This is Deckard you're dealing with. What else would you expect? The guy talks to his pet owls to get his political opinions.
I have the utmost respect for the office and none for the chump who occupies it, and I could care less if you don't care for that. This is a man who took this nation into a needless war, deliberately misled the country while doing so, has sullied the great name of this country and nearly wrecked a system of alliances constructed in the 1940's in the process. Not to mention hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and maimed, along with thousands of the finest men and women our country can produce. He has overseen the trampling of our constitution and deserves to be impeached. I'd say I was pretty reserved before. Do you like this post better? Impeach Bush.
No, because it's equally disrespectful and quite inaccurate. President Bush did not take our nation into war, we were attacked. It's ironic that you mention the 1940's, since that decade has a big example of what happens when the US waits too long to act against a dictator who is killing millions because it's a "needless war." There's a whole lot of Iraqi people who would disagree with your assessment as well and are very thankful that the US finally acted to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. You blame the president for people "needlessly killed and maimed"?? How unfathomable and ridiculous. President Bush's actions have helped to stop that practice, and to allow free elections to people who have previously lived under dictatorships. To allow women to go to school or have jobs where they were previously forbidden by tyrannical regimes. That American soldiers have lost their lives is a tragedy, but they have not died in vain, and the children of the freed slaves of previous dictators thank and pray for the brave soldiers who have died to give them a glimmer of hope in a bloody world. No sir, you're on the wrong side of history, throwing insults at a man who continued to stand on principle when polls and media threw their scorn at him. You continue to stand with the ghosts of the 1940's people who said "let Europe deal with Hitler, that's not our problem." Maybe some of the millions of Jews could have been saved just like some of the Iraqis have been. I'm glad we did not have President Deckard and we got that chance.
This post is so absurd, on so many levels, that I think it should stand alone. I could not improve on the irony if I spent a week. Kudos, sir. Impeach Bush.
Incredible post. Nice work, Jeffster. I'm not surprised at all by Deckard's inability to come up with a response. You silenced him. Well done.
Bush is a poopie-head. And you're wrong. People in DC only put aside their differences in the most extraordinary of circumstances or when doing so makes sense for everyone. 9-11 was one, but Bush chose not to put aside his differences. Don't expect the Dems to do so now. The standing O at the beginning and the end are applause for the office and we all participate in that... but everything in the middle under this administration is politics. It doesn't have to be all politics... there are things both parties can agree on... but this president made a choice to lead his party rather than America and the world. Thank God we have less than a year left.
Well done my man. You managed to include every disproven neocon shibboleth on Iraq of the last 7 years in one condensed paragraph. You definitely have a talent... off to DC and show this post to a wingnut thinktank posthaste. They'll probably set you up with your own blog or even put you in DOD as a speech writer.
Interesting you, of all people, would quote this passage, as it is very much in keeping with the Declaration of Independence, which you can't bring yourself to acknowledge, much less support. And by the way, do you really believe Bush wrote this?
Uhhh.. Let's talk inaccurate. Not by Iraq. If Mexico attacks us, should we go bomb Canada? Saddam was killing hundreds of thousands in the 1980's, when we were allies with them. When we attacked, there was very little killing. Certainly much less than many other countries. Why didn't we attack them? Is Bush going to be responsible for waiting too long to act against those other dictators? Certainly true. But if that's the justification we need, are you suggesting Bush has failed the tens of millions of people in Africa and the Middle East that he has not freed from dictators? Killing and maiming is still going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, in case you haven't noticed. Free elections are great - if the elections lead to a functional government. That remains to be seen. Before the 1991 invasion, Iraq had the most progressive women's rights of any country in that part of the world. Slaves? Which country freed slaves? You apparently support a leader who refuses to fight dictators in Africa and numerous other places around the world. How can you live with yourself, supporting a leader who's actions say "let Europe deal with Africa; that's not our problem"? You're standing by supporting a leader that has allowed over a million people to die in that part of the world when they could have been saved. Shame on you.
I stopped reading right there. Some one really haven't paid attention to current event or have basic historical background. Saddam lead one of the most secular government in the middle east with Iraq. He was a ruthless dictator and his capture and execution were one of the few positives from the war. However, the people who attacked during 9-11 were Taliban (read muslim extremists) residing in Afghanistan. Two different kinds of evils in two different countries. It would be like attacking France for something Germany's doing, it doesn't make sense.
This post is absurd on so many levels. It isn't even worth debating at this point. This would be a take that I could respect a few years ago, but now, especially now that we know about all the lies and deception that went into starting a needless and illegal war, you are still blinded by your republican/texan loyalty? Come on man.
I thought it was because Saddam was going to go nucular and use the gamma radiation to make babies with bin Laden after many unsuccessful stem cell treatments. Defense of Marriage Amendment Defense of Marriage Amendment Defense of Marriage Amendment Defense of Marriage Amendment
via Congressman Robert Wexler -- Nothing George W. Bush said last night will change the sad reality of the America he has given us: - Our economy teeters on the edge of recession while property taxes spike and homeowners are losing their homes at record levels; - Our educational system is broken and our teachers are abandoned; - Our roads and bridges languish in disrepair, while our borders and ports remain under-inspected and insecure; - Our most basic ideals about law and justice have been tossed out, as our President uses fear to pursue his reckless agenda; and - We remain mired in Iraq – a war built on lies and manipulated intelligence.
I think other people of done a better job than I could of refuting the assumption that we were attacked and somehow that made starting a war with Iraq not starting a war with Iraq. Iraq did not attack us. They didn't provide support to the people who attacked us. They did not provide safe haven to the people who attacked us. They were not a threat to us.
