<!-- Begin meta tags generated by ORblogs --> </meta name="keywords" content="progressive, liberal, politics, government, edit, language, grammar, accuracy, honesty, clarity, world, news, media" /> </> <!-- End meta tags generated by ORblogs -->> Editor at Large: He's back in the saddle!

Monday, June 19, 2006

He's back in the saddle!

We've missed our cowboy lately, and we were downright chapfallen when he confided recently that he'd had some regrets about saying he wanted Osama "dead or alive" and telling Iraqi insurgents to "bring it on." But now it looks like Cowboy Bush is back in the saddle and channeling John Wayne again, just like the good ole days!

Speaking about Iran today at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in New York (a right-friendly audience for cowboy talk), Cowboy Bush said, "Nuclear weapons in the hands of this regime would be a grave threat to people everywhere." That's our boy! Just as Iraq's non-existent WMDs posed a grave threat to us in 2003, Bush now wants us to believe that Iran's hypothetical WMDs "would be" a grave threat to us (i.e., if they were ever actually developed).

But Cowboy Bush didn't stop there. He really let Iran have it, telling them in no uncertain terms to "get out of town by sunset - or else!"

"[Iran must] fully and verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities" before we will negotiate with them. (Just as we negotiated with Iraq, after they fully and verifiably informed us that they had no WMDs.)

"Iran's leaders have a clear choice: We hope they will accept our offer and voluntarily suspend these activities so we can work out an agreement that will bring Iran real benefits." (Benefits like having no bombs dropped on them.)

"If Iran's leaders reject our offer, it will result in action before the Security Council, further isolation from the world, and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions." (By "political and economic sanctions," he means "military actions.")

And finally, the piece de resistance - er, we mean the big enchilada (cowboys don't talk French!): "I have a message for the Iranian regime. America and our partners are united. We have presented a reasonable offer. Iran's leaders should see our proposal for what it is: an historic opportunity to set their country on a better course. If Iran's leaders want peace and prosperity and a more hopeful future for their people, they should accept our offer. Abandon any ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons and come into compliance with their international obligations."

Ain't it good to have our cowboy back?



Anonymous Jeff said...

Let's get the facts straight here: The decision to go to war in Iraq was based on intelligence information given to the current administration and voted in congress.


Just because WMD's were not found, in no way indicates they do not exist. I suppose we could do nothing and wait for IRAN to attack us or one of our allies? IRAN is not to be trusted!

3:06 PM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Hey Jeff,

We do try to get our facts straight, but sometimes we screw up and get them gay.

All Brokeback jokes aside, you are, of course, correct that Congress voted to let Bush get revenge on Afghanistan, Iraq, whomever for 9/11, based on the (faulty) intelligence provided by the (Cheney-coerced) CIA. And you're right that just because something can't be found doesn't mean it doesn't exist (Jimmy Hoffa's corpse, for example). But wouldn't you concede that sometimes things can't be found because they don't, in fact, exist?

Also, while it is possible that Iran MAY be developing WMDs which eventually COULD be a threat to the U.S., is that a good reason to drop our WMDs on them?

Hey, maybe from Iran's perspective, the U.S. is a threat and can't be trusted!

4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The U.S. can't be trusted and that is why the U.S. doesn't trust anyone else. The U.S. is filled with people who think like Jeff--afraid of "the dark stranger" lurking in the shadows with turbans wrapped around their heads.

If the U.S. saved all its money up that it waste on wars of mass distraction for the entertainment of those like Jess--I mean Jeff--then the U.S. might be prepared when someone decided to attack--like on 9/11.

9:31 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Editor: It's amazing how different the opinions are, just amazing. The US will only use WMD type weapons as self defense. Have you not heard the IRAN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad describe why Iran needed a nuclear weapon in announcing "Israel must be wiped off the map."? Believe what you want, but I am glad we have an administration that takes a proactive approach instead of a reactive approach (after the damage is done).

6:19 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Afraid of the dark Stranger, I think not. If I see a stranger in my home (regardless of race), that person will suffer the consequences, but I try to keep the strangers out of my home, not invite them in, then deal with them.

6:28 AM  
Anonymous Terry said...

I agree with Jeff, if a stranger is in my house, he should expect a big hole through his/her head. My home is my safe/secure space. If you invade it, there will be trouble. No different than what happened on 9/11 (apparently that "anonymous" fella doesn't remember that (afraid to put a name to that dumb comment?)).
The editor of this blog makes me sick! I have served my country. I've traveled around the world. I've seen rich countries, poor ones... countries that would give anything to have the freedom and security that the US has. Editor, I'm sure your not concerned sitting your lazy butt in that chair (trying to find crap to dog the current administration)... and the reason your not concerned is because the administration has taken the war that was started in the US, outside the US. Freedom costs... if you don't like the price, or the people that call the shots, then shake your anti-american butt to another store (move away), cause we don't want ya. We are united... meaning we should be backing the decisions that are made by our leaders (voted on by everyone in this great nation)not complaining about them. Yes, I'm in favor of Bush and his administration. Do I think he's made some bad comments (of course). But I understand what he's trying to accomplish. I served 8 years in the service (under Bill Clinton) and even though I wasn't fond on him, I still did what I had to do and I didn't bitch about it. He was our president, and I accepted his decisions and athority. Maybe you should too?!

7:15 AM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Jeff and Terry,

Could you please enlighten us as to when, precisely, Iraq was "in our house" - or even posed a threat of entering our house? And Terry, could you please explain how "backing the decisions made by our leaders" and accepting their "decisions and athority [sic]" is any different from what the people of Nazi Germany did for Hitler?

We, too, have served our country (12 years under Bush Sr. and Clinton), traveled the world, and seen what it's like in other countries, but that only makes us sadder and madder about what's been happening to our country since Bush took office (emphasis on "took" - he not only wasn't "voted on by everyone," he wasn't even voted for by a majority). If your answer is for us to "shake our anti-american butt" (ooh, wouldn't that be titillating!) to "another store" (whatever that means), then you obviously don't understand what freedom REALLY costs - which is a willingness to consider (and maybe even tolerate) disparate perspectives, opinions, and, yes, truths.

P.S. "Anonymous" is no more "afraid" than either of you are. Terry who? Jeff who? How can we - or anyone else - respond to you, except via comments on this blog?

2:33 PM  
Anonymous Terry said...

Why would you ever mention Hitler? Lets compare Hitler and Sadam for just a minute (or do we need to). I'm sure in your eyes we should of just left them both at the helm. Kept our noses out of everyones business (now wouldn't that be a wonderful world. You do the math on that one since your so damn smart (NOT)! Go BUSH.
Or should I join you in "Hail to

7:06 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...


I never indicated that Iraq was in our house; please refer to the comments from anonymous who said we were afraid of the "dark stranger". Please do not take my words out of context to further your agenda.

Backing the decisions of a democratic government is much different than backing a tyrant such as Hitler and his dictatorship. The people in Germany did not vote to execute millions of Jews and invade England; the people of Germany lived in climate of fear, just like the people of Iraq under the rule of Saddam. There were 37 Million casualties as a result of Hitler and the Nazi Party, do not even start to compare the United States to Hitler!

The United States and many other countries are in Iraq to free the people and the world of Saddam, because NATO failed to do so. The world should never wait for another Hitler to attack; the world should attack them first.

Oh, here we go, using the popular vote versus Electoral College excuse. I am not fond of the election system, but I do know that every vote counts. It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes. Sometimes I wonder if we get so caught up in politics we loose sight of the real issues. The people of Iraq are thirsty for a democratic way of life, just take a look at how many people voted in the last election. The US should have that kind of voter turnout!

I just don’t get where you are coming from, the US has been fighting dictator type governments and the terrorists they support (mostly terrorists attacking us) for years and will continue do to so for many years to come.

9:21 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home