|
Seems the Madmonkeyking and his party of thugs have disenchanted a long-time part of the Republican base:
From Lew Rockwell.com:
"Listening to George W. Bush speak off-the-cuff is a bit like watching Shaquille O’Neal shoot free throws. The anxiety produced by a sense of impending disaster is coupled with incredulity that someone in so exalted a position has failed to master one of the rudimentary skills of his profession."
Says William Grigg, a columnist over at Rockwell.
He all but calls Bush a coward here:
"Mr. Bush is surrounded by an impenetrable security cocoon. He’s shielded from the unsightly spectacle of public protests by those opposed to his policies. In fact, performers at Mr. Bush’s second inauguration have been instructed not to look directly at the president as they pass the reviewing stand, lest by doing so they be considered a security threat. So it’s obvious that however one might characterize the "bring’em on" taunt, it didn’t represent "defiance in the face of danger," since Mr. Bush – unlike the men and women he dispatched to Iraq – is entirely unacquainted with personal peril."
Calls him a liar here:
(qutoing Bush) "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Mr. Bush told the Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
This statement earns a full 9.0 on the Clinton Scale of artful dishonesty. (Although, to be fair, I’ve given Mr. Bush an additional point for "degree of difficulty" in light of the special challenges he has with the English language.) It should be noted that the president did not say that his assessment was truthful or reliable, but only that a spare majority of the voting public bought into it. Rather than being subject to accountability, in other words, Mr. Bush and his handlers are now beyond accountability."
Lied to the American People here:
"...As that official’s comments illustrate, George W. Bush’s difficulties with the English language – like the casual arrogance with which he holds himself above accountability – is contagious. "We" – the American people – have not "declared war" on Iraq, or any other nation, since December 1941. And while the Bush administration will be gone four years from now (assuming it doesn’t stage a coup, which is a possibility not to be lightly dismissed), the American public will still be paying for the policy decisions made as part of the administration’s "last hurrah." Our military is already badly over-extended in Iraq. Extending the war to Iran, Syria, and points beyond, will almost certainly require a return to conscription – and accelerate our descent into national bankruptcy."
Talks about Bush as a mad dictator here:
"By permitting the Bush administration’s usurpation of the power to declare war, Congress has written a blank check against the blood, treasure, and liberties of the American people. The result is what Abraham Lincoln in 1848 described as "the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions" – the power of a chief executive to commit our nation to war on his word alone. The words of any president given such power will have dire consequences for our freedom and prosperity. But this is particularly true of President Bush, who not only has difficulty using words correctly, but is demonstrably a man whose word means nothing."
The Libertarians have been an uncomfortable part of the Republican base for a long time, buying into Republican promises of 'smaller governments' and 'free markets'. Now when the rubber hits the road and they realize that Republicans' words and promises mean NOTHING, once they took power, the libs are uncomfortable.
I say tough beans. You decide to get in bed with a gorrilla, he gets to choose the position.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
