44665516900c3.jpg

In an awkward pivot from Bush’s failed Katrina response anniversary, the President tries to drum up support for additional wars with Iran and Syria, heading toward the 9/11 anniversary, while stuck in the Iraqi debacle. Some choice excerpts of his speech on August 31, 2006.

The enemies of liberty come from different parts of the world, and they take inspiration from different sources. Some are radicalized followers of the Sunni tradition, who swear allegiance to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Others are radicalized followers of the Shia tradition, who join groups like Hezbollah and take guidance from state sponsors like Syria and Iran. Still others are "homegrown" terrorists — fanatics who live quietly in free societies they dream to destroy. Despite their differences, these groups from — form the outlines of a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology.

Okay. We have a worldwide boogeyman but the big ol’ fat bullseye is painted on Iran and Syria.

Second, we have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you’re an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account.

He has done so well with Iraq, now he wants to expand the war. And he will.


The Iranian regime arms, funds, and advises Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any terrorist network except al Qaeda. The Iranian regime interferes in Iraq by sponsoring terrorists and insurgents, empowering unlawful militias, and supplying components for improvised explosive devices. The Iranian regime denies basic human rights to millions of its people. And the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons in open defiance of its international obligations.

Like a gambler on a losing streak, Bush insists on doubling down. His administrations complete failure on the GWOT seeks to pick bigger fights with larger nations and even more dangerous adventures. Using new buzzwords like fascism, nazi, and Hitler, they are pandering to the warporn wing of the country, nastier images are required to achieve erection and gratification.

This administration will generate more wars. It is what they do, even if very badly. To stop them, Democrats must undertake a blistering assault on their warmaking. I’ll pass some ammunition.

Half of the people in Iraq are under eighteen, according to UNICEF. I wonder where their parents are and if they are enjoying their freedoms from them? Are the policies of this administration reducing the ranks of terrorists or increasing them?


The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday.

Does this make anyone feel safer? Not a very good track record coming from the Daddy party. This current track of escalating wars is doomed to fail for two very basic reasons. First of all, when someone is killed, usually it makes someone else upset that they lost their friend or family member. And maybe it pisses off several people. Some have been known to strike back indiscriminately, especially if the death of their friend or loved one was senseless. The Bush Doctrine, for this reason, is a terrorist multiplier.

The second reason it is doomed for failure is that a fella needs to work. When war comes to town, it sorta makes it hard to find a job, and soldiering is about the only game in town. And clearly Bush does not get these two points, even as simple as he is. Bush wants war, so the Democrats must give him one. Never explain, never defend, always attack. Keith Olbermann shows us how it’s done.

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.  Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

 
Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.
 
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence — indeed, the loyalty — of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants — our employees — with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Two words: K. O.

http:/kittenstomper.blogspot.com/