The Bushman Blew it – Invaded Wrong Country

I originally posted this absurdity in June of 2004. I decided to post it again<a

What’s with the smirk on GW’s face when asked a question? Does that mean he’s going Lie? No wonder Osama don’t like Bushman. I don’t either and I’m Republican

It’s becoming more and more obvious that our esteemed president Bushman targeted the wrong country in his quest to establish a beacon of freedom in the Middle East. Who would have thought that the most powerful country in the history of the world (sounds impressive doesn’t it, I read that somewhere) would have trouble swallowing a country of a mere twenty-five million inhabitants.

After all when we were one of the only two superpowers in the world we did quite a juggling act by occupying two populous former enemies, Germany and Japan, while taking on the North Koreans and the Chinese while holding the Soviets at bay. Oh that’s right North Korea was a United Nation approved police action but who needs the United Nations.

In hindsight (isn’t hindsight wonderful) Bushman got it wrong. He/we shouldn’t have used tiny Kuwait as a staging area to invade Iraq. He/we should have used Iraq as a staging area to attack tiny Kuwait. Doesn’t that make a lot more sense. I’ll bet even the Bushman administration could manage 800,000 Kuwaiti’s with a hundred and thirty-five thousand highly trained U.S. soldiers plus then Iraq wouldn’t dare invade Kuwait again.

G.W. should have taken a page from the Gipper’s playbook. You didn’t see Ronnie taking on the Soviets by invading Poland did you or the Chinese Communists by invading Taiwan. No he got it right. He took on the dangerous Peoples Republic of Granada and now we have a beacon of freedom in the Caribbean that is spreading democracy in this erstwhile dangerous area.

Back to Kuwait. Once Kuwait was pacified we could have set up a Jeffersonian Democracy, changed the official language to English and made facial hair unlawful, especially on women. Think, then if we came across a Middle Eastern type with a mustache that couldn’t speak English, Bingo, we have a bonafide Terrorist/Insurgent and we could extradite him to Saudi Arabia to be be be beheaded. That seems to be a popular thing with Arabs.

And speaking of a beacon of Freedom in the Middle East, a place to admire, a country to emulate, we could build replications of the World Trade Centers there. Wouldn’t that p*ss Osama off but this time when he comes, we’ll have a little surprise for him. Sssssh don’t tell anyone but we’ll put a force field around Twin Towers – Two and his planes will bounce off and explode harmlessly on the ground. We could do it after all we are the most powerful country in the history of the world!!!!!

May 7, 2008. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Cheney, George W. Bush, Humor, Islam, politics, President, President Bush, Rumsfeld, Saudi Arabia. 2 comments.

The Bush Legacy

11735416.jpg

The Bottom Line
Where previous books I’ve read on the Bush adventure have taken us to and briefly beyond our initial occupation, Fiasco takes through 2004, with in depth analysis of the insurgency.

The brand new book by Thomas Ricks’– Fiasco, provides the reader with an informative assessment of the conception, planning, prosecution and aftermath of the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Intentional or not, Fiasco ends up as an indictment of, not only the Bush Administration, but the military itself for extremely poor judgment at the least and malfeasance at the most.

Ricks goes into some detail lining out to chain of events, naming the patrons of the war and their motives, along the way, which led to the war. He also describes the planning, or mis-planning if you wish, of the war, but the majority of the book centers on the immediate aftermath of the invasion, from April of 2003 through 2004. Ricks lays out the argument that during this period, Phase IV of the war (the aftermath) was so bungled that we were within an eyelash of turning victory into defeat. He also maintains that this mishandling was so endemic and pervasive that the outcome is still in doubt.

Summary

Ricks postulates that the Iraqi war was contrived by neo-conservatives led by Paul Wolfowitz, justified by handpicked intelligence, much of which had been discounted. He goes on to say the military planning was altered time and again by the overbearing Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield, who at one time proposed an invasion force of ten thousand men.

Then after the successful invasion, despite a flawed plan, which totally by passed the ultimate enemy and the backbone of the future insurgency — the Fedayeen, our troops throughout the country stood by as witnesses to the greatest act of thievery in the history of the world, as looters stole Iraq. This was the result of having too few boots on the ground, a fact that haunts us (the military) to this day. A result of the widespread looting of Iraq, besides requiring billions to replace, was that it set a tone for lawlessness in Iraq. It also made our troops appear indecisive, which they were.

Ultimately, the biggest sin the military committed was a sin of omission. Purposely or not, they refused to recognize the character of the war they were in (with Rumsfield’s help) as an insurgency and act accordingly. The lessons of the insurgency we fought in Viet Nam seem to have been lost as a bad dream and the military insisted on fighting a brutal conventional war. This was a major error in strategy.

Last but not least, the tactics used by our military lost the backing and respect of the Iraqi people and fueled the fire of the insurgency, which the generals refused to fight as such.

Conclusion

As a newspaper reporter, Ricks’ writing takes on a news reporting style of writing — very compelling, very smooth and very easy to read. While the writer does perform an occasional analysis, the book seems to center around hundreds of quotation bites and the author’s attendant explanations and elaborations.

Of course, this means that there are many opinions mixed in with the reported facts and history. Still, I give these opinions credence for two reasons — the high quantity of similar views within the book and the fact that these views mirror conventional wisdom and other publications.

Being an opponent of the war, this book was a vindication, of sorts, for the deductions I had arrived at. The Bush Administration took us to war with a marginal war plan and no plan whatsoever for reconstruction, disengagement or exit. I find it incongruous that the Administration is constantly saying the Democrats had no plan for Iraq, when they, themselves, had no plan.

By the way, according to this book, Jay Garner the one time reconstruction czar, who was unceremoniously dumped after two weeks, originally voiced the one plan the Administration keeps harping on — “we’ll stand down when they stand up,” in an unapproved speech: a speech for which he was chastised, but from which their big plan evolved. The plan of course was poorly implemented and has yet to bear fruit.

The true irony of the war was that the approach the Administration took toward the war. The parsimonious use of troops, telling the generals to expect redeployment in a matter of months and trying to fight the war on the cheap, actually had the opposite effect by adding to the longevity of the war and running the cost into the hundreds of billions.

I give this book a five star rating.

November 18, 2007. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . attack, Baghdad, Cheney, George W. Bush, Iraq, Islam, liberators, lies, politics, President Bush, Rumsfeld, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, slam dunk, Sunni, Syria, Terrorism. Leave a comment.

A Review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)

The Bottom Line
Most followers of Islam maintain their faith is a religion of peace and Allah (God) is merciful. Yet, the jihadists are even more vocal about their aggressive, destructive ways being directly from the Qur’an, therefore Allah (God).

Who’s right? They both are. Remember Muslim hordes set out in the seventh and eighth century to conquer the world and convert all infidels (non believers) to Islam. The fact is, the Qur’an and other Islamic holy books are full of contradictions, so if you are looking for answers to questions you may have about Islam, you won’t find them here. But, if you want to know what kind of people we are fighting against and why, this book will tell you.

the_politically_incorrect_guide_to_islam_and_the_crusades_-resized200.jpg

In this timely, hot button book, Robert Spencer examines the motivation and goals of, not necessarily, just the terrorists alone but fellow extremists and, by association, all Muslims in general.

He claims there is a substantial quantity of misinformation being disseminated about Islam, some officially and some by apologists. Islam, which, translates into surrender, appears to be aptly named since there was plenty of surrendering going on among Islam’s perceived enemies in the first hundred and fifty years of the religion. That’s when aggressive, ruthless armies of the Prophet Muhammad, poured out of Arabia, spreading the nascent religion across a swath of Africa and Asia from the Atlantic Ocean to India. Later Indonesia and parts of India, Thailand, China, Malaysia and the Philippines were added. The victims of this onslaught were given three options: surrender and convert to Islam, surrender and become a dhimmi (a second-class citizen subject to onerous taxation) or DEATH.

This area is home to some one point two billion Muslims, which Spencer claims are all potential enemies of the rest of the inhabitants of the globe. The reasoning is that the seeds of confrontation are intertwined within the fabric of Islam, through the Muslim holy book and he cites various passages from the Qur’an to substantiate his theory. At the head of these passages is Jihad, which means struggle. The struggle, according to Spencer is to struggle against the infidels (non-believers) to achieve a position of preeminence where Islam reigns supreme.

We all know that this is what bin Laden wants but it’s been widely reported that this view is a perversion of Islam. According to Spencer, this is straight out of the Qur’an and the perversion is that this information is being withheld from the public, ostensibly to not engender additional angst with John Q. Public. Even mainstream Muslim’s seem to have trouble coming to grips that their holy book is the basis of so much terrorism and could be so inconsistent.

Other passages that should be of concern to Westerners are the traditions of deceit and duplicity. Muslims should not befriend infidels and it’s expected that they should lie to them (but not Muslims). If they do befriend an infidel, it should only be to gain an advantage and any agreements with infidels are again, to gain an advantage and if no longer needed, should be discarded. No wonder Israel cannot get a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Spencer also takes a cursory look at the Crusades. He states that, although they appear to have been a waste of time and manpower, they kept the Muslims at bay for almost two hundred years. Spencer believes this gave the Europeans just enough time to build their strength and technology to hold their own when the Islamic hordes, once again set their sights there.

Even so, there are large pockets of Muslims left over from Jihadists incursions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Spain. It is Spencer’s contention that without the Crusades we might all be on our knees five times a day facing Mecca. However, that still might happen since an estimated fifteen million Muslim immigrants, with more daily, have inundated Europe. As we’ve all seen on the news recently with bombings in London and Madrid and riots in France, these immigrants can be problematic, but they also could become a fifth column.

Conclusion

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is the kind of book that can get under your skin if you let it. I’m sure it’s accurate and factual and in comparison to other similar books I’ve read, specifically, about the plight of Muslim women, it backed what I had previously read. However, it seems to me, to be written with a conservative slant. It seems to highlight the worst of Islam, giving only perfunctory concessions to other views. The fact that Regnery Publishing, a well-known right wing publisher, published the book reinforces that feeling.

As for the author, Robert Spencer, he did a good job of presenting his case in a fluid, easily understandable and readable style. I personally believe what he wrote but many would feel it wasn’t balanced. He is obviously well versed on the subject of the book, providing the chapter/verse in the Qur’an, wherever he paraphrases a passage. He has a thorough knowledge of the subject and puts his views forward in a believable method. In addition, he provides many interesting sidebars where there are comparisons of the teachings of Muhammad and Jesus, quotes from historic figures, Books You’re Not Supposed to Read and Just Like Today segments.

Spencer makes several good points, such as saying our war on terror is incorrectly named, terror being a tactic. He says the enemy is the Jihadists and the war should be so named. I also got a kick out of Spencer’s term for outrageous, seventy-two virgins in heaven Muslim belief. He called it bordello paradise.

Frankly, if you are looking for some good news about the Muslims, this book is not for you, unless you consider learning more about their downside, good news. The bottom line, according to Spencer, is their can be no long-term peaceful co-existence with the Muslim society unless they modify the aggressive tenants of the Qur’an. Don’t hold your breath.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is 231 pages and contains eighteen chapters. They are titled:

1] Muhammad: Prophet of War
2] The Qur’an: The Book of War
3] Islam: Religion of War
4] Islam: Religion of Intolerance
5] Islam Oppresses Women
6] Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, Kill
7] How Allah Killed Science
8] The Lure of Islamic Paradise
9] Islam – Spread by the Sword? You Bet.
10] Why the Crusades were called
11] The Crusades: Myth and Reality
12] What the Crusades Accomplished – And What They Didn’t
13] What if the Crusades Had Never Happened?
14] Islam and Christianity: Equivalent Traditions?
15] The Jihad Continues
16] “Islamophobia” and Today’s Ideological Jihad
17] Criticizing Islam May Be Hazardous to Your Health
18] The Crusade We Must Fight Today

November 3, 2007. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Atrocity, attack, Baghdad, Cheney, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Islam, President Bush, Saudi Arabia, Sharia, Shiite, Sunni, Syria, Terrorism, women. 6 comments.

The Bush Legacy continues – Bush’s Five Biggest Lies

the-five-biggest-lies.jpg
The Five Biggest Lies was not the first book I’ve read on George W. Bush and or his misadventure and it probably won’t be the last. Obviously, from the title, one can deduct that this is not a book that praises the forty-third president. The book is well written and planned and is generally about what the title describes – the five major fallacies that were given as the rationale for the unprovoked aggression of Iraq. It is basically set forth in an outline style, starting with an introduction, then a chapter on the reasoning and methodology behind the deception. The deceptions themselves follow, with a chapter allocated to each lie, followed by the conclusion.

The chapters outlining the five lies are titled by the lies:
1. Al Qaeda’s ties to Iraq.
2. Iraq’s Chemical and Biological Weapons
3. Iraq’s Nuclear Weapons
4. The War Will Be a ‘Cakewalk’
5. Iraq as a Democratic Model
6. Conclusion

Al Qaeda’s ties to Iraq

The authors methodically expose this deceit pointing to the fact that all of the prewar suppositions regarding an alleged tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had previously been discredited. Yet, as in the pattern of other falsehoods, these lies mysteriously found their way back into the conversations and speeches of administration officials.

Iraq’s Chemical and Biological Weapons

Another stretch by the administration that had been debunked previously, even as the administration members continued to talk about Chemical and Biological WMD. They shamelessly continued to use this discounted intelligence as a pretext for invasion. Even though the United States and the UN had Hussein in a box, in control of only a third of his country and was unable to reconstitute chemical and biological programs; the administration pointed to this phantom program as a grave world threat.

Iraq’s Nuclear Weapons

This may have been the largest and most damaging of the fabrications. Everything that the administration put forward to justify their mushroom cloud scenario had already been discredited numerous times and in many ways, yet the people in Rumsfeld’s personal intelligence gatherers, whose only purpose was to dig up intelligence that would support the administration position, wouldn’t let it die. This despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said there was no evidence of any kind of WMD in Iraq and weapon inspectors had come up empty. Vice President Cheney in no uncertain terms said they were “Flat wrong.” Well, the head of IAEA ended up with a Nobel Peace Prize and we ended up with a quagmire.

The War Will be a ‘Cakewalk’

Here again the administration’s leading Hawk, VP Cheney was head cheerleader for invasion by going on TV and saying the war would be a “cakewalk.” Others treated the invasion in a cavalier manner as well. The administration planned on reducing troop levels to 30,000 troops within three months.

The authors point out that this may be the only inadvertent lie, with administration officials truly believing their own hyperbole in this case.

Iraq as a Democratic Model

This is, of course, the back up rationale for the invasion of Iraq, but it was the primary policy on a position of expansion and policing, which authors put forth in the conclusion.
The authors don’t disagree with the idea of a model democracy in the Middle East but it is generally conceived that if such an event were to occur it would have to be nurtured, not imposed from the end of a gun.

Conclusion

The authors postulate that the invasion of Iraq was the first salvo in a new grandiose, radical foreign policy of deterrence by aggression. In doing this the administration made numerous assumptions, all of which turned out to be fallacious. Instead the results of the invasion had the opposite effect, bogging us down in Iraq, helpless to confront other developing mischief in the globe, ie. Iran and North Korea.

My Thoughts

This book only deals with the lead up to the war and the very beginnings, having being published in October, 2003, yet the authors seem quite prescient, having correctly predicting the present situation in Iraq.

Like the other similar books I have devoured, it is meant to be informative and factual. It is probably directed at the average Bush supporter who seem to shun being confused with facts and therefore would not be caught within a mile of such ‘dreck.’

Therefore this book and others like it serve as kindling, inflaming the passions of those of us that believe Dubya is, at best, a study in mediocrity. It reinforces our incredulity that this man was re-elected. I don’t know about others, but it makes be mad at the voters that voted, with whatever stupid reason in mind, for Bush. I can truthfully say, not a day goes by that I haven’t marveled at the fact that this man is our President.

October 20, 2007. Tags: , , , , , , , . attack, Baghdad, Books, Cheney, George W. Bush, President, President Bush, review, Rumsfeld, slam dunk, Terrorism, Vice Presidency, Watergate. 3 comments.

Is it Okay to say Viet Nam Yet?

Iraq
The war in Iraq is now the longest declared war in the last century, having surpassed WW1, WW 2 and Korea.

I remember in the early days of the Iraq incursion how a progression of administration sycophants, military analysts and elected officials hit the air waves, denying any similarities to our only armed humiliation – Viet Nam. I’d like to say that I was prescient and suspected better, but no, I was right there foolishly nodding my head and saying darned right, Iraq’s totally different, they don’t have a jungle. They have a desert and it’s hard to hide in a desert. Instaed they hide in cities.

US Soldier

Unfortunately, I and a strong majority of the country were wrong. It’s of little consolation that I started changing my view over two years ago. It is apparrent that what we have now is worse than Viet Nam. The Viet Cong at least had the support of North Viet Nam regulars and were backed and supplied by China and Russia.

In Iraq, a small disassociated ragtag group of insurgents are holding the most powerful military in the world to a stalemate and time appears to be on their side. Do they have aircraft carriers and fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, satellite reconnaissance and tanks? They don’t have a Stealth bomber or fighter but they have stealth. They are fighting us to a standstill with small weapons (AK47s), RPG’s (rocket propelled grenades), IED’s (improvised explosive devices), suicide bombers and of course fear and terror. Much of the munitions which have been turned against us, were scavenged from Iraqi ammunition dumps that were left unsecurred
by our brilliant administration.

For those who still insist that Bush’s Iraqi adventure is nothing like Viet Nam, I have drawn up a list of similarities:

1] It’s a guerrilla war
2] The enemy looks just like the civilians
3] We’re trying to beef up an unpopular government. (actually, an unfulfilled government)
4] We are trying, with poor results, to train an indigenous army.
5] The insurgents are getting help from outside sources.
6] It is a war with a dubious purpose.
7] There appears to be no exit strategy.
8] The war has left us unpopular, worldwide.

The military commanders must feel frustrated. The stated reasons for the war did not pan out, no WMD, no ties to 9/11, no free democratic Irag as an example and yet we dare not leave, abandoning the Iraqis to the chaos which would ensue such a move. How impotent they must feel, since they have all this technology and firepower which can only be used sparingly. I remember a quote by whom I ‘m not sure, which is most appropriate, it goes something like this, “Those who fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”

Dead Soldiers

Iraq may not truly be another Viet Nam, it’s just a ‘quagmire.

September 26, 2007. Baghdad, cakewalk, Cheney, Civil War, George W. Bush, Iraq, liberators, politics, President, President Bush, Rumsfeld, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, Syria, Terrorism, Vice Persideny. 2 comments.

The Incredible Shrinking Presidency of George W. Bush

bush_undercover_small.jpg

We seem to be witnessing the incredible shrinking presidency of George W. Bush. By we, I mean the entire country. I always thought his hubris and arrogance would get him in trouble but it seems to be his policies instead.

As a person, he still seems to be popular, but his poll numbers are sinking like a guy with a cement overcoat. Why? Because he keeps on pushing for or against things the public doesn’t agree with. Bush wanted to restructure Social Security. In the polls only thirty-three percent were in his corner, even after his big four month push. Then he cast the only veto to kill a bill that would expand federal funding for stem cell research. Almost everybody has a family member or knows somebody that this research could help. Over sixty percent are in favor of expanding stem cell research and cannot understand why he would rather see surplus embryos flushed down a toilet than used to help living breathing people.

Remember the Terry Schaivo fiasco? Only eighty percent thought the President and Congress were out of line for trying to interfere in that family matter. Then there’s Irag, as big a boondoggle as there ever was. As the war in Iraq drags on with no resolution in sight, it’s popularity (if one can say a war can be popular) has hit new lows, with only thirty percent now saying the war is worth the price we’re paying. For the first time ever, less than forty percent believe it is making us safer here at home. And this with a majority of the population unaware of the Downing Street Memo and other controversial matters that have come to light. Bush’s handling of the economy and the direction he’s taking the country are also drawing new lows with forty-one and thirty percent respectively.

It seems that Bush is pleasing no one, except the hyper rich and the ultra right Christian loonies, as he appeases the dark side of his base, while his other constituents scratch their collective heads and wonder when the President is going to stop his slide into irrelevancy and do or propose something they can agree with.

They say that, as the temperature descends, matter shrinks a certain percentage until it hits what is termed Absolute Zero. (which if I remember right is 457 degree below zero) Theoretically at that temperature matter ceases to exist. Do you think its possible that, if Bush’s poll numbers hit zero, his incredible shrinking Presidency will disappear?

September 13, 2007. Baghdad, Cheney, dishonest, ethics, George W. Bush, Iraq, politics, President, President Bush, Rumsfeld, social security, stem cell. Leave a comment.

The Iraq War – A forty Day Party

As a former Reagan Republican, I cannot help but be severely disappointed by the level of incompetence of the present administration. However, it appears there is still a good deal of support among so-called Bush loyalists, a fact that amazes me. Either they are ignoring the mountain of evidence of malfeasance that has been accruing or they pay no attention to the country’s current military and financial situation. Therefore, I will occasionally post a review of one of the many books that chronicle the run-up to and the prosecution of the Iraq War. These are not Left-wing books of anti-Bush propaganda but books written by thoughtful writers, whose only purpose is to present the facts. And to any that bother to read the facts, they are disturbing.

Here is the first review,

cobra_ii_the_inside_story_of_the_invasion_and_occupation_of_iraq-resized200.jpg

COBRA II by Michael Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor

The Bottom Line:
Cobra II provides a good account of the thinking and non-thinking that propelled us into this never-ending war.

While reading Cobra II – when I wasn’t simmering – I got the impression that the strongest military in the world was being controlled and misused by a modern day version of the Keystone Kops. Not that I’m surprised. I and two thirds of the country (God help the other third) knew something was amiss, but many of the things I suspected were laid out in glaring fashion in this interesting text.

It’s like President “What me worry?” was having his arm twisted by Vice President “Darth Vader” undersecretary Darth Maul (Wolfowitz) to throw a forty day party in Baghdad. That’s right the war that has outlasted both World War I and the Korean War and is fast approaching World War II (It has now surpassed it) was expected to be a thirty to fifty day party and then we all go home with smiles on our faces. Perhaps it would have, except for two things.

First, our Defense Secretary, decided he knew more than all his generals combined. He threw out ten years of military planning for the invasion of Iraq, and proceeded to badger his generals to keep reducing planned invasion troop levels to a number he liked. I guess the secretary is into numerology. The number the generals started with was 380,000. The number the S.O.D. accepted was 140,000 – just enough to get us into Baghdad but not enough to get home.

The second thing, which some knowledgeable people foresaw, but not the myopic administration, was that the party might get crashed by some unwanted guests. Who you ask? Why, a bunch of young hot heads driving Toyotas, some wearing towels over the faces, some carrying funny objects on their shoulders or weapons in their arms and all looking for trouble. The first fatality of the war was caused, not by an Iraqi soldier but, a group of these hot heads in a Toyota Pick-up.

Commanders on the ground noticed this effective, unforeseen adversary, utilizing hit and run guerilla tactics and wanted to confront them, but the bigwigs in Cent Com ordered them to bypass these future insurgents and head straight to Baghdad, do not pass Go. Apparently they felt that once Baghdad fell everything. would fall into place. What they got when they took Baghdad was widespread looting. The authors Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor go on to speculate that the fediyeen, which the army was ordered to ignore and bypass on the way to Baghdad, became the backbone for the strong insurgency we now face.

Conclusion

Liberal, Conservative, independent – Right wing, Left wing, it doesn’t matter, reading this book will upset you. The book is not a liberal rag. It does not have a political bias, unless you consider a bias toward incompetence political. It just lays out the facts, often in minute detail. That, in fact is one of the books weaknesses. Cobra II reads like a play by play description of the war to date from the rationale though the planning to the prosecution of the war, with it’s attendant mis-steps. The prosecution portion of the war takes up at least two thirds of the book and unless you are a war junkie and despite some interesting parts begins, after awhile, to all sound the same.

The parts of the book I found most interesting were the initial planning stages and those portions dealing with the dissension that developed between Rumsfeld and Franks and later the turmoil between Franks and the generals in the field. The authors also point out how many of the problems that developed in the initial occupation of Baghdad and the aftermath were anticipated by various sources with suggestions, but were discounted or ignored by the administration. In short, the administration didn’t want to hear anything that might disrupt their vision of a forty day party.

Unfortunately the book only takes us through the war itself and the stirrings of the nascent insurgency. Three years later we are seeing what almost everyone agrees is a low grade civil war, verging on civil war.

Author’s Note; This review was written over a year ago. I would say things are pretty much the same, wouldn’t you?

August 17, 2007. attack, Baghdad, Books, cakewalk, Cheney, Civil War, crime, dishonest, ethics, explosions, George W. Bush, Iraq, liberators, politics, President, President Bush, Psychiatry, relationship, Rumsfeld, satire, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, slam dunk, suicide, Sunni, Syria, Terrorism, Uncategorized, Vice Persideny, war. 2 comments.

Turning Victory into Defeat

If you haven’t lost confidence in our Pretender in Chief, then shame on you. You took your eye off the President, while he took his eye off the terrorists.

bush_fucked_thumb.jpg

Since the atrocity of 9/11, rightly or wrongly, a majority of Americans assumed that Republicans would be more effective than Democrats in the struggle against radical Islam and the attendant terrorist threat. This even though Democratic Presidents led us to victory in both World Wars.

As a Reagan Republican I wish it were so, but I, unlike so many other Republicans, no longer think so and the reason is because of the of the ineptitude of the leader of the party – the President, his hand picked Vice President and the Cabinet.

Republican lawmakers are complicit with the Bush administration in a dismal history of mis-adventure, misjudgments, misrepresentations, mischief, misbranding, misallocation, miscalculation, mismanagement, misplanning and of course, mistake after mistake.

And now the administration’s only bonafide success – the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan – is beginning to unravel with the recent strong resurgence of the Taliban. Thanks to the distraction of Iraqi malfeasance, the Taliban, who actually sheltered Osama bin Laden, have had over three years to reconstitute itself.

If a football coach or a baseball manager were to have such a miserable record, they wouldn’t be surprised to be replaced but what do you do with a president.

Looking back, I don’t know how anyone could think the Bush policy of error can make us safer. Can Bush ruin our country? I wouldn’t bet against it.

Vote Republican at your own risk.

August 4, 2007. attack, Baghdad, cakewalk, Cheney, Civil War, George W. Bush, politics, President, President Bush, Rumsfeld, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, suicide, Sunni, Uncategorized. 3 comments.

Do You Feel Safer?

The Bottom Line I say Bush has made us less safe by morphing young Muslim hot heads into terrorists. What do you think?
bush_undercover_small.jpg
The big discussion these days, just prior to the midterm election seems to be whether we are safer or less safe than we were after 9/11.

I’m confused about that myself so I’ve decided to take a poll.

Here are a dozen multiple choice questions to show what we think..

President Bush’s pre-emptive war on Iraq has made –
a. U.S. citizens safer
b. Iraqi citizens safer
c. American servicemen safer
d. Osama bin Laden safer

President Bush and Republican claim that the Democrats don’t have the stomach to fight terrorism. Is that –
a. A known known
b. A known unknown
c. An unknown known
d. Partisan bullsh*t

The Democratic response to this is that President Bush and his advisors don’t have the brains to fight terrorism. Is that –
a. Partisan bullsh*t
b. A chip off the ole block
c. Hard work
d. A known known

Weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq because –
a. They’re there – buried in the desert
b. The Iraqi people were so hungry, they ate them
c. The intelligence was taken out of a comic book.
d. They was fooled

The intelligence used to justify the war was flawed because –
a. Clinton didn’t do enough to catch Osama bin Laden
b. Richard Clarke was a traitor
c. Saddam Hussein started a disinformation campaign
d. They picked only the intelligence backed their position.

The real reason the Bush cabal pushed for war in Iraq was –
a. Although they couldn’t prove it, they knew Hussein was behind 9/11
b. Rumsfeld was real good at playing Risk. Monopoly too! (but not sorry)
c. Cheney decided that he missed something in the Viet Nam experience after all.
d. The butt of jokes in West Texas for years, Bush wanted to show everybody he could really find oil.

If you had an emergency, like your house was about to flood from a hurricane or something. You would call –
a. George W. Bush
b. The Ghostbusters
c. Osama bin Laden
d. Your insurance agent

Democrats and some Republicans say the administration fixed the intelligence to make the case for war. You think.
a. It’s partisan bullsh*t
b. The end justifies the means
c. Democrats can’t take a joke
d. We should impeach the bastard

Six Generals who had served in Iraq, recently said Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war and should go. You think
a. Everybody is entitled to a booboo or fifty (look at the President)
b. Rummy is no dummy. He just acts like it
c. He gives the most interesting press conferences since Baghdad Bob
d. Put him in charge of security for Darth Cheney.

President Bush keeps saying we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here. You think.
a. No attacks in five years – good job George.
b. The big ones take time
c. Can’t you just picture George decapitating a terrorist with his golf club.
d. At the rate we’re going we won’t have an army to fight them over there.

The Bush administration has recently been accused of portraying a rosier picture in Iraq than the reality. You think.
a. The Iraqis are cry babies
b. Wouldn’t you
c. I like roses
d. Saddam is looking better and better

President Bush, Vice Pres, Cheney and Sec of State Rice have all said, Knowing what they know now they would still attack Iraq. You think.
a. I told you they were tough.
b. They’re all nuttier than a fruitcake
c. Has there ever been a military coup in the U.S.?
d. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Okay. That completes the poll. Total up your answers allowing one point for an a. answer, two for b., three for c and four for d, total up you answers and look below for the results.

Twelve to fifteen points – You are a true believer. Report for duty in Iraq immediately for adventure Bush style.

Sixteen to twenty-six points – You are an independent person but not too bright and not too safe.

Twenty-seven to thirty-eight points – You are not too bright. Have you thought of running for President.

Thirty-nine points to forty-eight points – You didn’t vote for Bush. Did you?

July 27, 2007. attack, Baghdad, Bill Clinton, Books, cakewalk, Cheney, dishonest, ethics, explosions, George W. Bush, Humor, Iraq, lies, politics, President Bush, Rumsfeld, satire, slam dunk, Terrorism. 1 comment.

Whopper

George Whopper Bush,

bush_dailymirror_dumb_people.jpg

The forty-third President of the United States is George W. Bush. Many citizens think the middle initial stands for Walker after his maternal Grandfather, as in George Walker Bush. However, I postulate that another middle name fits reality better. In my opinion W. really stands for Whopper as in George Whopper Bush. Whopper as I shall call him from here out has spun some dandies. Perhaps you are not aware of this, preferring to believe Whopper instead of your lying ears and eyes. If so, I have some gold mine stock I’d like to unl…er discuss with you.
I have taken the time to edify you to some of the Whopprisms we all have been subjected to, yet you may not be aware of.
Since the buck stops in the Oval office, I have included some of the blatant Whoppers that have been foisted upon us by his so-called advisors.

George Whopper Bush top forty-three Whoppers. (In no particular order)

1. We’ll get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive.
2. Iraq is the center in the War on Terror.
3. Brownie. You’re doing a hell of a job.
4. We’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.
5. Oil revenues will pay for the Iraqi war
6. Mission accomplished.
7. I’m not into nation building.
8. We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
9. Saddam Hussein tried to obtain uranium from Niger.
10. Aluminum tubes the Iraqis have obtained can only be used for nuclear centrifuges.
11. You go to war with the army you have, not the one you’d like to have.
12. Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague
13. Iraq is known to have weapons of mass destruction.
14. We will be greeted in Iraq as liberators.
15. The damage that Katrina inflicted on New Orleans was unexpected.
16. We went into Iraq to build a democracy in the Middle East
17. Islam is a peaceful religion.
18. Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11
19. Iraq was a sponsor of Terror.
20. Abu Musab Zarqawri was an agent of Al Qaeda (not at first)
21. Iraq is a terrorist haven (now it is.)
22. We’re not facing an insurgency.
23. A few dead enders.
24. We give our military all the troops they ask for.
25. Things are not as bad in Iraq as they appear (one of those lying eyes things)
26. Today marks the end of hostilities. (over three years ago)
27. We have a plan.
28. Osama bin Laden is now insignificant.
29. We will stand down when they stand up.
30. The insurgency is in its last throes.
31. The insurgency should slow down now that Iraq has a freely elected government.
32. The insurgency should slow down now that they have a constitution.
33. The insurgency should slow down now that they have an interim government.
34. The insurgency should slow down now that Zarqawri is dead.
35. The insurgency should slow down now that Hussein is in custody.
36. Over 200,000 Iraqi troops are now trained.
37. There is no civil war in Iraq.
38. We should be out of Iraq in six months.
39. We went with the best intelligence we had. (should’ve said we could pick)
40. Congress had the same information we had.
41. We gave the UN all the time we could.
42. The war in Iraq did not distract us from the war on Terror.
43. We didn ‘t start planning the invasion of Iraq until after 9/11.
Bonus Lie: I finished my tour with the Air National Guard.
Extra Big Lie: I would still go into Iraq, knowing what I know now.

Wow, all them Whoppers, sure made me hungry. I think I’ll go to Burger King.

July 26, 2007. attack, Baghdad, cakewalk, Cheney, Civil War, dishonest, ethics, explosions, George W. Bush, Humor, Iraq, liberators, lies, politics, President, President Bush, primary, Psychiatry, Rumsfeld, slam dunk. 1 comment.

Next Page »