Friday, September 21, 2007


by UncleAbe and PraetorOne
Edited by BibleBelted

Who in the hell does George W. Bush think he's kidding?   Was it my imagination or did I actually hear the Pretender and Thief shedding more  crocodile tears because a liberal organization dared to question the veracity of a general who, for all intents and purposes, is little more than an obedient puppet for an administration that has begun to believe its own lies and half truths?  For those of you who missed the president's (20 September 2007) drivel--and you were God-awful lucky if you did--the Demander and Thief had the audacity to criticize the folks at Move On for daring to question a general whose rectum is little more than an opening through which the Bush Administration can insert its hand whenever it needs a ventriloquist's dumbly to defend the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq which has now devolved into a full blown religious civil war.  

Oh.  I'm sorry.  

The Administration doesn't like to call it a religious civil war.  That might be too untidy, perhaps a tad too honest.   The current Orwellian doublespeak for what we have created in Iraq is "an ethno-sectarian conflict over power and territory."  Or if you will, a religious civil war replete with ethnic cleansing.

But I  seem to have digressed.  Listening to this President complain because the folks at Move On dared to criticize a doctored report--which by the way was more authored by Bush and Cheney than it was by General Petraeus--is a little like listening to Adolf Hitler deliver a lecture on the evils of violence and antisemitism.  Even as Bush delivered his usual half-baked platitudes about insulting the military I couldn't help but think that there's a huge difference between criticizing the Bush/Petraeus report and what George W. Bush has done to our military, and in my humble opinion someone should take this morally deficient president aside and explain that there is a difference between the kind of criticism that we heard from Move On and the kind of Mass Murder that has been committed by the Neocons in the name of oil, money, and empire. 

Nearly 4,000 American troops dead.  Nearly 21,000 wounded.  Thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, maimed, and battle scarred.  That is the direct result of the Bush Administration's illegal invasion and occupation.  Now you tell me.  Which is more damaging?  Words which openly question the competency and honesty of an incompetent and dishonest Administration and its all too many Mortimer Snerds, or just condemnation of a domineering president and an acquiescent general who regurgitates the Demander and Thief's rhetoric on demand? 

And while we're at it, will someone please tell me just why in the hell our elected officials should take the time to condemn justified political speech?   Granted, Move On was audacious enough to refer to the general as General Betrayus, but let us talk turkey here my friends.  The General has betrayed us.   He has betrayed the American people and in refusing to question the congenital malignancy of our sociopathic president; he has betrayed the very troops who he and the Administration so hypocritically claim to support.  Moreover I find it interesting that the same party which slimed John Kerry's war record through the Swift Boat Liars association, and which denigrated the reputation of Vietnam Veteran/triple amputee max Cleland should opt to condemn Move On for far less caustic criticism.  Did we see a Congressional condemnation of the Swift Boat Liars?  No.  Did we see a Congressional condemnation of the goons and thugs who compared Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden?  No.

But that's what it takes to be a Republican today:  duplicity and arrogance. 

These people are perfectly willing to condemn minor examples of what they themselves do on a regular basis.  Comparing Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden; telling us that you're either with them or with the terrorists:  Are these or are these not the same kinds of tactics that were employed by Joe McCarthy during the abominable Red Scare of the 1950s?   You'd think that in the 53 years the Republicans would have learned a few new tricks--or better yet--developed a sense of decency.  In 1954 Joe McCarthy accused the United States military of harboring communists.  Prior to that he had turned America into the 20th version of 1692 Salem, creating a witch hunt climate in which people were persecuted on the basis of mere suspicion.  During that time McCarthy himself played the part of a  genuine witch hunter with great enthusiasm, less concerned about uncovering communists than he was in using the publicity and propaganda which stemmed from his own actions to bolster his political career and personal popularity.   In other words, Joe McCarthy was more interested in Joe McCarthy than he was in the protection of his own country.  Having unleashed the dogs of persecution in the arts and entertainment community he turned on the churches and finally on the United States military.  Does anyone out there remember the statement:  "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessnesses...Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.  You have done enough.  Have you no sense of decency?"*   Those words were delivered by Boston Attorney Joe Welch and they were heard by millions of Americans during televised Senate hearings.  They also brought about the long overdue fall of Senator Joe McCarthy as a political force in this country. 

I think it's time that we ask the same question of the Republicans once again.  As in the 1950s the right wing witch hunters and McCarthyites have again resorted to sliming those who would ask legitimate questions, to smearing those who would offer justifiable or even constructive criticism.  I think we all need to remember that the criticism leveled by Move On was not so directed against the General as it was against the Bush administration for using the General as a front to offer a doctored report which had been manipulated by George W. Bush himself.   We also need to remember that the Administration has created arbitrary standards which are designed to disguise the actually damage which is currently taking place in Iraq.  For example.  If an Iraqi is shot in the back of the head that counts as a terrorist attack.  If an Iraqi is shot in the face that particular attack is counted as a mere murder having nothing to do with terrorism.   It is through tricks, manipulations and machinations such as these that George W. Bush and his War Crime Syndicate have been able to fudge the data and present phony progress reports which are designed to both, the peoples representatives and Senators, and the citizenry itself. 

If anything Move On was not harsh enough in its criticism of George W. Bush himself.   Perhaps Move On should have openly stated that George W. Bush has betrayed us.  He betrayed us when he manufactured phony evidence during the build up to the war.  He and his Neocon cronies betray the troops when they send these battle weary young men and women back to Iraq again, and again, and again for multiple tours of duty without proper rest and relaxation between tours of duty; he betrayed the troops when he sent them into battle without sufficient provisions; he betrays the American people every time he tries to sell out Constitutional protections in favor of security, and God knows that he betrays the people, the Constitution, and the troops when he claims personal and political powers more appropriate to a Francisco Franco or a Benito Mussolini. 

In fact...the more that I think about it...George W. Bush is just an ugly betray with a name and a beady-eyed face connected to it

* For a transcript of the Army-McCarthy Hearing please click on the following:
For a general history of the fall of Joe McCarthy please click on

No comments: