So, I have to say, I started this modest blog and I am now proud to say that I have a following at the Wall Street Journal! Well, at least, I'm assuming I do, as what else would explain someone at the WSJ publishing an Editorial that A) so responded to my post, and, b) so PISSED ME OFF.
Anyway, click at your own risk. After writing my last post about what a dick Dick was, this was literally the first thing I read about at Political Animal the next morning. It was a bad start to the morning..
For context, see my last post about how DICK Cheney has not kept us safe. However, apparently there is nothing that will dissuade his supporters from wishing he was President. Yes, the man that brought us the most Catastrophic Vice Presidency In History still has people wanting him to be Top, not Penultimate, Banana.
Anyway, James Taranto had a post with the WSJ (which I'm assuming he was paid for... PISSED) about how Dick would make a great president, IF they could convince him to run (Here's Hoping!), because again and fucking always "He Kept Us Safe." Again, this is not true for a number of reasons, but the most prominent is NINE-FUCKING-ELEVEN! How does the Bush Administration NOT get the rap for that?! We fuck around in the Middle East ALL the time! We had a report BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK! There are Very Vengeful Assholes over there! Now, I said before, and I stand by it, you can't lay 9-11 Entirely at Bush/Cheney's feet, BUT, and it's a But as big as a Sir-Mix-a-Lot DayDream, you can lay a ShitLoad of it at their feet, and, more importantly, you can lay the resulting odious foreign and domestic policy decisions on them. And still, this dimwit wants Cheney to run.
Mr. Taranto goes on to say that if there is "HEAVEN FORBID" another attack "Obama will have failed in his most basic of presidential duties." Now, I'm not saying that Mr. Taranto is a douche-bag. I'm sure he's loved by... someone. Mother, something... body, I meant somebody. Anyway, regardless of his douche-bag status ONLY a Douche-Bag would say that. First, I suspect one of the main reasons we have NOT been attacked again (domestically, discounting that Anthrax kerfuffle) is because provoking a Mid-East Holy War was very much on Bin Laden's wish list of reactions. I love how people say Cheney kept us safe. Do soldiers not count as US? I think plenty of US have been taken out. Secondly, and this really is the main point, by that standard... Didn't Bush FAIL in his BASIC PRESIDENTIAL Fucking DUTIES on NINE-FUCKING-ELEVEN? Jesus.
Second, the main point of all this douche-baggery is just setting up Obama for the fall. The reason why I don't blame Bush and Cheney entirely for the terror attack is because the world is a big and complex place and it's hard to stop every small group of nuts out there. Sure it could be Bin Laden again. Or it could be some psycho in Kansas with a free weekend and 500 gallons of gasoline burning a hole in his pocket. It is much easier to destroy than create. So, basically, Mr. Taranto is placing preemptive blame on Obama for ANY attack that occurs on his 'watch'. Because, suddenly, terror attacks count as the fault of the Current Administration. Funny how that works. Now, I'm not saying if there is an attack that Obama should not be scrutinized. However, if it is determined that the attack wasn't out of a result of Gross Negligence and Hubris (cough, Bush, cough, CHENEY) then I'm thinking we can give him a pass. Not that the douche-bags ever will.
So, Mr. Taranto, I'm afraid you're a douche-bag until you can say something to prove otherwise. Good luck to you, all my best. Also, if you didn't read Steve Benen's post about all this (linked above), please do, he's good.
Anyway...
No comments:
Post a Comment