Sunday :: May 13, 2007

Could Bush Have Just Begun the End of the War?


by paradox

Hope and good news can arrive from the unlikeliest places, and I as I wrote yesterday —half in jest —how ironic it would be if Bush stopped the Iraq war himself with his veto, I’m seriously beginning to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, he might have in fact done so.

If nothing else The Washington Post is good for dark amusement in these gloomy times of desperately trying to prop up the worst American president ever, their understatement and evasion of reality laughably ludicrous in describing Bush’s current relationship with the Democratic Congress to be “chilly.”

Chilly. Man, a serial delusional felon liar ensnarls us into this horrifying endless war, the country’s finances are in ruins, everybody hates us, the Attorney General lies to Congress repeatedly in patient amusement, Bush and Cheney truculently insinuate treason as sane Democrats try to end the war, half the Democratic base flames its leadership daily for not initiating impeachment, well whap my ass with Florida butterfly ballots, it certainly must be news relations with Congress would be “chilly.”

"We are trying to build some trust where trust didn't exist," Candida Wolfe said, one must presume, with a straight face. There’s nothing to do but chuckle, really, the administration commits treason by outing Valerie Plame only to whine that Libby should be pardoned while Gonzales flips off Congress every day. Yes indeed, the prodigious efforts of relation-ship building are to be admired from the Republicans who so honorably lead us.

It truly is all the more amazing to see, then, this childish felon of 28% approval rating stamp his foot and actually reject an incredible $125 billion fortune to keep his war on—surely some other foul mechanism of continuation could be devised 12 months from now for this disastrous war, but no, the worst of all time actually thought he had the political standing and ability to shut it down so he could get precisely what he wanted.

George Bush simply may not have the skills and political capital to re-start a war bill after rejecting what might have been the only possible version to reach his desk. Congress isn’t Burger King, one can’t swat stuff into the trash to get an instant do-over. Currently the House seems set to grant a 2 month extension bill the Senate sedately frowns on as totally realistic.

Because our vapid, incompetent journalism corps was busily parroting the Bush line that Nancy Pelosi was a Syria-talking traitor (more awesome trust-building skills there) it was completely overlooked what a minor miracle she got a war bill out of the House at all. Now this incredibly obnoxious, unpopular President actually had the arrogance to reject it.

George Bush and his enablers at The Washington Post seem so sure that their fantasy of felonies, their hijacking of our precious country, is so grandly, irrevocably granted into the future by some divine proclamation. Steal an election, start a war with lies, commit treason, bankrupt the country, befoul Congress and the Constitution, hey hey it’s just another day on the Potomac, veto that war bill!

Why should Bush be given another bill and another year for his vast war crime? What penalty, really, would Pelosi face if she just let the war stop with no bill at all? Bush started this war, he vetoed the only the possible thing she could do, there is no way to get another war bill out of the House, so why not just pin in it on Bush when it all shuts down?

That seems really easy to implement, anything would be easy with this incredibly lame duck President, so weakened and so nothing. Let him quack so furiously all he wants, come up with nothing, make the felon finally own something and force the generals to start the orders home. It is a way to end the war, and there is no scenario where Pelosi and the Democrats are held responsible for failure and defeat, not with this Mr. 28% liar, no way.

paradox :: 8:35 AM :: Comments (19) :: Digg It!