If you thought last week's "interview" by Rush was appauling, hold on to your hats, sit down, grab the vomit bag you saved from your last airline trek, and be ready to hurl.
As usual, I'm only including the Q in the Q & A becuase the A only serves to help the presidential propaganda catupult to reach a broader audiance. The link is there if you want to follow up and here the same spiel that the Big Dick usual and faithfully delivers on command.
Interview of the Vice President by Don and Roma Wade, WLS 890-AM, Chicago
Via Telephone
8:10 A.M. EDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good morning.
Q Good morning.
Q Good morning, and welcome.
Q I know you're coming to Chicago for a really good event, and I wanted to ask you about the funding, because this seems to be paramount on a lot of people's minds. The funding for the U.S. troops in Iraq is up in the air. The President threatens to veto the Democratic spending bill because of the troop withdrawal deadlines. How is that standoff going to end, Mr. Vice President?
Q Our son is on the U.S.S. Nimitz, headed for his third Iraq tour. And, Mr. Vice President, if the Democrats succeed in cutting off funding for the war, will his squadron's jets sit idle on the carrier because they have no fuel?
Q Our troops are extraordinary.
Q I'm wondering, Mr. Vice President, whether some politicians are -- they prefer to make political points rather than winning the war.
Q Were you heartened by Senator John McCain's speech at VMI?
Q I'm certain it would have been. Nancy Pelosi thought nothing of going to Syria's Assad with an alternative Democratic foreign policy, and, yet, balked, as we know, at meeting with our President -- as did Reid -- about funding the troops. How dangerous is this to the success of our important mission?
Q Well, Mr. Vice President, Tom Lantos has said that he would jump on a plane and go and meet with Ahmadinejad. I don't quite understand. What is this running off to meet with these tyrannical thugs? And yet they don't want to go and sit down with the President and work out a way forward to win the war?
Q Who is, in the Congress, would be the biggest stumbling block, in your mind, when it comes to success in Iraq?
Q Are you encouraged by General Petraeus' success so far, that there are glimmers of hope over there?
Q What can you tell us about the war czar position? We understand the White House is thinking about establishing a war czar. Is there anyone whose name we should recognize being considered?
Q We deeply appreciate your steadfastness in emphasizing the importance of this war on terrorism to our public.
Q Is al Qaeda strengthening again?
Q Mr. Vice President, I'm so glad we had a chance to talk to you. You act out of principle, not polls, and I know that a lot of Americans appreciate that. Thanks for coming to Chicago.
Q I hope you have a good experience here.
Q It's a great city. We welcome you.
Q We definitely shall.
Q Thank you.
END 8:20 A.M. EDT
Meanwhile, we see what the Big Dick Cheney was doing in Chicago at great Taxpayer expense - slinging Osama's message one more time for him. You can't pay for that kind of advertising, now can you Osama?
Yet the evidence is flatly to the contrary. And the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. "The most serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this third world war [that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."So, we see the "reporters" above shilling for the The Big Dick Cheney, and Cheney shilling for Osama, and it's win-win all around for the Amreican people, righ? Right!
1 comment:
Letters, The Economist, April 14, 2007
Taxpayers' money
SIR - Your leader on the "gathering struggle" between George Bush and Congress over the conditions attached to a military spending bill for Iraq was disappointing ("Besieged", March 31st). Speaking as someone with decades of budget battle experience in the private sector, are you actually suggesting that attaching conditions to funding is somehow inappropriate meddling? Put another way, would you describe as rational economic behaviour a group of investors (taxpayers) putting another $120 billion into an enterprise that had burned at least $400 billion without a business plan and with no targets and deadlines, simply because new management (General David Petraeus) had been brought in?
JAMES HUTCHIN
Clinical professor
Fox School of Business
Temple University
Philadelphia
SIR - America's objectives in Iraq, ie, destroying Saddam Hussein's government and ensure there are no WMD, were achieved with fearsome ease. So how can you characterise America's troops as "defeated" if they return home? Yes, they couldn't stop the suicidal zealots nor control every political variable, but these were impossible goals. The war against Saddam is over; America won. It has no further national interest to serve or achievable objective to pursue in Iraq. That is why the president should bring the victorious troops home now.
BENJAMIN SWIFT
Toney, Alabama
Post a Comment