Ponder this; impeach Bush, impeach Iran’s leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and then make it a 3-fer and impeach everybody’s favorite redheaded stepchild, North Korea’s Kim Jong Ill.
And then the world would be full of puppies and unicorns. Ok, maybe not puppies and unicorns, but everyone would have a lot less nukes snortin’ up their shorts.
But alas, Iran will never impeach theirs; we will never impeach ours, and Kim? I look for him to be the thief who sneaks in our back door while we’re all busy putting out the fire in the barn.
Oh, and just for fun, try Paul Craig Roberts’ ideas on for size. He calls Bush’s speech “propagandistic lies” and then proceeds to scare the hell out of you by breaking it down and telling you what Bush really said. For instance:
"Bush can tell blatant propagandistic lies, because Congress and the American people don't know enough facts to realize the absurdity of Bush's assertions.
Why is Bush telling these lies? Here is the answer: Bush says, "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
In those words, Bush states perfectly clearly that victory in Iraq requires US forces to attack Iran and Syria.
The "surge" is merely a tactic to buy time while war with Iran and Syria can be orchestrated. The neoconservative/Israeli cabal feared that the pressure that Congress, the public, and the American foreign policy establishment were putting on Bush to de-escalate in Iraq would terminate their plan to achieve hegemony in the Middle East.
Failure in Iraq would mean the end of the neoconservatives' influence. It would be impossible to start a new war with Iran after losing the war in Iraq.
It is extraordinary that anyone can listen to this blatant declaration of US aggression in the Middle East without demanding Bush's immediate impeachment.”
We will be striking Iran and/or Syria soon.
Notice the guy who is hugging the president of Iran in picture#1? That’s Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia and provider of weapons, tanks and support to Iran. Oh, look! Who is that hugging Kim Jong Ill in picture#2? Why, it’s President Putin again. I wonder what their meeting was about. Hmmm...
We go to war with Iran for supposedly providing weapons to insurgents in Iraq. Russia provides weapons to Iran. See how this could get very ugly very easily? I’ve not heard anyone mention Russia as a possible threat, so maybe I’m way off. I’m just following the players, who is in bed with whom, and what they might do if push comes to shove.
Sleep tight babies, it's time for me to lay off the war for a while so I can sleep tight too...
(Roberts link via Alex)
10 comments:
If Bush goes to war with Iran, then big business will prolly endorse impeachment because gas prices will shoot up to $5/gal and people will stop buying "stuff".
Maybe then impeachment will magically get "on the table" for Pelosi and Reid.
Makes me wish there was an opposition party. Especially after the fiasco whe Pelosi & Reid caved in to the drug companies over drug prices and competition.
Maybe Vladi is just trying to figure out how to sneak something poisonous into their hummus and their spring rolls.
Speaking of poisoning, is Vladimir not the new scariest boy in town??? That whole poisoned spy situation was like something straight out of the movies. I heard someone on 60 Minutes ask a Russian expert why they didn’t just shoot him if they wanted him dead. His answer: Because they wanted him to KNOW who killed him. They wanted him to have time to know it and to think about it. So they went to all that trouble and danger to themselves to poison him with that polonium.
How scary is that?
I give them points for creativity. Being killed by someone shooting you is getting old. I wonder when sword fighting will make a comeback.
I LOVE sword fighting! I think it’s just the sexiest thing men can do. Oh I SO hope they bring it back! lol
2007 prediction:
About mid-year, Republicans (with big business' blessing) will start pushing for impeachment to limit any further damage to the party by Bush.
Mid-year? He'd only have a year and a half left. You really think they'd bother? Heck, by summer they're all going to be so busy with their own campaigns, I’m betting no one will be will to get embroiled in a messy impeachment.
It will be interesting to watch Rep. candidates fall all over themselves trying to distance themselves from Bush though. What they don’t realize yet is, they were all so far up his nose at the beginning of the war that no amount of dissing Bush now will do them any good. Bush and this war will be the kiss of death to any candidate.
Nixon resigned in August 1974. His re-election was 1972.
Good point, Alex. Perhaps ’08 campaigns will run on a platform of who wants to impeach him the fasted and/or who wants to bring the most charges against him.
I see Rep. Candidates all saying “Nope, not me, I’ve never even been to the White House” and then Dems will be forced to trot out all the photos of said candidate canoodling with Bush. All Rep candidates are going to have to thrash Bush in order to have even a chance of winning.
Should be interesting…
Casual, I wish I’d known about this a little earlier, but I’ll certainly check out the information. I’m all for doing whatever it will take to get the impeachment party started!
Post a Comment