blo ·vi ·ate: To speak or write verbosely and windily.
They called it a debate. But for ten ridiculous, wasted hours Thursday, what actually happened in the Republican-led, most blatant do-nothing House of Representatives in the history of our country amounted to little more than greasy political posturing.
There was some genuine dissent in yesterday 's discussion of what to do regarding George 's illegal Iraq war folly, but it was wasted on a hopelessly corrupt Republican leadership that could not care less about the will of the American people (remember them?), who say collectively and overwhelmingly that it 's time to go in a different direction. The House mob bosses prevented a true debate by not allowing alternative proposals to be brought up for a vote.
They simply wanted to hammer home a Republican resolution that honors our troops, declares that we will win the non-existent war on terrorism, and rejects the idea of setting an "arbitrary date" for withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. You know, a resolution that would leave anyone who voted against it with political egg on his or her face.
Gee, it must be an election year.
George W. Bush has lied to Congress and America to start a war, endorsed torture, authorized illegal spying on Americans, subverted the Constitution and declared himself to be above the law, and this Congress has done nothing about it.
They have conducted no oversight whatsoever (as is their sworn duty under the Constitution) of what is easily the most corrupt executive branch in the history of American government. You don 't exactly need a degree in criminal justice to figure out that most of these Capitol Hill corporate whores are in on the scam.
Possibly the most ignorant neocon quote, which I heard for myself as I watched the "debate" yesterday:
"You cannot support the troops if you don 't support the war!"
Actually you can, by demanding that they not be made to fight illegal wars of aggression for the sole benefit of illegitimate, elitist, criminal, self-serving war mongering administrations like that of George W. Bush.
Saddam was not involved in 9/11 (which Bush himself publicly admitted in late 2003). There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq presented no threat whatsoever to the United States, and would not have even if Saddam did have WMD, because it is not enough to simply have them. You must also have a way to deliver them.
Iraq had been militarily crippled by 12 years of sanctions following the first Gulf War, and still had countrywide no-fly zones patrolled daily by American fighter planes. The suggestion that they could have presented any threat to our shores, against the most powerful military force in the world, is laughable.
So sorry, all you Bushie apologists, but if you're going to say "well he could have given WMD or biological or chemical weapons to terrorists to bring here to attack us with", you're still grasping at political straws. Aisde from the fact that these aren't exactly the easiest things to acquire and smuggle across oceans, anybody in the world who doesn't like us (the number of which is no doubt increasing dramatically thanks to the neocon moron currently squatting in our White House) could attempt the same thing.
Are we supposed to bomb the whole world because "you never know when someone is going to attack us"? Please.
We were sold a tale of imminent threat from Saddam himself, via nuclear weapons, mushroom clouds, and chem/bio attacks delivered by un-manned aerial vehicles (UAVs), none of which existed.
I guess it's easier for some people to continue hanging by a rhetorical thread, making pathetic, politically charged excuses for the actions of the criminal cabal that currently runs our country, than it is to admit that they were fooled.
1 | 2