Bush really wouldn't be stupid enough to attack Iran, would he?
What you're basically saying is, "Bush would never be so much of a goddamned idiot as to..."
Now, I've said that to myself plenty of times, in the last five years. Many, many times. Not sure, looking back, that I can count them all. And every single time I've said "not even Bush would be so much of a goddamned idiot as to...", I've been very, very wrong. Really, spectacularly wrong. Like, ice cream and hot sauce wrong. The kind of wrong that comes with its own theme music and fireworks show.
So I ain't saying that no more. Someone else can have those words, because I'm done with 'em. Bush is officially enough of a goddamned idiot to do any random thing that comes into his fool head, and you, I and the new Dwarf Planet Pluto are largely just going to be the unwilling observers of it all.
The White House at this point has turned itself into an MTV game show: Bill Kristol could write a column telling Bush and Cheney to string copper wire between their nipple rings and do a Irish line dance in the middle of a giant microwave oven constructed by the props department, and by this date next month we'd be watching it on basic cable and listening to twenty pundits describe how it's going to really kick the terrorists' asses to have the president and veep line dancing half-naked inside that tactically brilliant oven.
Caraway's smear of Bush illogical
Newspapers are losing circulation these days, often because their readers no longer see them as relevant to their lives. An example is the editorial by your "Net guy" a few days ago that starts with the successful prevention of the London airline bomb plot and ends up concluding that Bush is a clever warmonger exaggerating the terror threat to keep oil prices high.
The bombing of two U.S. embassies, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center (twice) and a few thousand dead Americans are inconvenient events that get in the way of your editorialist's lunatic conspiracy theory. I doubt military families will appreciate the implication that American soldiers are stupid pawns killing and dying to enrich Chevron and Bush, not to mention the aid and comfort this screed provides our enemies.
So who's got the street cred in this case? Our warrior president has successfully prevented another 9/11 by proactively going after terrorists overseas, which is the point of this whole war on terror thing. Then we've got your homeboy, a lad who can string a couple of sentences together but has nothing sensible to say. He tries to inoculate himself by complaining that Bush critics are reflexively called disloyal, but calling the president of the United States a homicidal grifter is not what most of us think of as an honest policy difference. I just want to know how Bush went from vacant frat boy to cunning Machiavelli, in the estimation of the Lamontiac left.
Mr. Editor, if you're going to give the editorial space to outrageous smears of President Bush, you'll impress the New York Times. but you're liable to chase your Nevada readership onto the Web for the weather and the classifieds. Just ask your "Net guy"; he'll tell you.
Did you hear about the 24 Iraqis who plotted to blow up a bunch of airplanes flying across the Atlantic Ocean?
Oh, that’s right. They weren’t Iraqis. They were Pakistanis.
Did you hear that Osama bin Laden is hiding in Iraq?
Whoa, check that. That would be Pakistan.
And did you know that Iraq has nuclear bombs and sold that technology to Iran and North Korea?
Oops, I meant Pakistan, not Iraq.
And how about Iraq supporting Islamic terrorism against its democratic neighbors?
Oh, that would be Pakistan, again.
And now there is a new warning that al Qaeda may attack Americans in India. And where would these attackers be coming from?
And so the central front on the war on terror is Pakistan, right?
No, that would be Iraq.
Why do I get the feeling that Abbott and Costello are running this war?