Sunday, February 04, 2007

McCain proves you can be aligned with the Ultra Conservatives, or the American People, but not both. OR The 6 Horse's Asses of the Apocalypse.

Newsflash: Make the total now--6 braindead unpatriotic American's working in Government. Yes, there are 6 now willing to either lie to you, or plainly cannot see the truth, and still believe that Iraq is going well. These losers are, in AlphaMoronical order: George W. 'I always support American wars as long as I can avoid combat' BUSH, Richard 'Now you know why they call me DICK, and I too support wars if I can avoid combat' Cheney, Condoleeza 'I never met a piece of Al-Qaeda intelligence I couldn't ignore' Rice, Karl 'I never met a lie I didn't embrace' Rove, Joe 'my morals, my brain and my integrity are all in the same blind trust I used to look at Iraq and see it was going well' Lieberman and add John 'Convictions? Please, I'll say anything for a Conservative's vote' McCain.
McCain called the congressional resolution against the throwing of another 21,000 of our troops to the desert wolves in Iraq, a vote of no confidence. D'uh. No one, or should I say, it's down to six, has any confidence in the way this administraiton is handling this war. With no new plan, we should send more troops and money to Iraq? Both of which are disappearing with alarming quickness, as both the attacks and the fraud mount speedily. McCain said we have to support our troops. I, like all true Patriots in this country could not agree more. Where I differ with these politicians, is in what supporiting our troops means. Giving our troops worthless rhetoric while leaving them in an untenable position where they continue to die, and achieve little else? I don't call that support. Either come up with a decent plan, or get them out and take your losses. That is supporting our troops. I find it hard to believe that a soldier like McCain, who suffered for years as a prisoner of war, would have called for more soldiers to have been sent to Vietnam, so we could have continued that doomed struggle, while even more soldiers were killed or captured. Is his support for the W. Bush position just stupid, or is it really just pandering to the far right wing of the Republican party---the only people still believing Bush has a clue--and a plan? I could go on and on, as you well know, but in truth, the point has been made by events, and is just repetitive here.

6 comments:

Bruce said...

It's much more entertaining to watch the Dem hopefuls pander to the left. Seems like the Dems can not find a formula for getting tough on security issues & foreign policy.

Hillary [playing both sides of the Iran equation] now calls for military action as an option AND negotiating with them [ala Baker Plan]. Edwards is almost as bad...Obama seems content to hammer the Iraq war and say as little as possible about fighting Islamic terrorism. These guys will never win the next presidential election until they can name the threat and offer a plan to battle it.

Larry said...

One of them will win. The only thing worse than someone who is unsure of the correct course of action, is one who is very sure---but wrong, and creates a disaster. The current administration has done more to make our country and the world a much more dangerous and unstable place, after, of course, ignoring all the signs and inteligence that foretold of 9/11, as well. There is actually much less indecision than it appears anyway. They know the right courses of action, but need to seem more vague to give the dejected and demoralized Right a way to vote for them without creating too much internal conflict. The Conservatives will be able to say that their Democratic choice did not rule out future military action, which would be foolhardy anyway, yet was actually in touch with the world and listened to educated opinions. It is not a crime to be stupid, which is why THAT will not be the reason the current administration is investiagted, impeached and ultimately, based on its track record, relegated to the dregs of history as the worst most destabilizing and most reviled elected government of any democracy in the modern era---except possibly for the sham government we helped to be "democratically elected" in Iraq. History may have a hard time choosing the very worst. A lot of Iraqis have died because of that Iraqi government. But if you total up the American deaths from the ignored warnings of 9/11, the ignored warnings of the Louisianna levees and the death toll of our soldiers in Iraq, I am afraid---we probably have the winner right here in the good old US of A!

Bruce said...

Ignoring warnings prior to 9/11 and the Louisianna levees were bipartisan endeavors.

Larry said...

Actually, they weren't. This intelligence was not presented to Congress, as the 9/11 report pointed out. In fact, in a recent Time Magazine report, they questioned whether Condi Rice would have a job if she wasn't a likeable and prominent woman of color as she has been pointed out as a major ignorer of pre-9/11 warnings. The Clinton Administration left behind research that was used by Bush in his first 3 months in office to put together an assessment of the greatest risks facing the nation. A 9/11 style attack and the Levees failing were both on the list. Bush and Rice had the pre- 9/11 intelligence. Bush's entire administration had the risk assessment of the levees. That is the point of the various branches of our government, no? The President and his Administration can focus on an issue. Even if some of the Intelligence Committee members saw the warnings, it might be harder for them to build up a concensus among their committee much less all of Congress, especially because they were a Republican led Congress that headed and controlled all the committees. If you want to spread the blame beyond the Bush Administration, you could, I guess, make a small case, that the Republican leadership of the Congress and Senate share some blame. I think it is a little weak to do so, but be my guest. But to blame it as a bipartisan failure, when the Republicans, you know, those tough on Terrorism, but Compassionate Conservatives, who ran all the branches of government at the time, and whose President held the warnings in his and his administration's possession, is disingenuous, and kind of amusing as well. As someone just pointed out to me, "If Clinton were President during all of this no one would say it was bipartisan. The Republicans blamed him if it was cloudy out!" There is no case for this line of thought, not factually, or even speculatively. Bush was able to deflect such criticism in 2004 because Kerry was weak and perceived such a direct attack as bad for the nation. But as hindsight is 20/20, we see the only thing bad for this nation was the Bush Administration. The country did what it could in 2006 to get rid of the bums. 2008 will seal the deal. And with all the voting irregularities in 2004 it isn't even clear that the country did not try to rid us of Bush back then.

Bruce said...

Your starting point is seeing Clinton as blameless and responsible by leaving Bush material to review. Nah, that's just not good enough.

Blame [for 9/11 myopia] goes all the way back to the first World Trade Center attack, and to the Carter failures in the hostage crises. Clinton was a bit distracted by his dress staining problems to adequately focus on the looming issues.

Don't know enough about the feds history with the levees, but I recall reading that the problem lay unaddressed for quite a while...

Larry said...

The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center attack were captured and convicted---score 1 for Clinton (imagine what he would have been able to accomplish without his dress staining ways---since he accomplished so much with them). Even Carter tried to rescue the hostages, utilizing Israeli advisors, but sadly our machinery wasn't up to the task in the 70's of dealing with a sand storm. The levees were no doubt a problem since their construction. However, as we know, they did not fail earlier, such as during the Clinton administration, but were identified as more of a looming threat for the 21st century because of the increasing force of storms due to global warming. Since Bush does not believe in global warming, it was quite reasonable for him not to believe the hurricanes would be more damaging either, I suppose.