The Crazy Cocksucker and his Fox News Stooges are working overtime every day and night so he can start a new War in IraN before his presidential term ends.It's a Legacy Thing. He wants to make sure Americans will always remember him for killing more of our soldiers and marines on Loser Useless Hopeless Doomed Liars Racist Wars against non-Christians in Asia than any president in history.
He wants to make Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon look like Boy Scout troop leaders.
Vleeptron is now calling for submissions for a stunning and patriotic design for the new Iraq War Memorial on the Washington DC Mall. And maybe in a few months it can be a combined Iraq And Iran War Memorial, with Afghanistan tossed in -- a 3-in-1 Bush Whack War Memorial with thousands or tens of thousands of dead U.S. soldiers and Marines.
Back during the Vietnam War, there was this common bumper sticker:
SUPPOSE THEY GAVE A WAR
AND NOBODY CAME
AND NOBODY CAME
Well, here's a better bumper sticker for the Iran warmongering jingoistic sabre-rattle toxic foxic Depleted Uranium shit from Tony Snow and the Insane-Guy-in-Chief and Faux ("Fair and Balanced") News Channel:
SUPPOSE THEY TRIED TO GIVE A WAR
BUT AMERICANS SCREAMED SO LOUD
THE WAR NEVER STARTED
BUT AMERICANS SCREAMED SO LOUD
THE WAR NEVER STARTED
U.S. military deaths in Iraq as of today: 3132
flag-draped coffins flown back to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.
Total wounded as of today: 23,417
Estimates vary as to how many soldiers and marines are returning from Iraq with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (what our WWI and WWII grandfathers called shell-shock). 20 percent may be a conservative figure. Few are getting sufficient treatment from military hospitals. Some soldiers and marines diagnosed with PTSD are quickly assigned to combat again.
U.S. military killed in action during the Vietnam War:
58,159
(Marc Leepson, ed, Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.)
The Psycho-in-Chief ceases to be president on 20 January 2009. So the Psycho-in-Chief has to work fast to get as many names of the Mouthless Dead on the Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan War Memorial as he can. He's killing our neighbors' children ("They're all volunteers; they knew what they were getting into," say the Patriots) as fast as he can. He is a very ambitious soldier-killing Homicidal Maniac, surrounded by a paranoid cabal of vengeance-dripping Muslim-haters who have been drooling for decades to bring Shock And Awe to the Iranian towelheads.
Here is a moment, a snapshot of an effort in Congress to stop the Iran War before Bush starts it.
Before he ran for Congress from Western Pennsylvania, Murtha was a career U.S. Marine officer who served in combat in Vietnam.
Maybe it will work.
Or maybe ten years from now we will look back on it as a pathetic failed footnote in a House and Senate controlled by Democrats who didn't have the political courage to Just Say No.
Whomever we elect to be president after Bush, Republican or Democrat, woman or man -- will inherit the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, and now maybe the Iran War. Like Nixon after Johnson, will the next president have the clarity and courage to stop these wars as they keep hemmorhaging the blood of our neighbors' children?
Probably not. Historically, screaming for a president-politician to use the constitutional Commander-in-Chief powers to end a war the USA hasn't managed to "win" (whatever the fuck "winning" would be) is practically impossible, unimaginable. It's Third Rail, it's Political Suicide. Nixon couldn't and wouldn't, so after he was forced to quit, it fell to the late President Gerald Ford to have to pull the plug on the hopeless Vietnam War.
God save my neighbors' children, as quickly as possible, and bring them safe home as quickly as possible.
~ ~ ~
The Associated Press
Thursday 15 February 2007
War Critic Eyes Plan
To Halt Iraq Deployments
Bush: Lawmakers' Iraq Thinking Hard To Follow
WASHINGTON -- A longtime critic of the Iraq war thinks he's got an idea for stopping the troop buildup -- an idea that could have a lot more teeth to it than a non-binding resolution.
Democratic U.S. Rep. John Murtha wants any future deployments to Iraq tied to two conditions:
* Troops would have to meet high standards of training and
* they would have to get enough rest between combat tours.
Murtha, who chairs the House panel overseeing military spending, doesn't think a single Army unit meets those standards, which would effectively stop the president's plan to send more than 21,000 extra troops.
Murtha is also warning the United States lacks the capability to sustain a possible war in Iran. When an Iraq war spending bill comes up, Murtha said he might add a provision requiring congressional approval to take military action against Iran.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also entered the debate over Iran, saying Bush has no authority to invade that country without specific approval from Congress.
The California Democrat said she takes Bush "at his word" when he says he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran. But she adds that "Congress should assert itself" and make clear that it has not given the president authority to go into Iran.
The House is due to vote Friday on the nonbinding resolution opposing the Iraq deployments.
Anticipating a blow from House Democrats on Iraq, President Bush is taking a few swings of his own.
In a speech to a conservative Washington think tank, Bush said it would be a contradiction for the Democratic controlled Congress to pass a resolution criticizing a troop buildup after approving the nomination of General David Petraeus to take command in Iraq. Bush said the buildup is part of Petraeus' plan.
But Bush said the question of funding will be an even more important vote.
He is asking Congress for nearly $100,000,000,000 for the war effort. He said that will give troops "the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility to prevail."
The president also praised the coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces, as they begin a sweep through Baghdad aimed at quelling sectarian violence.
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
========
The Associated Press
Thursday 15 February 2007
Pelosi: Bush Lacks
Authority to Invade
Pelosi says Bush would need
congressional approval to invade Iran
by DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.
Pelosi, Democrat-California, noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."
At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."
Pelosi spoke in an interview in the Capitol as the House moved through a third marathon day of debate on a nonbinding measure that disapproves of the military buildup in Iraq while expressing support for the troops.
Passage of the measure was expected Friday. Pelosi and other Democrats have said approval would mark the first step in an effort by the new Democratic-controlled Congress to force Bush to change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops.
Bush administration officials and their allies are resigned to House passage of the resolution and have worked in recent days to hold down defections by GOP lawmakers.
But Bush took a swipe at his critics during the day.
"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle," the president said.
The Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen David Petraeus last week to take over as the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Bush said at a news conference Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American troops in Iraq. But he backed away from claims the top echelon of Iran's government was responsible.
Administration critics have accused the president of looking for a pretense to attack the Islamic republic, which is also at loggerheads with the United Nations about what Tehran says is a nuclear program aimed at developing energy for peaceful purposes.
Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."
Bush has asked Congress to approve $100,000,000,000 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressional Democrats are hoping to insert provisions that would make it harder for the administration to follow through on its plan to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq.
Rep. John Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, who is leading the effort, has said the measure may be changed to require that any troops deployed must meet formal Army readiness standards.
Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval.
- 30 -
©MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
12 comments:
What a joke blaming Bush for following the same 25-year path as his predecessors (including Dems) that influenced the Middle East to America's advantage by installing evil dictators, infiltrating lines, encouraging regional wars etc etc.
The question is do Americans have any idea the current stakes at hand, and would they be willing to give up consumerism and world dominance that gives them what they have and hold so dear today? It would be wonderful if Americans could be converted to want less and share everything. We wouldn't need the oil and the power to continue our economic supremecy. Maybe the next election in 2008 could spawn a candidate that would truly make America shine -- generous, accommodating of third world countries, a model citizen with the world's best interests our guiding light. Right.
largely i agree with everything you say.
but Bush is something new for America, at least in my lifetime.
arguably and pathetically with such naivete and absence of wisdom, we blundered inch by inch, then foot by foot, into the Vietnam War, and four presidents share the responsibility for the long and tortuous path that took us to the huge war it became.
but Bush and his cronies started this violent, aggressive scoundrels' war with Eyes Wide Open, premeditation and malice aforethought. this was no blind blundering, no series of dumb accidents.
and i blame Bush if, before his term as president and commander-in-chief ends, we launch a war against Iran.
i'm trying to enforce a rule on this here blog: No Anonymous Driveby Comments. If ya got something to say, step up and show us your HI MY NAME IS badge.
www.crooksandliars.com
wonderful insight.
Europe had the 30 Years War and the 100 Years War, so I guess the difficulty of backing out of a war once it gets cranked up is not just an American political disease but an occasional inevitable pustule of everybody's history.
Backing out of a war and abandoning the illusion of ever achieving Victory -- that must be difficult and politically bitter beyond imagining. Tonight I watched a rebroadcast of a Senate speech by US Senator Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, leading Iraq Warhawk, until November, a Democrat -- an early primary loss forced him to run (and win) as an Independent. He piled every Patriotic Flagwaving Hogwash Reason to keep supporting the Iraq War.
As if Victory were really there, under any circumstances.
And yet it's so easy to first declare and get into these things. The nearly unanimous roll call of both parties voting to start Bush's War is a national embarrassment.
One clear failing of the nation state is that it's quick to perceive unforgiveable insult, and quick to perceive that swift violent revenge will very quickly be nationally delicious.
Lets not forget that 4,200 Americans were killed by terorists from 1979 through 2001. Should we defend our country when this happens? Do you know how to defend our country? Do you believe everything Democrats have been feeding you through the mostly liberal media. Here are war Numbers from WWII- American deaths 405,000. Cost 3.6 trillion (in todays money). The cost and deaths in the muslim terroist war in Iraq is much less but 1 soldiers death in any war is not good. We did not start this war!!!!! We finally simply responded to attacks.
Lets not forget that 4,200 Americans were killed by terorists from 1979 through 2001. Should we defend our country when this happens? Do you know how to defend our country? Do you believe everything Democrats have been feeding you through the mostly liberal media. Here are war Numbers from WWII- American deaths 405,000. Cost 3.6 trillion (in todays money). The cost and deaths in the muslim terroist war in Iraq is much less but 1 soldiers death in any war is not good. We did not start this war!!!!! We finally simply responded to attacks.
I have a smirk on my face because you can't handle debate.You find a desire to stomp your feet instead having a mature debate.
I have a smirk on my face because there's controversy, and my name's up there on the top where everybody can see it. Right -- i don't "debate" cowards.
let me narrate a story, an anecdote. whatever you wish to call it. first a bit about myself for those who don't know. i'm a fairly brown skinned pakistani, canadian having spent half my life in pakistan, and half in canada. i live in toronto, canada and frequently cross over to the united states, i would say at least once a month. most of my visits are fairly hassle free, but some times it's taken me up to even five hours to cross when DHS is being moody and wants to give me the third degree. on average now, with my unemployment record and pakistani wife, it takes anywhere from 1-3 hours.
now during the time of the war. i recall afghanistan had just been carpet bombed and made into a parking lot. i think iraq had just been entered and and they had started punching buttons to take out "hostiles" there too. it was a grim time to read any newspaper.
it just so happened that i was flying to dallas, texas one particular weekday. now in canada, when you fly to the states, you end up having to go through customs and immigration BEFORE you take off, if you're flying to the states. this allows for a lot of smaller airports in the US who don't have international facilities to recieve canadians. so i'm quietly waiting in line for my turn. it's a long line up and the day's business commuter suits are lined up in front of me. this is gonna take at least an hour. behind me is a screaming baby and mother. cute blond little girl and sleep deprived single mother who looked rather out of place amongst the suits.
i'm the only non-caucasian about to board in line. the kid is about three years old, bugging her mother the way tired three year olds do. typical questions spout from her mouth, how long will it take?, what time is it?, i'm hungry, i'm tired, are we there yet?, etc. she's playing and screaming with her luggage amusing herself and i start to filter it out.
i've been waiting in line another few more minutes when i realize the change in ambience. it's quiet. the kid isn't screaming or bugging her mother anymore. that in itself was an alarm bell, because kids should be making noise and if they're not, they're upto something no good when they're quiet. so i turned around to see what she was doing which was no good. she was staring at me. dumb struck and in awe with a weird tilt on her head as if she was concentrating real hard about to draw a portrait of me. i couldn't understand why but she stuck her gaze right into my eyes and i simple smiled back. her gaze unbroken and emotions unwavered, she kept staring.
then she asked me something which to this day, i have been trying to figure out how i should have answered. how i could have answered? what would i have said? why did she ask me? was she aware of what she was asking me? did she know?
she said to me,
"is your home being destroyed mister? i saw your home being destroyed on tv. i'm sorry if it is.".
my knees felt as if they were about to collapse. her mother embarassed and turning a shade of red on her face started apologizing to me profusely. not sure why she was apologizing. i tried explaining to the little girl that her and i shared the same home place, that toronto was my home. she couldn't understand.
in her eyes, brown skinned men were bad and had to have their homes destroyed. her mom explained that she was a tv junkie and watch whatever was on, even when her parents were watching and not get bored if cartoons weren't on. i looked back at the little girl. her face had an unsaid sincere apology to me.
her mother had no idea what she was talking about. kids see and do more than just play. they're a lot smarter than we take them for. how much violence and news of bombings and bloodshed and killings on mainstream television do we have to see before even a three year old kid realizes that brown skinned people are being left homeless and are dying and are fighting pointlessly amongst each other.
what would you have said to the little girl if you were in my position?
i guess nobody really read this.
i read it!!
it's just a Very Hard Question and a very unhappy story that's being repeated in airports and train stations and bus stations all over 3 continents
and i'm sad and angry and i've been trying to reply in an e-mail and i will try to finish it up
but okay, i would say to the little girl:
Thank you for asking, child. They are all safe, thank goodness. But thank you for thinking of us. And I will wish the same for your mommy and daddy and sisters and brothers -- safety, happiness and peace.
and i'd smile, i'd want her always to remember my smile, that her question pleased and warmed me in a cold and unhappy moment.
Hey brave threat guy -- I notice you're Anonymous. You're most comfortable making threats when nobody knows who you are. (But it's still a crime -- and my guess is it's charged as a more serious crime when it's done anonymously.)
I also notice you're illiterate. Well -- okay -- this is America, and illiterate, crappily educated people have a right to their opinion, too. It's just always sort of an embarrassment to read it.
And please call me Spec5 Fucking Pussy, US Army, 1969-1971. I know you dropped out of high school, but maybe you can ask somebody who can read what the US Army was doing in those years. Are you a vet?
Vleeptron Rule No. 1: No Anonymous Driveby Comments. I'll wipe yours out in 24 hours. I get plenty of comments criticizing my politics from people who give their name or a link. I respect them. (I also respect the ones who can type English.)
Post a Comment