Veep's Speech - Just Like Pissing Into the Wind

Sunk by pissing in the wind and into their own boat, the W, Rove and Co has shrunk to a new rhetorical low. They are busy passing out blame - as in the game we are not supposed to be playing - in a rhetorical war that has them confused and distracted. More aptly, instead of providing evidence as to their position and an explaination - which the American People so rightly deserve - they are providing enough vitriol to fill the beltway with political gamesmanship and bullshit.

Frankly, I'm not buying the rhetoric. Stick to the issues and the facts, and America -the resiliant and powerful ship - will right herself. Facts, not rhetoric set the history in stone - we all lived through it, which makes it even more troublesome for them to suggest revisionists at work. Instead of a mushroom cloud, we get more smoke and mirrors from our pissant in the Veeps office, the Big Dick:

"This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate," Cheney said....

...Cheney acknowledged that "flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight." But Cheney added: "Any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."

Let's take a romp through the Veep's speechifying for kicks and giggles:

What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.

Let's see - what about the DowningStreet Memo?

...Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001 -- and the terrorists hit us anyway. The reality is that terrorists were at war with our country long before the liberation of Iraq, and long before the attacks of 9/11. And for many years, they were the ones on the offensive.

The terrorist weren't there before we got there, were they?

... Believing they could strike us with impunity and that they could change U.S. policy, they attacked us on 9/11 here in the homeland, killing 3,000 people. Now they are making a stand in Iraq -- testing our resolve, trying to intimidate the United States into abandoning our friends and permitting the overthrow of this new Middle Eastern democracy...

Is anyone else tired of them trying to connect 9/11 with Iraq? Isn't that a fabrication of the revisionist kind? Who opened the lemonaide stand for terrorists in Iraq in the first place? The terrorist are using GIs for target practice. What happens when the terrorists train their Iraq gained skills against US civilians on US soil?

...In light of the commitments our country has made, and given the stated intentions of the enemy, those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions: Would the United States and other free nations be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe, with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?...

How does he know that these terrorists would gain control in Iraq if we left? For an administration that seems reluctant to predict the future about how particular Supreme Court nomanies might sway the court, they sure to suggest a lot about what the future of Iraq would be if we left. Not all Iraqi's are terrorists.

It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with murder and blackmail. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.

Excuse me, but which retreat from the terrorists is the first one? Suggesting that there would be another must mean there was a first. Can anyone identify the first retreat? How does the Veep know so well the mind of the terrorists in the second place?

...So much self-defeating pessimism about Iraq comes at a time of real progress in that country. Coalition forces are making decisive strikes against terrorist strongholds, and more and more they are doing so with Iraqi forces at their side.

Since when is valid criticism, dissent, and demand for answers "self-defeating pessimism?"