 |
 |
I get sick and tired of the pussyfooting that goes on in political speech. If a pundit thinks the president's a liar I wish they'd come out and say so. They certainly didn't have any problem with it when it was Bill Clinton's lies that were in question. If they think something is bullshit I wish I could hear that person say so. I guess that's why I'm currently obsessed with Bill Maher's show on HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher. There are no holds barred on that show and they use any kind of language they feel like it. It's hilarious. Anyway, I've got several political bones to pick and I'm going to take a cue from Bill Maher and pick them using the very language that you don't hear on Meet The Press. Here goes.
George W. Bush is a lying sack of shit and so are the people who work for him. The ease with which he lies is disgusting. The ease with which he gets away with it is scary. The Republicans were all over Clinton for lying about a blowjob. A friggin' blowjob for Pete's sake! In the grand scheme of things what's more important; lies about fellatio or lies about war? Where is the outcry over the lies about Iraq? These lies have cost over 1200 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis their lives! We're talking about life and death here people! Yet the seriousness of the situation seems to have completely escaped both the media and the administration. Instead of apologies we get cutesy answers to serious questions in a lame-ass attempt to cover up obvious fabrications. I am not amused. Bush's lies are venal enough as it is. The attempt to glibly change the subject is not funny.
This line is as asinine as Clinton's "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Okay, so let's say that the word "imminent" never came out of anyone in the Bush administrations mouth. So what about all the talk of not wanting to find out about Iraqi nuclear capabilities with a mushroom cloud? What about the talk of Saddam Hussein being able to launch a strike in 45 minutes? That says imminent! The administration may not have used the word "imminent" but they damn sure gave the same impression. To try to come out of their faces now and say they never said "imminent" is utterly disingenuous.
Bush's lies about weapons of mass destruction started a war that screwed up the true war on terrorism. Instead of concentrating on the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, we're wasting resources on Iraq. Now Iraq which, before March 2003 wasn't a hotbed of terrorism, has now become one and Osama Bin Laden is still out in the wind. How exactly is this winning the war on terrorism? Even people who used to work for the administration don't believe this garbage. (Democracy Now! has an interview with one such person. You can check it out for yourself.)
Speaking of disingenuous, exactly how much is this war costing us? Shouldn't a major expenditure like this be included in the God damn budget? The fact that the administration is not appropriating the money now means that they'll try to ask for "emergency funding" in September or October. This fool, George W. Bush, does not want you to know that the war is bankrupting the country. Then he talks of tax cuts as though it were a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I hate to be the one to break the bad news to anyone, but you cannot have it both ways. Taxes pay for highways and bridges and the bloody military. It's utterly irresponsible for Bush to push for tax cuts then increase military spending. We have our own budgets; we know how this goes. Let's say that one makes $200 a week and one's expenses are $100 a week. One cannot cut one's income to $150 a week and then up spending to $175 a week. Because anyone who understands simple subtraction can see that this hypothetical person will go broke! If we as individuals cannot do this I see no reason why the government should be allowed to do this. And anyone, like George W. Bush, who tells you otherwise is a fucking liar!
Here's another bold-faced lie from George W. Bush. He claims to be a uniter but his rhetoric is clearly that of one who would polarize the nation. It was painfully obvious when he made the speech back in September of 2001. He had a unique opportunity to unite the country along with, possibly, the world. Instead what do we get when he makes his speech? Either you're with us or against us. No room discussion or disagreement. What kind of stupidness is that? This is a democracy; the free exchange of ideas is part of that. How utterly disrespectful to the tenets upon which this country was founded for this fool to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is siding with Osama Bin Laden! This pseudo-patriot claims to love this country yet undermines everything it stands for at every turn. For that alone he should be impeached.
I live in New York so I haven't been privy to the commercials Bush has been airing but I have seen clips. The lengths to which bush will use September 11, 2001 for his own political ends is utterly vomit inducing. Bush says using the images of the burning towers is appropriate because it was a defining moment. So what was the reasoning behind using the image of a flag covered corpse?
The fact that Bush would use my city to score brownie points is disgraceful. To use a dead person to try to win votes is despicable! Bush doesn't give a tinker's damn about New York City. He hasn't even seen fit to send all the money he's promised and he's short changing the city at ever turn. (For more on the short changing of NYC see Jack Newfield's article on The Nation's website.) Bush is only interested in the photo ops possible by being seen at "ground zero." What's worse, the Republicans deliberately postponed their national convention just so that they could cash in on the anniversary. It has been obvious for years that politicians were all too willing to wrap themselves in the flag in order to garner more votes. Now they've shown themselves to be willing to wrap themselves with corpses for the same reason.
If Bush really wanted to use the true imagery of himself on September 11th 2001 he'd show him reading to children after the first tower was hit or the even more apt photo, Bush cowering in Air Force One as it traveled throughout the country while the citizenry wondered where the hell he was.
I am sick and tired of the simplistic inanities that often spew from the Pretender in Chief. The latest one being a rebuff of the Spanish who booted their U.S. bootlicking government in elections on March 3 and 4. "Appeasement!" Bush and his flunkies yelp. "Don't cut and run!" They cry. What utter nonsense. Now admittedly, I am no political scientist but it seems to me that the reason why the Popular Party lost was because they lied to the Spanish electorate. Pretending that Islamic terrorists were the domestic ones in order to try to deflect attention from a war that 90% of the populace disapproved of was utterly stupid.
Bush the mendacious might want to take that into consideration before blathering on ignorantly about appeasement. Besides, who the fuck is he to question who the Spanish electorate votes for? They can choose anyone they want. That's what democracy is all about.
Bush acts as though because the U.S. was hit by terrorism at home on September 11, 2001 he discovered something. The countries of the much-derided "Old Europe" have been dealing with terrorism for years. Bush acts like the idiot who trips over a crack in the sidewalk and thinks he discovered it.
Apologists for Bush say America must be the leader in a new world order, one that spreads freedom and democracy. (Blah, blah, blah!) What a load of crap! Aristide (unlike Bush) was elected democratically yet our government stood by and did nothing as thugs lead by members of a paramilitary group who murdered political opponents, wrecked havoc across the country. Then they shoved him off to Africa by saying they couldn't keep him safe. Now I'm not saying that Aristide was a perfect leader but since when do those who respect democratic processes decide mid-term that they don't like their leader and decide to try to kill him or her? If we did that here Bush would not be alive now. But we respect the democratic process (even when it is perverted by the partisan in the Supreme Court) so we wait until November 2, 2004 to boot hi lying ass out. Bush on the other hand stands back and allows thugs to overrun a country because he doesn't like who the people elected. I guess democracy is only good when people Republicans like get elected even when these folks lie, cheat and steal to do it. On the other hand that's exactly how Bush and company got into the White House in the first place.
So we have a man who lies about weapons of mass destructions, who lies about the effects of his tax cuts, lies to the people of New York City yet uses the city at every turn to political advantage. If this doesn't qualify Bush as a lying sack of shit I don't know what does. And people thought that lies about the blowjob Clinton got was a big deal? This country seems to have it's priorities all screwed up. Wake up folk! If Bush ends up in the White House again we're all up shit's creek.
Nation story about Bush's shortchanging of NYC
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040419&c=5&s=newfield
House site where you can see documented lies from the Bush
administration
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
Democracy Now! interview with yet another former Bush
administration person who says Bush is bungling the war.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/02/1516227
|
|