Moment Of Clarity?

We all know that according to the State run news, we can either fight terrorists "over there" or here.

So we are fighting them over there. So one would think that would mean we do not have to fight them here. Right? This is what Bush and his henchmen have told us. Over and over again. And even more when it is close to election time.

But if we are fighting them "over there" so we do not have to fight them "here", why do we need to give the government power to circumvent international treaties? Why do they need the ability to spy on anyone who lives in the USA - without any court warrants? Why do we have to wear Speedos at the airport? I mean, I am HERE! Not "over there" - and according to the President because we are fighting them "over there" they are not here. Or something like that.

And I wonder what the people of Madrid and London think of the "over there" theory.

And now for the moment of clarity. Here is a DIRECT TRANSCRIPT of what Bush said in an interview when asked about his statement that we can not cut and run, that we must stay until we win or else we will be fighting terrorists in our streets. Here is what he said.

President Bush: "I mean that a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy and will provide the enemy more opportunity to train, plan, to attack us. That's what I mean. You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. I believe it. As I told you, Osama bin Laden believes it. But the American people have got to understand that a defeat in Iraq; in other words, if this government there fails, the terrorists will be emboldened, the radicals will topple moderate governments."

How in the hell can ANYONE support this guy, or believe the random sounds that are emitted by his noise hole? Lets pick this apart.

Sentence 1 - a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy. Nevermind that BEFORE the war, the "enemy" was not in Iraq. There were no terror training camps. The US Senate, hardly in the control of terrorist loving Democrats, said so recently. There is simply not any evidence of any link to Saddam and "the terrorists". Saddam had a fairly secular government, and Islamic Fundies were a threat to his power. He did not like them, and did not allow them to operate in Iraq.

Sentence 2 - a sentence fragment.

Sentence 3 - The MOMENT OF CLARITY! An admission that the hardest part of his job is connecting Iraq to the war on terror! Maybe this is because there are no links? Maybe because the whole case for the war was made up?

Sentence 4 - another fragment

Sentence 5 - The invocation of Osama's name! What is it that Osama believes? Who knows. But it seems Bush has told us, we just forgot.

Sentence 6 - I do not know what that is. As best I can tell it is an incomplete sentence, a fragment, a few clauses, and a preposition or two all thrown together into one "sentence". Kind of like a grammar school tossed salad, with a large side of stupidity dressing.

How this guy has any support left is beyond me. Are people really that dumb?