Study Doesn’t Share Bush’s Optimism on Terror Fight
President Bush Welcomes President Karzai of Afghanistan to the White House
President Bush’s angry nonanswers to two straightforward questions yesterday were among the best illustrations yet of his intense aversion to responding to his critics’ actual arguments. Rather than acknowledge and attempt to rebut the many concerns about his policies, Bush makes up inane arguments and then ridicules them….What’s even more astonishing than the fact that the president makes a mockery of legitimate criticism rather than confront it is the fact that the press corps routinely lets him get away with it.
A press conference with Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader is always something of an adventure. There’s no telling what’s going to come out of the man’s mouth, creating the distinct impression theat he’s making it up as he goes. This wouldn’t be so bad if the man actually had a functional intellect and the wherewithal to construct a meaningful and sensible argument. Unfortunately, emerging as it does from the functional equivalent of an intellectual black hole, virtually any argument presented by Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader is bound to elicit a reaction along the lines of “Uh…what??”
Let’s face facts, OK? The man shouldn’t be trusted to run a 7-11, much less the most powerful democracy in the world. The press conferences merely serve as comic relief and confirmation of this theory. Man, you have to think that whatever world leader is unfortunate enough to share the podium with Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader is wondering how Americans could be so stupid and undemanding as to elect such an intellectual lightweight and non-entity.
Yeah; I wonder about that every day….
Here’s what passes for coherent arguments by Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader:
Democrats and other critics of the Administration think that going on the offensive against terrorists is bad: Some people have…concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it’s naive. I think it’s a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe. No reasonable person has, or would EVER suggest that aggressively chasing down terrorists is a bad thing. Then again, there wasn’t a terrorist threat in Iraq until we invaded and created one….
The war in Iraq is between the US and the terrorists: The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason : They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they’re trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq. This completely ignores the reality that most of the fighting in Iraq is sectarian; American troops just happen to be caught in the middle.
Nothing that has happened in Iraq has worsened the reality and threat of terrorism: We weren’t in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren’t in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren’t in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren’t in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren’t in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. OK, if none of these things had anything to do with terrorism, then why are we in Iraq?
If we don’t fight them in the streets of Baghdad, we’ll be fighting them in the streets of Paducah: This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We’re not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We’re not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war. Uh, this completely ignores the fact that the very terrorist threat were fighting in the streets of Baghdad is the one we created….
It’s not torture when Americans do it: You can’t protect America unless we give those people on the front lines of protecting this country the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution. And that’s where the debate is here in the United States. There are some decent people who don’t believe — evidently don’t believe we’re at war, and therefore, shouldn’t give the administration what is necessary to protect us. Uh…we’re at war??? Damn…and when did this happen?
Those who advocate withdrawal from Iraq are also advocating that we surrender to the terrorists: Does being on the offense mean we create terrorists? My judgment is the only way to defend the country is to stay on the offense. It is preposterous to think if we were to withdraw and hope for the best, things would turn out fine against this enemy. Yeah, and we’re also saying that if we just ignore the problem it will eventually go away….
Time was when Presidents acted like leaders and addressed legitimate criticism by using the power of persuasion to convince the American sheeple of the necessity for what they were proposing. Now, of course, we’re saddled with an idiot who couldn’t spell “cat” if you spotted him the “C” and the “A”. The idea of trying to persuade the American sheeple is just too much like the studying Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader never did at Yale. It’s so much easier when you can simply ignore the criticism and pass off those who disagree with you as the modern-day equivalent of “nattering nabobs of negativity.” If you can question the patriotism of your critics, then why would you need to even bother answering their questions?
STILL GLAD YOU VOTED REPUBLICAN?
