Rebutting an Asshole

So rebutting the Prez would be what? Reaming him a new one? I watched the President’s speech last night on CNN. I don’t know about other news shows, but everyone on CNN responded as though the president were a sensible human being worthy of respect. No one, not Larry King, not John McCain, not John Edwards, not Barack Obama, not Dem Majority Whip Dick Durbin and not Arwa Damon, CNN’s Correspondent in Baghdad, addressed the fact that the president looked like death, that he said ridiculous things in his speech, and that the man is crazy as a loon. My daughter said it best in an email to me when I said the prez looked like he’d been embalmed. She said, “Like an embalmed deer in the headlights... on Quaaludes.” Gone were the smirks and tics. Gone was the ill-advised jokey manner. And thank God for that. But in place of being off-hand, inappropriate and cheery about a somber and serious issue, which has been the president’s demeanor in the past when speaking of his unnecessary and illegal war, last night the Prez looked frightened, unsure and tranked to the gills. Of course it would be a step in the right direction if the president at long last had seen the situation he caused in Iraq and that the reality frightened him. Not a chance. George W. Bush is scared that his popularity may be waning. He is not frightened of the fact that his popularly has waned. Our delusional president is frightened that at some time in the future his popularity may wane. The Prez agreed to say the words the speechwriters gave him to say and to look serious while he said those words because in his mind he wants to bring back into the fold that tiny minority which may not have been fully convinced that he has always been right about Iraq. The sobersides delivery was an uncomfortable fit. The president doesn’t like to play that role and it made him look unsure and unwell. But the president has no doubt whatsoever that his dopey, silly plan will work. He said, “The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” And with those few sentences George W. Bush eliminated his little PR problem. He made it crystal clear that he has made no mistakes but that he magnanimously accepts the responsibility for the woeful mistakes of the US military and the prime minister of Iraq. I actually could not believe the president said the following, and I had to consult a transcript to make sure I had heard it correctly. Yup, he said it: “On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.” Yo, Mr. Crazy-person Prez, the Saudi’s slammed into the World Trade Center. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. And in case you need to be reminded, YOU AND THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WERE HARBORING SAUDIS. The Prez explained that the US military had not been successful in Baghdad in the past because there weren’t enough Iraqi and American troops in Iraq. And he said another reason for the failure was because there were “too many restrictions on the troops”. Meaning what? That we couldn’t torture and kill civilians at will? Bush said, “our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.” Now let’s see, if I remember correctly, Bush has appointed a completely new bunch of military commanders in Iraq, all of whom have their heads firmly up the president’s ass. Could that be why they report the plan is a never-fail dilly? And what on earth were the speechwriters drinking (or smoking) when they cranked out this gem: “Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs… Yet, over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents.” The president added, “When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas.” And we’ll all go to the seashore. But the following is my personal fave in the Bush speech: “From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?” I’d like to make one point, you addle-brained numnut asshole, millions of people in the Middle East do want a future of peace and opportunity but they are not looking at the US in Iraq to give them hope. In fact, they are looking at the US in Iraq in horror and fear because last night you threatened to go to war with Iran and Syria. At least the Democratic leadership, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid rejected GWB’s so-called new strategy. They issued a statement saying, "This is not a good idea. This proposal endangers our national security by placing additional burdens on our already over-extended military, thereby making it even more difficult to respond to other crises." They could have been a little stronger in their objection though. They could have said, “This is an egregiously BAD idea, put forward by an insane little fascist putz who just happens to be the worst president the United States has ever had.” But I guess it's up to me to say it. So be it.