|
Forget "The eagle has landed." Over the weekend, the turkey landed
- on many American dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly
known as Saddam Hussein International.
The stupidity of conservatives
never ceases to amaze me, as well as that of the media (and the majority
of the American people, come to think of it). And to MY way of thinking,
no-one has got this trip right yet. Thus far, the focus has been on the
secrecy surrounding the trip, the choice of Fox News to accompany the
president, (which pretty much sums up his credibility level when he chooses
the television equivalent of the National Enquirer to assist him in his
chicanery).
The focus has also
been on whether or not it was a wise decision for the president to make
(what? Like wisdom has been a staple of this administration thus far?)
When I first learned of this trip, a couple things came to my mind immediately.
First, the obvious…
Remember all the times Mr. Bush told us how swimmingly things were going
in Iraq - much different than the "'perceptions" we were being given by
the American "filtered" media - well except Fox News of course. (Which
raises the question. I wonder if the anchors and hosts at Fox have to
provide their own Vaseline, or if it's in their contract that Fox has
to). Now... if things are so hunky dorey in Iraq; if it's just a handful
of rag-tag Baathist loyalists and remnants who are causing all the trouble
- why all the secrecy? Why even take Air Force One? Why not just book
your flight with 'Air Liberation', so that the overwhelming majority of
the Iraqi populace who just LOVE our presence in their country, and think
it's just so Mohammed when their 4 and 5 year olds are frisked - they
could be waiting for you at the airport with flowers and chocolates.
While much of the
focus of the president's trip to Iraq (rightly so, and primarily because
it is so obvious) has centered on the fact that the very nature of the
trip demonstrates how dire the security situation in Iraq truly is, there
hasn't been as much mention as to how this "nature" undermines the administration's
claims to the contrary.
But here's the other
thing that came to my mind after learning of his secret trip to Iraq -
and the part of the equation that no-one seems to get, or simply doesn't
have the balls to articulate. Listen to this first line in a story from
London's "The Telegraph" on Friday…"President George W. Bush was back
at his Texas Ranch yesterday basking in the most adulatory coverage in
months, as an admiring American media described his surprise trip to Iraq
as one of the boldest ever presidential forays." Bold? BOLD?!?!
Doesn't anybody get it? Let's put the pieces together.
First piece... I remember
this pathetic, cowardly little man in the White House standing before
the cameras and saying… "Bring 'em On". And I remember how his mindless
boot lickers praised him for his bravado - too damn stupid to realize
that a comment like this was putting our troops in FAR more danger than
any 10 stories the media could report - the same media who essentially
handed Bush his war on a silver platter - the same media this administration
and their apologists now like to blame for the deaths or our soldiers.
Second piece... Last
Monday at Fort Carson, Colorado… the president said "The United States
of America will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs."
Third piece... During
his visit with the troops in Baghdad, he said "We did not charge hundreds
of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat
a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before
a band of thugs and assassins." Now first of all… What mean "we", Kemo
Bushbey? The only charge you've led is the one against our values, intelligence,
decency, reputation and civil liberties… altho' you have been charging
a lot to America's American Express card, haven't you?
Fourth piece... On
the plane, just 3 hours from Baghdad, Bush said "I was fully prepared
to turn this baby around and come home." Again - YOU were prepared to
turn the plane around, Mr. Resident?
Is it starting to
become clearer here what the main issue of this Iraq trip SHOULD be? Let
me bottom line it… plain and simple. When the coward in chief is safe
and sound in America, he says… "Bring 'em On", or..."We will not be intimidated
by thugs." Now don't you think a more appropriate time to say that - if
indeed you were a man of courage, honor, conviction and "boldness" - would
have been if you were planning to GO to Iraq, or when you were already
THERE in Iraq? But what did he say instead? First thing he said was… "Shhhhhhh."
The second was, "I was fully prepared to turn this baby around and come
home."
Put another way -
when it's the lives of our soldiers that are at risk, Bush says "Bring
'em on" or, "The United States will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs."
When it's HIS sorry ass that might be in peril, he says, "if anyone finds
out I'm coming… I'M turning this plane around and going home." And for
this act of seemingly unnoticed cowardice, he's called... bold?!
Where's the boldness?
Where's the bravado? Where's the… "Bring 'em on", and "We won't be intimidated
by thugs" when it really matters? Wouldn't THAT have been the time for
the bra-a-a-v-e Commander in Chief to say "Hey, you want a piece of me?
I'm coming to 'gitcha'. Gonna' smoke you out. Dead or alive. Take your
best shot…thug! Bring it on.. THUG!!
Nope. When there's
a chance he might face the same kind of danger he himself has CREATED
for our soldiers; and it's time for him to put action to words? No bravado
and no courage at all. Instead there's "Shhhhh" and "I'll turn this baby
around and come home." And yet the… "liberal media" (God, that's one lie
I am getting so sick of)… the "liberal media" absoultely gushes and slobbers
all over this cowardly performance and calls it one of the boldest presidential
forays EVER!!
And you wonder why
the majority of Americans still support this arrogant little coward? I'll
TELL you why they do. Because no-one is telling them he IS an arrogant,
little coward, that' why. They're telling the American people… he's bold.
And actually, he IS bold. He's bold with his LIES! That coupled with the
fact that he lies so constantly - many people who ARE aware of how long
his nose is are in such shock by how blatant and in your face many of
his lies are - are left speechless with their jawbones dragging on the
ground.
Case in point - right
after he went on television and admitted there was no evidence to support
a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, he went back to his very effective
"propaganda by segue" schtick, and the next time he tried to justify his
misguided debacle in Iraq, he said it was important to learn the lessons
of 9-11. RIGHT THERE - someone should have raised their hand and said
"Uh, Mr. President? You're doing it again. You just said yesterday there
was no link, but now by segueing from 9-11 into Iraq, you're implying
there is. People with REAL values call that lying." But did anyone say
that? Besides me? Not that I heard.
And you know why he
was able to say again for the umpteenth time just the other day that the
Taliban were gone forever? Because the very FIRST time he said it - right
after a barrage of reports that the Taliban were reconstituting themselves
- no-one raised their hand and said, "Uh, Mr. President, there is report
after report coming out of Afghanistan that say the Taliban are not only
resurging, they actually control several provinces in the country, and
that we don't even completely control Kabul anymore. How can you in all
good conscience - being a man of God yourself, in fact, the man God himself
chose to lead this great nation"… (and I guess that makes sense… he certainly
wasn't the first choice of the American people in 2000)… "How can you
stand before this great nation and "boldly" LIE to them?"
I would like to ask
the president these questions. Is this your way of making us all pay for
not electing your father twice? Is it your way of making us pay for not
electing you even ONCE? How badly do you feel we need to be punished for
just not being smart enough to realize who God himself wanted in the oval
office in the year 2000? And is this how your sick mind has justified
acting like a dictator and stifling democratic dissent - because you know
you were never democratically elected in the first place, so like, what
difference does it make?
Bottom line is folks…
we're losing the battle. No-one seems to be able - or they don't have
the GUTS - to look past the surface of this administration's shallow,
deceitful crap and see what the REAL story is - the true story and then
say it loudly enough for all to hear. Well… except me. If this doesn't
make the case why this homeboy should be on national radio, nothing else
will. I haven't heard one person yet make the case I just did. Not one
news show I watched on television, or one person I saw on any of the shows
said "The main thing this trip proves is that not only is Bush a LIAR…
he's a GUTLESS liar as well!" Do you think you'll hear Alan Colmes say
this? ANY national radio talk show host? (Would you like to hear a national
talk show host say this? Call the powers that be. Just please make sure
you spell the name right when you give them the web site address.)
And here's one other
element you can add to this story, just to use this administration's blustering
bulls--t against them. By including a "turn around and head home" provision
in his travel plan, could not a case be made that while he was verbally
saying "We will not be intimidated by thugs", what he was insinuating
was "I will be intimidated by thugs"? And then, using the president's
own criteria for dissenter demonization, could not a further case be made
that Mr. Bush provided aid and comfort to the enemy (now defined as anyone
who disagrees with Bush's occupation or policies), by acknowledging how
precarious the situation in Iraq really is by including a "turn around"
provision?... and by demonstrating to the "terrorists" (now defined as
anyone who disagrees with Bush's occupation or policies) how successful
and feared their resistance is by the "Top Goon" in the United States?
When any other American does this, this administration and their hit men
label them unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops, but when Bush does
it, he's called... bold? Just food for thought.
Back to the real issue
behind "the trip" - namely, cowardice. From "Bring 'em On" and "WE won't
be intimidated by thugs" to I'M gonna' turn this baby around and go home".
And yet the media - (even the British media for God's sake, who certainly
should be able to figure this one out) - drops the ball once again, and
calls this "one of the boldest presidential forays ever"? How insulting.
I'm sorry. All I see is blatant, 2 faced hypocrisy, and spineless, shameful
cowardice. Verbal machismo backed by physical retreat do not equate with
courage. But to anyone familiar with Mr. Bush's military record or his
actions on that fateful day in September 2001, this is par for the course.
And while Mr. Dressup in the White House's physical actions may be bold
in their sheer audacity, they are certainly not bold in the positive context
the media is framing them in now.
Where I come from,
"boldness" must be rooted in honesty. And seeing as we cannot count on
the media to inform the American people, let us never forget the one over-riding
truth in this entire Iraqmire. Bush lied and our soldiers died. Period.
Our men and women - our brothers and sisters - and our kids. And the only
"boldness" in this equation are the repeated lies Bush, his administration
and our compliant media keep shoving down America's throat with such force
they would make Linda Lovelace herself gag. Bold.. my... ass.
Bold.. my... ass.
|
