Cutting Through Bush's Iraq Bullshit with Simple Logic

The topper, which he has recited several times before, is that if we fail in Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home. He uttered a few variations of the line this morning: "If we were to fail, they'd come and get us. … If we let up, we'll be attacked. … It's better to fight them there than here."

Clearly, this is nonsense, on three levels.

First, the vast majority of the insurgents have nothing to do with al-Qaida or its ideology. They're combatants in a sectarian conflict for power in Iraq, and they have neither the means nor the desire to threaten North America.

Second, to the extent that the true global terrorists could attack us at home, they could do so whether or not U.S. troops stay or win in Iraq. The one issue has nothing to do with the other.

Third, what kind of thing is this to say in front of the allies? If our main goal in bombing, strafing, and stomping through Iraq is to make sure we don't have to do so on our own territory, will any needy nation ever again seek our aid and cover? Or will they seek out a less blatantly selfish protector?

At today's press conference, President Bush tagged on a sort of addendum to this cliché, one that I hadn't heard him utter before. Asked about reports that the U.S. presence in Iraq has in fact strengthened al-Qaida, he replied, "Al-Qaida is going to fight us wherever we are," adding, "The fundamental question is, 'Will we fight them?' "

The dissonances here are a bit subtler, but again three things stick out.

First, it isn't true. U.S. troops are deployed, to varying degrees, all over the world; al-Qaida is fighting us in only a couple of places and, even there, hardly as the dominant force.

Second, by making such remarks, the president is only hyping al-Qaida's power. What a great recruitment slogan: "Al-Qaida—fighting wherever the Americans are!"

Third, if the claim is true, why doesn't Bush play strategic jujitsu? He should amass a lot of troops someplace where we have a great advantage, lure al-Qaida to come fight us, then spring the trap and crush them. Clearly, Iraq isn't that place.

Psychopath

The President also acknowledged that his troop escalation strategy, and the announcement of the September deadline for a report from General David Petraeus on its progress, would result in a likely increase in violence and bloodshed in Iraq.

"It could make August a tough month, because what they're going to try to do is kill as many people as they can to try and influence the debate here at home. Don't you find that interesting? I do, that they recognize that the death of innocent people could shake our will," the President explained.

snip

President George W. bush insisted that his message on the threat to America from Al Qaida in Iraq was credible because he was relying on US intelligence that provided a reasonable warning.

"I'm credible because I read the intelligence," Bush said when a reporter asked if his warning in a Wednesday speech at the US Coast Guard Academy, based on two-year old intelligence, could be trusted.

Here's a piece from 2003 identifying Bush as a psychopath.

Busted!!!

Bush evades questions about his role in the hospital visit to Ashcroft.

Grossly Illegal Behaviour by Bush

Even the WaPo finds it shocking.

NOW can we impeach him?

Comey and Mueller were clearly both operating on the premise that Card and Gonzales were basically thugs. Indeed, Comey said that when Card ordred him to the White House, Comey refused to meet with Card without a witness being present, and that Card refused to allow Comey's summoned witness (Solicitor General Ted Olson) even to enter Card's office. These are the most trusted intimates of the White House -- the ones who are politically sympathetic to them and know them best -- and they prepared for, defended themselves against, the most extreme acts of corruption and thuggery from the President's Chief of Staff and his then-legal counsel (and current Attorney General of the United States).

Does this sound in any way like the behavior of a government operating under the rule of law, which believes that it had legal authority to spy on Americans without the warrants required for three decades by law? How can we possibly permit our government to engage in this behavior, to spy on us in deliberate violation of the laws which we enacted democratically precisely in order to limit how they can spy on us, and to literally commit felonies at will, knowing that they are breaking the law?

How is this not a major scandal on the level of the greatest presidential corruption and lawbreaking scandals in our country's history? Why is this only a one-day story that will focus on the hospital drama but not on what it reveals about the bulging and unparalleled corruption of this administration and the complete erosion of the rule of law in our country? And, as I've asked times before, if we passively allow the President to simply break the law with impunity in how the government spies on our conversations, what don't we allow?

Of course, the only reason this isn't a scandal of regime-shattering proportions is because of fucking 9/11-- which of course was an inside job and which also cut off much normal governmental and media scrutiny. Thus we are left in this Orwellian nightmare.

Poll Shows 39% of Americans Support Impeachment!!!

A poll published Tuesday shows that close to 40% of Americans favor the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, according to an article at Townhall.com.

"Few serious observers think things will ever get to actual impeachment. And yet the American public seems more open to the concept than many imagine, according to a new national poll," wrote Matt Towery, CEO of InsiderAdvantage, which commissioned the poll. "The implications of this public sentiment could be huge for the 2008 presidential elections."

The poll from InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion asked a sample of 621 Americans, "Would you favor or oppose the impeachment by Congress of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney?"

A total of 39% who answered said they favored impeachment, according to Towery. In opposition were 55% of respondents, with 6% answering undecided or don't know. There was a 4% margin of error.

Towery noted that a high proportion of independent voters, who traditionally decide elections, favored impeachment.

28%-- A New Low

May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ‘08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ‘08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

Still the Worst President Ever!

WASHINGTON, May 1 — Senior Bush administration officials told Congress on Tuesday that they could not pledge that the administration would continue to seek warrants from a secret court for a domestic wiretapping program, as it agreed to do in January.

Rather, they argued that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants.
As a result of the January agreement, the administration said that the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program has been brought under the legal structure laid out in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for the wiretapping of American citizens and others inside the United States.

But on Tuesday, the senior officials, including Michael McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, said they believed that the president still had the authority under Article II of the Constitution to once again order the N.S.A. to conduct surveillance inside the country without warrants.

"The Commander Guy"

He just gets worse and worse...

More War, More Death, More Money Down the Drain

President George W. Bush on Tuesday vetoed a bill setting an Iraq withdrawal timeline, defying the US Congress exactly four years after he declared major combat over in a "Mission Accomplished" speech.
"Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible," he said as protesters outside the White House chanted "stop the war now!" and "how many more will die?".

Bush -- who has signalled no willingness to compromise on his plan to escalate the unpopular war -- was to meet top lawmakers at the White House on Wednesday to map the way forward after killing the legislation.

"Cauldron of Chaos"

Moving toward a veto of a war spending bill, President Bush said Tuesday that Democrats who made the legislation a showdown over withdrawing U.S. troops could turn Iraq into a "cauldron of chaos" with their approach.

Of course, this is as opposed to the Garden of Earthly Delights that Iraq is now.

I try to avoid calling people names, but for god's sakes, Bush is such a moron.

Bunker Mentality

Sometimes insider gossip seems to confirm what all us outsiders think we're seeing, so, for what it's worth...we're hearing that some big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he's doing things would be OK...etc., etc.

This is called a "bunker mentality" and it's not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.

Mission Accomplished: 4 Year Anniversary

On May 1, 2003, President Bush stood underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner and announced that “Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Here’s a by-the-numbers look at the situation then, compared to the situation now:


U.S. Troops Wounded: May 1, 2003--542; Today --24,912
U.S. Troops Killed: May 1, 2003--139; Today --3,351
Contractors Killed: May 1, 2003--69; Today --916
Journalists and Media Assistants: Killed May 1, 2003--11; Today --167
U.S. Forces in Iraq: May 1, 2003--150,000; Today-- 146,000

Cost to U.S. Taxpayers: May 1, 2003--$79 billion; Today--$421 billion
Approval of Bush’s Handling of Iraq: May 1, 2003--75%; Today-- 24%
Percentage of Americans who Believe The Iraq War Was “Worth Fighting”: May 1, 2003--70%; Today--34%
Bush’s Overall Job Approval: May 1, 2003--71%; Today--32%

They left out how many Iraqis have been killed in the past 4 years though-- several hundred thousand-- just horrific.

Bush is a war criminal.