boo hoo hoo, john boehner
John Boehner's tearful plea to congress to pass the Iraq supplemental funding bill indicates he remains grossly uninformed about 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. As his own emperor admitted:
In August, 2006, when President Bush was explaining how the 9/11 attacks inspired his "freedom agenda," Cox News reporter Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. And the president set things straight once and for all.
"The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East," said Bush.
"What did Iraq have to do with it?" asked Herman.
"What did Iraq have to do with what?" responded a confused Bush.
"The attack on the World Trade Center," explained Herman.
"Nothing," admitted Bush, who went on to say that "nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack."
For emphasis, Bush repeated, "Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."
In response to Boehner's absurd and tearful plea, "when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat 'em? Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you, if we don't do it now, and if we don't have the courage to defeat this enemy, we will long, long regret it." Boo hoo hoo, Mr. Boehner, you idiot.
Listening to this jackass, I can only ask of the people of this country who care about democracy, who care about our soldiers dying every day in a pointless, fruitless, devastating war, when are we going to have the courage to defeat this enemy, this shameless, conscienceless band of idiots occupying Congress and the White House.
In August, 2006, when President Bush was explaining how the 9/11 attacks inspired his "freedom agenda," Cox News reporter Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. And the president set things straight once and for all.
"The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East," said Bush.
"What did Iraq have to do with it?" asked Herman.
"What did Iraq have to do with what?" responded a confused Bush.
"The attack on the World Trade Center," explained Herman.
"Nothing," admitted Bush, who went on to say that "nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack."
For emphasis, Bush repeated, "Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."
In response to Boehner's absurd and tearful plea, "when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat 'em? Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you, if we don't do it now, and if we don't have the courage to defeat this enemy, we will long, long regret it." Boo hoo hoo, Mr. Boehner, you idiot.
Listening to this jackass, I can only ask of the people of this country who care about democracy, who care about our soldiers dying every day in a pointless, fruitless, devastating war, when are we going to have the courage to defeat this enemy, this shameless, conscienceless band of idiots occupying Congress and the White House.
Labels: asshats, crooks and liars, war, war criminals
posted by BigAssBelle at 11:15 AM
6 Comments:
Lynette: You MUST listen to the following episode of the NPR show "This American Life" (you can click to listen online). The whole show is almost an hour, but the best parts are the ones that talk about guys who were imprisoned in Guantanmo who had absolutely nothing to do with anything. Scary and ridiculous stuff. I think you'll enjoy it (it's not depressing, just unbelievable).
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331
Wow, I'd say Boehner's really got that conservative fakeness down!
Hey Lynette,
Just my take on the war funding bill: I don't think the Democrats have failed. The war would have continued with or without this bill. But if they hadn't sent the president the bill he wanted, he would have blamed the failure in Iraq on the Democrats. It would have been a ridiculous argument but I never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. I actually think NOT sending the president a bill was exactly what he wanted because, like I said, he would have continued fighting the war anyway but he could have blamed the failure on someone else.
But by passing a bill with timelines and having it vetoed and then giving the president the money he asked for, they have made it clear that they are willing to support the troops but the president has to take full resposibility for continuing this mess.
In September, when it has become clear that the president's "one last chance for success" has not worked, he and his Republican supporters will be completely backed into a corner and something will really have to change.
Unfortunately, the Democrats don't have the power to end the war immediately but I think they are laying the groundwork for ending it. I don't think we should be too hard on them. Just my opinion.
Eric
I agree with Eric. I think the only thing that would have resulted from Dems refusal to back down would have been a long, protracted pissing contest with Bush continuing to veto every spending bill they sent across his desk (however, making him veto it a couple more times would have made his fault in the matter more obvious for those who don't already see that... maybe).
I enjoyed and somewhat agree with this letter from yesterday's Los Angeles Times:
"Throughout the years of the Bush administration, according to the Democrats, the president has been damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Now the Democrats have managed to get themselves into the same quandary.
If their plans for a new direction in Iraq succeed (that is, timetables and withdrawal of troops), then the Democrats will be blamed for the resulting chaos in the Middle East and the Iranian domination of the region. On the other hand, if the Democrats' plans disintegrate within Congress, then the Democrats will go down to defeat as a do-nothing Congress."
joe, i did listen to that and thank you. it is absolutely stunning what has happened to this country. i still have trouble on any given day believing what's going on here.
now, eric, joe, i have to disagree in part with what you're saying. yes, they can try again in september, but how many more lives will that cost and it is the pointlessness of it that just grinds away at my soul.
murtha wrote this about the vote: "Some have suggested that since the president refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president."
that is utter bullshit and i can't believe he doesn't know it. it's simply a republican talking point parroted back. it was fear, i think, that kept the democrats from making more of an effort, fear of being painted as weak, soft on terror, unpatriotic.
but this assinine talking point of "the troops will suffer" is just crap. if there is no more money, the troops will be withdrawn. that would have been bush's responsibility, that they had no more money, if he continued to veto proposals sent by the dems.
it just feels so hopeless today. maybe i'll have a different view as we go on, but with what's happening on the lobbying legislation and all of the other things that i believed the dems would change, my confidence that things will change has gone down the drain.
It's pronounced "BAY-ner" but he'll always be "BONE-er" to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home