hmmm...appropriate response.

"One of the things that I will leave behind is a multilateralism to deal with tyrants, so problems can be solved diplomatically," he said.


Is this Bizarro World, or what?

Yep, blithering about sums it up.

Do his speech writers just throw this stuff in nowadays to embarrass this jackass? He doesn't even know what the words mean he simply parrots them at audiences. Maybe he should Gitmo his writing staff.

Multilateral killing and maiming, he meant.

He is a legend in his own mind.

I think he is reading mAnn Coulter and taking her seriously.

Next he's gonna break into a broadway musical number to the tune of 'I'd like to teach the world to sing'.

megablithering idiotus maximus

A man of average socialization waits for his host to compliment him, even if that compliment will be a lie.

As I've stated many times, Bush thinks of himself as a hero, and badly wants others to do so. He thanks God he is who he is, and that he is not you or me. He's crazy, of course, but it probably feels good.

Hey, if you just ignore all the facts he doesn't look like that bad of a president. Millions of Republicans are struggling to do just that right now. If you are voting for McSame then you are one of those millions.

Yep, blithering about sums it up.

Posted by evilpolock at 2008-06-17 08:32 AM | Reply

We need a president who can speak clearly. Someone who can say stuff like:

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

"The people of Iran love their shah."

this is pretty choice.
the thread is about bush supposedly in self-admiration and all we get for posts are leftists and socialists and even one guy who thinks he is a musician....( its a joke, sam).....and just how do they shine thier enlighted responses our way?
its a liberal circle jerk with the beginnings of massive proportions and all based on what a SPEECH WRITER said about how the world might view my president WHEN IN FACT, if the muslim hoards were approaching thier country....a figurative picture......they would give anything to have 'that cowboy' see to it that THERE WERE NO ATTACKS AGAIN like we can say.
but dont worry bout little ole me. nothing anyone says is going to keep all of you from this
LIBERAL DAISY CHAIN.......so KEEP IT UP.....

( damn...look at all the sexual references. I must be hornier than I thought......)

good day everyone.

"NO ATTACKS AGAIN" BLT
The "ATTACK" occured on the blithering idiot's watch. I might agree with you if Bush were a real cowboy instead of a preppie whose posing as one.

Shit Vern you cannot be that fucking crazy to believe that Clinton is running again. Can you?

THERE WERE NO ATTACKS AGAIN

So we should be happy that only 3,000 civilians died under Chimpy's watch and not more?

Good to see just how far up Bushling's ass your head is.

That Bush the blithering idiot has been our chief executive for 8 years is more an indictment on us than on him.

Why would Bush now feel the need to tell such a blatant lie? Does this indicate that he now thinks it is wrong to make unilateral decisions?

My problem with Bush's decisions has never been his failure to ask permission from people who could give a crap about us. My problem is that his decisions are stupid.

"THERE WERE NO ATTACKS AGAIN"

Er....the one place that you might not want to make such a stupid claim is in Great Britain where there have been attacks.

they would give anything to have 'that cowboy' see to it that THERE WERE NO ATTACKS AGAIN like we can say.


YEAH!

No attack is true, but only if not including the two "attacks" via the poison mailings ---- of which a dozen people died of course!

But don't fret; you and Bush can certainly claim ad nausea about how he was the First American President to Loose an Entire City ----- to some weather!

That Bush the blithering idiot has been our chief executive for 8 years is more an indictment on us than on him.
Posted by k_g_beekeeper

Excellent point.

THERE WERE NO ATTACKS AGAIN like we can say.
but dont worry bout little ole me. nothing anyone says is going to keep all of you from this
LIBERAL DAISY CHAIN.......so KEEP IT UP.....

( damn...look at all the sexual references. I must be hornier than I thought......)

good day everyone.

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-06-17 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 2931, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 1119, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

Larry, I believe he meant on American soil.

I think we invaded Iraq, too, and got attacked there quite a lot. But that doesn't "count", that was "war" and "the right thing" in blitheringspeak.

That Bush the blithering idiot has been our chief executive for 8 years is more an indictment on us than on him.
Posted by k_g_beekeeper

Excellent point.
Posted by BobOtto

Don't let Larry "my hands are clean" Mohr hear you guys say that.... he wrote his congressman.

G.D.S. Hagbard Celine

US Embassies and US Consulates ARE American Soil. Please do try again.

Larry Mohr

PS Harbard Celine it's the fucking truth. I didn't vote for the piece of shit so why am I responsible for it??? It is intellectually Dishonest to blame a nonresponsible party.

US Embassies and US Consulates ARE American Soil. Please do try again.

Larry Mohr


Thats being just a little argumentative don't you think? I am sure his intent was the "continental" American soil - or in the "states".

An attack upon a US EMbassy or a US Consulate is to be taken as if it occured here in the Continental American Soil. Not argumentative at all. It's the fuckikng truth.

Larry Mohr

"It is intellectually Dishonest to blame a nonresponsible party"

Another bunch of angry Americans once had an arrogant asshole named George as their leader. They went about things a bit differently.

Though i shouldn't be the one to talk, I usually forget about Bush the idiot when I climb behind the yoke to dipsy doodle through the clouds and assuage my political frustrations.

If someone blew me up for what Bush and his administration have done to this country I would probably understand. Just don't look to me to start anything--I'm usually not a starter, just a finisher, and a battlefield isn't yet a battlefield until the blood starts pouring upon it. USMC.

Well, i think you know what he meant and are just being argumentative. Attacks on US Embassies were occuring before 9/11. Although he was using rhetoric, it is obvious the claim was for attacks in the 50 states. Your just being partisan.

That Bush the blithering idiot has been our chief executive for 8 years is more an indictment on us than on him.

Posted by k_g_beekeeper at 2008-06-17 10:23 AM

Couldn't agree more although our weird way of holding and deciding elections didn't help. It's the same with Coulter, it's difficult to blame her for accepting all that money.

We have a chance to start to redeem ourselves in November. We should take it.

No I am being factually accurate. An Attack upon a US Embassy or a US Consulate is an Attack upon the Homeland. whether it's in Egypt Ireland whereever.

Larry Mohr

That Bush the blithering idiot has been our chief executive for 8 years is more an indictment on us than on him.

Posted by k_g_beekeeper at 2008-06-17 10:23 AM

Couldn't agree more although our weird way of holding and deciding elections didn't help. It's the same with Coulter, it's difficult to blame her for accepting all that money.

We have a chance to start to redeem ourselves in November. We should take it.

No attacks since 9/11?

AGAIN I'll point out to BL2 and others...
what about the fall 2001 Anthrax attacks, killing 5 and injuring 17(?), still unsolved?

"still unsolved?"

That's a bitch, ain't it?

And there is also the ever popular "Where's Osama?"

Also, after the 1993 bombings, Clinton caught and brought to justice the perpetrators.
And there were no more foreign attacks on American soil for more than 7 yrs.

I mean since Vermin brought up Clinton and BL2 is obsessed with a meaningless stat, let's get it all on the table.

and all based on what a SPEECH WRITER said Posted by bushlovertwo

Are you saying that Bush is not responsible for the words that come out of his mouth?

Amazing

Also, after the 1993 bombings, Clinton caught and brought to justice the perpetrators.
And there were no more foreign attacks on American soil for more than 7 yrs.


I did not know that OBL had been caught? Come on guys. Bush has screwed up lots of things, but his administration does deserve some credit for not allowing another attack in the US.

Anthrax? You guys have got to be kidding.

Anthrax? You guys have got to be kidding.

Posted by ELCIDCE90

Yea, real funny to the 5 dead folks.

Kidding?
It was a terrorist attack. It happened. It's unsolved.

fall 2001 Anthrax attacks, killing 5 and injuring 17(?), still unsolved?


Posted by SamBarber


Anybody know the whereabouts of Karl Rove at that time?

George W. Bush is getting more an more like Ronald Reagan every day. Not good for George or the American People it is the Ronald Reagan just before he died. One can only hope that after he get back they keep him under lock an key until after the elections, he has embarassed this Country enough.

Yea, real funny to the 5 dead folks.

Posted by TFDNihilist


Again, being argumentative. You know I was referring to that being classified as a terrorist attack. If not, get a life. And before someone rolls out the official definition of a terrorist attack, yeah it probably qualified. But do you really think it was a bunch of ME guys and not some screwed up high school/college chem student trying to make the news?

not some screwed up high school/college chem student trying to make the news?

Posted by ELCIDCE90


Yeah lots of high school students have access to nearly pure anthrax.

But do you really think it was a bunch of ME guys and not some screwed up high school/college chem student trying to make the news?

Posted by ELCIDCE90

Does it matter? Many use OK city as an example of an attack during Clinton's term. I agree.

If it were some high school/College student I "Highly" doubt that they would be mailing the stuff out. They would have probably got drunk and mistook it for coke and snorted it.

Larry Mohr

"Yeah lots of high school students have access to nearly pure anthrax."

Posted by 726


You betcha, and weapons-grade plutonium, too.

OFF TOPIC. Mentioning snorting. Does anyone know if the inside lining of the lungs is moist?? If so does that mean when Keith Richards snorted His father's ashes that He absorbed Him into His body?? Any clues??

Larry Mohr

"Does anyone know if the inside lining of the lungs is moist??"

Unless you've been dead in the Andes quite a while.

It gets absorbed in the nasal cavity. Close to the brain, that's why it's so effective.

"History will judge the tactics," he said. "History will judge whether or not more troops were needed earlier, troops could have been positioned here better or not. Removing Saddam Hussein was not wrong. It was the right thing to do."


the man is certifiablly insane.

ALLL other issues aside. can anyone say enough troops were used?

If so does that mean when Keith Richards snorted His father's ashes that He absorbed Him into His body?? Any clues??


Keith Richards has to absorb people so he can continue to stay alive-- He's kinda like that chick in that Lifeforce movie who walks around completely unclothed for a half hour or so sucking out people's souls...

Here's anothe rclue for you: Miss Scarlet in the bathroom with the electric Toothbrush handle...

Sorry OohRah. My great great Grandmother was 800# when She died in 1918. I don't think She is dry at all YET.

Larry Mohr

The only thing dry is your great great grandmother's ____.

Posted by OohRah

I know it's a joke, but just once here, I would love to read a post by someone on the right that doesn't include a personal insult.

ahhhh mathilda May

I have many fond memories of her when I was a young pup.

"Shit Vern you cannot be that fucking crazy to believe that Clinton is running again. Can you?

Posted by 726 at 2008-06-17 10:18 AM"

No, he's not that crazy. Just old. Really, super old, and profoundly confused.

Yeah lots of high school students have access to nearly pure anthrax.

Posted by 726


Fair enough. I was trying to show how ridiculous it was to compare the anthrax mailings with 9/11. No point in arguing with you guys. Bush is the devil and responsible for every evil in the world - not one good thing happend to the US or the world in the last 8 years. There you win, or as someone is sure to comment "no we lost".

So what is your definition of a terrorist act then, Elcid? Does it have to involve an airplane? Big buildings? Only events where a certain number are killed? What is it?

History will judge the competency of future judges.

-KGBeekeeper

I did not know that OBL had been caught?


The people who pulled it off were caught and brought to justice and there were no more foreign attacks on US soil for over 7 yrs.

Understand it this time brightboy?

but his administration does deserve some credit for not allowing another attack in the US.

If you believe we haven't had another attack because of Bush, and that Bush's security policies will prevent an eventual attack, you are a fucking idiot.

No point in arguing with you guys. Bush is the devil and responsible for every evil in the world - not one good thing happend to the US or the world in the last 8 years. There you win, or as someone is sure to comment "no we lost".

Posted by ELCIDCE90

What, are you in 5th grade or something, it's a valid argument and you run away like a spoiled child.
Someone said there have been no terror attacks on American soil since 9/11, someone else refuted that argument.
Now, like an adult, present the reasons why you don't consider the antrax attacks a terror attack. Other than, "it was probably.....".

Nah OohRah She had more class than to date a Right Winger.

Larry Mohr

If you believe we haven't had another attack because of Bush, and that Bush's security policies will prevent an eventual attack, you are a fucking idiot.

That's what's great about taking the leftist side. If the US had been attacked the left would be screaming that Bush was not doing enough. But if no terrorist activities occur, the left thinks you are an idiot if you think Bush had anything to do with the lack of attacks

It's great owning the entire swimming pool and saying who can and can't swim in it and then blaming everyone else for pee in the water isn't it, leftie knee-jerk jerks? Y'all are funny.

If you have proof that Bush's policies have done nothing to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil, present it. Let's talk about it. That's what debate is. But if you don't have any such proof, STFU, please.

If you believe we haven't had another attack because of Bush, and that Bush's security policies will prevent an eventual attack, you are a fucking idiot.

Posted by Whatsleft


So, what has prevented another attack? Apathy. You are so blinded with hate for Bush that you cannot even acknowledge he has done some good during his terms. Nice personal attack on me though.

What, are you in 5th grade or something, it's a valid argument and you run away like a spoiled child.

Posted by TFDNihilist

Not running away - just the realization that no matter what someone posts here in defense of anything the administration has done the last 8 years will be dissmissed.


So what is your definition of a terrorist act then, Elcid? Does it have to involve an airplane? Big buildings? Only events where a certain number are killed? What is it?

Posted by mOntecOre

I would say that acts committed against citizens/non-combatents to create fear in the population great enough that the government will be coerced into changing a political ideology the "terrorist/s" disagree with. It would require the "terrorist/s" to acknowledge/ take responsibility for the act and provide the motives/objectives - otherwise it would seem to be just an illegal act of murder/attempted murder etc..

explained enough TFD, Monte?

As the anthrax attacks have never been claimed by anyone - nor any objective of the attacks been determined - they do not classify under my definition as a terrorist attack. Murder yes, terrorism no. Unsolved mystery - yes. Under Bush - yes.

I did not know that OBL had been caught? Come on guys. Bush has screwed up lots of things, but his administration does deserve some credit for not allowing another attack in the US.

YEAH!

OK! I will Play the wingding game of "He was Solely Responsible for its Success" --- only later to be excused of having anything to do with it!

So if Bush and his administration "does deserve some credit for not allowing another attack in the US" then he must equally "does deserve" culpability in the demise of the dollar, the 267% increase in energy costs, the Mortgage Crisis (since it WAS driven by his Policies) the lose of an American city, our deteriorating interstate, the huge increase in the uninsured, etc, etc (basically everything he was praised for by the Cult BEFORE it all fell to shit)!

But I suspect you would reject that idea, just as I expect that IF another attack was to happen before he leaves office ----- you would SWEAR he can't be held accountable!

I lost count of how many times we have been thru this exercise since the ouster of the 109th Rubber Stamp Congress --- that's why im convinced this WH is purposely and repeatedly humiliating its supporters on purpose!

Forget about the 'no more attackes after 911 bullshit'. The fact is that it has been well established that our gov't agencies knew the 'terroists' were in the country 6 months before 911. Our buddies Israel told us a group of Al Queerdos were here as a sleeper cell.

Those same 'terroists' were allowed to take flying lessons with no landing instructions. A group of radical muslims in iowa taking flying lessons but don't need landing instructions doesn't stand out at all, does it.

dee dee dee

How musch more evidence do you need to reach the conclusion that the initial attacks were allowed to happen. And, If this presidency is so fucking great and wonderful, how come those attacks weren't twarted?

"Bush is the devil and responsible for every evil in the world - not one good thing happend to the US or the world in the last 8 years."

Americans who tend to blame Bush for everything are alot more rational than those who want to pretend he hasn't done a shit job.

Bush has fucked over America through incompetence, arrogance, a lack of morality and outright laziness. So it makes sense that many Americans, having been fucked over by Bush, are going to have a negative bias towards him. It is only natural to dislike someone who has screwed you.

But people like you want to pretend that he's done a fine job. He fucked you in the ass and you and your brethren make excuses for him constantly. The only possible explanation is that you love taking it up the rear (figuratively).

So pretend that the "blame Bush" crowd is crazy all you want but they aren't nearly as crazy as you "bend over and give it to me again, Georgie" crowd. If you're an American and you approve of Bush, you are a massochist, a retard or a traitor.

RED - Bush and his administration must bear some - but not all - responsiblity for everything occuring during his administration - no argument from me. So does congress, so does the American public, so do businesses. Ok? If another attack occurs before he leaves office, it will be on his administration - fair enough?

So pretend that the "blame Bush" crowd is crazy all you want but they aren't nearly as crazy as you "bend over and give it to me again, Georgie" crowd. If you're an American and you approve of Bush, you are a massochist, a retard or a traitor.


Posted by Sully


Do not lump me in with the 26%. I am not a Bush apologist. But it is just dense to believe that nothing his administration has done has had benefits to the US. Just like it would be dense to say Carter/Clinton did nothing positive for the country.

"Ok? If another attack occurs before he leaves office, it will be on his administration - fair enough?"


YEAH!

But What About the First One?!

Meanwhile back in the Real World;

China is telling us how to properly run an economy

Europe and Asia (you know, the place they eat dog) won't buy our beef or chicken or GM produce (because of health risks to its populations)

The Dollar is at a Historic Low

Gas and Energy Prices are at a Historic High

Home Foreclosures are at a Historic High

And what is Bush and his Wingding idiots doing?
Hoisting Yet ANOTHER Petard while patting themselves on the back for a "Job Well Done"!

But they have had an effect. Now, I can no longer drop a box in the mail box. I have to go to the post office. So they did suceed in curtailing some freedom.

If you have proof that Bush's policies have done nothing to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil, present it.
Posted by goatman
You can't prove a negitive. If you have an instance where he prevented an attack, present it.
Also...
If the US had been attacked the left would be screaming that Bush was not doing enough. Posted by goatman

Conjecture and speculation are not valid critisim. Did anyone blame Clinton for OK City?

Since the POTUS is supposedly the Chief Executive of the US of A. Then You must declare whatever goes on in the United States on a federal level is His responsibility. Therefore whatever goes right He should be credited for. conversely whatever goes wrong He is ultimately responsible for. NO MATTER WHO FUCKED IT UP PERSONALLY.

Larry Mohr

From Vernon above...

Yep, blithering about sums it up.

We need a president who can speak clearly. Someone who can say stuff like:

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"


Ahh...the oldie but the goldie...when in doubt, the
right will tout...Billo and Hillo...its all they've
got left.

They certainly can't run on their (the Right's) Presidential Records within my lifetime...(I'm roughly 40)

Lets have a short Review of History shall we...

1. Richard (tricky Dick) Nixon---a crook and a liar.
Was so paranoid that he spied on just about anyone who opposed his way of thinking--Sound familiar?

2. Ronald (the Gipper) Reagan--at the time he left
office, gave us a Deficit larger than all of the other Presidents before him COMBINED. BUT he did help Destroy Unions in America (my dad thanks you by the way) him and all the other members of his Union, helped CEOs and already rich people get even richer than ever before...and so, He is worshiped by the Corporate Sellouts that call themselves "the Right" in this country. They have named everything from airports to aircraft carriers after him. And still want you to believe that he should be on Mt. Rushmore, and is the greatest president whom ever lived. They will forever tout him as the reason that the U.S.S.R. fell apart.....forget huge Deficits in Russia, forget that guy called Gorbachov or Yeltsin who did the Heavy Lifting...

3. Bush Co. Senior--H.W. (Thousand Points of Failure) Bush...another Extreme Overspender...Huge Deficit. Thankyou Sir for burdening my child and his child yet to come. Oh, and that drug slogan really worked...

4. Bush Co. Junior--G.W. (Got War?) Bush. Need I say more? Huge Deficit, record military spending,
record National Debt, record Trade Deficits, record Incompetence, record spying on his own people, record environmental abuse....sigh....I'm too tired to keep typing this...

Q: What is Conservative about the Republican Party?
A: Fiscally, nothing...

Q: Who has had the lion's share of the Presidencies in the last 30 years, and whom has given this nation over 90% of its ever expanding Deficit, under its esteemed leadership?
A: Republicans

Q: whom stands up less for their own mistakes, whom seeks always to blame the other side, even when they clearly had the reins of power in their hands?
Certainly, a hallmark of good leadership (that's a sarcasm btw)...
A: Republicans

Now this is not to say that they ALL have been corrupt, or that they haven't thought of some good things along the way--can't think of many at the moment--but I'm sure they are there.

But it should be obvious, even to a blind man, that they haven't had the best record since Tricky Dick and Pat Buchanan helped to put together the modern Republican Party some 30-40 years ago...

my 2 cents...

"But it is just dense to believe that nothing his administration has done has had benefits to the US."

Off the top of my head I can't think of one good thing he's done - although I do remember at times along the way thinking that he actually did something right.

His negatives are so glaring and destructive for this country that nobody is really looking to mine their memory for the positives. Overall, the guy has been a total disaster. He went about being a disaster as arrogantly and carelessly as possible. So I don't see why it would bother anyone to see him demonized. He's thrown away thousands of lives and the only consequence to him is some name calling. Pretty sweet deal.

If you have an instance where he prevented an attack, present it.

There have been instances since 9/11 that certain people have been taken down, security levels raised, etc because of potential threats. These actions may have prevented an attack. I could present some, but I won't bother. They will be knee-jerkingly dismissed by people like you, so why bother?

But what I said upthread remains true: The left is in a great position where they can damn Bush if we get attacked and damn him (through his stricter security policies) if we don't. If you don't admit this is true you are simply being disingenuous.

So answer me truthfully TFDN (or any leftie) is Bush in a "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't" position?

If not, then answer this: If Bush had done nothing to tighten security in the US after 9/11 and we had come under another attack, would you have blamed him? If "yes", then why is he to blame for taking those extra measures.

If you can be honest enough with yourself (or put aside the hatred towards the man that mutes your senses completely) and answer these questions, you'll understand what I am saying. But knowing the raw hatred for Bush you people have, I know honest answsers to my questions will not come.

Bush is a fuck-up and I've always said on this blog that I do not like him or many of his policies. But I am proud to say that I can separate truth from blind hatred and see the real world.

ElCid - I realize that you were trying to say that Bush's positive is that we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9/11 but MOST presidents can say that there were ZERO attacks on US soil during their presidency. Clinton can make that claim and his policy towards terrorism was a complete failure.

So limiting it to only one attack is not a great accomplishment. There isn't any concrete evidence to show that anyone else gave it a serious try after 9/11.

" If Bush had done nothing to tighten security in the US after 9/11 and we had come under another attack, would you have blamed him? If "yes", then why is he to blame for taking those extra measures."

It depends. If he did nothing with the TSA and we got attacked again by plane, then of course he'd be criticized. "How were they able to get weapons on a plane after 9/11?" would be the common sense question everyone would ask.

If he had never started warrantless wiretapes and we got attacked again, nobody would be saying "Why didn't he tap phones without a warrant?" because most people don't even think of such illegal activity as a legitimate security measure.

The way you lay out the situation, nobody can criticize any policy he files under "security" without being a hypocrite - because you assume that same person would be calling for the same measure if we were attacked again. That assumption doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Youu can't prove a netitive

My point exactly. And to think I could not get an honest answer from a Bush hater. I apologize.

Since a negative cannot be proven, how can the left so smugly maintain that Bush's policies have not prevented another terrorist attack on American soil?

A: Because they are so blinded by raw hatred for Bush and cannot see past their own angst, they lash out without reason or rational thought. It is a common trait of lesser mortals.

PS Harbard Celine it's the fucking truth. I didn't vote for the piece of shit so why am I responsible for it??? It is intellectually Dishonest to blame a nonresponsible party.

Posted by LarryMohr

Remember I said WE, Larry... every day we kick back with a laugh, every day we're not in the streets, every day we spend here nitpicking one another's posts, we're saying that it's okay what's been done in our name. we're not willing to do whatever it takes, but only what we can be bothered to do...

Save me your "we didn't start the fire" b.s., billy joel.

Don't get me wrong, if there is a god, I sure hope he/she/it takes the point of view which you espouse... then I'm off the hook too.

"Since a negative cannot be proven, how can the left so smugly maintain that Bush's policies have not prevented another terrorist attack on American soil?"

You can't prove that they have either.

If you're trying to pretend that people who err on the side of Bush being incompetent are less rational than people who err on the side of him being competent, you aren't making nearly as impressive an arguement as you seem to believe.

"every day we kick back with a laugh, every day we're not in the streets, every day we spend here nitpicking one another's posts, we're saying that it's okay what's been done in our name."

By that "logic", why limit blames to Americans then? Why not say anyone who is a citizen of the world had an obligation? And not only to Iraq but to Darfur and anywhere else where people are being killed......

Millions of idiots voted for George W. Bush and alot of people have died as a result. I am not one of those idiots and I not responsible for the consequences for their decision. To say that I'm guilty of their mistake just because I continue to live my life is just assinine. I voted. I lost. I moved on.

As far as being responsble for "what's done in my name" - I'll measure up the crimes done in my name against the crimes done in God's name any day of the week if the Big Guy wants to play that game........... If there is a God, it quite obviously doesn't hold one responsible for "what is done in your name" because it allows all sorts of shit to go on in its name....

I moved on.
Posted by Sully

Exactly my point... hundreds of thousands didn't have that luxury. the way you can so non-chalantly say it underscores it even more.

Why not say anyone who is a citizen of the world had an obligation?
Posted by Sully

I will go there with you, but what's the story about removing the beam in your own eye before pointing the speck out in another's?

Look, move on if you have to, but don't walk away like you have a right to feel morally superior about it.

You can't prove that they have either.

I've never tried to nor ever claimed that I have. I was responding to whatsleft's idiot post at 12:38. There is no need to deflect this back on me. I've made no claims either way.



If you're trying to pretend that people who err on the side of Bush being incompetent are less rational than people who err on the side of him being competent, you aren't making nearly as impressive an arguement as you seem to believe.

I've made no such pretenses. You are completely blowing up my original conjecture. Are you so desperate to avoid admitting I am correct that you must assign your (false) interpretations of my clearly stated retorts as fact?

Please

I'd love to stay and chat, but I'm off to the neighborhood pool. I wish zat was here. I simply don't understand how his pool is 85 degrees and 5 degrees hotter than this time last year. Both our neighborhood pools (even the small one) are about 81F and one of them is in full sun most of the day. I asked the lifeguards if the temps were higher than last year and they said no -- if anything they were probably a degree or less cooler. And I live further south than zat. But that's another thread.

Swim trunks, beer, Kindle with a small library uploaded, towel, and I'm all set. Later

So answer me truthfully TFDN (or any leftie) is Bush in a "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't" position?
Posted by goatman

Of course he is...it's called being the boss. The buck stops here and all that.

"I've never tried to nor ever claimed that I have....."

"I've made no such pretenses. You are completely blowing up my original conjecture....."


"Are you so desperate to avoid admitting I am correct that you must assign your (false) interpretations of my clearly stated retorts as fact?"

Correct about what? You claim not to have made any points but then claim they are correct.

You have no problem making all sorts of generalizations about "crazy lefties" but seem to have awfully thin skin.....

"I'd love to stay and chat, but I'm off to the neighborhood pool"
Posted by goatman at 2008-06-17 02:32 PM

YEAH!

Don't have one yourself?

What A Fucking Loser You Are!


Here I am thinking your a Bush Ranger and all and it turns out your just another Bush excusing poor-mouth moron!

Anyway, enjoy the pee!

"Exactly my point... hundreds of thousands didn't have that luxury. the way you can so non-chalantly say it underscores it even more."

Yes, millions of people die every year in horrible ways they didn't bring on themselves and could not avoid. And I am responsible for none of them.

It seems that you are not so much conerned with my contribution towards these deaths than with my failure to show the proper amount of pretentiousness when discussing them.

"I will go there with you, but what's the story about removing the beam in your own eye before pointing the speck out in another's?"

Either you apply the same standards to everyone in the world, making us all equally "guilty", or you don't.

"Look, move on if you have to, but don't walk away like you have a right to feel morally superior about it."

I didn't say anything about moral superiority. That is your deal. Morality is subjective. My point was that I live my life without obsessing over things I can't control.

Of course he is...it's called being the boss. The buck stops here and all that.

Then why the endless debate? It's always the president's fault, no matter what.

Okay, TMI. Way TMI.

TMI would be hearing I was wearing none.

Are your daughters joining you at the pool?

I have no daughters, only one son. So, no.

This president hasn't been held accountable for anything. If we impeach a president for lying about a blowjob, Bush should be in jail.

Don't have one yourself?

No, I don't. Maintenance would be difficult when I am offshore. Besides, community swimming pools are a lot more fun than swimming alone at home.

What A Fucking Loser You Are!

Well, if you judge a loser from what he owns or doesn't own and you ignore the fact that I have enough money to buy nine or ten swimming pools -- OK

I don't judge losers by what they own, though. I judge them by their words. And you, sir, are a loser.

but seem to have awfully thin skin.....

Ah -- seem -- what a nebulous word and a word one uses when they can come up with no better argument

You claim not to have made any points

I never made that claim. Why do you lefties continue in ridiculing yourself by making false statements when you should know by now that I will refute them and you will be unable to prove their veracity? Are you that desperate to be slapped around?

I claimed (go upthread if you don't believe me) that since a negative cannot be proven that it cannot be proven that Bush's actions since 9/11 haven't prevented an attack.

Now, time for you to come back with yet another lie! If not so pitifully desperate, I'd be amused.

Swim trunks, beer, Kindle with a small library uploaded, towel, and I'm all set. Later
Posted by goatman

Promises promises...

Posted by Sully at 2008-06-17 02:45 PM

Sully, you do get credit for using the ellipses when quoting me out of context, but still -- you quoted me out of context to make your argument.

Weak, dude. Weak. But points for honesty, sloppy as it is.

Promises promises...

Never heard of wireless?

Even though my neighborhood is wireless, I don't even need it here. My Kindle uses the Sprint cellphone network for web access. Enter the 21st century sometime, hagbard. It's a great place to be.

I just hope the Kindle is persperation and splash proof.

THERE WERE NO ATTACKS AGAIN"

Er....the one place that you might not want to make such a stupid claim is in Great Britain where there have been attacks.

Posted by danni at 2008-06-


okay so now bush is at fault for the attacks in great britain??? I didnt hear about that....
and they are where dems want us to be and you see how THAT has worked out for them.

After President Bush complimented himself during a press conference in England for teaching the world "multilateralism to deal with tyrants," one British journalist's response was succinct: "The man's going to be remembered as a blithering idiot."

Was this before or after he thumbed his nose at our allies and invaded Iraq against the wishes of the world community?

THERE WERE NO ATTACKS AGAIN

So we should be happy that only 3,000 civilians died under Chimpy's watch and not more?

Good to see just how far up Bushling's ass your head is.

Posted by 726 at 2008-06


and lets see. I say that there have been no attacks again meaning since 9/11 and all you can come up with is that he was at fault for 9/11. that. of course has nothing to do with what I said but I see that still doesnt keep you from showing off your lack of manners. figures.......
I am on record as saying that both presidents dropped the ball on 9/11 but that also could be because we had shown in the past that we didnt have the nerve at that time to take the WAR TO THE TERRORISTS like we have since.
these murdering bastards have the american leftists playing right out of thier hands. its no wonder that people like hamas have ENDORSED your candidate.

what's the point of the swim trunks and beer if you're all kindle is all I'm asking?

- place appropriate zappa quote here.

First American President to Loose an Entire City ----- to some weather!


more liberal jibberish. this is not the truth and you and all of your liberal bro's know that.

An attack upon a US EMbassy or a US Consulate is to be taken as if it occured here in the Continental American Soil. Not argumentative at all. It's the fuckikng truth.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


LARRY and you too SAM...

look at the dates on the instances you
talk about....isnt 2002 or so the latest
date that you give on your examples.
and when did we strike back at the terrorsits in afghanistan and iraq?
something AFTER most of these dates you are giving us.
and YES I know there might not have been iraqis on 9/11 but they are there now and THEY ARE LOSING
....at least until and IF obama is president....

An attack upon a US EMbassy or a US Consulate is to be taken as if it occured here in the Continental American Soil. Not argumentative at all. It's the fuckikng truth.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


LARRY and you too SAM...

look at the dates on the instances you
talk about....isnt 2002 or so the latest
date that you give on your examples.
and when did we strike back at the terrorsits in afghanistan and iraq?
something AFTER most of these dates you are giving us.
and YES I know there might not have been iraqis on 9/11 but they are there now and THEY ARE LOSING
....at least until and IF obama is president....

Titties and Beer, right? *grin*

Posted by goatman

Indeed... sorry about your titties.... and your beer.

"So, Brownie, I was a pretty good diplomaticizer, eh?"

George W Bush to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown

"Ah -- seem -- what a nebulous word and a word one uses when they can come up with no better argument"

As if making generalizations about "lefties" is some master debating strategy.......

"Sully, you do get credit for using the ellipses when quoting me out of context, but still -- you quoted me out of context to make your argument."

Anyone who cares that much can go back and read your posts.

As if making generalizations about "lefties" is some master debating strategy.......

Fair enough.

But I dare you to deny that the rule of the day here on the DR is "all Republicans are closet gays", "All republicans hate the poor", "All republicans are chicken hawks" etc.

When in Rome...

Anyone who cares that much can go back and read your posts.

As I hope.

"I claimed (go upthread if you don't believe me) that since a negative cannot be proven that it cannot be proven that Bush's actions since 9/11 haven't prevented an attack."

No, actually you demanded proof that Bush has done nothing to prevent an attack on US soil and told people to STFU if they couldn't supply it.

Bush has never claimed to have prevented an attack so that would be your first clue that he hasn't done so......

Indeed... sorry about your titties

As is my granddaughter. When I hold her when she is hungry her little 6 week old mouth searches frantically. If I let her, all she'd get is a mouthful of hair.

Bush has never claimed to have prevented an attack so that would be your first clue that he hasn't done so......

So non-admission is proof that one has never done that with which he is said to may have done.

Another Logic 101 dropout, I see.

"So non-admission is proof that one has never done that with which he is said to may have done."

Use a little common sense here.... Let's stop talking in generalities: "Non-admission" makes it sound like preventing a terrorist attack is some kind of crime as if it is something somebody would reluctantly "admit".

The reality is that the Bush administration would love to provide some kind of evidence that their "War on Terror" has been successful in some way. Preventing a terror attack would be a major accomplishment for a much criticized regime. So it only stands to reason that if they had done such a thing, they'd be crowing about it.

Is it 100% proof? No. But it makes a hell of alot more sense to assume that the Bushies' failure to let us know of the attack they prevented means they haven't prevented one than it does to believe they've prevented attacks and haven't told us.

Wheres the Love for President Clinton from the Far Right after all there was no attack on America after the attack in 1992, until 2001 that make it 9 years between attacks. Mr. Bush has kept us safe for only 7 years (2001-2008) now these Fuck on the right want to put him on Mt. Rushmore....What a bunch of fucking Loosers.....Prior to 1992 there was no attack since 1941 so who get credit for that, All The Republicians an the Democrats that held office thats who, so Fuck BUSH!!!!!

Wheres the Love for President Clinton from the Far Right after all there was no attack on America after the attack in 1992, until 2001 that make it 9 years between attacks.

Maybe they don't love him because of the attack in 1992 you just quoted. duh

If you are going to be so ignorant as to make this sort of riduculous connection -- 12 years passed in republican administrations with no attack, Reagan thru 41.

Only an idiot makes such absurd equations, so please don't attach that to me. It'll make sense to a mindless vegetable like a celery stalk, though. Now she's a republican -- right?

But it makes a hell of alot more sense to assume that the Bushies' failure to let us know of the attack they prevented means they haven't prevented one than it does to believe they've prevented attacks and haven't told us.


But of course being a leftie you will never admit that Bush also realizes you can't prove a negative and therefore will not make such an absurd admission.

It must suck allowing blind hatred of one man cloud your reasoning.

Live it up Dumbya, it's not like we're a nation at War or something.

"But of course being a leftie you will never admit that Bush also realizes you can't prove a negative and therefore will not make such an absurd admission."

I'm not a lefty. I am often accused of being a righty as well. I think joining a party is idiotic for any voter. And you can prove a negative. If you I were to say "I am not an oven", I could easily prove that I am not an oven.

Do you really think that the Bushies have stopped a terrorist attack on this country and are keeping it a secret? I notice you haven't touched that issue. I wonder why, shill.

"It must suck allowing blind hatred of one man cloud your reasoning."

I strongly dislike Bush because I consider his sending people to war in Iraq without bothering to plan things out first to be as good as forcing those soldiers to play Russian roulette. He has fucked over this country in many well document ways. So my opinion on him is anything but "blind".

If you I were to say "I am not an oven", I could easily prove that I am not an oven.

Not true. You can prove that you a person, but you can never prove that you are not an oven. To do so would mean that you and ovens are mutually exclusive. That is impossible to prove.

So my opinion on him is anything but "blind".

True. But your hatred of the man is.

If I claimed that I could prove that I am not blind, would you disagree? If I proved that I am not blind, would I have proved a negative?

If I proved that I am not blind, would I have proved a negative?

Being blind is having no sight. Proving you don't have "no sight" is a double negative, i.e. a positive. You have proven you can see.

(I asked my logics teacher in college a similiar question), but it had to do with being broke)

" realizes you can't prove a negative "

Not true. You can't prove a *universal* negative, but you can certainly do so in a closed system, like mathematics.

As for your oven example, you can certainly prove you're not an even if you agree on the definitions of "human" and "oven."

Dammnit, Goatman! Foiled again!

Wheres the Love for President Clinton from the Far Right after all there was no attack on America after the attack in 1992, until 2001 that make it 9 years between attacks. Mr. Bush has kept us safe for only 7 years (2001-2008) now these Fuck on the right want to put him on Mt. Rushmore....What a bunch of fucking Loosers.....Prior to 1992 there was no attack since 1941 so who get credit for that, All The Republicians an the Democrats that held office thats who, so Fuck BUSH!!!!!

Posted by celisary at 2008-06-17 05:34 PM |


whoa nellie.....what a post. would someone on the left please explain this one to me. maybe one of you can figure it out.
as I said after the attack of 92 the clinton whitehouse treated them like criminals with all sorts of legal stuff and did it stop them...of course not and this poster also leaves out a whole lot of other attacks ......ALL DURING BLOWJOBS WATCH and if you want proof of that......just ask larry....ONE OF YOUR OWN..........

this has got to be some kind of a joke.

BLT, how about you explain this post...

and all based on what a SPEECH WRITER said
Posted by bushlovertwo

Are you saying that Bush isn't even responsible for the words that come out of his own mouth? That he just parrots whatever someone else writes for him to say?

What a leader.

C'mon BL@, please explain how the CEO of the whole country is just an empty suit repeating what ever his handlers say, and you're willing to accept that.

Bush the Right Wing's Icon!

Remember Bush is the sublime figurehead of Right Wing,Corporate America.That really is Impressive...or something!

Bush is an idiot and so are his voters.

All who say, "Ya, but he beat the alternative" must love idiots who love the smell of their own farts, as Bush does, more than their country.

He's managed in 7 1/2 years to make us not only the laughingstock of the world, but to undo 230 years of being the country who always did the right thing - even when others didn't.

would anyone really mind if W just went to Crawford and played with his Dick until the erection is over? I sure wouldn't.

Are you saying that Bush isn't even responsible for the words that come out of his own mouth? That he just parrots whatever someone else writes for him to say?

What a leader.

Posted by TFDNihilist


well let me explain it this way and you MAY WANT TO SIT DOWN FOR IT.

when the great messiah gives a speech..........HE IS READING IT AS WELL and most of them are written by david axelrod....
OUCH....I know you dont believe me and that you think he is winging it up there and just naturally sounds like that, but I have to tell you. he may even REHEARSE THOSE SPEECHS>...

OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!

"Not true. You can prove that you a person, but you can never prove that you are not an oven. To do so would mean that you and ovens are mutually exclusive."

And we are mutally exclusive as I can never be an oven and an oven can never be me. Maybe you think mutually exclusive means something different than it does?>>>

But what is more interesting is that you'd rather take up that no-win cause (your are obviously wrong) than answer the question as to whether you think it is at all likely that the Bush administration has foiled a terror attack and isn't telling us.

We've had threats from abroad for decades.

Try reading a book sometime. Richard Clarke's was especially insightful about our antiterrorism efforts vis a vis Al Qaeda.

Your hero, Bush, has created MORE terrorists than there ever were before, and more people who want to do us harm NOW. So says the conclusion of our intelligence services called the NIE - several times.

Free McCain condoms at FreeRepublic.

Almost all phisosophical arguments are no-win causes because at some point every new ideal is an abstraction.

If you are stupid or childish in your thinking (aka bush) then you can only think in concrete terms and you attract people that can only think in concrete/childish ways (witness the turmoil over race).

This is why the evangelical movement is the only people still behind bush. Childish/concrete thinkers who also believe in fairy tales.

The rest of the intelligencia/adult world can grasp abstract/adult principles. A bright spot is that religions are loosing thier grip on the people and the politics.

The in-betweeners (the majority) have a hard time with both extremes because they know the world needs people to think but also people to dig the well.

almost exclusively, up until bush we had presidents (like 'em or not) that could handle these abstractions. Bush can't handle them and that's why he is so guided by Satan, I mean Cheney. Bush is probably a good person inside but he is too stupid to do the job correctly.

My dear LIPIZOIDAL---It's a contradiction and an impossibility to state that concrete thinkers can also believe in fairey tales.

You'll never understand evangelicals or indeed any religous person if you don't first understand your own arguments.

Bush is probably a good person inside but he is too stupid to do the job correctly.

I think you're 180 out. He's not stupid.

Chimpy's wasting tax bucks till the very end.

well let me explain it this way and you MAY WANT TO SIT DOWN FOR IT.

when the great messiah gives a speech..........HE IS READING IT AS WELL and most of them are written by david axelrod....
OUCH....I know you dont believe me and that you think he is winging it up there and just naturally sounds like that, but I have to tell you. he may even REHEARSE THOSE SPEECHS>...

OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by bushlovertwo
---
Show me somewhere in this blathering that you answered my question....
---

Are you saying that Bush isn't even responsible for the words that come out of his own mouth?
Posted by TFDNihilist at 2008-06-17 10:59 PM

Notice I didn't say "writes the words" but "responsible for the words". Even if he doesn't write his own speeches, shouldn't he still be responsible for what they say?

"I think you're 180 out. He's not stupid."

He's definitely not a decent person. No decent person would send men to war without bothering to plan it out correctly. A decent man would have felt a tremendous responsibility towards the troops: "I am ordering these guys to risk their lives so I better make sure I cover all the angles as to minimize the risk to them...." A decent man would have been lying awake at night worrying that he may have missed something.......

Bush half-assed the whole pre-war planning phase of the operation. He not only failed to cover all the angles, he refused to even look at them. It was too much work and it came with the risk of finding out the whole thing wasn't worth it. So he just didn't bother. No decent human being would be so careless with the lives of others.

As for stupid - The quote at the top of this article proves he's at least a little stupid. The only way Bush could think that he dealt with Saddam using "multilateralism" is if he doens't know what the word means.

The quote at the top of this article proves he's at least a little stupid. The only way Bush could think that he dealt with Saddam using "multilateralism" is if he doens't know what the word means.

Posted by Sully

It doesn't matter, I guess. According to BL2, as long as he didn't write that speech, it doesn't matter what he says.

That Bush the blithering idiot has been our chief executive for 8 years is more an indictment on us than on him.

Posted by k_g_beekeeper at 2008-06-17 10:23 AM | Reply |


DingDingDing!!! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!!!

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maineiac [a resident of the people's Republic of Maine .. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:


"Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' . . . Not doing it this time. . . . If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could have easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Now some of you morons are considering another and more evil Clinton for president!!!! Go figure that one!! She wants to take your kids away and let the ' Whole Village ' raise them i.e. governmental indoctrination .. Look this one up you dumb asses!!

The rest of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to AL Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to reelect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We simply were able to out-spend and out-tech them.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That would be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and these bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11! But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.' Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit! I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (that Al Gore could only dream of) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford be fore I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America .

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.


PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.