More Disturbing Denial and Rhetoric From The W, Rove and Co

It's official. The President is in a clinical state of denial; particularly in relation to the Iraq conflagration he ignited three years ago. I'm calling it - 9:00 AM my time (which by the way I have complete authority to do so, as I am not a psychiatrist, but I play on in cyberspace).

I'll lay it out for you directly from today's posting of W's radio address to the American people. Which by the way, does any one listen to (and if no one does, do you think it's a high quality expense of taxpayer bucks)? I don't. I prefer to receive my daily dose of lies and deceit by reviewing their (evidence) texts. It's easier to wade through rhetoric and feel the very fiber of every lie tossed our way. So, with out further ado, here's the proof.

First, the President acknowledges that things are a mess in Iraq, but fails to call it civil war. He says these are just "sectarian reprisals" like they are ordinary church burning pranks pulled by college kids:

Good morning. In recent weeks, Americans have seen horrific images from Iraq: the bombing of a great house of worship in Samarra, sectarian reprisals between Sunnis and Shias, and car bombings and kidnappings. Amid continued reports about the tense situation in parts of that country, it may seem difficult at times to understand how we can say that progress is being made. But the reaction to the recent violence by Iraq's leaders is a clear sign of Iraq's commitment to democracy.

Second, simply because there is violence and there is a reported "sense of urgency" does not mean there will be unity in government. Just look at our nation divided by the "uniter" himself. The point of democracy is to support diversity, which doesn't mean there must be one world view like the republicans are trying to foster in America.

I'm encouraged to see that Iraqi political leaders are making good progress toward forming a unity government, despite the recent violence. Our Ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad, reports that the violence has created a new sense of urgency among these leaders to form a national unity government as quickly as possible.

Third, simply because you are giving speeches does not mean we are making good progress. Certainly, there is no way to stop the future of Iraq from unfolding, but that does not mean it is going well. W says that he is optimistic because, really, what other choice does he have? If he were to tell it like it is, we wouldn't be shoveling buckets (on the order of billions) of future taxpayer dollars his way for the Iraq conflagration.

I also remain optimistic because slowly but surely our strategy is getting results. This month I'm giving a series of speeches to update the American people on that strategy.

Fourth, what are the percentages of safely discharged IED versus those that result in dead GIs and civilians? Would you take those odds in your home town when the Iraq trained "insurgents" turn their talents and Iraq honed skills on American Citizens on American soil?

And I described our strengthened efforts to defeat the threat of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

Fifth, the cost of bringing one malicious dictator to justice is not now, nor ever has been worth the outlay. The idea that we invaded Iraq because of Saddam is a part of the grand WMD bait and switch. Notice how rational for war against Iraq has morphed over the last three years as deemed politically necessary, probably by Rove himself. Remember, the original reasons and smoking mushroom clouds promulgated by the fear mongers of the W, Rove and Co. The reasons for the invasion supported by the American people have been proven unfounded, faulty, and are at the very least untenable, if not downright illegal. Thus, ask yourself, how many dead GIs and Iraqi civilians was this regime change worth? And secondly, how many terrorists were in Iraq before we got there?

Sunday marks the third anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The decision by the United States and our Coalition partners to remove Saddam Hussein from power was a difficult decision -- and it was the right decision. America and the world are safer today without Saddam Hussein in power. He is no longer oppressing the Iraqi people, sponsoring terror, and threatening the world. He is now being tried for his crimes, and over 25 million Iraqis now live in freedom. This is an achievement America and our allies can be proud of.

And Sixth, what does living in freedom look like in Iraq right now?

Seventh, who is it exactly, that turned Iraq into "the central front in the war on terror?" As one anonymous commentator put it put it on another post here, "are there no minutemen fighting" the imperialists for their freedom in Iraq?

These past three years have tested our resolve. We've seen hard days and setbacks. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the terrorists made Iraq the central front in the war on terror, in an attempt to turn that country into a safe haven where they can plan more attacks against America.

Eighth, by W's definition of "victory," it is not liable to be a short term win, but a long, hard slog until the deep crevasse in our country is filled with flag-draped boxes containing dead GIs. It's not a tenable definition of victory (which, if I remember correctly, the Mission has already been accomplished, according to W).

Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for the terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.

More fighting and sacrifice will be required to achieve this victory, and for some, the temptation to retreat and abandon our commitments is strong. Yet there is no peace, there's no honor, and there's no security in retreat. So America will not abandon Iraq to the terrorists who want to attack us again.

Lastly, retreat certainly is not an option, but there has to be another solution that doesn't involve bombing the shit out of more Iraqi civilians. One commentator to another of my posts put it this way - "Waging war for peace is like fucking for virginity."

You have my evidence. What say you?