And The "Boooo" Rings Hollow

If you pay any attention to the W, Rove and Co Presidential Propaganda Catapult, you will notice a trend. W speaks only to vetted audiences. He chants the usual rhetorical spew, focusing on reducing complex geopolitical and domestic social issues into two dualistic options.

One of those options usually gets the cheer - that's what they want you to believe to be the good they have done. The other option gets the boo - that's the one they want you to think the Democrats support.

Let's have a look at today's rhetorical refuse spewed by the W, Rove and Co's Cheerleader-in-Chief:

Example 1:

Let me start with taxes. (Laughter.) We have a philosophy: We believe you can spend your money far better than the federal government can. (Applause.) Democrats want to raise your taxes because they believe they can spend your money better than you can.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: We believe that when you have more money to save, spend, or invest, the whole economy benefits. (Applause.)

But what about astronomical debt that we are hocking our stars and strips to pay for the war in Iraq? Doesn't that translate to substantially higher taxes at exponentially greater cost to future generations?

Let's have a look at example 2:

I decided to institute another program. If al Qaeda or an al Qaeda affiliate is making a phone call into the United States from outside the United States, it seems like it makes sense to know why. (Applause.) They hadn't voted on this bill in the Senate, but they did in the House, and by far, the overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted against the program.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: We have got to understand what the enemy is thinking in order to be able to protect you. And that's why I authorized the program through the Central Intelligence Agency that would allow us to detain and question people we picked up off the battlefield.

I don't think it is fair to characterize the Dems as voting down a legit tactic to fighting terrorists. Might we not bill it as the Dems protecting our civil liberties and constitutional right to not be illegally searched and surveilled? I think so.

Let's look at example 3:

Seventy percent of the Senate Democrats voted against that bill.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: We're at war. It's a different kind of war, but is, in fact, a war. That war came home on September the 11th, 2001.

Okay, if it's a different kind of war, why are we fighting it quite traditionally in Iraq? And, why is he continuing to flog the Nine Eleven Monkey?

Let's look at example 4:

See, Osama bin Laden calls the fight we're in in Iraq the third world war. He says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever. Now there's a difference of opinion. I want you to listen to the words of a senior Democrat in Washington who -- she said this: "The President says that fighting them there makes it less likely we will fight them here." Yes, that's precisely what I said, and I strongly believe it's right. (Applause.) She went on to say -- hold on for a minute -- she went on to say, "The opposite is true; because we are fighting them there, it may become more likely that we will have to fight them here."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: See, that's the kind of mentality that you're voting on on November the 7th. You do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists. (Applause.)

Now, this has to be complete and utter bullshit if I have ever seen it. For a man who suggest that he should not be about predicting the future, there is no way for him to know the outcome of a war he started should the Dems get control of congress. And, might I add, even if the Dems win control of congress, he is still leading the War as commander in chief. Does this mean that he doubts his own abilities to lead? Maybe.

Moreover, there is a legitimate argument to be made that the war in Iraq is boosting recruitment for the terrorist organizations that they claim to be extinguishing. In fact, they can't prove this point wrong - that the war in Iraq has done more to agitate and grow terrorists rather than reduce them.

Let's look at example 5:

Here we are in the middle of a national campaign that will determine our future, and one of Jim Talent's Democrat colleagues put it this way -- she said, "We haven't coalesced around a single plan. But we're in general agreement on the basic principles." She's right. The principle they agree on is, get out before the job is done.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I'm not saying these people are unpatriotic. I'm just saying they're wrong. (Applause.)

I don't think it is fair to say that we will leave Iraq before the job is done. We are most certainly going to be stuck there for the next two years even if the Dems win the majority in Congress. Again, the implication is that W will abdicate all authority if the GOP loses on the 7th. I certainly don't think that he has demonstrated over time that his strategy is a winning one. Forget that the Dems don't have one for now, let's ask him how soon he thinks we will be able to declare victory? Oh, no wait, he's already done so...prematurely.


Any one else tired of having their policy concerns digested and regurgitated in that manner? Time to vote the bastards out I say.