Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Exactly what is trickling down?
« on: 2005-11-30 04:29:38 » |
 |
[Hermit] I was thinking about the global disaster last Novenber (2004) when, post (improbable) election some asked, "How could 59,054,087 Americans be so dumb?" They couldn't see that those voting for him got the president they really deserved. It is sad that that the rest of us on the planet have to, willy-nilly, come along for the slide. Anyhow, the evidence just keeps piling up.
[Hermit] Does anyone else remember Bush's pledge to do for America what he had done for Texas? That was pre-the-2000-election-theft. I responded at the time by wondering if Bush was speaking about Texas' leading rate for the transmission of STDs and teen pregnancies after Shrub's Texas had replaced condoms and sex-ed with "abstinence pledges" and other faith based bullshit," or something else. Well, it seems that I was precognitive and that he might have meant something else.
[Celia Hagert] "While Texas consistently ranks among the top five states, this is the first time it leads the nation", said Celia Hagert, a senior policy analyst at the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities.
[Hermit] Whatever Bush is doing is apparently working. Yes, I said that. But wait, there's more! "A higher percentage of households in Texas were at risk of going hungry over the past three years than in any other state, according to data released Friday by the U.S. Agriculture Department." "Between 2002 and 2004, more than 16 percent of Texas households were food insecure, meaning that at some point they had trouble providing enough food for all their family members. In nearly 5 percent of Texas households, at least one family member went hungry at least one time during that period because they couldn't afford enough food."
[Hermit] Notice, they are not talking about New Orleans, but about Texas. Which brings me to my next question, what is Bush doing in El Paso, Texas (2005-11-29)?
[Hermit] Fabricating "deja vue moments" it seems.
[GWBush] "Look, here's what I'm interested in. I'm interested in winning. I want to defeat the terrorists. And I want our troops to come home. But I don't want them to come home without having achieved victory, and we've got a strategy for victory. And the commanders will make the decision. See, that's what the people want. The people don't want me making decisions based upon politics; they want me to make decisions based upon the recommendation from our generals on the ground. And that's exactly who I'll be listening to."
[Hermit] He lies. Mr Bush's generals are not happy men. But Mr Bush doesn't listen to them. Mr Bush listens to Mssrs Cheney and Rumsfeld. Who are not generals. Even if they really, really want to be generals. Memories. Ah, yesterday. Yesterday. What would we do without our memories? Here is another memory.
"Bush declares victory in Iraq."
[BBC] May 1, 2003: US President George W Bush has said the US has prevailed in the Battle of Iraq in a speech on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. He explicitly linked the conflict in the Gulf to the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on the United States. He spoke of victories in Afghanistan, but warned that the al-Qaeda network was "wounded, not destroyed". Mr Bush said that although the war on terror was still going on, it would not be endless...
[Hermit] Somebody should remind the FlamingShrubTM. I can just imagine it.
[Anchor] "Mr President, Dear Leader, Sir, have you forgotten that we achieved victory on May 1st, 2003. So can we bring the troops home already? The troops that haven't already come back on stretchers or in boxes that is. Yes, the troops you have scattered all over the Middle East who are currently helping to recruit the next generation of anti-American terrorists and ensuring that the Middle East is safe for establishing terrorist training camps."
[GWB Perhaps] [...indistinguishable...]
[Anchor] "No Mr President, Dear Leader, Sir. You can't blame it on the CIA again. You have used that card already. Oh dear, Dear Leader, it seems you are quite out of "Get out of jail free cards."
[Hermit] Some of the public are aware that when Shrub said that those accusing him are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments." that Shrub was telling the absolute, literal truth. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence specifically refrained from looking at whether or not the administration manipulated pre-war intelligence. All it has done so far has been to examine pre-war intelligence by the agencies. Not examining the funky study groups set up by Cheney (Yes, the "No you can't see my travel vouchers, the Office of the Vice President is not an 'Agency'", Cheney), whose arguments were quoted ad nauseam to sell the BushWarTM (thanks Jake). The Senate investigation has, with its chair ensuring that it acts only within its mandate, confined itself to looking just at "the agencies". And they haven't even peeked at how the information (disinformation) provided by "the agencies" (and especially not at the disinformation provided by non-agencies) was used. After all, this vastly pre-empted and pre-interpreted not to say, pre-invalidated investigation has yet to do the second part of its job. Which is to evaluate the use of the information. A job which the Republicans keep stalling on, despite the fact that the way the investigation is set-up is a set-up. A set-up to guarantee that anyone can claim anything from the results (and as we can see, they have been doing, even though there are no results yet).
[Hermit] Of course, the BumblingBushTM may have been mispeaking himself all over again. Perhaps the "investigation" he meant to speak about was Judge Laurence Silberman's. But then, it is the same thing. As repeatedly observed here, Judge Laurence Silberman has said, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry." And the good judge clewed faithfully to his mandate.
[Hermit] So, while Shrub did tell a literal truth (agonizingly unbelievable as this might seem), when he said, "a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments," he was still being disingenuous. Mr Bush knows not only that the investigation didn't ever find such evidence, it wasn't even looking for it, hasn't ever looked for it - and if the Republicans have anything to do with it, never will look for such evidence. And nobody accused either investigation of trying to do so. Which makes Bush's a glorious meta-lie. "A blindingly good big lie." A Whopper!
[Hermit] But what of Bush's obnoxious dittoheaded, support-the-NeoConArtist-and-Israel-at-any-cost minions? After all, if they are lying, they should be able to fathom out that they are not going to delude anyone else; the lies are too obvious. So, could it be they are “merely” trying to lie to themselves? What is the word for that? Or are they simply too delusional or perhaps too stupid to figure out the “Big Lie” from the public record. Time, and further revelations will probably tell, if some idiot doesn't wipe us all out first in a fit of petulance or even embarrassment.
[Hermit] No. Not embarrassment. Embarrassment requires at least self-awareness, if not empathy and intelligence. And rocks seem more self-aware than the shaved monkey at the helm of the US today.
Hermit
More Cartoon Fun: MSNBC
|
Author
Logged
