Wednesday, September 08, 2004

OUTRAGE IS THEIR SPECIALTY a vote for Bush is a vote for Satan himself...

Let's see if this story about Bush's ditching of National Guard service makes it onto "Hardball" or "Hannity & Colmes" or "Crossfire" or any show that would bring it to the public's attention. If not, it should be proof enough that the media are not only not liberal, they are completely
derelict in their duty to be impartial and are out to get Kerry (just like they
were out to get Gore).

After all, all of the above shows have covered, recovered, analyzed and
re-analyzed the Swift Boat "controversy" over and over, when all official
records support Kerry's story. In contrast, none of the official records
support Bush's story. But I bet this story will just be allowed to die.

Although there are plenty of sites devoting a lot of energy to this subject, such as:

The AWOL Project

The AWOL Letters

AWOL Scandal

Watched "Hardball" tonight with the head of Texans For Truth and some smug Republican Congressman from Texas...and what struck me about the Congressman's defense of Bush is that in essence, his argument and the Republican party's argument boils down to this: Bush was given an honorable discharge, so it's all good. End of story.

Why, they say, should we go on and on about whether Bush was in Texas or Alabama during this time or that? Why should we take the word of a few people who were in either place about whether or not he served with honor over 30 years ago? After all, Mr. Bush got an honorable discharge. That's the essence of the Republican defense of Bush's piss-poor Guard service.

If it's good enough for the goose...

Well, John Fuckin' Kerry also received an honorable discharge and in fact received a medal for each of Demonic Dick Cheney's deferments. So why do the Republicans insist that we should go on and on about whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not? Why do they insist that we should listen to 250 soldiers (the vast majority of whom weren't around to witness Kerry's medal-winning incidents) about whether or not Kerry served honorably over 30 years ago? Why is Kerry's honorable discharge not allowed to cover any sins he may or may not have committed?

Well, for one thing, it's because Republicans are evil. The standards they apply to everyone else don't apply to them. And all of this will come out after the election. There'll be some buried stories in all the major newspapers about how, yes, Kerry really did serve honorably and deserved all his medals and Bush was a shirker. But, hey, you know, Bush just ran the better cover-up operation and shrewdly attacked the Democrat on his strong points. It may have been dirty, the stories will say, but hey, that's our political culture.

Yes, I said Republicans are evil

And they don't care about the average person, you, me, our mommies, our babies, or anything. They care about one thing and one thing only: profit. They know Kerry and the Democrats will raise their taxes, thereby eating into their precious profits. Not that the Democrats don't also suckle at the corporate teat, they just think a fat and happy middle class helps keep the system more orderly. If the Republicans want to keep going ahead with their master plan to impoverish everyone but the top 1% of the population, then so be it, but they'll soon find themselves at the business end of the pitchforks of the poor revolutionaries they will have created and of the devil himself.

    And One More Thing

    And I was gonna say some more stuff about some other things, but that'll do for now... except for, when Dreadfully Dangerous and Demonically Disastrous Dick said that we should "make the right choice" in November, I took it to mean that he was encouraging us to vote for Kerry.

    Because who was in office when "the worst tragedy in American history" occurred? George W. (for Wimpy, Wasted, Washed-up, We-tarded, Waffler, Womanly, Wfucked-up-motherfucker) Bush!! He already let us "get hit" once! Does he think that the "American people" want to give him the chance to ignore more intelligence that he may get in the future that spells out a terrorist's intentions along the lines of "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S."?

    Hey America! 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch! Don't be a dumbass! Don't vote for this guy! He thought Iraq had WMD (or at least told us he thought they did)! Don't let them tell you "everybody thought he had WMD!" Scott Ritter didn't! Hans Blix didn't, and he was the one on the fuckin' ground in fuckin' Iraq looking for them!

    I mean, for a guy whose father was head of the CIA, George W. (Wuss, Wanker, Whore) Bush cannot get the intelligence thing right. That's two instances of bungled intelligence--9/11 and Iraq. And those are just two of the ones we know about.

    This is what the fuckin' Republicans do--they take their weaknesses and not only don't cop to them, they claim them as strengths! And we (and our press corps) let them!

    It's a brilliant strategy, but only as long as people say, "Well, we have to trust our President and be faithful" or whatever the fuck Britney Spears said. They just deny, deny, deny. They tell the big lie and get people who are on the radio and TV every minute of every day to deny, deny, deny for them and suddenly it somehow becomes the truth.

    OK, I'm almost done

    But the truth is this--Bush was warned about terrorists wanting to hit America at least a month before it happened. And then he sat in a Florida classroom for seven minutes after he was informed that it was happening. And then he claimed a country that the rest of the world knew to be a complete weakling was the gravest threat to us. And that he could prove it--he knew where the WMD were. And then he's WASTED hundreds of billions of dollars of your money and my money and thousands of lives on it--and, whoops, come to find out, no WMD, no links to Al Qaeda, just a lot of sand and Iraqi prisoners for us to torture.

    And then his people imply that they're the right choice for keeping us safe from anything? Who the fuck is gonna keep us safe from them? I swear, if Bush wins, it means that this country will have been given over to the idiots, the perverts, the unschooled, and most of all, the predatory rich...

    Except for this one other point

    And why does everybody keep saying Bush is so "likable?" And why does anyone care if the president is likable? Supposedly the "American people" care deeply about whether or not their politicians are likable.

    I would rather the president was the most intelligent being on earth. I couldn't give a fuck about his personality. As long as he knows what's best for the country and gets it done, I couldn't give two shits about whether the president is "likable." Yes, it would be nice if the president could be both super-intelligent AND likable, but if it has to be one or the other, I will take the super-intelligence.

    That's why I'm voting for Kerry, by the way. Compared to Bush, Kerry is super-intelligent. And supposedly Bush is so very, very likable and normal and just like us--he can't talk right, and his sentences are all jumbled and he misspeaks all the time and doesn't read newspapers and can't pronounce words right and doesn't understand concepts very well and has a potty mouth and plays at religion and comes across as normal as your next-door neighbor, etc.

    Well, would any of us want our next-door neighbor running the country? I think the vast majority of the country shudders at that thought. That's why people like John Kerry exist--accomplished, well-spoken, brave, degreed, published, fair, and in every way superior to George W. Bush.

    On paper, it's no comparison. Kerry kicks Bush's ass. But then you get Bush's little "heh, heh aw shucks" routine and everybody talks about how likable he is while Kerry towers over his every achievement. I mean, Kerry's never been elected President, but then neither has Bush...

    And with that crude blow, I bid you adieu...yeah, that's French, motherfucker...

    No comments: