OT: Bush - Stoned? Drunk? Medicated? Retarded?

Voted Worlds #1 Most Loonatic Fanbase

Moderator: Andrew

What condition do you think causes George W. Bush to make foolish decisions?

Stoned
1
5%
Drunk
0
No votes
Retarded
1
5%
Foolish
1
5%
Greed
0
No votes
Stupid
3
16%
All of the above.
13
68%
 
Total votes : 19

OT: Bush - Stoned? Drunk? Medicated? Retarded?

Postby Voyager » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:05 am

I found this article on George W. Bush to be very interesting:

Bush - Stoned? Drunk? Medicated? Retarded? Presidential Tester for the Pharmaceutical Industry? You Decide........
by Ruth Lopez

Bush is fried. He's either drinking, smoking pot, medicated, or some combination of all of them. Either that or the man has taken a one-way trip to crazy town.

Watch his gibberish at the G8, especially the bizarre stuff about how long the plane flights to various countries are. If you take out the comments of the other leaders (because they actually sound intelligent and not like drunken bar talk) and just read what Bush says, he sounds just like someone who is more than half looped.

"Gotta go home. Gotta do sumthin tonight. Get on a plane. Go home. It's a long flight. How long is your flight? That's a long flight. Your country is big. His country is big too." Retarded or stoned, you decide.

This is the kind of mindless bar drivel that drunks who can't shut up drone on with. They just keep running their mouths, totally disconnected from the non-verbal clues of the people around them.

Watch the press conference where Bush couldn't stop talking about the pig roast. It didn't matter what anyone asked him, he just kept saying whatever his addled brain was looping on, in this case, the pig. Typical stoned behavior. It reminded me of the time Bush went to Canada and couldn't get off the subject of the mouth one of the Canadian Prime Minister's staff members! "You've got a purty mouth." Not once but several times. "You've sure got a purty mouth." And, "Your mouth is prettier than my Scott's mouth." (The poor guy's name was Scott.) Who does this? Outside of bars or institutions, I mean.

Watch Bush's body language at the table with Blair talking over his shoulder. Bush is sitting, almost slouched back in his chair, like a guy at a barbeque on his second or third 6 pack, chomping on his food with his mouth open, and making minimal effort to intelligently keep up his end of the conversation by occasionally throwing in something he mistakenly thinks is sufficient.

Watch the body language of the other leaders and the way they react to him. With the exception of Blair, they act very restrained and controlled around Bush, maintaining a public facade of geniality while holding back from actually being engaged with him. What seems to be obsequiousness from Blair may actually be him simply trying to get through the fog around Bush's brain to penetrate with a little reality without setting him off. Meanwhile, Bush's social modus operandi with everyone, including other world leaders, is to overuse forced jocularity and pretend intimacy to convey a relationship that does not exist.

When he walked up behind the German leader and started giving her an unsolicited shoulder massage, her body tightened up and she actually grimaced. She wasn't enjoying that, she was enduring it. Before that Bush can be seen wandering aimlessly around the room while the rest of the grown-ups were conducting the business they were there for.

This is not normal behavior. Watch him closely sometime when he's having trouble staying coherent and you can see his eyes come in and out of focus. He does it at the table when Blair is speaking to him and he's looking out across the room as he chomps open-mouthed on his food. This is a distinct change from Bush's speech and behavior at other times. In fact, radical variations in his behavior and speech can be seen by watching him when he is unscripted. Sometimes he's coherent, other times he looks like staying coherent long enough to get a sentence out is almost beyond him, (these are the times he seems to get mean-drunk angry when anyone dares to question him), and sometimes he is just off-the-wall bizarre.

I'll say it again; the man is plastered, stoned, or medicated. This goes a long way to explaining how he is so incredibly disengaged from war, disasters and their destructive effects: he is too out of it to relate. Drunks and addicts are incapable of empathy, everything is about them and their next high. When Cheney shot that guy, Bush acted like he had just found out about it days after it happened. Same with New Orleans. Bodies were rotting in the ruins of the city, when Bush had been warned that it could, and likely would happen, happen, and Bush's response was to reminisce about partying.

There are bizarre internet rumors of a personal portable toilet for Bush to use when overseas, (to prevent foreign analysis of his excrement). Normally I would blow them off as some of the wilder of conspiracy theories, but watching Bush's actions over the last week, I can't help but wonder, to what lengths would they go to hide it if it were true? If he is too incapacitated?

What would they do to keep up the appearance of his functionality? Who could or would step up and do anything about it if he is unfit to serve? The people around him are not people willing to part with the power they have granted themselves, and that's an understatement. And with Bush at the top of the chain and out of the loop, or just plain looped, who is holding anybody below him accountable? His staff? Congress and the Media have abdicated their responsibilities, who will do it?

Hell, they're all trying to give him, and therefore themselves, even more unlimited power than they have already taken. As long as they can keep up the illusion that he's functioning.........you decide.


Thoughts?

8)
User avatar
Voyager
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: BumFunk Egypt

Re: OT: Bush - Stoned? Drunk? Medicated? Retarded?

Postby Rip Rokken » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:19 am

Voyager wrote:Thoughts?

8)


Haha... You left out "none of the above". The guy has serious problems for sure, but none of those fit.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Re: OT: Bush - Stoned? Drunk? Medicated? Retarded?

Postby Behshad » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:23 am

Rip Rokken wrote:
Voyager wrote:Thoughts?

8)


Haha... You left out "none of the above". The guy has serious problems for sure, but none of those fit.


All of the above , dude,,, ALL of the above,,, and then some,,,,
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Granny » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:24 am

The last one of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carol



Image
User avatar
Granny
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Ocean City, MD

Postby StoneCold » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:42 am

You had me until the Bush doo doo. That's just ... yuk.

Who knows what's goin on up there anymore?

Early signs of Alzheimer's?
User avatar
StoneCold
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6310
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:32 pm

Postby Saint John » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:53 am

Inactivity is a much easier route than activity. President Clinton chose to sit idly by and hope no one plotted against us. He did nothing to anyone under his term, yet we were still attacked, plotted against and quietly hated. President Bush was forced to react, and while some have second guessed his offensive strategies, no war goes perfect and we have remained safe as a nation. Troops have perished and that is unfortunate, but as the Commander In Chief he has kept this country safe. Simply 2 different ways of running things. I don't see either as inherently evil or negligent in totality. I also don't give a shit about about the way the world views us. We send a LOT of aid in one form or another to virtually EVERY nation in the world and not ONE has said "We disagree with you and cannot possibly accept this." It's just a matter of convenience in knowing that blasting us in the world press will probably keep Islamic extremists pacified and it feeds their propaganda machine. Until countries start giving that much needed aid we provide back, I'm calling bullshit on the "world view."
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby Voyager » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:16 am

I think the world will always view the greatest nations on earth with jealousy - you cannot avoid that. However, it's one thing to attack someone who has attacked us, and another thing to attack someone deemed as a "threat". China, Iran, North Korea, and other nations may be a threat to us - but we have no right to launch preemptive strikes on them out of fear. Doing this to Iraq is what has tarnished our reputation in the world view. I know this sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, but Bush has ruined his legacy by using fear and intimidation to start a war that we had no business starting. Going to war against Iraq has not helped eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks - it has encouraged more of them. If Bush would have been an intelligent and sober person, he would have waged war against the real enemy: Osama Bin Laden.

Bush has earned the dunce cap fair and square. His face will go down in history next to Alfred E. Neuman's:


Image

Image

8)
User avatar
Voyager
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: BumFunk Egypt

Postby Rockindeano » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:20 am

Saint John wrote: but as the Commander In Chief he has kept this country safe.


Really? So he wasn't "President" on September 11, 2001? Gee, I thought the commander in chief is supposed to read daily briefings, not coloring books. By my history, he was in charge and the blood of 3,000 Americans falls at his desk, NOT Clinton's. Then the retard goes out, and invades a state that has nothing to do with nothing, and another 3,000 Americans killed. O well, we have 270 million though, right?

For you to compare Bush and Clinton is like rotten apples to Double chocolate cake. Attack on the Trade Center in 93...what is Clinton supposed to do, go attack Afghanistan? Jesus, you republicans shoot first then ask why.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby Saint John » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:29 am

Rockindeano wrote:
Saint John wrote: but as the Commander In Chief he has kept this country safe.


Really? So he wasn't "President" on September 11, 2001? Gee, I thought the commander in chief is supposed to read daily briefings, not coloring books. By my history, he was in charge and the blood of 3,000 Americans falls at his desk, NOT Clinton's. Then the retard goes out, and invades a state that has nothing to do with nothing, and another 3,000 Americans killed. O well, we have 270 million though, right?

For you to compare Bush and Clinton is like rotten apples to Double chocolate cake. Attack on the Trade Center in 93...what is Clinton supposed to do, go attack Afghanistan? Jesus, you republicans shoot first then ask why.



I blame neither president because a bunch of lunatics legally boarded planes and flew them into buildings. The plans were set, it was a done deal. I just question why Clinton passed on numerous opportunities to snipe Bin Laden with unmanned planes. Also, why videotape terrorist training camps if you're not going to act? We have all of those neat videos of them training yet he didn't take them seriously. That was an oversight of gigantic proportions. We as nation were violated, and pointing the finger at one office won't solve a thing. We've been suscpetible since Carter and probably before him. There will always be extremists trying to find loopholes to the plethora of freedoms we enjoy as the world's greatest nation. Get used to it or move to China.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby StoneCold » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:36 am

Rockindeano wrote:Attack on the Trade Center in 93...what is Clinton supposed to do, go attack Afghanistan?



'93 WTC, yep that's on Clinton no doubt. Invade, no. Secret ops missions to take out OBL? Yes, as many as it took.

Hell, Bush could have done this when he took over so they're both lacking on it.

As a matter of fact, WHY HAVEN'T WE CAUGHT OBL YET?
User avatar
StoneCold
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6310
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:32 pm

Postby rubyglare » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:10 pm

You silly http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election ... h_8-6.html Bill Clinton in 1996 "In the wake of Oklahoma City, I strengthened a terrorism bill I had previously sent to Congress but which had not then been passed. Despite the vow of Congress to act quickly, it took a year before that bill came to my desk to be signed. The bill had some very good points. It made terrorism a federal offense, expanded the role of the FBI, imposed the death penalty for terrorism. As strong as it was, however, it did not give our law enforcement officials other tools they needed and that they had asked for, including increased wire tap authority for terrorists to parallel that which we have for people involved in organized crime now, and chemical markers for the most common explosives so that we can more easily track down bomb makers."

"Last year, we began field testing new high tech explosive detection machines in Atlanta and San Francisco. We significantly increased security at our airports, and the FAA created a new government and industry panel to review airline security. After the TWA crash, I ordered new measures to increase the security of air travel. As any of you have flown in recent days will have noticed, we're doing more hand searches and machine screening of luggage. We're requiring pre-flight inspections for every plane flying to or from the United States, every plane, every cabin, every cargo hold, every time. The Vice President is leading a commission on aviation security that is to report back to me within 45 days with an action plan to deploy machines that can detect the most sophisticated explosives and other needed changes."

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm As for Binny....that 'devil in a blue dress' was far more importent to Republicans in 1998 than 'terrorism', in fact, Bush & Ashrcroft were trying to restart their 'war on drugs', which worked out quite nicely for them in the 1980s.
"In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria."

". . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world."
rubyglare
Radio Waves
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:39 pm
Location: CA

Postby conversationpc » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:23 pm

What a stupid poll and I'd be saying the same thing if it were about Bill Clinton.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Rockindeano » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:40 pm

conversationpc wrote:What a stupid poll and I'd be saying the same thing if it were about Bill Clinton.


And you would be laughed at. Everyone with a brain knows Bill Clinton is smart as a sharp knife. Dude, let go of the fight, you lost already. It's ok.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby conversationpc » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:41 pm

Rockindeano wrote:
conversationpc wrote:What a stupid poll and I'd be saying the same thing if it were about Bill Clinton.


And you would be laughed at. Everyone with a brain knows Bill Clinton is smart as a sharp knife. Dude, let go of the fight, you lost already. It's ok.


So I would be laughed at for defending Clinton? You make no sense.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby 7 Wishes » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:42 pm

rubyglare wrote: ". . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world."


That tells those neo-con Clinton-haters all they need to know. Sure, he was hardly perfect in his handling of terrorism, but he was FAR more aggressive and legislatively aggressive than Bush was, pre 9/11. It's not his fault the strike didn't work. At least he knew the terrorists were in Afghanistan and not the secular Iraq.
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby Rockindeano » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 pm

conversationpc wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
conversationpc wrote:What a stupid poll and I'd be saying the same thing if it were about Bill Clinton.


And you would be laughed at. Everyone with a brain knows Bill Clinton is smart as a sharp knife. Dude, let go of the fight, you lost already. It's ok.


So I would be laughed at for defending Clinton? You make no sense.


LOL, sorry Dave. Yep, I admit, not even reading MR, just drive by posting. Sorry. I am listening to Cougs on internet. My apologies.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby conversationpc » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:44 pm

Rockindeano wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
conversationpc wrote:What a stupid poll and I'd be saying the same thing if it were about Bill Clinton.


And you would be laughed at. Everyone with a brain knows Bill Clinton is smart as a sharp knife. Dude, let go of the fight, you lost already. It's ok.


So I would be laughed at for defending Clinton? You make no sense.


LOL, sorry Dave. Yep, I admit, not even reading MR, just drive by posting. Sorry. I am listening to Cougs on internet. My apologies.


Ah, so that's why you're usually wrong... :lol:

:wink:
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby squirt1 » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:03 pm

Deano- Clinton could find no legal reason to take BinLaden from the Suddanese when offered 2x. Just nuts! What does an act of war have to do with anything legal. They have hit our overseas interests way before 9/11. Bush took it to them and got other countries to join. We will be at war for the rest of my life. We are not going to abandon that oil to China or Iran. Meanwhile China is going to drill off Cuba in the Gulf and we are blocked by the Dem tree hugger enviromentalists. The new technology is so improved, but these people see it as a cause or religion.
squirt1
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:47 am

Postby RedWingFan » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:08 pm

Call Bush all the names you want. It doesn't matter, I think in 20 years history will remember him more closely to the great Reagan than the joke Carter. :D
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Rockindeano » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:30 pm

squirt1 wrote:Deano- Clinton could find no legal reason to take BinLaden from the Suddanese when offered 2x. Just nuts! What does an act of war have to do with anything legal. They have hit our overseas interests way before 9/11. Bush took it to them and got other countries to join. We will be at war for the rest of my life. We are not going to abandon that oil to China or Iran. Meanwhile China is going to drill off Cuba in the Gulf and we are blocked by the Dem tree hugger enviromentalists. The new technology is so improved, but these people see it as a cause or religion.



Ok Sister Coulter. "Bush took it to them?" Are you fucking serious? You DO know Iraq has kicked our asses right?
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby RedWingFan » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:45 pm

Rockindeano wrote:Ok Sister Coulter. "Bush took it to them?" Are you fucking serious? You DO know Iraq has kicked our asses right?

:lol: Yeah, Sadaam and the Royal National Guard are still pounding us. :lol:
Aw hell! :lol: :lol: You are completely dillusional :lol:
The war against Iraq has been over for years!!! :lol:
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Rockindeano » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:05 pm

RedWingFan wrote:The war against Iraq has been over for years!!!


Then why are my friends over there still getting killed. Mission Accomplished? If you Bush folk are so proud of W and the GOP, go put on the fucking uniform and face bullets? Why am I still paying taxes, your favourite word RWF, , taxes for a war built on a lie?

Hypocrites. "War is great, as long as it ain't you fightin it, right?" Yeah, but I am delusional. Hey, Go put on the uniform RWF. If you support this bullshit, and if it so fucking dear to your heart, go sign up! I DID FIGHT FOR THE USA, did you? Typical chickenshit republicans....

talk war, don't fight war.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby Rip Rokken » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:39 pm

As a person who never served in the military, I try to be especially careful what opinions I offer about troops in combat, except to support and appreciate them. The Middle East by this point is a no-win situation, but I'm personally favoring giving the Iraqi's a withdrawal date and telling them it's time to sink or swim. I don't think they will prepare themselves fully as long as they have us to die for them.

Aside from that, those societies developed in a way that is counter to Western-style democracy, and I don't think we can force it on them. When I first heard Clint Eastwood's opinion that what we should have done was knock out the bad dictator and replace him with a kinder dictator, I thought it was ludicrous. Now I see his point. I'm glad so many of them are enjoying their newfound freedom, but change of this magnitude takes generations, and the American people are just not that patient... especially when our money is involved.

On a related note, someone recently mentioned how ridiculous it was for us to send financial support to nations that hate us or are duplicitous with us. I'm absolutely in agreement with that.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby 7 Wishes » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:11 pm

Chickenhawk - n. - A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

Some individuals may qualify more for their political associations than for any demonstrated personal tendency towards bellicosity. Some women may be included for exceptional bellicosity.

Name: Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
Born: January 2, 1942
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Dennis wasn't able to serve in the Army in Vietnam because his knees weren't up to it. He did OK as a wrestler in college, though.

Name: Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Born: February 14, 1947
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayeer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Another member of New Hampshire’s hereditary political aristocracy (see also: Charlie Bass and John Sununu) Judd’s daddy was Governor of New Hampshire from 1953 to 1955. Young Judd graduated from Columbia in ‘69 and apparently went straight to BU Law until the coast was clear. For good measure, he got written up for bad knees. They weren’t so bad he couldn’t spend half his term as Governor on the ski slopes.

Name: Rep. Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich (R-GA)
Born: June 17, 1943
Employer: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn’t want to get too close to it himself.

Name: Rep. Tom "The Exterminator" DeLay (R-TX)
Born: April 8, 1947
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Mr. DeLay has said he wanted to serve in Vietnam, but was unable to since all the positions had been taken by blacks and Hispanics. We suspect there might be someone in Iraq today who would be willing to trade places with Mr. DeLay

Name: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Born: 1943
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: There are chickenhawks, and then there are chickenhawks. Saxby Chambliss is a chickenhawk supreme. He got himself elected to the Senate by casting aspersions on the patriotism of the incumbent, Democrat Max Cleland. Cleland lost three limbs serving his country in Vietnam. Saxby Chambliss was unable to serve because of his bad knees, but somehow is able to totter along as a recreational runner.

Name: Gary Bauer
Born: 1946
Employer: ouramericanvalues.org
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: A reliable cog in the Republican machine, a bureaucrat under Reagan, and later a preposterous candidate for president, Gary Bauer isn’t particularly combative - he’s no Ann Coulter. Diminutive and cherubic even in his fifties, he’s hardly the sort of recruit a drill sargeant would see as a potential soldier. Which is just as well, because when he otherwise would have qualified for the Vietnam draft, he had a “vague physical problem” that got him a 1-Y draft classification - “draft only if the Canadians are crossing the border shooting.”

Name: Rush Limbaugh
Born: 1951
Employer: Yack Radio
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Where to begin ... a joke about the Hindenburg? No, let's go right to the reason he had to stay home from the war - the world's most famous anal cyst. He's denied it, but www.snopes.com, the Urban Legends Reference Pages, has got the goods on him.

Name: Dr. Marion "Pat" Robertson
Born: 1930
Employer: Christian Broadcasting Network
Conflict Avoided: Korea
Notes: Dr. Pat claimed in his biography to have "seen combat in Korea. He was in Korea in uniform briefly, but his daddy the Congressman got his reassigned to Japan. His picture belongs in the dictionary next to "pious fraud." Just recently declared that the State Department ought to get nuked, but has yet to be indicted for uttering a terrorist statement.

Name: John Ashcroft
Born: 1942
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: 4-F'd from 'Nam because of a "debilitating shoulder injury". As we will never tire of saying, this guy lost an election to a dead man. Where do you go from there? If a Bush is in office, you rise. Annointed himself with Crisco before being sworn in. Also afraid of calico cats. Famously said, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends."
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm


Return to Journey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests