World War III Is Going To Be Hilarious
Your president giggled and grinned while discussing World War III today.
"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding [grinning] World War III [end grinning], it seems like you [begin giggling] ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge [end giggling] necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Hahahaha! Yeah! Zinger! That's funny shit. For the record, here's his expression while saying the words "World War Three":
To the rest of the known world, however, World War III a scary thing. It's just below abortion and above rape on the list of the all time unfunniest topics.
Let's break it down.
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one, they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad) that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over. Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
2. Yet the administration is drawing up plans to illegally and preemptively attack anyway, based on the lie that Iran is a nuclear threat.
3. Congress, despite the president's 24-percent approval rating, won't stop the White House because of, 1) The Fear, and 2) because Congress has allowed the president and vice president to seize unprecedented power which almost entirely circumvents Article I of the Constitution (among other things).
4. Meanwhile, if we do attack, it appears as if Pooty-Poot might bring Russia in on the Iranian side.
5. And there you go. Knee slapping boners all around. Milk just came out of my nose.
They're marketing Iran with more psychotic voracity than Michelle Malkin attacking an injured baby -- and no one can stop them.
As near as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be a governing body or citizen group who can stop them from carrying this out. Congress won't and, honestly, they can't. Last night's Frontline episode, "Cheney's Law," underscored what we've all been worried about: Congress has been rendered ineffectual against the current power madness of the executive.
For example, has Congress clamped down on the president's rampant use of torture? Sure. (Torture is number five on the unfunny syllabus.) The Republican controlled Congress did this, but the president rendered the law pointless with a signing statement.
Ah yes. Torture. Not to digress too far into this thing, but you know how the president can look us in the eye and say, "we don't torture," as he did in today's press conference? He can say this with impunity because the administration has authored its own definition of torture which is so narrow that anything else -- anything you and I would consider to be torture -- isn't.
If it don't cause organ failure, it ain't torture, Stretchy McStretch-o-rama-funny-pants. In a sense, the president isn't lying when he says "we don't torture." It depends on what your definition of torture is.
This excuse, of course, is the same excuse future enemies will use when they torture... us.
Republican cowards who demand security at the expense of liberty/honor/law have facilitated the Bush executive branch with extraordinary power. Now we're trapped in the shadow of the White House's unprecedented strength, and there doesn't appear to be any conceivable way to stop these people. If Cheney wrangles the military hardware to attack Iran, the air strikes will commence with lightning zealotry. Bet on it. Congress can try to stop him, but they don't have the power any more. According to the Bush administration, Article II is Article II and the Commander in Chief rules.
It's as simple as that. Just try telling him he's wrong on this. You could be the most conservative wingnut ever and you'd lose that debate -- not for a lack of rational arguments either.
Is it any wonder why we occasionally succumb to outrage fatigue: that deflated, windless sense of numbing futility we feel when confronted with the illogical and the absurd? We've only begun to dig into the upper strata of lawlessness this regime has perpetrated over the last seven years. And now, in this desperate dying twilight of their existence -- now that they're gravely unpopular and on their way out the door -- reckless and without anything to lose -- why shouldn't they do all the crazy shit they've talked about? Bomb Tehran? Yeah, that'll be awesome and hilarious. More war means more war powers. If you thought the administration's war powers were crazy huge, just imagine their World War powers. Score!
The president always says that history will vindicate him. 15 months from now, he'll be done. Pretending to be a cowboy down there -- raising melanomas in the harsh Crawford sunshine, laughing at the third hilarious war he started all by himself.
Once he's done, by his twisted reasoning, it's someone else's problem. By "someone else" he naturally means "everyone else."
Just like so many powerful men, he appears to be able to switch off his conscience (if one exists in the first place). It's the same switch that allows him to say "we don't torture," or to smirk and laugh while discussing Iraq casualties and World War III. "Everyone else" won't include him because he'll always be safe. He'll always have Crawford and the twins; his fake accent and his delusional view of history; his nicknames and his eh-eh-eh laugh.
The rest of us -- unless we can find a way to stop this Iran drumbeat -- won't be laughing so much.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
GWB looks like he has LOST whats left of his mind
This is what you end up when you have a GOP that continues to support this lame President. Just look at how our rights have been taken away from us, the additional power that has been given to this WH. With Bu$h at the helm, you can see where we are six years later. Most of the world cannot stand the USA. We are bogged down in Iraq. This WH caters to big business, so that should tell you where you as a citizen stands. Too bad the new AG will not be a better person then the last one.
The problem with Iran having anything remotely with
a nuclear potential is the availablity to the Hamas and Hezbolla plus any other disgruntled group. Iran would not like their country obliterated but think by passing this weapon to someone else might work for them.
They should be made aware that any sign of nuclear units of any type will be acted on with no questions asked. Mr. Putin has no say in this matter..
But Mr. Putin has MANY, MANY nuclear weapons that he can readily sell to Iran.... should we start rustling their feathers.
The president's arrogance and his lackeys as well, seems to be ignoring the fact that Putin could really use some cash now.
This is NOT funny anymore.
Russia has been helping Iran with its nuclear
plants. There is no evidence its to build weapons
yet.
Russia has tons of cash these days from oil sales.
Pay attention everyone! It looks like the village of Crawford, TX finally found their missing idiot.
Actually, what Iran is going to do is wait until the preznit is on his annual summer vacation in some little town in Texas that I can't remember right now and then have a nukular bomba delivered in a shipping container.
No way that will start dubya dubya three but it will scare shrub a little. he might even stop with the little boy giggles.
Interesting note here;
I just tried to email the Speaker of the House. Madam Pelosi apparently isn't accepting mail these days. Wonder why. I had hopes...
oh, well, why should she be any different?
Just had the same experience......hmmm
Why on God's earth this deafning silence on Israel's huge nuclear arsenal?? Iran does not have one-ISrael does?How come?
Are we waiting for israel to start a WW111 ??
Because Israel will only use those weapons to defend the country if it was attacked. Israel won't attack anyone unless they have to but other countries over there aren't the same way.
Got any proof of that? Either of your theories?
tell that to Syria
Israel has been working on plans to go into Iran
for two years. They feel the same way about the
"nuclear threat" Iran poses, that Bush does.
Israel has not declared its own nuclear capabilities, but
is thought to have at least as many warheads as
the USA. There are lots of sights on the internet
to get information.
Did I miss something,or did ISRAEL just fly over Syria and destroy a nuclear reactor that was nowhere near completion,and with no evidence of what it was going to be used for? Rice and Gates were concerned about "the ramifications of a preemptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat"(quote from NY Times' News Service).
I take it that every time Israel attacks someone,you will say that "they had to",and call it a day.Nice...
Asim
Nobody likes to talk about Israels nukes because WE gave em to them. So if they end up using them, it will be our fault sort of.
Not our fault; our honor.
The U.S.A. is about to implode, brought about by its own corruption.
For many years the U.S. has claimed to want to spread democracy when in fact they themselves are not democratic i.e. the will of the people , they really wish to spread American values which are to say the least based on jungle law , survival of the fittest (richest).
If you doubt this try to use your right to run for Congress as an independent, unless you are Bill Gates or equivalent, say a working person, you will likely get three votes unless of course you have grown up kids.
There used to be a saying that anyone can become president well not any more unless you belong to one of the parties whose lines have become so blurred as to make them invisible.
Money talks and it is SCREAMING now.
WW111 Bring it on, there's money to be made.
I like this country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Imagine a place where a man who wasn't born wealthy with divorced parents who didn't have any political connections in a rural town and managed to become President of the most powerful country of the world.
That is what makes this country great. Sure there is corruption but in case you didn't notice there isn't ANY country in the world that doesn't have corruption.
Nicole, who the hell are you describing? Surely not bush. If you meant Clinton- He made some mistakes, but at least he didn't take our(not his) Constitution and destroy our rights. I have a feeling that we are echoing the German people in the thirties and they should have removed Hitler before it became, tragically, too late.
You know very little about the world. Take a trip to Europe sometime and see how truly developed countries support their citizens. We have many resources and a large GDP, but that does not contitute "the best". Corruption is not an item that ALWAYS prevails. Corruption is an item that the public in a fearful society succumb to...you have. I wish I could take your view and sleep at night with the idea that corruption exists, therefore it is okay.
You got one remark correct. The US is not a democracy. Can you guess what it is?
You are correct. The US is not a democracy. 80 percent of the American population support the Kyoto protocol but America will not ratify it, the vast majority support the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty but American pulled out in May 05. The majority support universal health care but you don’t have it. If democracy means the will of the people prevails then America is not a democracy.
The combination of politics and the media has caused the truth to be skewed any way the Bush-Cheney-Limbaugh-Hannity Gang wants it to be. Some say Bush does not live in reality, but the truth is he creates his on reality. Someone once said way back in history, "What is Truth?" Truth is dead in the street of Washington DC!
I sometimes ask my students to name a single American philosopher...they can't. Then I ask them to name their Senators and their Representative...only a handful can do that.
Then I ask them who's dating Ben or Jen, Brad or Angie...and they can not only name the current lover, but the previous one.
Is this a great country or what?
http://www.newsprism.com
I don't know the name of an American philosopher and I'm not stupid. It's not really a fair question because most of the famous philosophers weren't American. I don't even know what country Plato lived in and it's not important. The important thing is their work and not where they lived. And I have a degree from a good college.
Maybe your students would learn more if their teacher wasn't condescending.
Ever ask them the capital of Missouri? We can thank you liberal educators for all the stupid fat kids with no desire to compete. All the problems in our public schools are your fault. You people blame the right for this and that and everything. Well, education is one huge disaster that belongs solely to you. No one else on the planet has tenure except you left-wing teachers. You hate the idea of school vouchers because if market forces were introduced to public education, you would either shape up or get thrown out. Welcome to the real world professor.
I know of at least one marine whose company is being shipped off to Iran. Not Iraq. IRAN. There's only one reason to send marines into a country with whom we are not currently at war. The bombs will drop in early '08. Guaranteed.
How can he get orders to go into a foreign nation. There are no U.S. military installations in Iran.
My guess on timing is before the end of January.
zitlight: BECOME a facist power??? wait a a sec. the brown shirts happen to be busy with their Blackwater jobs right now, but be patient, we've got an election coming up (maybe)where they'll be needed to help at the polls.
But the suggestion---massive boycott? I thought after 9/11 we were supposed to go shop.
I happen to be stuck---everything has been tried, but it's all up to Israel. And don't forget---the iranian missiles are already tagetted. Meanwile Putin isn't taking his naps.
It must be wonderful to know it all. Maybe we would like to give up just a little freedom to keep from being killed off by the religious maniacs. This is not a black and white world....There is some gray in everything. In the past, we have usually had to give up some of our freedoms during wartime. Why should this war on terror be any different? When Americans come back from their vacations overseas, we are searched at the points of entry for drugs and other contraband materials. So why shouldn't the goverment monitor overseas communications? - I think it's a small price to pay for a little security. Also, to whom do you give credit for the fact that there have been no major attacks on our soil since the Homeland Security Department was set up? Do you just attribute this to good luck? Would it have been good luck had Al Gore set it up? - I think not.
William E. Graham, Salem, Oregon
"Also, to whom do you give credit for the fact that there have been no major attacks on our soil since the Homeland Security Department was set up?"
Well, it sure as hell isn't the Homeland Security Department!
How's the weather out there on PLANET KOOL-AID???
Fucking unbelieveable....
Perhaps there wouldn't have even been a 911 if Al Gore, the person we elected, were president.
There would have been a 9/11,9/12,9/13 etc...
Yes I do attribute this (no major attack on our soil since 9/11) to good luck. Remember that between 1993 and 2001 there was also no major attack on our soil (discounting McVeigh, of course). So that is eight years! And, as you righties are so fond of telling us, the Clinton administration apparently "did nothing."
WW3 is no laughing matter, especially since we all know that if a Third World War breaks out, it will because OUR PRESIDENT started it! That's not funny.
"Maybe we would like to give up just a little freedom to keep from being killed off by the religious maniacs."
Not a chance in hell, as far as I am concerned. I won't give up OUR freedom for MY safety. Period. That is the domain of chickenshit cons, and typical selfish bullshit.
Even if I would do so, it still doesn't make sense. It is more probable that you will be killed by driving without a seatbelt than be killed by a terrorist.
Terror has been with us for centuries and will be with us forever. That is why we can not and must not yield our freedoms. If we do, they will be gone forever too.
Amen, a2p. This "War on Terror" is as much of a sham as the "War on Drugs". Why not a "War on Vandalism" and a "War on Serial Killers"? Oops, I'm sure if Haliburton and Blackwater can figure out a way to make a buck off them, we will.
I'm sick of war for MIC's sake, especially when it's being started by chickenshit Republicans who never served in combat. Like Cheney and Rumsfeld and AWOL Georgie.
We have already lost a lot of our freedoms. And
there are no checks and balances to bring the
government back to where it was intended to be.
I wish I knew the answers. I have tried to voice
concerns to Pelosi, my representative and my
senator, but they don't seem to get it.
"In the past, we have usually had to give up some of our freedoms during wartime. Why should this war on terror be any different?" This fallacy is sometimes called the "argument to tradition." Just because something was done in the past is not a reason it should be done in the present. "Some of us" gave up more freedoms than others in the past. The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry comes to mind. Of course, there are today who knows how many Muslims rotting in detention centers in this country, who were rounded up in the lawless days after 9/11.
"When Americans come back from their vacations overseas, we are searched at the points of entry for drugs and other contraband materials. So why shouldn't the goverment monitor overseas communications?" First, you're drawing a faulty equivalency between the two things. It's true that when you travel outside U.S. territory, you don't have an expectation of privacy in your person and effects when you return to the country. This is not the same kind of circumstance as when you have a conversation with someone overseas. You have not left the territory of the U.S., and there is no reason why you should give up your expectation of privacy because you communicate with someone outside of the U.S. This sets aside your apparent confusion about the difference between communications overseas versus communications between someone in the U.S. and someone overseas, which is what at least part of the FISA controversy is about.
This brings me to the third fallacy in your post: you imply a cause and effect relation between the absence of a major terrorist event and the Patriot Act and war on terror policies. This is what's called the "post hoc" fallacy. You think that because no terrorist incident has happened after the Patriot Act and establishment of Homeland Security, these are the reason there has been no further terrorist attack. But there could easily be other reasons.
You have expressed exactly the way I feel about this President and his administration but with all the power he is garnering to himself heh heh heh are you sure he really intends to give up the Presidency in January 2009?
I have my doubts.
Hey DKLA - I love your idea of sending her tables. I think I'm going to make a little "impeachment table" that she can keep on her desk - brilliant!~
In recent weeks, AIPAC has distributed new "posters" witch consist of Amajads face (spelling and don't care at the moment) along with a couple of Missiles and the caption-NO NUCLEAR IRAN-with a smaller capation about such being bad for Israel, the United State, and the Global Community. I looked for a way to post a photo of it but see none.
Pretty interesting how the timing of these posters went up in Temples and the "speech" about WW III. Of all the countries in the middle-east, what was the one who was most pleased about our invasion of Irag and are thrilled about permanent bases in the region? I suppose this is all one big coincidence.
I haven't seen any of those posters in a Temple so I'm not sure where exactly you have seen them.
And also when you start implying that Israel is the reason that we went to war with Iraq then you cross the line into being irrational and anti-semitic.
About those Republican cowards... just this afternoon they're howling at a California legislator who took them to task over the SCHIP bill that their fearless leader vetoed.
A loose paraphrase; You don't have money for childrens' health care but you don't have trouble funding a war to send them to Iraq where they can get their heads blown off.
Oh, the gnashing of teeth and taking of umbrage! The Republicans are so outraged at the insult they're virtually soiling themselves.
The problem is, the man was right. These spineless chickenhawks don't want to be reminded of the ugly, bloody reality of the war they're championing. Republicans don't flinch when it comes to approving billions for Bush's war, but healthcare for kids? Oh, that's too expensive... We may only look forward to more of the same insanity.
Gramma Rose
Exactly right on S-CHIP. ReTHUGS voted against it cos some families making over $100,000 a year were going to get assistance. All families need assistance, including those making over 100K. I don't blame Pelosi for standing up for the 100Ks.
Even 1,000,000 a day people "need" assistance. Where's your heart? I might have to borrow money against my 16th yacht to get an MRI.
the faux pas was as follows:
president's "amusement" should have been:
president's, cheney's and their buddy's/donator's/crony's' profit coffers"
then the right would have had to remain silent or debate those very merits.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
