« Larry Craig Arrest Report Video (satire) | Main | The 27 Percent Presidency »

Another Astonishing Pack of Lies from the Liar-in-Chief

The President issued another breathtaking pack of lies yesterday in a follow-up to the breathtaking pack of lies in his disastrous "Iraq is Vietnam" speech. As always, I am more than happy to dismember the President's deceptions, falsehoods and fabrications for you:

The Liar: "I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism were allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world."

Drive us out of the Middle East? Excuse me, but aren't you exaggerating a bit? I've never heard anyone suggest that we should pull out of Kuwait. I've never heard anyone suggest that we should shut down our naval and air facilities in Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. I've not heard the idea that we should pull out of Afghanistan or abandon the Jordanian and Egyptian regimes with whom we have close cooperation on a military level.

The American people just want to get us out of Iraq. Even so, a good number of them would probably support a limited role. I imagine a majority would support a lasting presence in the emerging Kurdish nation in northern Iraq. I suppose you consider Americans who would support a limited presence as "surrender monkeys". Do I have that right Mr. President?

The Liar: "Either the forces of extremism succeed or the forces of freedom succeed. Either our enemies advance their interests in Iraq, or we advance our interests. The most important and immediate way to counter the ambitions of al Qaida, Iran and other forces of instability and terror is to win the fight in Iraq."

What "forces of freedom" in Iraq are you talking about? The Shiite militias? The Sunni militias that we are now creating as a counterbalance? Certainly the people that run the Iraqi government can't be considered "forces of freedom". They don't want freedom for their people; they want submission to Sharia Law, and intend to establish a theocracy in Iraq modeled after Iran. Is that what you define as "freedom"?

The Liar: "Iraqis are increasingly reaching accommodations with each other". They (war critics) disregard the political advances on the local level, and instead charge that the slow pace of legislative progress on the national level proves that our strategy has not worked. This argument gets it backward. It will take time for the recent progress we have seen in security to translate into political progress."

What "accommodations" are you referring to Mr. President? There has been absolutely zero progress on reforming the Iraqi constitution, holding provincial elections, allowing Baath Party members to retake their jobs and distributing Iraq's oil revenues. The Sunnis and the largest Shiite party have abandoned the Maliki government. Their parliament is on vacation and rarely has enough attendance to achieve a quorum.

What "political advances on the local level" are your referring to Mr. President? Do you mean the fact that we are supplying weapons and financing to the terrorists who were planting bombs and killing our troops just a few months ago? Do you mean the fact that we are paying off the terrorists who you used to say we were fighting "over there" so we didn't have to fight them "over here"? Is this what you mean? Please do clarify this for your benighted subjects.

The Liar: "It makes no sense to respond to military progress by claiming that we have failed because Iraq's parliament has yet to pass every law it said it would. ... Even we cannot pass a budget on time and we have had 200 years of practice. ... Leaders in Washington need to look for ways to help our Iraqi allies succeed, not for excuses to abandon them."

To what "military progress" are you referring to Mr. President? Do you mean the fact that the civilian death toll in Iraq is only double what it was a year ago? Is this "military progress"? Perhaps you're referring to the massive increase in the number of internally displaced people in Iraq? Is that what you mean by progress? Please do enlighten us.

The Liar: "Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan to be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and impose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust. Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere."

Everywhere? In the entire world? Are you sure about that? Or do they just threaten the Saudi oil tyrants, the Israelis and the flow of our precious oil? Isn't that what you meant to say?

I encourage you to search your soul Mr. President and try to find the remaining scraps of manhood that will allow you to stand before the nation and reverse the disastrous course that you have charted for the last 4 years in Iraq. I have no doubt that you will already go down in history as one of the worse Presidents ever, but there might be a sliver of redemption for you if you can muster the courage to begin the process of extricating our country from the needless, disastrous, and unending quagmire into which you have snared it.

If you choose not to, fine. We will defeat Norm Coleman. Defeat Susan Collins. Defeat John Sununu. Defeat Gordon Smith and several more who think they are "safe" right now. We will take the Presidency in 2008, expand our majorities in the House and state legislatures and seize more governorships. Your legacy can then include not only the debacle of Iraq but the dismantling of the "permanent" Republican majority and the consignment of that party to minority status for a generation. It's your choice.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.6/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.6/5 (5 votes cast)

Comments (2)

Steve Crickmore:

Bush really does over-egg the pudding..The neo cons are now a force for moderation..I thought the reason why the administration invaded Iraq, was because they wanted an extreme solution, no longer content to contain Saddam like the Clinton administration and the post first iinvasion Bush 41 administration. Actually Larkin, Bush has made a few better appointments recently: Gates and Petraeus (not so very dfficult after Rusmfeld, Bremer and Pace) but we are probably no better off, since Cheney is still second in command, and 'the decider' Bush seems even more at sea..It is just rearranging the deck chairs, before the inevitable.


"Either the forces of extremism succeed or the forces of freedom succeed." Freedom my ass. The only real freedom involved at this point is the freedom of Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, et. al. to name their price, which is happily paid by the government, for the privilege of covertly building a permanent bricks and mortar presence in Iraq, and doing so while better armed and protected than our brave soldiers.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.