Friday, October 07, 2005

Dubya Does What The Left Couldn't: Get His Supporters To Abandon Him

On a forum I used to frequent before it turned into a seething fever swamp of Bush Derangement Syndrome victims, the whole year of 2004 was filled with threads hijacked by Gore losers who sought revenge for Mr. No Controlling Legal Authority's inability to steal the 2000 Election.

As one of the few non-Communists posting there, I had the lonely job of speaking Truth to partisan insanity and was extremely unpopular for pointing out after John Kerry won Iowa that they didn't stand a chance of beating Dubya.

So blinded by their rage and hate, they chronically ignored my advice as to how they could beat Dubya. Now, America would be in smoking ruins under the joint UN-France occupation forces that Kerry would've ushered in and it was marginally better for us that Dubya got re-elected, but I'm interested in facts - something the Left had and has no use for.

I tried to point out that they were doomed because they were hoping that their Big Lie Smear Campaign would convince people to turn on Dubya. They pinned their hopes on Michael Moore and Dan Rather trying to foist dastardly lies designed to smear and cripple Dubya and tacitly endorsed the slaughter of our soldiers in combat to muster public opposition to Dubya.

The proof that liberals are a threat to the country is perfectly embodied by their willingness to kill our young men and women in uniform to gain political power for themselves and it's for this reason that they must never be allowed access to control of the government. That the banning of Dems from office leaves the Stupid Party as the default rulers isn't a good thing either, but at least we'll stumble towards Hell as opposed to running full tilt into the flames.

Anyways, the strategy they didn't try was THE TRUTH and getting the awful truth about Dubya's non-conservatism out to depress conservative turnout. Point out that he signed an unconsitutional abridgement of free speech in signing McCain-Feingold after saying he wouldn't sign, in hopes that the SCOTUS would bail him out (they didn't); point out that he refuses to defend the borders; point out that he's blown up the deficit, not because of the tax cuts (like the Lying Left says) but because he refuses to veto pork sent up by the Stupid Party; point out that he's mismanaged Iraq by pussy-footing instead of flattening and killing our enemies; and many more betrayals of his base's values.

Harriet Miers is his greatest FU to those who slaved for the cause and this posting on David Frum's Diary on National Review Online sums up the devastation Dubya has brought down own his own dumb head. Read it all, but here's some good juice:

These words need to be taken seriously. A Miers defeat, if it could be made to happen, would deal a serious blow to the Bush presidency. Conservatives need to think hard about that.

But Bush defenders like Hewitt need to consider this: A Miers win would also deal serious blows - to the Republican party, to the conservative movement, and, yes, to the Bush presidency.

Consider these hard political facts:

1) Hewitt foresees all kinds of Republican political opportunities in 2006. He's deluding himself. 2006 will be a high-intensity, high-turnout year for Democrats, as was 2004. The only way Republicans avoid disaster is by doing an even better job with turnout and intensity. And how intense are you feeling right now? The right nomination could have helped save Rick Santorum and Mike DeWine. This nomination could well demoralize the Republican voting base enough - in conjunction with immigration, over-spending, and the mishandling of Katrina, plus continuing trouble in Iraq - to cost at least two Senate seats.

2) The damage dealt to the conservative movement will be huge and lasting. As the conservative movement has grown and matured, it has necessarily compromised some of its early fierceness and idealism. Broad coalitions have to be built, elections have to be won, leaders have to be supported despite their inevitable personal imperfections. Through the Bush years, conservatives have shown tremendous discipline. They have accepted minor disappointments for the sake of higher priorities: the war, the courts. But if they accept this, they will be jettisoning every principle in favor of just this one: the leader is always right. That's not just unconservative. It's un-American.

3) At his press conference Tuesday, the president said he has "plenty" of political capital. He's wrong about that. If political capital means the ability to get your supporters to persuade people to do things they would not otherwise want to do - well then the president has just spent it all. It's too late for him to reach out across the aisle; he must depend on his core political supporters - and the harder he pushes this nomination, the more he will alienate them. His only hope to recoup is to reconnect with conservatives - and abandoning this nomination is essential.

Here is the fundamental reason why this is true:

George Bush has again and again called on conservatives to sacrifice for the success of his presidency. Whether it was McCain-Feingold or racial quotas or immigration or "Islam is peace," conservatives were urged not to let petty personal considerations distract them from the big picture.

But when it was the president's turn to make the biggest domestic-policy decision of his presidency, to fill the swing seat on the US Supreme Court, did he sacrifice? Did he point the general good ahead of his own petty personal considerations? He did not. He abandoned his principles, his party, his loyal followers all to indulge his personal favoritism.

He has done himself terrible damage, and he cannot fix it until and unless he breaks free - or is helped to break free - from this bad decision.


The benighted BDS victims refused to listen to my wise council when I told them victory could be theirs if only they gave up on trying to tell lies and opted to tell the Truth.

Dubya has shown us his Truth: He rewards his friends for their loyalty to him, but shows no loyalty to those who got him where he is.

The Stupid Party is going to pay for their stupidity. Unfortunately, that means the return to power of the fascist enemies within and thus the end of America.

Nice going, Dubya. You f*cking loser.

15 comments:

Miss Cellania said...

Do you get the feeling that he just doesn't care anymore about anything, including his legacy? His latest moves are just repaying debts, tying up loose ends, getting ready to retire into the private sector.

Anonymous said...

the guy who writes this blog really needs to take his meds. it's kinda like a lonely old man screaming at his tv.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Do you get the feeling that he just doesn't care anymore about anything, including his legacy? His latest moves are just repaying debts, tying up loose ends, getting ready to retire into the private sector.

Not that I really care to worry about Dubya's legacy - at the rate he's going, no one is going to want to be associated with anything he did - but if he was repaying debts, who the hell did he owe that required this Miers nomination. If anything, he's declared open war on his most ardent and die-hard supporters.

Considering that the Left has been waging a nearly 6-year-long jihad against he, for him to turn on his supporters will leave him utterly alone. That's what doesn't make sense: When you're opposed by enemies on three sides, why convert that fourth side into another nemesis?

David Frum has more on this line here.

Anonymous said...

I think the 6-year "jihad" against Bush pales in comparison to the 13-year one the Right has been waging against All Things Clinton.

For 13 years we've been told that Clinton is and was a bad, bad president and human being who was destroying the country and maybe even Western Civilization itself. We were asked to believe this despite the evidence we saw with our own eyes and wallets.

Unfortunately for them (and you, of course), the public can now clearly compare the peace and prosperity of the 8-year Clinton regime versus the 6-year run of war, recession and criminality of the Bush clan.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Nothing says "in denial" more than a Clinton apologist when they try to defend their Criminal-in-Chief. Let's take a look, shall we?

For 13 years we've been told that Clinton is and was a bad, bad president and human being who was destroying the country and maybe even Western Civilization itself.

He was hardly called such things, though all of them are true. He allowed technology to be transferred to China and now they may have the capacity - and certainly have the will - to nuke the Left Coast and have said so. He allowed N. Korea to become a nuclear power thru his pathetic and unenforced treaty. He degraded public morals by making "situational ethics" the rule and defining deviancy down. It's funny that music piracy started during his regime, yet the music biz doesn't see the connection between a President getting away with open perjury and the kids not thinking downloading is stealing. If "is" is a debatable term, so is "stealing".

We were asked to believe this despite the evidence we saw with our own eyes and wallets.
Unfortunately for them (and you, of course), the public can now clearly compare the peace and prosperity of the 8-year Clinton regime versus the 6-year run of war, recession and criminality of the Bush clan.


1. We were at war, or more accurately, the "religion of peace" was at war with us, but because Clinton decided that it was more important to get library donations from the Saudis than justice for out soldiers, his sycophants can claim peace as legitmately as I can claim to be Angelina Jolie's lover because I clobber the dolphin to her pictures. {8P Check out Louis Freeh's book - the head of the FBI couldn't investigate Clinton because the White House was arranged to protect the criminal enterprise.

B. The prosperous economy and balanced budget was due to two things: The dot.bomb economic bubble and self-dealing corporate corruption not being prosecuted and the Stupid Party acting as the fiscal conservatives that they no longer are.

If Gore had managed to steal the Election in 2000, all of Clinton's chickens - from 9/11 to Enron - would've come home to sh*t on his head and where would you deranged moonbats be now? What would be your scapecoat then? Hmmmm?

Sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome have no capacity to comprehend reality and live in a fantasy world in which the Nineties were an era of peppermint gumdrops and sparkly sunshowers and can't understand that their hero, Bill "Who, me?" Clinton, set up the country for the devestatation it's in now.

To be fair, Team Dubya and the money-chugging Stupid Party have made things worse with their profligate spending and incompetent prosecution of the War, but if Gore had stolen the Election, we'd be in Depression and likely have a UN flag flying over the White House.

CLASS DISMISSED!!!!

(Seek help.)

Anonymous said...

It's funny that music piracy started during his regime, yet the music biz doesn't see the connection between a President getting away with open perjury and the kids not thinking downloading is stealing.

Wow, that's an amazingly stupid connection, even for a raving lunatic like you. Music "piracy" had nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with technology. Unless you're willing to concede that the widespread copying of VHS tapes in the 80s was somehow Saint Ronnie's fault?

Is there anything that you won't blame on Clinton?

Dirk Belligerent said...

No, you frigging moonbat! Clinton didn't cause piracy, but the damage to public morals and the basic values of right and wrong caused by his wanton criminal acts that were excused as no big deal created the attitude that if it's OK to commit felonies and have the media cover for them, what's the big deal about downloading some millionaire's songs?

Is there anything that you won't blame on Clinton?

Sure, Team Dubya's and the Stupid Party's total abandonment of principles that got them elected by the now-betrayed conservative electorate. That's their own damned fault and their comeuppance is coming sooner than they want to think.

Better question (that I'm sure you'll dodge): Is their any crime or treason of Bill Clinton's that you won't excuse?

Come on, you guys believe that not responding to eight years of attacks from Islamofascists, arming our enemies and allowing corporate fraud to run rampant - as long as it can be spun as a positive economy and liberals are reaping the profits - are A-OK. Was their nothing wrong that he did?

Pffft.

Anonymous said...

the damage to public morals and the basic values of right and wrong caused by his wanton criminal acts that were excused as no big deal created the attitude that if it's OK to commit felonies and have the media cover for them, what's the big deal about downloading some millionaire's songs?

Hey, the first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

The confluence of Clinton's impeachment and the rise of filesharing shared nothing in common but calendar dates. The impeachment nonsense didn't "create an attitude", because the same attitude existed in the 1980s with VCRs, in the 1970s with cassettes and in the 1960s with reel-to-reel tapes.

The only difference between then and now is that in the late 1990s, the surrounding technology matured fast enough to allow the previous small-potatoes copying to be quickly and easily widespread.

Software filesharing has been going on since the early 1980s, because the size of the data being pirated kept pace with the technology to distribute it. MP3s have been distributed on the internet since the mid-90s, but until the average person had access to the technology (in the form of CD burners and internet connections), it was necessarily a limited distribution. Sure, you could download an MP3 in 1995 if you had an internet connection through college, but once you had it, what could you do with it? Listen to it on your computer, maybe send it out your soundcard onto cassette. In 1995, you had limited ways of distributing it. By 1997, lots of people had AOL and CD burners were under $400. In 1999, Napster was created to aid in the simplicity of transmission of MP3s. Clinton's behavior had fuckall to do with any of it.

Re: Clinton's "wanton acts". Look, you're still doing it. You're trying to convince us that despite what we witnessed with our own eyes, Clinton was a bad man. On the eve of his impeachment, Clinton had an approval rating of 68%. A majority of Americans believed the Ken Starr's investigation was politically motivated. It was, and everyone not drinking the kool-aid could see that. That's why your A-game was impeachment for lying about a blowjob that he shouldn't have been asked about in the first place.

All this talk about treason and crimes is idiocy, and anyone who's ever played poker for more than 10 minutes knows a bluff when they see one. All you have left is insinuation. Screech about Clinton ignoring "Islamofascists" all you want. The record shows that when Clinton tried to retaliate in 1998-1999, the seditious Republicans attacked his actions as "Wag The Dog", because blowjobs were more important. When Republicans finally succeeded in regaining power in 2000, they completely and totally ignored the "Islamofascist" threat. They ignored specific written warnings in August of 2001, and all of a sudden, September 2001 is completely Clinton's fault.

Fuck that noise. Democrats have been saying for 5 years that Bush is and always has been an incompetent failure, and now everyone can see with their own eyes that we were right.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Yawn...you can spin all you want, but as Louis Freeh is revealing - and what people not fueled by Clinton Kool-Aid - Clinton did NOTHING against Al Queda after the attacks starting in '93 with the first WTC attack thru 2000 and the USS Cole, which had its 5th anniversary two days ago. NOTHING!!!! He DID "Wag The Dog" to distract from his fat, stupid mistress testifying and YOU KNOW IT.

As for downloading, there are many technological means to break various laws, but for a widespread disrespect of the law to occur, a general contempt for the mores against such law-breaking and/or a general idea that the law is wrong has to exist before such wide law-breaking will occur. People speeding is a reaction to speed limits being kept artificially low, but people stealing - openly - means that they don't believe its wrong to steal and during the Clinton Regime, criminality and treason was the order of the day and the media did all they could to protect their Annointed One by excusing wrong-doing as natural.

The music biz just caught caught in the crossfire between their guy and his lawbreaking. Tough break, guys, but Democrats uber alles, right?

Dirk Belligerent said...

By the way, you never answered the question: Is their any crime or treason of Bill Clinton's that you won't excuse?

You guys keep screaming "BLOWJOB!!!" when people interested in the Truth want to know why:

* At least five attacks by Al Queda were unresponded to, other than as an opportunity to solicit funds for Bubba's library. (The donor lists are secret. Would you allow a Stupid Party Prez to get away with that?)

* Sudan offered Osama bin Laden up THREE TIMES and Clinton is on tape justifying his not taking him in as being because we didn't have grounds to charge him. HELLO?!? 1993 WTC attack?!?

* The Left likes to blame America for pissing off the Arab world, yet doesn't seem to consider Clinton's bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan as anything the Muslims would be bothered by. Extra irony: The attack was based on bad intel over the presence of nerve gas at the site, but when Clinton gets bad intel, it's just "Whoops!", when Dubya gets bad intel, it's "BUSH LIED!!!" Hypocrites.

* Enron, Tyco, you name it, corporate fraud occured on Clinton's watch, but wasn't cracked down upon because it gave the illusion the economy was roaring - a myth that you subscribe to - and to bring accountability to the accounting process would hamper Gore's chances of continuing the 8-years of crime and treason. "No controlling legal authority" anyone?

* North Korea suckered him on a nuke deal and now they're armed and threatening South Korea and Japan. No problem, right?

* Pakistan was running an open nuke supermarket on Clinton's watch, but because of the War on Islamofascism, we've got to play nice with those goons most likely harboring bin Laden. Fleas are forthcoming from this one, I'm sure.

* Clinton wasted 7 months and countless millions of dollars by being too big a pussy to admit that he needed some relief for his priaprism since Hillary! wasn't gonna give him any fat-ankled love. Yet, the Left and the media excused his perjury and obstruction of justice because he was THEIR BOY and no accountability would be held against him.

Nope, KEN STARR is the bad guy - the modern Torquemada/McCarthy, right? - when he had Clinton's weakness shoveled onto his overloaded plate by Janet "Chewbacca" Reno. Nice job, Janet. How many children did you murder in your tenure as Protector-of-Criminals-in-Chief? (Elian says hi!)

* Two words: Jamie Gorelick. Nice that she got to cover up her involvement in allowing 9/11 to happen because she (and Dems) are more interested in protecting terrorists than Americans.

I could go on, but you're not able to acknowledge the disaster Clinton left behind his feckless Administration. Al Gore is the most ungrateful SOB in the world because if he had managed to steal the Election, he would've had to clean all the chicken sh*t off his Forest Gump head after they'd come home to roost.

Answer the questions or quit boring us, mmmkay?

Anonymous said...

"Us"?
You realize the only people who read this blog are V.ropers feeling nostalgic your hilarious ravings, right?

Anonymous said...

As for downloading, there are many technological means to break various laws, but for a widespread disrespect of the law to occur, a general contempt for the mores against such law-breaking and/or a general idea that the law is wrong has to exist before such wide law-breaking will occur.

Are you fucking dense?

The widespread disrespect already existed. People have been copying and sharing media for as long as it was technologically possible to do so. People copied reel-to-reels, cassettes, videotapes; they pirated cable and copied VCR tapes when they could. All four of those examples were kept from exploding not because there were social mores, but because the technology wasn't available to enable the spread.

Music "piracy" in the 1970s was limited to the number of people to whom you could physically hand copied cassettes. Cable piracy in the 1980s was limited to those who had the "connections" to score a black box. VCR "piracy" was limited to those who purchased multiple recorders.

The distribution of "pirated" media was limited by physical constraints. The explosion of media sharing in the late 90s was because for the first time, those physical restraints could be bypassed easily by the average person. You didn't have be a comp-sci nerd or buy expensive equipment; you didn't need to throw cash at some shady guy your buddy from work knows-- you took ten minutes to download some self-installing software and you had access to hundreds of thousands of songs and movies and games.

Your desperation to blame it on Clinton is pathetic. It's the end result of having no real argument to back up the tired "Clinton BAD" meme. All of your "points" above are whiny sputtering. It's "Vince Foster was MURDERED!@!" in new clothing.

* There were 4 Al Quaeda attacks on US interests while Clinton was in office: 1993 WTC, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 Africa, 2000 USS Cole. The responses, in order: perp convictions in 1997-1998, cockblocked by the Saudis, cruise missle attack called "Wag The Dog" by seditious Republicans, arrest of suspects within the 99 days left in his administration. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 1

* BZZZZT. Sudan never offered Bin Laden to the US. http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 2

* The difference between the 1998 pharm bombing and 2003 Iraq is that one was bad intelligence in the pursuit of a worthy goal, and the other was doctored intelligence in pursuit of a ideological goal. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 3

* Enron et al weren't taken down because Bush stepped in and finally brought the bad guys to justice-- it's that the house of cards finally collapsed and he had no choice but to deal with it. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 4

* North Korea: what exacly is the difference between Clinton's 1994 agreement and the 2005 agreement brokered by Condi Rice? Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 5

* Pakistan: Abdul Qadeer Khan started shopping nuclear secrets in 1998 and continued until he was caught in 2004. Do the math, bright boy. That's 2 years under Clinton and 4 under Bush. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 6

* Most of the country and media agreed Clinton should have been censured for his behavior, but censure isn't good enough when the goal is the forcible removal of a popular president. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 7

* August 6, 2001 briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". No NO! It's Jamie Gorelick's fault, you see! Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 8

It's a blowout! Dirk sent back to the showers, weeping into his glove and wishing he wasn't so bad at this stuff...

Dirk Belligerent said...

Hee-hee...my weekend fun starts early!!!

Your desperation to blame it on Clinton is pathetic. It's the end result of having no real argument to back up the tired "Clinton BAD" meme. All of your "points" above are whiny sputtering. It's "Vince Foster was MURDERED!@!" in new clothing.

I never said Vince Foster was murdered, but you're still desperate to pretend that Clinton was anything but a schnook. Let's look at the manure...

* There were 4 Al Quaeda attacks on US interests while Clinton was in office: 1993 WTC, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 Africa, 2000 USS Cole. The responses, in order: perp convictions in 1997-1998, cockblocked by the Saudis, cruise missle attack called "Wag The Dog" by seditious Republicans, arrest of suspects within the 99 days left in his administration. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 1

I'm surprised that you admitted that we were attacked. Too bad you ignore that Clinton's response to para-military attacks was to use a failed "law enforcement" response instead of the military. 9/11 is the result of such pussy thinking. And you know it.

* BZZZZT. Sudan never offered Bin Laden to the US. http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 2

Wow. Really...wow. You post a link to a story that quotes Clinton saying he passed on bin Laden because "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." and then try to spin it that he didn't pass on the offer?!?!? WTF was the 1993 WTC attack?!? The ACLU, not Al Queda?!?

That's 2...

* The difference between the 1998 pharm bombing and 2003 Iraq is that one was bad intelligence in the pursuit of a worthy goal, and the other was doctored intelligence in pursuit of a ideological goal. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 3

So it's a worthy goal when a DEMOCRAT launches an attack for phony reasons, but not OK for a REPUBLICAN to launch an attack based on intelligence that was cited by Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy and EVERY OTHER FUCKING DEMOCRAT WHO NOW AIDS AND ABETS AMERICA'S ENEMIES FOR POLITICAL GAIN?!?!?!?

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S-!-!-!-!-! You really have no shame. Or honesty, do you? Democrat war GOOD! Republican war BAD!!! Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee and had access to the same intel from "Slam Dunk" Tennet that Team Dubya did and VOTED FOR THE WAR, yet he flip-flopped like the coward he is the moment the going got tough and pretended he didn't. Nice. Wonder why Cindy Sheehan didn't demand that Hillary! send Chelsea to Iraq?

You're such a joke, Comrade.

* Enron et al weren't taken down because Bush stepped in and finally brought the bad guys to justice-- it's that the house of cards finally collapsed and he had no choice but to deal with it. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 4

Gawd, you're just getting weaker and weaker! WHEN DID THE CORPORATE MALFEASANCE OCCUR: DURING THE CLINTON YEARS OR BUSH YEARS?!?!?!?!?!?

You just admitted that your mythical "great Clinton economy" was a - your words - HOUSE OF CARDS that would've had to be dealt with. A President Gore [shudder] would've had the same mess.

The referee is looking to the Moonbat's corner for a sign that the fight should be stopped.

* North Korea: what exacly is the difference between Clinton's 1994 agreement and the 2005 agreement brokered by Condi Rice? Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 5

The Korean's haven't violated this one yet and Republicans don't trust Commies, unlike you and your fellow travellers and useful idiots.

I hear that George Clooney's new fairy tale of liberal porn about Joe McCarthy doesn't even mention Stalin, depite the FACT that 25 million people died in his purges and gulags. Nope. To the Left, McCarthy was the Sauron and good ol' Uncle Joe just a good liberal.

Please...

* Pakistan: Abdul Qadeer Khan started shopping nuclear secrets in 1998 and continued until he was caught in 2004. Do the math, bright boy. That's 2 years under Clinton and 4 under Bush. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 6

Gee, pal, by your math, that's two years that Clinton did nothing and Team Dubya, who supposedly can't do ANYTHING right, finally stopped him. Would President Gore have stopped him and what drugs do I have to take to believe you?

Man, this is too easy...

* Most of the country and media agreed Clinton should have been censured for his behavior, but censure isn't good enough when the goal is the forcible removal of a popular president. Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 7

Perjury is no big deal? Obstruction of justice is no big deal? Abuse of office is no big deal? Allowing Chinese arms dealers give money to have coffee with the President, framing career travel office employees on trumped up charges to give the business to your cronies, allowing restricted tech to go to our enemies so that cronies can make a buck is NO BIG DEAL?!?!? Just because he's POPULAR?!?

Translation: There is no crime that Bill Clinton commited that should've resulted in a REAL PUNISHMENT. Meanwhile, a firing squad awaits Tom DeLay, right?

Man, President Tom Hanks could build an Dark Altar to Satan and sacrifice virgins and puppies live on the evening news under your rationale.

* August 6, 2001 briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". No NO! It's Jamie Gorelick's fault, you see! Score: Dirk: - 0, Common Sense - 8

Loius Freeh said on "60 Minutes" that short of specific intel that Subject A was going to hijack Airplane B at Specific Time C and crash it into Target D, there was nothing that could've been done to stop 9/11.

Your side clings to that vague Aug. 6th briefing because it's a specious argument meant to distract from your boy Clinton's UTTER FAILURE to take the attacks against America seriously. The Left genetically HATES AMERICA and automatically finds common cause with our enemies. Since that's very bad politics, the Big Lie Jihad to deflect the harsh Truths away from their cult leader - Steve Jobs WISHES he had the ideological suicide bombers Clinton has - has been running for four straight years.

I knew at 9:02 am, Tuesday, September 11, 2001 that Clinton's feckless and treasonous dereliction of duty had come home to roost.

And so did you.

And that's why you lie so hard and long: It's all you have lest you be banished from the political landscape. Hell, the only thing keeping your side in the game is the total incompetance of Team Dubya and the pathetic Stupid Party.

It's a blowout! Dirk sent back to the showers, weeping into his glove and wishing he wasn't so bad at this stuff..

Yep...it was quite a blowout. Reality - 8, Fascist Left Fantasies - 0.

I'd feel pity for you if you didn't so richly deserve this shaming. Quit peddling your lies here. I've got the Truth on my side and I'm not afraid to speak it.

Ta!

Anonymous said...

Wow. Really...wow. You post a link to a story that quotes Clinton saying he passed on bin Laden [...] and then try to spin it that he didn't pass on the offer?!?!?

Evidently, reading isn't a list of required skills to be a wingnut.

From the Mediamatters page:
"The truth is that Clinton never offered Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Hannity distorted a remark Clinton made in a speech to the Long Island Association's annual luncheon on February 15, 2002, in which Clinton said that he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States."

So it's a worthy goal when a DEMOCRAT launches an attack for phony reasons, but not OK for a REPUBLICAN to launch an attack

See if you can follow the simple logic: The Democrat launched an attack in retaliation for the attack on our embassies. The Republican launched an attack on a country that did not attack us in any way, shape or form. The Republican who hates the UN took the country to war to defend a UN resolution without letting the agreed-upon inspectors finish their job.

WHEN DID THE CORPORATE MALFEASANCE OCCUR: DURING THE CLINTON YEARS OR BUSH YEARS?!?!?!?!?!?

Answer: BOTH. And it did not end because someone put a stop to it-- it collapsed on itself. Bush would have been just as content to let the malfeasance continue, but the car ran out of gas.

Gee, pal, by your math, that's two years that Clinton did nothing and Team Dubya, who supposedly can't do ANYTHING right, finally stopped him.

Gee pal, by my math, Clinton didn't do anything in two years, and Bush didn't do anything for four... because it wasn't the US that caught him, it was Pakistan.

Perjury is no big deal? Obstruction of justice is no big deal? Abuse of office is no big deal? Allowing Chinese arms dealers give money to have coffee with the President, framing career travel office employees on trumped up charges to give the business to your cronies, allowing restricted tech to go to our enemies so that cronies can make a buck is NO BIG DEAL?!?!? Just because he's POPULAR?!?

How many of those things was Clinton impeached for? That's right. One. Perjury. That was your A-Game. Perjury over a blowjob. That's fucking pathetic.

Loius Freeh said on "60 Minutes" that short of specific intel that Subject A was going to hijack Airplane B at Specific Time C and crash it into Target D, there was nothing that could've been done to stop 9/11.

Of course Freeh said that. Because if he were to admit that something could have been done, people would ask why he didn't do it. It's bullshit. BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US. Hmmm. Wonder what we should do?

Imagine if the netpolice received a report: DIRK DETERMINED TO MAKE ANOTHER STUPID POST. "Short of specific intel that DIRK was going to POST at "Specific Time" and FILL IT WITH WARMED-OVER RIGHT WING BLATHERING, nothing could be done to stop him."

I knew at 9:02 am, Tuesday, September 11, 2001 that Clinton's feckless and treasonous dereliction of duty had come home to roost.

Of course you did. You and Gulliani, side by side, thanking God that George Bush was president.

Dirk Belligerent said...

You just don't give up, do you? After this post, I recommend that you go to a dominatrix to get your discipline fix, mmmkay?

See if you can follow the simple logic: The Democrat launched an attack in retaliation for the attack on our embassies.

No, he didn't, but you're all for wagging the dog as long as it distracts from the Big He's shenanagins. Bombing civilians is BAD if Dubya does it, but OK for Clinton. Hypocrite.

The Republican launched an attack on a country that did not attack us in any way, shape or form.

Straw man. The Bush Doctrine says that if you harbor or aid in terrorism, you're liable for the same punishment. Saddam harbored Al Queda operatives, housed training camps and funded suicide bombers against Israel.

The Left foists the canard that since there wasn't a photo of Saddam handing Osama a check with "For 9/11 operations" on the memo line, there wasn't any connection. It's too bad that the MSM actually did a story about the ties between them, so I guess your punk ass has been SCHOOLED again!!!

The Republican who hates the UN took the country to war to defend a UN resolution without letting the agreed-upon inspectors finish their job.

Would those be the inspectors that Saddam had tossed out of Iraq? How exactly were they to do this shell-game inspection scheme? You're Unholy Leader, the Big He didn't get a UN permission slip to bomb civilians in Kosovo, a country that TRULY was no threat to the US and where our soldiers are still stuck, yet you have nothing to say about this hypocrisy, do you?

Aren't you getting tired of getting PWNED? Oh wait, are you Karl Rove acting as an agent provacateur to get people to debunk the tired lies of the Left? No fair!!!

Answer: BOTH. And it did not end because someone put a stop to it-- it collapsed on itself. Bush would have been just as content to let the malfeasance continue, but the car ran out of gas.

Conjecture without evidence. You're assuming that just because Clinton/Gore were OK with the scam, Dubya would've been as well. Project much?

How many of those things was Clinton impeached for? That's right. One. Perjury. That was your A-Game. Perjury over a blowjob. That's fucking pathetic.

Yes, it was and it was a good clue that the Stupid Party stood for nothing and weren't serious about holding that criminal to account. If you'd learn to MOVE ON and read some other posts here, you'd see that I've got plenty of abuse for Team Dubya, yet you insist on retreading the same ground about Clinton when you know it's only going to lead in your total humiliation and debunkment. (Is that a word? It is now!)

Of course Freeh said that. Because if he were to admit that something could have been done, people would ask why he didn't do it. It's bullshit. BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US. Hmmm. Wonder what we should do?

I forgot to mention before that Freeh asked, what should've been done? Shut down all air travel? If Dubya had done so, you would've pilloried him for crying wolf; this way, you get to try and shift blame from Osama best pal, BILL CLINTON, onto the poor schmuck that had to deal with the results of a decade of feckless treason.

I knew at 9:02 am, Tuesday, September 11, 2001 that Clinton's feckless and treasonous dereliction of duty had come home to roost.

Of course you did. You and Gulliani, side by side, thanking God that George Bush was president.


Along with everyone else. Polls universally showed that the public was glad that someone was in office that would do something about the problem and not cry like a little bitch and surrender to Al Queda on Sept. 12th.

The problem America has now is that President has disappeared, replaced by a pathetic, inarticulate doof who can't explain what's going on and has been cowed by the seditious media into one tragic error after another. If not for the fact that a return to power of the Dems would result in the annihilation of America and the imposition of a fascist state that would give Stalin a hard-on, I would be totally happy if the GOP disappeared from the face of the Earth. Honest.

Enough of this. Amnesty International just e-mailed to protest my brutal treatment of you, but I told them to piss off and reminded them that anyone who comes here to tell lies is subject to rebuke and humiliation. But, in the interests of world peace, this will be the last comment along these lines that this thread will take. All future comments trying to continue this beatdown will be deleted without comment.

CLASS DISMISSED, BITCH!!!