as a toady can aspire to be. On Kieth Olbermann's cable show "Countdown", Dreier was quick to point out the mite's mass of validity in Cheney's comments. After all, we haven't been attacked since September 11, have we?
Well, yeah. Wouldn't you say that we all were caught completely by surprise that September morning? That in the intervening three years we have been, perhaps, a little more diligent in keeping our eye on the eight-ball? Other than the terror alert color-wheel offered us by Tom Ridge, what, if anything, has the Unwavering One and his sinister sidekick done that has been so extraordinarily effective in keeping you and me "safe"? (Answer: "well...we haven't been attacked again").
Why didn't the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor a second time? Maybe because the Americans would have been watching and waiting, (we were expecting bombs over Los Angeles, weren't we?).
Al-Qaeda prepared for years to pull off the attacks of September 11. Given the element of surprise, we're damn lucky that there weren't planes falling in every major city that day. They had their moment of opportunity and they used it very effectively. Now they're on everyone's radar, even the CIA's, the FBI's and that of the White House, (I won't rehash all of the chatter that the "Unwavering Leader" and his heroic henchman chose to ignore while vactioning in Crawford during August of 2001. Read the "9/11" report. It's no "Warren Report".)
It's not surprising to me that there hasn't been a subsequent attack on US soil. What's surprising is how this "war president" has shamelessly used the attacks to inflate his craven image to comically heroic proportions.
What's even more sadly comical is the image of the fugitive bin Laden and his lieutenants, God (Allah) knows where, patiently planning their next hit, while the princely Bush and his cabal of PhDunces, in control of the massive resources of the mightiest military force in the history of the world, frantically attempt to anticipate the shadowy shieks' next move, of which they haven't a clue.
The latest excretion from the Republicans on the "unwavering leadership" of George W. Bush comes on the heels of Vice's (himself a heel with considerable credentials) comments regarding the ever present danger of the imminent terrorist attack. To wit, "vote for Kerry/Edwards and expect to be attacked", or, more succinctly, "vote for John Kerry and you will DIE!". Was Cheney (gulp!) politicizing the War On Terror!? Do ya think?
Before the words had barely left Vice's sneering lips the RNC dispatched its foot soldiers, a familiar cast of sycophants, supplicants, and apologists, to cable TV, including the perennially gnathotic Congressman David Dreier (R-CA). Dreier is as loyal a toady as a toady can aspire to be. On Kieth Olbermann's cable show "Countdown", Dreier was quick to point out the mite's mass of validity in Cheney's comments. After all, we haven't been attacked since September 11, have we?
Well, yeah. Wouldn't you say that we all were caught completely by surprise that September morning? That in the intervening three years we have been, perhaps, a little more diligent in keeping our eye on the eight-ball? Other than the terror alert color-wheel offered us by Tom Ridge, what, if anything, has the Unwavering One and his sinister sidekick done that has been so extraordinarily effective in keeping you and me "safe"? (Answer: "well...we haven't been attacked again").
Why didn't the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor a second time? Maybe because the Americans would have been watching and waiting, (we were expecting bombs over Los Angeles, weren't we?).
Al-Qaeda prepared for years to pull off the attacks of September 11. Given the element of surprise, we're damn lucky that there weren't planes falling in every major city that day. They had their moment of opportunity and they used it very effectively. Now they're on everyone's radar, even the CIA's, the FBI's and that of the White House, (I won't rehash all of the chatter that the "Unwavering Leader" and his heroic henchman chose to ignore while vactioning in Crawford during August of 2001. Read the "9/11" report. It's no "Warren Report".)
It's not surprising to me that there hasn't been a subsequent attack on US soil. What's surprising is how this "war president" has shamelessly used the attacks to inflate his craven image to comically heroic proportions.
What's even more sadly comical is the image of the fugitive bin Laden and his lieutenants, God (Allah) knows where, patiently planning their next hit, while the princely Bush and his cabal of PhDunces, in control of the massive resources of the mightiest military force in the history of the world, frantically attempt to anticipate the shadowy shieks' next move, of which they haven't a clue.
Test post.
Bumber stickers:
Got War? Get Bush. Vote Republican.
Guns Don't Kill People, Gay Marriage Does. Vote Republican.
I think that the problem with the Demcrats is not the message, it's the ineptitude of the messenger(s). Bush is a heel, a huge Achilles heel, (being of very little courage, he was capable of only immersing a pinky toe into the River Styx), yet the feeble arrows from Kerry's quivering quiver keep landing far off the mark.
First he hands Bush the central issue of the campaign by stating that he would have taken the same action as Bush in Iraq, EVEN given what we now know. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
Then he waits two weeks to respond to the Swift Boat Nuts--two long, debilitating weeks of constant RNC reverberation throughout the radio talk shows and cable shout-fests. The winner by forfeit: Bush.
If the Dems lose this one (which seems more likely with each depressing poll), than we can only say that they deserved it.
Post a Comment
<< Home