In an interview with Larry King this week, First Lady Laura Bush said that while she understands that the American public doesn't think the war in Iraq is going as it should, she agrees with the President (AKA her demonic husband) that we have to stay the course in Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people. To do otherwise would be a serious mistake.
Well, Laura, if the President's war is so important, why aren't your louche daughters Barbara and Jenna out in Iraq? Even for a photo opp in fatigues next to sodomized Iraqis?
But I really love our Democratic congress that is calling W and his band of thugs he's to task on this dirty war.
While the Right celebrates the teenagers that have been senselessly killed in Iraq, the Democratic party is in the process of showing W what democracy is all about. It's about transparency, accountability, it's about forging alliances, not dictating policy from the recesses of your Born-Again heart.
The Dems are telling W: You want $90 billion for your defense contractors to create more bombs and kill more civilians whose relatives will then fly a 767 into the Sears Tower? Sure thing, Mr. President, but first, tell us what you did with the other $100 billion we gave you and tell us how much better off Iraq is for it. Because we seem to have gone from waging a pre-emptive strike against a brooding enemy to happily sacrifing our young for its future well being.
Isn't it funny that while we never found WMDs in Iraq, Iran is wagging their nuclear program in our face and we're looking the other way....to North Korea, where we gladly gave Kim Jong-Il oil, food and money so he won't blow us up.
Kudos to the Dems for standing up to W and demanding answers. I just pray that I see the day when a higher power demands answers from him.
8 comments:
You'll pardon me, but it seems you're becoming more and more unhinged as time goes on. To whit:
(AKA her demonic husband)
I wonder if you can explain to me how you could have so much purple-faced, apoplectic hatred for someone you don't even know.
out-of-the-goodness-of-our-oil-guzzling-hearts
It seems to me that if it were "about oil", invasions of Canada &/or Mexico would have been more prudent since that's where we get the majority of our oil. It sure as hell would save money on transportation. Frankly, since we only got 2% of our oil from Iraq last year, it would appear that you and the rest of the liberal left are full of shit. Further, I don't see any of them pushing for using the resources we have.
But I really love our Democratic congress that is calling W and his band of thugs he's to task on this dirty war.
Yeah. Everything they've tried has either failed or blown up in their face. So much for a "mandate". Not only that, but did you ever wonder why the liberals don't have the balls to cut the funding? And I don't mean a "slow bleed" either. If they really believe that that's what the American people want, they should be perfectly willing to whip out their dicks (Pelosi's too), slap them on the table and cut the funding.
Further, the libs are taking great joy in giving us another Vietnam. However, you should take a look at the blood bath that followed, not only physically for the Vietnamese and the Cabodians, the political blood bath for the liberals after the fact. The libs are setting themselves up for political defeat.
While the Right celebrates the teenagers that have been senselessly killed in Iraq,
Ummmmm....who's been orgasmically keeping count of how many soldiers have died? Whose media has been more worried about how Bob Woodruff is recovering, meanwhile not giving a flying FUCK about how our soldiers recover? Don't you DARE pretend that liberals give a DAMN about our soldier's well being or that of the Iraqi people.
the Democratic party is in the process of showing W what democracy is all about.
Last I checked, pissing on the Constitustion and trying to grab the power of the CIC is NOT what democracy is all about. That's what liberals believe, but that's not what America believes. Suck on that.
Isn't it funny that while we never found WMDs in Iraq, Iran is wagging their nuclear program in our face and we're looking the other way....to North Korea
I thought George Bush was the enemy. Now you're conceding that Iran is? You'll get your liberal card revoked and the Daily KOSsaks will be stopping by to kick in your teeth for posting such heresy.
Kudos to the Dems for standing up to W and demanding answers.
Well I'm sure you'll let us know when they do that.
I just pray that I see the day when a higher power demands answers from him.
I thought liberals despised any reference of a "higher power".
BTW, since we're not all as "nuanced" and erudite as you are, perhaps you can explain the following:
What was the purpose behind the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?
What was the purpose behind Operation Desert Fox? It seems to me that if we're to take the liberals at their word, then it really was a distraction.
Why is it so horrible for Iraqis to die in a war, but it's ok for Reno to burn down the Branch Davidians in peace time?
Why is it so horrible to lose 3,000 plus soldiers in a war, but it's ok to lose 4,000 plus soldiers in peace time during the 90s?
Why do the liberals want to go back and redo their approval for war in Iraq which they demanded?
Why was it a good idea to invade Iraq right up to the point when a Republican president actually did it?
Why was it a good idea to send more troops to Iraq right up until a Republican president decides to do so?
There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.
....
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
Wow. While your underlying premise has some validity, your presentation is a little more heated than I would suggest.
On the other hand...Um, can anyone remember anyone who ever said it was "ok for Reno to burn down the Branch Davidians in peace time"?
Even Reno didn't think that tragedy was "ok." And she certainly didn't anticipate that loss of life.
Hyperbole on either side of an argument renders the argument suspect. It speaks of emotion rather than logic as the basis for the discussion.
Agape.
Am I to believe that it's the Democrats, not Bush, who want to take a hard line with Iraq and North Korea? Am I seriously supposed to buy that somehow the War in Iraq is hindering those democracy-loving liberals from making it clear to Iran and North Korea that dictatorship, anti-semitism, and nuclear threats won't wash with the US?
Am I supposed to forget that Chomsky, the grand saint of the liberal movement, says Iran would be "crazy not to" develop nuclear weapons? Wasn't it Carter who "negotiated" with the North Koreans, only to have it blow up (no pun intended) in his face?
Isn't it Michael Moore, who, as Christopher Hitchens noted, roots openly for the other side...calling the terrorists who blow up civilians freedom fighters?
Wasn't it virtually every top-ranking Democrat who talked the talk about eliminated Hussein and then when Bush, as TGC noted, finally moved forward on it backed out and have made so many conflicting statements since then I can't figure out where any of them stand at all on the topic?
I am sure it's just a matter of time...once Bush leaves office the liberals will become the protectors of Democracy and of American security they work so hard to be. But until then, they will spout endless moral relativist drivel about American being the leading terrorist nation (thank you Moore, Chomsky, Sheehan and countless others). They will tell us not to make a move until the impotent, endlessly corrupt UN moves ahead. They will suggest, as GCL has before, that we drop our support for Israel to the delight of every bloodthirst, racist dictatorship in the Middle East (which is virtually every one). And if Israel gets eliminated, and the UN continues its line to becoming a hideaway outfit for every terrorist-laden country, we can be sure it will be Bush's fault for ever more.
That's the beauty of DOING NOTHING about lethal threats as the liberals have for so long. You can sit and judge the people who take action with righteous assurance that you can never be wrong.
Beautiful.
then I can't figure out where any of them stand at all on the topic?
That's easy. They stand for defeat and humiliation of George W. Bush AND the U.S. because they steadfastly believe we need to be taken down a peg or two. Not only that, they've convinced themselves that Americans want to lose and that we'll rally around them and vote them into a 1,000 year reich.
the liberals will become the protectors of Democracy and of American security they work so hard to be.
You mean that they believe they are. Of course I don't see how a party perfectly willing to piss on the Constitution to acquire the power of CIC could possibly be considered the protectors of Democracy. Not only that, but how could these Neo-Socialists who hate Democracy ever seriously be considered as such?
Everything they do, they consider it "for the common good". Who does that sound like?
Um, can anyone remember anyone who ever said it was "ok for Reno to burn down the Branch Davidians in peace time"?
The libs still love him and his boss, lord BJ. Nevermind that they booted an illegal alien at gunpoint.
TGC, What?
Um..."nemmine" It must've been the 1:20 a.m. talking.
:-)
GCL -
Why absolutely no posts on the astounding hyprocrisy of Gore and Edwards on environmentalism?
Or does it only matter to you to bring up an issue when you can make idle and frequently false accusations against a Republican?
Post a Comment