Tag Archives: September 11

Obama wins Round Two (but the media will call it a draw)

U.S. President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Romney debate during the second U.S. presidential debate in Hempstead

Republican presidential nominee Romney and U.S. President Obama speak directly to each other during the second U.S. presidential campaign debate in Hempstead

US President Obama speaks next to Republican presidential candidate Romney during second US presidential campaign debate in Hempstead

U.S. President Obama answers a questiion as Republican presidential nominee Romney listens during the second U.S. presidential campaign debate in Hempstead

Republican presidential nominee Romney and U.S. President Obama shake hands at the conclusion of the second U.S. presidential debate in Hempstead

Reuters photos

The up-close-and-personal town-hall format of tonight’s presidential debate, and the criticism that President Barack Obama received for not having called out Mittens Romney on his string of blatant lies during the first 2012 presidential debate, resulted in a fiercer second debate performance by Obama tonight. And moderator Candy Crowley proved herself to be no Jim Lehrer, also to Mittens’ disadvantage.

That’s just anticipatory, my prediction* for tonight’s second presidential debate, which, as I post this, begins in less than a half-hour. (I am watching the debate live online and of course will write about it here, in this same post, later tonight.)

What I’m really looking for in tonight’s debate is to see if Mittens Romney repeats Pretty Boy Paul Ryan’s execrable attempt during last week’s vice presidential debate to make a mountain of political hay over the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11.

At the time of Mittens’ initial politicizing of the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in the American consulate in Libya, I saw an editorial cartoon depicting Mittens slapping his presidential bumper sticker on Stevens’ headstone. It was quite apropros.

I can’t find that ’toon now, but while searching for it I did find a couple of others:

Romney Political Posturing

 Libya Tragedy

Beyond the shamelessness of using the attack on the American consulate in Libya for political gain, it’s a fucking laugh that it is the Repugnican Tea Party traitors who are going to keep us safe.

Four Americans died in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, but more than four fucking thousand Americans** died preventable deaths during the watch of the unelected “President” George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, and in late August 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states.

There had been plenty of warning that both Osama bin Laden and Hurricane Katrina would strike the U.S., but the Vacationer in Chief George W. Bush couldn’t be bothered to do anything about either threat.

Whether or not the attack on the American consulate in Libya could have been prevented or not — it seems to me that it’s quite difficult to keep an American consulate in any Middle Eastern nation safe — the way to respond to such an incident is first to examine what went wrong and then to do things differently.

Putting another right-wing, swaggering, plutocratic chickenhawk in the White House is not doing things differently, and under a President Mittens, I believe, we’d see a lot more American deaths than we have under President Barack Obama.

We’ve seen already how well Mittens is received on the world stage — a Mittens presidency would be reminiscent of that of George W. Bush. Making the world hate us makes us less safe, not safer, and Repugnican presidents have a way of making the world hate us.

For all of Obama’s shortcomings, we (those of us who inhabit the reality-based world, that is) can’t say that he hasn’t kept the nation safe. Yet that is what I expect Mittens insanely to do tonight.

Update:

I found that cartoon:

Bill Schorr - Cagle Cartoons - Romney Libya Comments - English - Mitt Romney,Libya,Chris Stevens,politics,

Update: Fifteen minutes in, I’d say it’s a draw-leaning-toward-Obama. Mittens makes pledges, such as regarding job creation, but surreally, he offers no specifics. His first prickish attempt to steamroll moderator Candy Crowley of CNN failed.

Update: Obama, apparently having learned from Round One, freely states that Mittens isn’t telling the truth, and we’re seeing a fairly feisty Obama tonight.

This debate on oil, coal and alternative energy production is way too reminiscent of the 2008 debates. The wingnutty mantra of “Drill, baby, drill!” hasn’t changed. Indicative, I believe, of how the right wing does its damnedest to prevent progress.

Update: I don’t for a nanosecond believe Mittens’ claim that he won’t give the rich and super-rich tax breaks and that he wuvs the middle class (um, aren’t we the 47 percent he was disowning just back in May?). I believe that his plan is to give them tax breaks right away, and his “five-point plan” sounds like Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” plan…

I believe Obama’s assertion that Mittens’ plan is to give the plutocrats their tax cuts and spend even more on the military-corporate complex, bloating the federal budget deficit even further — just like George W. Bush did.

Update: Mittens’ attempts to run over Candy Crowley aren’t going nearly as well for him as they did during the first debate, and I think that Mittens’ aggressive, steamrolling behavior is indicative of his character.

On the topic of women’s issues (specifically, women in the workforce), Mittens claims that as governor of Massachusetts he essentially engaged in affirmative action where women are concerned. Um, aren’t the wingnuts against that?

Meh. I look at the patriarchal Mormon cult that Mittens supports and women’s status within the Mormon cult that Mittens supports. That fact, I believe, is a much better barometer of the truth than are Mittens’ words in his post-Etch-A-Sketch-shaking phase.

Update: A great question from an audience member (who said that she is “undecided” but seems to lean toward Obama) for Mittens was how he is different from George W. Bush (a.k.a. He Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned). Mittens first lied that he “appreciate[d]” the question that mentioned He Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned and then blathered about how he wants to focus on small businesses, whereas the Bush regime focused on Big Business, and how he wants to focus on jobs.

Obama retorted, correctly, that just as Gee Dubya did, Mittens would only give tax breaks to the rich and otherwise support the plutocrats.

Update: Mittens brought up Ronald Reagan, which I guess was meant to neutralize the mention of George W. Bush.

It strikes me that this presidential election isn’t entirely unlike the 2000 election: We are to believe that vulture capitalist multi-millionaire Mittens Romney, whose religion is all about elevating the right-wing, “Christian” white man over the rest of us, is a “compassionate conservative,” which is what George W. Bush claimed he is, and we know how well George W. Bush worked out.

It’s interesting when liars like Mittens actually promise to govern progressively. They’re lying through their fangs, of course, but the fact that they are lying that they will be progressive is proof that progressivism is superior to what the wingnuts actually stand for.

Update: Mittens just used the term “illegals” in the discussion of immigration. Wow. I wonder if they’ll be talking about that tomorrow. “Illegals” is a charged word that reveals, I believe, how Mittens regards those who are in the nation without documentation.

Update: The attack in Benghazi finally came up. Mittens claimed that Obama didn’t take the situation seriously enough, which is interesting, given that when George W. Bush received the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” Bush was on vacation in Crawford, Texas, and on August 29, 2005, the day that Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, George W. Bush was celebrating John McCain’s birthday in Arizona.

It’s sickening that the Benghazi incident is being used by Team Mittens as a political football, and it’s sickening that the back-and-forth on the Benghazi incident is the only topic thus far that has caused the studio-audience members (in violation of the rules…) to applaud first for Obama and then for Mittens.

Update: Mittens has used the topic of gun violence to try to bring up another anti-Obama pseudo-scandal, “Fast and Furious.” I get it that it’s his role to tarnish Obama, but — Oh, cool: Moderator Candy Crowley has redirected Mittens back on topic. Clearly, Mittens was too comfortable with the Jim Lehrer treatment.

As I was saying, I get it that Mittens wants to tarnish Obama, but I don’t think that the anti-Obama pseudo-scandals from which the members of the right-wing blogosphere get their rocks off are going to appeal to a general audience.

Update: So according to Mittens, China is our big economic enemy, and we must stop sending our jobs overseas. Nevermind that Mittens made his millions via corporations whose profits skyrocketed through cheap labor overseas. Wow.

Again, Mittens is lying that he’d stop the flow of jobs overseas, but in his lie, he admits that sending jobs overseas (which he actually supports) is the wrong thing to do.

Update: It’s winding down. Mittens says that the biggest misperception of him is that he doesn’t care about “100 percent of the people.” Well, um, he was video-recorded in May saying that he has written off 47 percent of us.

He has used the phrase “100 percent” at least three times now, which underscores what a gaffe his “47 percent” remark was. (A “gaffe” as in he wouldn’t have said it had he known he was being video-recorded, not a “gaffe” as in that he “misspoke” or put it “inelegantly.” He knew exactly what he was saying and he meant exactly what he was saying.)

Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!: Obama saved the best for last, reminding us, finally, of Mittens “47 percent” remark.

Obama got the last word in the debate, and my impression now, now that the debate is over, is pretty much what it was early in the debate: That Obama won the debate, but that he didn’t deliver a knock-out punch.

I expect the corporately owned and controlled mass media to call the debate a draw.

Whatever, but if Obama continues his trajectory, he will deliver the knock-out blow next week.

Obama is a smoother debater than is Mittens. Obama can deliver a blow smoothly and without apparent arrogance, whereas Mittens practically salivates all over himself when, in his mind, he has delivered a body blow, such as his bullshit on Benghazi and his bullshit on “Fast and Furious.”

If you take all of Mittens’ “blows” tonight combined, they don’t add up to that one “47 percent” remark of his that he made, as, Obama put it tonight, “behind closed doors” not even a full six months ago, and while the incident in Benghazi and “Fast and Furious” haven’t touched you or me personally, being categorized as half of the American people whom Mittens Romney doesn’t give a shit about: That is personal. That does affect us.

And that is the central (albeit secretly video-recorded) campaign promise that Mittens Romney, as president, would fulfill: That he would ignore at least 47 percent of the nation.

*My initial title of this post was “Obama wins!” Then I changed it to “Obama wins Round Two!” and then I changed it to its current title, once it seemed clear to me that Obama won but probably wouldn’t get credit for having won.

**Per Wikipedia, 2,977 were killed by the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, and more than 1,830 were killed by Hurricane Katrina.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Wake me up on September 12

55315893_large_watermark_comp

AFP/Getty Images photo

The owner of an investment and public relations firm stumbles away from the stricken World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. While we are seeing plenty of images like this one these days, we certainly aren’t seeing images like this one, an Iraqi girl whose parents were blown away by American stormtroopers in 2005 (you know, because of 9/11) —

Chris Hondros/Getty Images photo

— or, of course, one of the many wonderful images that came out of Abu Ghraib (which I think is Arabic for “a few bad apples”) prison in Vietraq, like this unforgettable gem, circa 2004:

File:Abu-ghraib-leash.jpg

Seriously, though, no nation does rank hypocrisy and self-righteousness like the “Christian” United States of America does rank hypocrisy and self-righteousness. We! Are! Number! One!

So the 9/11 decennial already has begun, with cheesy (redundant…) 9/11-related retrospective pieces already having been appearing in the mainstream media, but the worst of it should come next week, as the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, approaches.

As Ted Rall points out, we Americans have learned virtually nothing from 9/11, and this is evident from the woe-is-us fest that we’re seeing now.

And as Glenn Greenwald (also) points out, of course part of the self-serving, mawkish 9/11 commemoration that we won’t see is any official mention of the fact that the U.S. government first supported (and armed) the likes of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden before it declared them enemies or any official mention of the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis whom the United States slaughtered in the illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War, which the unelected Bush regime launched in March 2003 using 9/11 as a pretext, even though not a single one of the 19 9/11 hijackers was an Iraqi (15 of them, in fact, were from Saudi Arabia, as was Osama bin Laden, but the U.S. power elites and the Saudi power elites remain great oily buddies).

Greenwald concludes his piece by noting that

… the fact that victims of American violence over the last two decades have easily outweighed, and continue to outweigh, those of the Dictators and Terrorists whom we so vocally despise is nonetheless an extremely important fact that should shape our understanding of 9/11. But as usual, that’s another fact that will be “left unsaid” [in the 9/11 decennial commemorations].

What 9/11 signifies most for me is nothing like American victimhood, since the United States hardly can claim to be a victimized nation (9/11 was only blowback for longstanding U.S. oppression in the Middle East), or “patriotism” (which is just jingoism or fascistic nationalism), but it marks the lost decade of 2000 through 2009.

That decade started out swimmingly, with the blatantly stolen presidential election of 2000. What possibly could have gone wrong by just allowing a bunch of right-wing, pro-plutocratic, pro-corporate chickenhawks to steal the White House?

Then there was 9/11, then there was the Vietraq War, then there was Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 — which the unelected Bush regime was prepared for as well as it had been prepared for 9/11 (recall the August 2001 presidential daily briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”, and forecasters had predicted Katrina’s landfall at least two days in advance) — and then there was Barack Obama promising “hope” and “change” to a weary, Bush-whacked nation in 2008.

In 2009, with the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate all in Democratic/“Democratic” hands — his best opportunity to push through a progressive agenda — what did President Hopey-Changey accomplish? Jack fucking squat. And in 2010? Ditto.

And now we are in 2011 and where are we? We are pretty much right back where we were back in 2000: the Repugnican (Tea) Party presidential frontrunner is the Big-Oil-ass-lickin’, “Christo”fascist-lovin’, dipshit governor of Texas, and the Democratic presidential candidate will be a reportedly intellectual (“elitist” in “tea party”-speak) but rather uncharismatic guy who has been in Washington for a little while now.

And yes, I can see another Texas governor going to the White House in January 2013, whether he steals it and Americans just fucking let him, a la 2000, or whether he actually wins the 2012 presidential election fairly and squarely.  Americans are that fucking stupid.

But can they — we — survive two lost decades in a row?

Fuck. Maybe I should have titled this “Wake me up in 2021.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

This is all I’m going to say about 9/11

The unelected Bush regime beat the nation over the head with 9/11 for many years, so sue me if I long have been 9/11’d out.

As nightmarish as it was to have had to experience the reign of BushCheneyCorp after the stupid, fat and lazy American public just allowed the right-wing thieves (redundant…) to steal the White House in late 200o, the traitors who comprised the Bush regime were, in their own sick, twisted and treasonous way, brilliant. I mean, they took a spectacularly tragic event that they’d been warned about but did not prevent — and used it for political gain.   

It was only until the mid-term elections of 2006 that the Repugnicans no longer could wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 for political gain.

What have we Americans learned since Sept. 11, 2001?

Absofuckinglutely nothing.

We were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, because we wantonly had slaughtered Muslims, or allowed them to be slaughtered or allowed or caused them to die, in the Middle East. In fact, the main reasons given by 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden himself (and other members of al-Qaeda) for 9/11 were: the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, which resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of Iraqi civilians, including children; the presence of the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia after the first George Bush war on Iraq; and the U.S. government’s blind, slavish support of Israel.

So: What has changed since then?

Well, let’s see: The U.S. killed even more innocent Iraqi civilians in George W. Bush’s Vietraq War for Big Oil and for the war profiteering of the war profiteers, such as Dick Cheney’s Halliburton; the U.S. military moved its main base in the Middle East from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, which, to my understanding, still violates the fundamentalist Islamist belief that no infidel should be allowed to occupy Muslim land; and the U.S. government still licks the ass of Israel, which can do no wrong and which enjoys the blind, slavish support of both parties in the duopolistic dog and pony show that we call “democracy.”

While I’m not asserting that when Osama bin Laden shouts “Jump!” Americans should ask “How high?”, it seems clear to me that Americans are hated around the world because they just allow their government and their military (which are only in the service of the corporatocrats and the plutocrats) to shit and piss upon the poorer, weaker peoples all around the globe — yet these same Americans fully expect to be adored around the world just the same.

Why do they hate us?

They hate us because we’re stupid.

They hate us because we’re xenophobic — we don’t even bother to try to learn about other cultures, but we function from the stubborn but incorrect belief that other cultures have just failed at being us. We just assume that they want to be just like us (they don’t) but that they just can’t pull it off because they don’t have what it takes.

They hate us because we’re hypocrites. (To give just one of many examples, the U.S. government maintains that Israel may have nukes but that Iran may not. And for the only nation ever to have nuked another nation to be dictating who does and who does not get to have nukes — because you just can’t allow one nation to nuke another nation —  is pretty fucking insanely hypocritical.)

They hate us because we have no empathy whatsofuckingever. We use the occasion of the anniversary of 9/11 to wallow mawkishly in our own national pity party about the 3,000 or so Americans who were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, while we don’t say a word about the tens of thousands of civilians whom we allowed our government to kill or cause to die in Iraq using 9/11 as a pretext. We talk only about American losses because we consider only Americans to be fully human. Yes, they hate us because we don’t consider them to be fully human.

They hate us because we’re greedy, fat and lazy — and that we use violence around the globe to support our ability to be fat and lazy.

They hate us because we’re destroying the very planet, such as with global warming.

They hate us because we are, in a word, Rome, which I surmise also was rather hated throughout the world.

We fat, lazy and stupid Americans should remember: Rome fell.

Happy International Burn a Koran Day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

They hate us for our intentional ignorance

File:National Park Service 9-11 Statue of Liberty and WTC fire.jpg

National Park Service photo from September 11, 2001

Whew. Another 9/11 anniversary has come and gone.

I wasn’t going to write about 9/11, although I have plenty that I could say about it. I could relate my memories of that uber-memorable day; I worked at one of Sacramento’s tallest office buildings at the time, and I remember the local and national hysteria on that and the many following days.

Most of all, what 9/11 means to me is the hysteria that followed, the belligerent jingoism that I found to be unsettling to frightening, and how the unelected Bush regime — although, we would find out in 2004, “President” Bush had received an August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” — milked 9/11 until the cow ran dry. Indeed, 9/11 served the Bush regime, like the Reichstag fire served the Third Reich, all the way to “re”-election in 2004. (The Democrats would retake Congress two years later and it’s been downhill for the Repugnicans ever since.) 

I wasn’t going to write about the 9/11 anniversary at all this year until I just read a Reuters news article on how there has been opposition to including, in the National September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York City, scheduled to open by 2013, information on the 19 9/11 hijackers.

Apparently, originally the museum was going to display videos that 9/11 hijackers had made before the attacks to explain their motives, but this was too controversial, and so the exhibit on the hijackers will be limited to photos and written texts.

Americans don’t want to even be exposed to the other side of the story when it comes to American history.

All that Americans want to hear about Christopher Columbus, for instance, is that he “discovered” the “New” World. They don’t want to hear the part where, among other things, he enslaved natives as part of his quest for riches for the Spanish crown, and he helped to open up the “New” World to later white European exploitation, which would include, of course, the decimation of the native peoples of the entire continent and the enslavement of Africans.

Similarly, the Thanksgiving myth of the pilgrims and the natives enjoying a feast together glosses over the actual history of the genocide of the natives by the white colonizers.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Tomorrow’s American history is being made today, and if head-in-the-sand Americans have their way, the myth of 9/11 will be that the United States of America was attacked by “freedom-hating terrorists” on September 11, 2001 — the “terrorists” hated “freedom” so much that they decided to take out, in a suicide mission, the World Trade Center, the center of the capitalistic exploitation of the peoples of the world — oops, my bad; of course the WTC was the planetary center of freedom. We’re good, they’re bad, they attacked us because they’re evil, freedom-hating animals and we’re freed0m-lovin’ angels, God’s chosen, even. End of story. That is the 9/11 myth in a nutshell.

Listening to the hijackers give their reasons for their suicide mission doesn’t mean that you have to agree with what they have to say. It certainly doesn’t mean that you have to agree with what they did. But you won’t know the whole story of 9/11 until you do listen to what they had to say about what they did.

Wikipedia, in its entry “September 11 attacks,” has a section titled “Motive.” Here the section is:

All of the fatwas [Islamic edicts] before September 11, 2001 from Osama Bin Laden have a consistent theme: U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia. In 1998 Bin Laden said in a fatwa: “For more than seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.”

The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, [et. al.]. This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, “slay the pagans wherever ye find them” and extrapolates this to conclude that it is the “duty of every Muslim” to “kill Americans anywhere.”

Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his “Letter to America” of October 2002: “You are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its constitution and laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms absolute authority to the Lord and your Creator.”

[I have to interject here and note that it is American wingnuts who also believe that U.S. law should be based upon woefully outdated religious texts. Theocracy is bad unless it’s “Christian” theocracy, you see.]

Many of the eventual findings of the 9/11 Commission with respect to motives have been supported by other experts. Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke explains in his 2004 book Against All Enemies that U.S. foreign policy decisions, including “confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf,” and “strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets” contributed to al-Qaeda’s motives.

Others, such as Jason Burke, foreign correspondent for The Observer, focus on a more political aspect to the motive, stating that “bin Laden is an activist with a very clear sense of what he wants and how he hopes to achieve it. Those means may be far outside the norms of political activity […] but his agenda is a basically political one.”

A variety of scholarship has also focused on bin Laden’s overall strategy as a motive for the attacks. For instance, correspondent Peter Bergen argues that the attacks were part of a plan to cause the United States to increase its military and cultural presence in the Middle East, thereby forcing Muslims to confront the “evils” of a non-Muslim government and establish conservative Islamic governments in the region.

Michael Scott Doran, correspondent for Foreign Affairs, further emphasizes the “mythic” use of the term “spectacular” in bin Laden’s response to the attacks, explaining that he was attempting to provoke a visceral reaction in the Middle East and ensure that Muslim citizens would react as violently as possible to an increase in U.S. involvement in their region.

So it seems to be much more complicated than the overly simplistic “They hate us for our freedom.” U.S. meddling in the Middle East — in Muslim holy land — including, of course, the U.S. government’s support of Israel, the No. 1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid, seems to be the No. 1 reason that 9/11 happened.

But Americans put their fingers in their ears and sing, “La la la la la la — we can’t hear you!”

Which, of course, won’t prevent another 9/11.

In any case, I’m happy that the unelected Bush regime is gone and I’m happy that 9/11 no longer is an effective tool of fear and control, which, when you think about it, ironically is a form of domestic terrorism, only it’s treason, too, because it’s Americans terrorizing other Americans, such as with the Bush regime’s bogus color-coded terrorist-strike alerts.

I don’t miss those days, those McCarthyesque days of bogus terrorist-strike alerts and dissenters of the unelected, war-mongering Bush regime being labeled as terrorist sympathizers.

Wingnut Glenn Beck does, though; his “9/12 Project,” according to its website home page

…is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with red states, blue states, or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the values and principles of the greatest nation ever created.

Bullshit. What he is talking about is not national unity or patriotism or anything like that, but pure, raw, Nazi-ish jingoism, which is “unity” based upon fear and ignorance and xenophobia. (In George Orwell’s 1984, the repressive rulers [“Big Brother’] use fabricated enemies and constant fabricated warfare to keep the masses terrified and thus to keep the masses in line.) And, of course, the stupid white men like Beck are to be the ones to “lead” us out of the fear that they themselves stoke at the same time.

No, I refuse to go back to Beck’s Orwellian “vision” of how “great” things were on September 12, 2001.

We had eight long years of ruination by stupid white men during the unelected reign of BushCheneyCorp.

To even more of that we need to say to the treasonous wingnuts like Beck: Over our dead bodies.

And to ensure that we don’t have another 9/11 and more post-terrorist-strike national hysteria that the wingnutty fascists like the members of BushCheneyCorp and their supporters like Beck use for their own political gain, we need to learn from history for once. Part of that history is that the other peoples of the world have hated us Americans much more for our intentional ignorance of the wrongs that our nation has done unto them than for anything like our “freedom.”

And yes, learning that history means listening to what the 9/11 hijackers had to say and jettisoning our intentional ignorance once and for all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Worst. ‘President.’ Ever.

President George W. Bush listens to his introduction as he prepares ...

Reuters photo 

Speaking at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania today, “President” Bush bragged that there hasn’t been another 9/11 since 9/11 — he wants kudos for doing his job — and today he also claimed to Fox “News,” “I didn’t compromise my soul to be a popular guy.” No, he sold his soul to Dick Cheney’s war-profiteering Halliburton instead of to popularity.

Apparently “President” Bush doesn’t want our last memory of him to be that of him ducking a pair of shoes thrown at him by an enraged Iraqi — you know, one of the people we “liberated.” (We “liberated” tens of thousands of them quite permanently)

So now Bush is reminding us that we have him to thank for the fact that we haven’t had a 9/11-level terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.

Wow.

That’s like expecting a fucking Brownie button for the fact that yes, you killed an entire family while drunken driving, but that you haven’t killed anyone else since.

The worst terrorist attack on mainland American soil happened on Sept. 11, 2001, on Bush’s watch — less than a month and a week after he had received a presidential daily briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

Who knew?

Bush knew.

Bush didn’t care.

Just like he knew that Hurricane Katrina was determined to strike in the U.S. in August 2005 but he didn’t care about that, either.

In the last days of his disastrous hostile occupation of the White House, Bush can try to rewrite history all he wants; history will record him as W: The. Worst. “President.” Ever.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized