Bush Explained

Discussion in 'Politics' started by marcD, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. marcD



    Q: Daddy, why did we have
    to attack Iraq? A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.
    Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. A:
    That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. Q: And that's why we invaded
    Iraq? A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. Q: But
    after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass
    destruction, did we?
    A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll
    find something, probably right before the 2004 election. Q: Why did Iraq
    want all those weapons of mass destruction? A: To use them in a war,
    silly. Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned
    to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we
    went to war with them?
    A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those
    weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend
    Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they
    had all those big weapons to fight us back with? A: It's a different
    culture. It's not supposed to make sense. Q: I don't know about you, but
    I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they
    A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those
    weapons We had another good reason to invade them anyway. Q: And what
    was that? A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction,
    Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to
    invade another country.
    Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his
    A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
    Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
    A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic
    competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops
    to make U.S. corporations richer.
    Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American
    corporategain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures
    A: Right.
    Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
    A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People
    who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
    Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China? A: I told you, China is
    different. Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq? A: Well, for
    one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
    Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
    A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
    Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
    A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are
    sent to prison and tortured.
    Q: Like in Iraq?
    A: Exactly.
    Q: And like in China, too?
    A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other
    hand, is not.
    Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
    A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some
    laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with
    Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists
    like us.
    Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and
    started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become
    A: Don't be a smart-ass.
    Q: I didn't think I was being one.
    A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
    Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
    A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam
    Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a
    legitimate leader anyway.
    Q: What's a military coup?
    A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country
    by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United
    Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
    A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is
    our friend.
    Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
    A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
    Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly
    overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate
    A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he
    helped us invade Afghanistan.
    Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
    A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
    Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
    A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men? Fifteen of them Saudi
    Arabians? hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings,
    killing over
    3,000 Americans.
    Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
    A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive
    rule of the Taliban.
    Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off
    people's heads and hands?
    A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off
    people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too. Q: Didn't the
    Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of
    A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job
    fighting drugs.
    Q: Fighting drugs?
    A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing
    opium poppies.
    Q: How did they do such a good job?
    A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban
    would have their hands and heads cut off. Q: So, when the Taliban cut
    off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not
    if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
    A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off
    people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off
    people's hands for stealing bread.
    Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
    A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy
    that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were
    in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not
    Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
    A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
    Q: What's the difference?
    A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet
    fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her
    eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of
    patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her
    eyes and fingers.
    Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
    A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are
    our friends.
    Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were
    from Saudi Arabia.
    A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
    Q: Who trained them?
    A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
    Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
    A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very
    bad man.
    Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
    A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion
    of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
    Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan
    talked about?
    A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
    thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call
    them Russians now .
    Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
    A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after
    they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our
    invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French
    and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either. Q: So
    the French and Germans are evil, too? A: Not exactly evil, but just bad
    enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom
    Fries and Freedom Toast. Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another
    country doesn't do what we want them to do?
    A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
    Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
    A: Well, yeah. For a while.
    Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
    A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our
    friend, temporarily.
    Q: Why did that make him our friend?
    A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
    Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
    A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked
    the other way, to show him we were his friend. Q: So anyone who fights
    against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
    A: Most of the time, yes.
    Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an
    A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can
    profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the
    Q: Why?
    A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for
    America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is
    a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked
    Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
    A: Yes.
    Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
    A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him
    what to do.
    Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because
    George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
    A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes,
    make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night. Q: Good night,
  2. Don't worry. I'm sure KumarFye is furiously googling up a right-wing talking point response that only another 3 year old would buy.

  3. marcD


    And I am sure you are 100% right.

    Should be fun to see what he comes up with. Only thing for sure is there will be no humor in it.

    AAA is more likely to counter the post and be able to keep it light.

    Be interesting to see what the responses are. I got this in an email just today, so it could be all over the internet by now. But the irony of it just was too much for me not to post here. Why? Mostly because I wanted to see Kymer's response!!! Normally I don't ever post political stuff. To each his own. Differences of opinions are fine. But today I got a little crazy reading about the "futures market on terrorism"....so my political blood got a little boiled.

    This was too good to pass up.


  4. War is good for the economy? Well,yes thats true, but the more accurate statement would be ,war IS, for the economy.Could it be that the economy, IS the reason we are in Iraq?The Fed will put the economy almost a trillion more in debt by the end of 2004.Thats some serious stimulus,and quite possibly the only reason the economys fall has stalled.PS,I live in the heart of silicon valley.Anyone saying the tech sector is in recovery is dillusional. Most of us are concerned with weather or not we'll be employed in a year.
  5. marcD


    Yes, and this is so damn sad.

    We are apparently now living with an administration that seems to believe that war IS indeed our economy, and it's a good business model.

    Two wars, and it ain't working.
    Tax cuts for the RICH?? Please!!!

    Schools can't buy new textbooks. States can't keep up their medical care for the aged programs. After schools programs? All these tax cuts for the rich are forcing state governments to try (unsuccessfully) to take up the slack. Look what's happening in California (for an extreme example). It's all over though. State governments are taxing more and running up deficits because they have to due to cuts in Federal assistance. And the state programs are not just getting weaker, smaller and more in debt; in many cases impotent if not completely abandoned.

    Compassionate conservative?

    To quote Jonathan Alter this week in Newsweek:

    "Presisident Bush is a regular guy that doesn't care a whole lot about regular people. The first is a political asset: voters like his guyness. The second is his greatest vulnerability, and he offers more evidence for it every day"

    talks about Bushes campaign promises, and how he has done 180s on them. Lot of examples. Then ends with:

    Who is he first? The question is not just if the president tells the truth, but if the truth - finally - will be told about him"

    Article title appropriately is: 'Let Them Eat Cake' Economics
    (a segway into and out of the "yellowcake" uranium in the State of the Union address).

  6. MWS417


    good post!
  7. So many misconceptions, so little time to respond to them all.

    That long Q and A read like some Molly Ivins column, clever but with all the depth of a parking lot puddle. Foreign affairs is slightly more complicated than replacing a burned out light bulb. We cannot right all wrongs, we cannot always act with perfect moral symmetry. Sometimes we have to do the expedient, as distasteful as it might be, to accomplish a greater good. Sometimes we have to make difficult judgments as to whether it is better to try to coexist with an imperfect or even downright odious regime, like China or Saudi Arabia.

    We've been through the tax cuts for the rich nonsense repeatedly. That whole line of argument is bogus, because the "rich", as defined by Democrats, are the only ones paying taxes. The bottom half of the income distribution--which itself is very dynamic--pay next to nothing in taxes and many get welfare from the govrnment in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Any cut in rates has to benefit those who actually pay taxes. The Bush tax cuts also contain important benefits for those in the lower and middle income ranges, including a hugely expanded child credit. This is something I would think Democrats would love, hey it's for the children, but I guess anything that gives parents more power is a problem for them.

    There's a basic difference in how the parties look at taxes. Democrats seem to alwys be looking at who will pay a little less in rates, if not in total. Republicans tend to look at what is best for the economy. One approach leads to envy and anger, the other to more prosperity.

    You connect budget problems in various states with a federal tax cut. The first question is why should taxpayers in states that run a tight ship be forced to pay for spendthrifts elsewhere? What did these states that are in such dire need do during the boom years? Typically they spent like drunken sailors and put in programs that they can't pay for now. It is fundamentally a bad policy for the federal government to be bailing out states. Some of the budget issues relate to federally mandated programs like medicaid, but is it too much to expect rich states like California to make some basic choices?
  8. blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah...the end justifies the means, everyone forgets about foreign policy anyway, and trickle down economics DOES WORK, GODDAMMIT...

    that's what i hear out of you, AAA....and you're 100% wrong about all of it.

    fact is, republicans SPEND AND SPEND AND SPEND AND SPEND. the whole fiscal responsibility thing is a clever marketing campaign. everytime we have a republican in the white house, deficits soar and the markets go south.

    now you'll reply some clever, impossible-to-prove statement about how it takes so long for these good fiscal measures, like skyrocketing deficits, to "help" the economy, and inevitably, they manage to "kick in" just as a democrat is elected to the white house. At this point, i think all of us know it's complete bullshit.

    all of this is staring you in the face -- saddam and OBL are all products of this self-destructive policy that the same bunch of people foisted on the rest of the world in the early 80's -- and just like we paid for it on 9/11, in 10-20 years from now, we're gonna have to pay DEARLY for what those same assholes are doing now.

    the economy is staring you in the face, too -- it's fucked and your guy is too stupid to do anything about it. he's digging us in deeper and deeper with MORE spending. write him a letter and tell him to STOP WASTING MONEY on stupid shit.

    you want a strong federal budget - STOP SPENDING. your guy spends money like there's no tomorrow.

    any idiot can cut taxes, but apparently just any idiot CAN'T cut spending.

    stop living in denial -- your president is a LOSER. he's fucking us more and more every day.

    put an end to this madness once and for all.

    PS -- great post, MarcD. I especially enjoyed "However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better."
  9. I actually agree that Bush is spending too much. He has gone along with every big spending scheme Congress has hatched, probably because he feels the need to protect himself against vicious leftwing criticism that he doesn't "care" or is against children or the elderly.

    These spending programs sound great but at some point they have to be paid for. And when was the last time a program was axed? I guess they all must be terrific successes.

    One of the best features of the private enterprise system versus socialism is the Darwinian process by which investment goes to the highest return. Managers are forced to prioritize. By contrast, government allocates resources using the political process. People who are receiving benefits or working in a program or vendors to a program will fight bitterly to retain it, whether or not it is working. Taxpayers have only a small interest in any particular program so don't have the same incentive to oppose programs. So we get a one way ratchet to increase spending.
  10. very true - besides mall-walking and heart meds, there's nothing the elderly like more than massive defense budget increases and $100 Billion "liberations." and what could warm a child's heart more than a shiny new "Homeland Security" department?
    #10     Jul 30, 2003