President Monkeyface (pictured at left) is campaigning today in Colorado and Iowa, but not in front of mixed audiences of undecideds. In fact, at the Greeley, CO stop, attendees had to profess a support for
the Monkeyface administration in order to attend. The President will be preaching his tired diatribe to these people, the one we've all been hearing these past couple of months - "I'm the best President to fight the War on Terror." (I've only added caps 'cause he would've.) We know that he is campaigning this way because any other avenue of attack would leave him outdoors, taking a piss into the wind. "He is assailable, say his staff, privately over amphetamines and mocha, "on everything except his war. We'll put that out there, build up the idea that the nonexistent Iraqi branch of Al Qaeda will attack as soon as Kerry is elected, and that'll win us those swing voters." Problem is, they're probably right. Another problem is this; they expect people to believe that he is the best President to fight this "war on terror" in spite of:
- The more than 1100 American soldiers killed since Assface preened around in a flight suit in front of a 'Mission Accomplished' banner and pronounced an end to hostilities in Iraq;
- The 100 or so of our allies who have also lost their lives in that period;
- the estimated 15,000 Iraqi dead from this thing of ours;
- The more than 11,000 injuries from the non-existent hostilities on the allied side (remember folks, that includes everything from the smallest injury to people whose lives are changed forever. An amputee never gets about their lives quite like they used to...) Most of these injuries result in underarmored people and vehicles in Iraq, doing their duty. And before you start an argument here about who authorized what funding, I submit to you that people should NEVER HAVE BEEN SENT there with inadequate armor - this bullshit where we send folks and then see if we can armor them up and get them vehicles is unacceptable;
- "The Insurgents may be more organized than we thought." 50 Iraqis were shot execution-style and killed over the weekend. They were some of the guys being trained by us, and they were going home for some R&R when this happened. Nice command presence, guys.
- The mystery coalition. I like to think I pay pretty good attention to the news and stuff, and I picked up on England, the Aussies, and Poland...we used to have Spain...Bulgaria? Are they one? Regardless, I'm missing, like thirty countries or more, depending on which time you're listening to Monkeyface. And I wonder: do they count Iraq?
- Their choice not to act on anything until AFTER the WTC had been destroyed, knowing that we would fall into line much more easily if they had a tragedy to evoke. (The American people famously don't pay any attention to theoretical dangers);
- Osama bin Laden is still out there. Not in Iraq. Seriously.
- Everyone on Earth now knows what WMD stands for, but have we seen one? Any in Iraq? Seems to me, the only out-of-control rogue government on the world stage with a vast proliferation of WMDs is us. (Walt Kelly would be proud.)
- Just after the war, materials that could be used in the creation of nuclear weapons went missing. On our watch. The IAEA and various weapons inspectors (Hans Blix and David Kay among them) tacked us to the wall with one of those staple gun things for our incompetence in allowing this to happen. Now, we find out today that something like 400 tons of explosives have also gone missing, and also during that period. These explosives could be used to "detonate a nuclear warhead." Once again, I ask you, do you feel safer?
- We have allowed our soldiers to come under the administrative and operational control of the provisional Iraqi government. Have a problem with the UN telling us what to do? What about an Iraqi General issuing orders to American troops that we have to follow? We were in the process of freeing prisoners from an Iraqi compound, and were then forced to stand back and let the Iraqi soldiers in question have them back. Now, when it comes to American vs. Iraqi brutality, I'm not sure most people have a preference, but we have this fine example;
- Abu Gahrib. American soldiers attacked people with dogs, beat them to death, and forced them to masturbate and perform naked gay sexual activities in public, ensuring, according to their beliefs, that they can never go to Heaven. Sound normal to you?
- Charles Duelfer, the man selected by these assholes to look for WMDs, found nothing, found no evidence to indicate that Iraq was making anything, and nothing to indicate that they were trying to exchange the nothing that they had with terrorists. They ignored this, harping on the old chestnut of "well, they were gonna give stuff to terrorists." My three-year-old has a better grip on reality than this. Of course, he also doesn't have chats with God about bombing other countries.
- The Afghanis, who you might have heard, have just had a wonderful round of elections, are within days of becoming a narco-state, that is, a country whose biggest export (and, really, the only profitable thing to grow) is poppies and heroin. I guess the War on Drugs took a backseat to the War on Terror.
- "We will be welcomed as liberators." Wow. And we'd leave our kids with Michael Jackson, too.
- The 9/11 Commission, which I have now completed reading, found no "operational relationship" or "collaborative relationship" between the Iraqi government or its agents, and Al Queada. And if you make that weak-ass argument about how "Yeah, but they were in Iraq, and doing stuff there," then I would invite you to check the itineraries of the 9/11 hijacking murderers. Is it any wonder the President and his flunkies resisted the formation of this committee and their own appearances before it?
- Since September 11th, 2001, our President (well, somebody's President, anyway) has managed to destabilize the Middle East, allow Sharon to put himself in a precarious position and called it a victory, allowed Putin to make the same power grab he made, alienated most of the rest of the world, divided this country's voters as deeply as I've ever seen them. Not to offend anyone personally or anything, but anyone who votes for Bush based on his achievements in the War on Terror, should have their voting rights revoked, their head examined, and maybe have their claims to basic human rights looked into.
I could go on, but I won't. I have temporarily exhausted the bright, burning flame of my hatred that is stoked every time I hear the President campaigning on his war record. And do I think Kerry could do better? Yes. This President has handled things so abysmally that almost anyone could do better. Regardless, I will not reward this putz for mishandling his war (and making me pay for it) with a vote. And neither should you.
(The Squidbag gets its information from the Nation, CommonDreams, CNN, NPR, the BBC, primary source materials and my own goddamn brain. You can do the work if you insist on checking my facts.)
Recent Comments