Saturday, February 18, 2017

Defending Dubya Shrub

I amused that some at this site try to defend this worthless alcoholic POS.

9 comments:

Roman Lance said...

That video of George bein' edgy by flipping the "bird" to the camera was classic shrub behavior. He always did appear a bit dull to me, but I sometimes thought maybe it was an act and he was truly a brilliant politician.

I have yet to see any confirmation of that possibility.

Anonymous said...


What about John McCain?

Glen Filthie said...

Meh.

What would the cameras say about Bob Wallace if they were focused on him 24/7/365? Or, shudder, Glen Filthie? By the same media slobs trying to hang Trump today, no less?

Winston Churchill was a REAL boozer. Nevertheless he always made the right decisions. One of my own favourite leaders - Ralph Klein (a recent and beloved premiere of Alberta) got pissed up one night - cruised into a homeless shelter and told all the bums n' rubby-dubs that they were useless parasites - then threw a pile of $5.00 bills on the floor and stomped out in a drunken hissy fit! HAR HAR HAR!!!

(No I was not there at the time but you would be correct to suspect it! HAR HAR HAR!)

The mistakes you make, Unca Bob, with regard to Dubya:

1. You assume he drove the actions in the Middle East. He didn't; the RAG HEADS drove those events. Bush reacted to them. In that regard he was much like Blow Job Bill Clinton before him: events happened, polls got taken, the leader makes a decision based on them. And, at the time, real men like Yours Truly were howling for moslem blood after 911 - and no way were we going to pay attention to any mangina pussified peaceniks. Get those missiles in the air! NOW! Those fitlhy moslem idiots had it coming too!

2. Bush did not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight or the luxury of cherry picking his facts as you do. He had to look not only at what it was, he had to look at what it could BECOME. This is called 'critical thinking' - and the best strategists, the best intelligence in the world was unanimous in that Saddam Hussein posed a clear and present danger to the entire middle east region. (Again, historical context: America still very much was the Global Cop and took the role seriously).

3. It wasn't Bush that rendered those casualties and deaths frivolous and wasted - it was guys like you. And Obama. America had won the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had built schools, hospitals and court houses. (How easily the peaceniks and manginas forget THAT!). Those wars were WON... and peacenik idiots threw the peace away! To a bunch of smelly, butt scratching, flea bitten moslem monkeys with AK47's and a handful of light weapons. (The next obvious question that will sail right over the heads of our fanboy peaceniks is this: if America can be defeated by a handful of stone age mutts in Iraq and Afghanistan - how will they fare at home? Don't think about THAT one too hard, girls! Someone might call ya a racist! HAR HAR HAR!)

Question for ya, Bob: Viet Nam. 58,000 American fatalities. I suppose you would blame their deaths on Nixon. What about the TWO MILLION deaths in South Viet Nam that took place when the US pulled out and the North invaded?

America could have (and tried) to prevent that... but guys like you had better ideas. How many paralysis victims, shattered families and killing fields are YOU responsible for?

As you have said in the past - it's easy to blame others for your own problems. Maybe it's time for some of us to practice what we preach.

Bob Wallace said...

"What would the cameras say about Bob Wallace"


It wouldn't say I'm an alcoholic and a C student who got everything handed to me by my rich daddy.

Anonymous said...

Do not want to point out the obvious but slowing down a video and adding a laughter track, doesn't really sell that bush was an alcoholic, you also forgot coke head.
Not that I want to be defending him, but this material source is well, pathetic.

Bob Wallace said...

By the way I'd be a better President that the Bushes, LBJ, FDR and Woodrow Wilson combined.

Churchill was a fascist fool and a catastrophe.

Bob Wallace said...

"Do not want to point out the obvious but slowing down a video and adding a laughter track, doesn't really sell that bush was an alcoholic, you also forgot coke head."

Adding a laugh-track is more important than the fact that Shrub was a brain-damaged alcholic and a cokehead?

The video speaks for itself. It's not the only video of Shrub drunk. They're all over YouTube.

You really can't tell Shrub is drunk in the video?

Cecil Henry said...


Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Rupport discusses some of the politics behind the invasion of the Middle East.

Israeli and Jewish activism in the US were a big part of these invasions, along with the CIA. I

slam and the Middle East is corrupt and there are dictatorships, but that meddling by covert actors had nothing to do with Western interests.

YOu only need to look at the same people supporting and facilitating the migrant invasion of Europe. Those people are evil. Bush was largely a passive actor of a bigger agenda. They're not done-- they want Iran, they're in Syria, they want Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

Twarog said...

"Bush did not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight or the luxury of cherry picking his facts as you do. He had to look not only at what it was, he had to look at what it could BECOME. This is called 'critical thinking' - and the best strategists, the best intelligence in the world was unanimous in that Saddam Hussein posed a clear and present danger to the entire middle east region"

The "experts" were ignorant morons, and President Bush the Younger listened to them in totally uncritical fashion, because they told him what he wanted to hear. Gregory Cochran, a nuclear physicist and anthropologist at the University of Utah, was telling everyone who would listen in 2002 that it was mathematically impossible for Saddam Hussein to have nuclear weapons- the bankrupt Iraqi state simply did not have nearly enough revenue to finance the kind of uranium enrichment necessary for fission bombs. These are objective and independently-obtainable numerical criteria which anyone claiming to be an "expert" should have known or thought to look up. Cochran later learned that there was only one person at CIA who knew enough to perform this kind of basic arithmetic, and he was working on something else at the time. That's no excuse for the administration, though, because a five-minute phone call to the Department of Energy would have yielded plenty of physicists with enough know-how to do the math. The "best strategists" never even bothered to ask this critical question.

The "best strategists" and intelligence experts whose opinions you rate so highly are largely political hacks, appointed not for any real-world expertise, but because they drank the administration's kool-aid. One choice specimen of this type of "expert" was Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, who stated without a touch of irony in an interview that "The Iraqis are among the most educated people in the Arab world. They are by and large quite secular... They don't [have] holy cities of Islam on their territory." Fact check: Iraqis in 2003 had a 20% adult illiteracy rate (the official rate- in reality, probably much higher), 91% of Iraqis wish to be governed by Sharia Law, and the Iraqi cities of Karbala and Najaf are among the holiest in Shia Islam. (Another problem: many of the politicians who voted in favor of the war didn't even know there was any difference betweeen Sunnis and Shiites). I'm absolutely confident that the dorky 12-year-old contestants at the National Geographic Bee could do a better job running US foreign policy than the current crop of hacks- at least the kiddies actually know something about the world and what's in it.