August 03, 2004


Two doozies via LGF today:

He was complacent, arrogant and humourless. How they loved him.

Kerry now says that Bush "misled" him on Iraq. But, if he was that easily suckered by a renowned moron, how much more susceptible would he be to such wily operators as Chirac.

What's wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11?

Michael Moore throws everything he can at Bush, who is portrayed at times as bumbling and artificial, at others conniving beyond our wildest imaginations. The Bush-hater need only take their pick: the disputed election, his ties to the House of Saud, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bush’s plutocratic pedigree, his drawl, too much antiterrorism, too little antiterrorism, defense companies, the Saudis again, and then finally, at the end of the movie, the big one: war is what powerful elites do to keep the poor down and preserve their hierarchies of wealth and privilege. Actually piecing the movie together reveals a contradictory mosaic of unrelated topics, which, especially in the lurid conspiracy-weaving parts, flit across the silver screen in rapid-fire succession. It is “somewhat confusing, admittedly,” says Joanne Doroshow, an associate producer of the movie.

Posted by Sarah at August 3, 2004 07:41 AM

"Mr President", Andrew Card bent down and whispered in his ear, "we are under attack".

George Bush, President of the United States, was busy. He was reading 'My Pet Goat' with a classroom of small children and didn't want to alarm them with the news that the United States of America was 'under attack'. Not while reading 'My Pet Goat' anyway.

"We are under attack". Those were the words George Bush heard in that classroom. The commander-in chief of the US Armed Forces then sat like a bump on a log for seven long minutes before excusing himself from the classroom of small children to attend to the nations needs.

And just what kind of attack were we under? Andrew didn't say. Was it a conventional attack with armies swarming ashore along the east, or maybe west coast? Was it a nuclear attack launched by some roque element from the old Soviet Union? And just who was attacking us? Again, Andrew didn't say.

All our Commander in Chief knew was that the nation he had sworn an oath to protect was now, at this very minute, under attack. But no need to ask any clarifying questions about the 'attack' just yet, cause right now we are involved in some pretty serious reading of 'My Pet Goat.'

But wait, just a few days ago he recieved his intellegence daily briefing while on vacation on his ranch entitled 'Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States'. After he was briefed he promptly went and .... cut some brush.

And why not? After all what could the President of the United States of America, the most powerfull country in world, actually do to stop a 'determined' Bin Laden operating out of a cave in Afgahnistan from launching an attack on US soil.

And now, that we are finally 'under attack', now really, what should we do about it? Ah well, back to 'My Pet Goat'.

Posted by: dc at August 3, 2004 05:32 PM

dc, my patience is wearing thin.

Posted by: Sarah at August 3, 2004 06:37 PM

Sarah, it is probably because of this kind of behevior by Bush, highlighted in the Micheal Moore documentary, that Kerry is now viewed by 52 percent all voters as better able to serve as commander-in-chief while only 44 percent back Bush.

I too am losing patience, losing patience with Bush.

Posted by: dc at August 4, 2004 03:48 AM


"Mr. President, we are under attack again." So says chief of staff George Soros whispers into Kerry's ear (while Kerry is quaffing some vintage French bordeaux).

Immediately, Jean Francois Kerry jumps up and exclaims, "Get me Air Force 1!! This calls for immediate consultation with M. Chirac! Over some escargot, of course."

I prefer President Bush, finishing a book with children who did NOT need to see the leader of the only super power in the world, the last best hope of freedom in the world, the "City on a hill", run off in a panic. He was in control of his faculties, he was cognizant of the information that was currently available; but of course, President DC would have been such a much better president, now wouldn't you?

Go away. Please.


Posted by: Jim Shawley at August 4, 2004 04:19 AM

jim, you can speculate all you want about what a President Kerry might do if we come under attack again. But judging from previous history Kerry has pretty good record of making timely appropriate responses under crisis conditions.

During Kerry's second tour of duty in Vietnam, while commanding a Swift Boat, Kerry demonstrated his chops. Enough so to win the not only the support of his band of brothers in arms but also a bronze and silver star along with three purple hearts.

Bush's action when told about our nation being 'under attack' is on the record. It was recorded by a home video camera of one of the teachers that day. Seven minutes of nothing - while our nation was under attack - and the commander in chief sits reading a book with school children. Anyone with military experience, especially command experience, would know immediately to establish some kind of field command post at that time. And geesh, we are talking about the commander in chief. 'We are under attack' - hello!!!

As commander in chief we do not have to worry that Kerry will be flumuxed or bewildered or like Bush. Kerry will know what his duty demands.

Posted by: dc at August 4, 2004 05:46 AM