posted October 10, 2004 03:54 PM            

Our President told the debate audience, "You cannot lead if you send mexxed missiges." I certainly hope not.

But that's exactly what we got. You watch our President, the nervous hand-hiding, the compulsive water-glass-fondling, the panicked I-wish-I-had-a-whiskey look, and you think, "My god, this is the guy who's supposed to save us from al Qaeda."

And how are we going to win the War on Terror, Mr. President? "First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that," he said. Well, that's a start, I suppose.

But it doesn't have to stay this way. This is America, home of the brave and where, I remember from school, we could vote for president and the votes would count. So we looked to the tall man next to him to show us the way out.

In Iraq, "We don't have enough troops there," said the tall one. Really, Senator? We should send MORE? Not exactly: Mr. Tall's got a plan to get our troops out. He'll have a big meeting of "allies," and after he talks with them, they will all jump up and volunteer to send THEIR kids to Fallujah. France and Indonesia and Kuwait can't wait to ship in soldiers and extra body bags. Right. We love you, John, but there’s no band of Hobbits coming to the rescue -- that's just a movie.

Well, he looked kind of "presidential." But given the line-up includes Nixon, Ford and two Bushes, that's not a big trick.

I'm sorry. I know I'm supposed to stand up and cheer that John Kerry didn't get Gored. In fact, if you look at presidential debates the way the media plays it, as something akin to Olympic figure skating, where you score for the competitor’s style, you could say Kerry won.

But I don't feel WE won anything.

I mean, when Jim Lehrer asked how the candidates would make America safe from terrorists, Mr. Tall said he'd hire more firemen. And add more cops. Maybe he thought he was running for mayor.

It was disappointing, but then Mr. Small's answer was downright frightening. We have to "stay on the offensive," and "stay on the offense," and "I repeat, stay on the offense." We have no doubt that Mr. Small can be extraordinarily offensive, but even he can't take his offensiveness to the bad guys if he doesn't know where they are. And on that point, he's clueless.

There were two words I was hoping to hear from Mr. Tall: "Saudi" and "Arabia." Imagine if he laid it on the line, "The terrorists didn't put the hijackings on a credit card, Mr. President. Their Saudi sponsors are fattening on the bloated war-driven price of oil. But you can't touch your buck-buddies in the Gulf, can you, Mr. President?. As Commander-in-Chief, I'd cut'm off at the spigots, beginning with the release of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And then I'd seize their fat assets in the USA to compensate the victims of terror attacks."

When Mr. Tall was asked what whoppers the President has told us, surely there was something a bit more memorable than Mr. Small's failing to win over allies for his whacky crusade.

Here's what Mr. Tall said … in my dreams:

* "Beginning in March 2001, your Administration began a series of meetings with oil company executives to map the conquest of Iraq and its oil, a plan Americans would pay for in blood. You originally called this scheme, 'Operation Iraqi Liberation' -- O.I.L. We don't appreciate your little joke, Mr. Small."

* "One month after seizing Baghdad you fired General Jay Garner, the man you put in charge of Iraq, after he called for rapid elections in Najaf; after he refused to impose your plans to sell off Iraq's oil fields. In Najaf, citizens denied ballots, turned to bullets. And then, as General Garner predicted, the seizure of Iraq's assets resulted in the type of war one expects -- when seeking to impose colonial control."

* "Mr. Small, you claim we've given a thousand lives to bring democracy to the Mid-east. But so far, your democracy, Mr. Small, comes down to a puppet prime minister, we've installed in Iraq and a puppet government, the Saudis have installed in Washington."

OK, I can't expect all that in a presidential debate, where the message has to fit through a tube. But still, Mr. Tall could have won my vote with two words. It's the two-word answer John Kerry gave three decades ago when asked the same question -- “How can we get our troops out of a disastrous war?”

posted October 12, 2004 07:50 AM            

I you!! I really did laugh out loud reading this. In an ironic kind of way.

quote:

---

* "Beginning in March 2001, your Administration began a series of meetings with oil company executives to map the conquest of Iraq and its oil, a plan Americans would pay for in blood. You originally called this scheme, 'Operation Iraqi Liberation' -- O.I.L. We don't appreciate your little joke, Mr. Small."

---

Ahh, je'taime, Monseiur Palast. O.I.L. was all for the ''good of the Iraqi people'', wasn't it?

Quicksilver,
I do agree with you there. If the whereabouts are known the the U.S. government and any insiders, it's not any of our business, as it would only lead to more difficulties of the *crusade*.

posted October 14, 2004 12:52 AM            

USA Today quotes the Drudge report in stating that the USA is mounting a secret operation to kill the President of Iraq. Meanwhile, the military build-up in the Gulf continues, the United Kingdom having committed a quarter of its armed forces, to accompany the considerable force already in the area, or on its way, sent by Washington. " http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/21/42360.html (bold mine)

I realize that that is perhaps not the most reputable site but I do remember hearing this before in other sources I just couldn't track them down. However, I also found this:

"Referring to the green light Bush gave the CIA to "assassinate or arrest me," Hussein, according to the leaker, said the U.S. president "has left Iraq no room to be tolerant ... His war on us is now declared, and he is publicly leaking information today that he gave orders to use all means and weapons to violate Iraq's sovereignty and international law by assassinating me in Iraq." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/10/143538.shtml

Okay, why am I wasting space pointing out the obvious?

Well, quicksilver said, in regards to Osama Bin Laden that

quote:

---

it is still reasonable to point out that if our government had an inkling of such whereabouts, they would not be helping the cause by broadcasting that intelligence to the world.

---

and I couldn't help but laugh that he's right ... I don't know how much it would help the cause. I also don't know how much help to "the cause" it was that our secret plan to assasinate or arrest Hussein was revealed/leaked/announced.

Okay, sorry, I'll go back to being an observer.

posted October 14, 2004 04:41 PM            

I was not being fecitious there, I was agreeing with you.

posted October 16, 2004 03:44 AM            

"Two days earlier Bush had described the war as a "crusade," and Chirac cautioned Bush not to fall into the trap bin Laden hoped to set, by making the conflict between Christianity and the Muslim world. The president, who had been gently upbraided by his advisers over the "crusade" comment, said he agreed completely." http://www.freedom.org/WTC/A11062-2002Feb1.html

"When President George Bush called for a "crusade" against terrorism last fall, flustered aides quickly claimed he had misspoken and really didn't mean to invoke the medieval Christian invasions of Muslim nations." http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0203-07.htm

Not trying to upset anyone but Pres. Bush did refer, on his own, to this war as a "crusade on terror" and whether he meant to or not, he did bring up an unfortunate vision of the "Christian invasion of Muslim nations" in the past. If he says he didn't mean to, then I believe him. Still, how could he be so careless with his words? He's our President, not some random guy on a soapbox in a public park. One would suppose that he would've caught himself on that one ... assuming he is aware of the Christian Crusades, which I'm sure he is.