24 June, 2004

Ah hoy jihadi bunnies...there's support stateside.

Election fever is spreading like the contagion it is. Hoping to bend you over and shove the horse pill up the chute is Michael Moore, darling of the left and a sparkle in Osama's eye. Last night was the premier of "I stole this title 411" and it played to a mostly democratic audience. As Sullivan says (drum roll please) the money quote:

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa implored all Americans to see the film: "It's important for the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us to this point, and to see it sort of in this unvarnished presentation by Michael Moore."
Unvarnished? Who is this guy, Benjamin Moore? But thats beside the point....the point being the Dems are stupid. To continue:
This movie raises a lot of the issues that Americans are talking about, that George Bush has been asleep at the switch since he's been president," [Terry] McAuliffe said as he walked the red carpet into the premiere.
I wouldnt exactly (perhaps if i were hallucinating from this election fever)call invading Afghanistan and Iraq "asleep at the switch". Im tired of this whole idea that because Bush "did" nothing during the first eight months of his presidency- three of which were when the presidency was still hotly contested-9/11 happened. No. If Clinton had been able to keep his d*ck in his pants and pursue Osama Bin Laden and his al Kitty network after they blew up a couple of things, and oh you remember, killed a whole bunch of Americans, then 9/11 would not have happened. Clinton was the one "asleep at the switch" during his time in the Oval Office. But of course, it is an American habit to deflect your own mistakes and failings onto others.

Aside from which, what can one administration do in five months when they still havent appointed half the f*cking cabinet?


PS. if you insist on wearing a shirt that says religion on army fatigue background, then you're just stupid...

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Eve, I think most of these arguments against Bush "Sleeping on the switch" are founded on the fact that the administration basically ignored not only early signs of an attack (see the recent 9/11 report) but also early warnings by CIA agents and other members of the intelligence community. Sure, you can blame Clinton for not preventing this or that attack, but you have to remember that before 9/11 there really wasn't any justifiable reason to sound the war-cry against terrorism. Most importantly, the conventional means (ie, bombs) had yet to be "radicalized" through more militaristic strategies (ie, crashing "missiles", or jumbo jets, into "hard" and "soft" targets). Moreover, who'd a thought you could just point to a belligerent middle-eastern dictator and justify the opening of an international phase of the "war on terrorism" without a single sound and undeniable (I mean, that does not base itself mostly on claims forward by Iraqi exiles (e.g., defecting officers) and other "biased" parties (by this I mean Chalabi)) thread of evidence pointing to a looming military and nuclear (though there is but the slightest evidence for biological weapons) threat? Sorry for the length of this last sentence.