Sunday Fiskathon

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a full section dedicated to editorials and letters on Sundays, which gives me a wide range of stuff to work with. Today, however, it's all about letters to the editor. They've got 2 separate sections of 'em, and I'll look at the funniest letters from both. Let's get started:

Bush administration puts ideology ahead of reality

It was a brief but welcome change of pace to see George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld show a bit of contrition in response to the Iraq prison abuse story ("Iraq Scandal Leaves White House Reeling," May 9) but then it seemed like the White House was back to business as usual.

...And that's a bad thing? Am I to assume that you wanted them to drop everything, including the WAR, just so they could apologize a little more to everyone who could've possibly been offended by something that they had little or nothing to do with?

Brilliant.

On May 10, Cheney said that Rumsfeld was "doing a superb job" as secretary of defense.

"He has an opinion that's not the same as mine! He MUST be wrong!"

It's a catastrophic flaw of this administration that it always puts ideology ahead of reality:

This is coming from a guy who just suggested that verbal self-flagellation is more important than running the country.

Even though his massive tax cuts for the rich create a massive national debt...

Do you hear that flushing noise? That's your credibility. Guess where it's going?

...Bush proceeds with more of the same.

I love how they just assume that everything Bush does is bad, despite actual facts that show how effective the tax cuts have been.

Even though it is al-Qaida that attacks the United States, not Iraq...

"Al Qaeda is the only terrorist organization in the world, and they never associate with anyone, EVER!"

If I hear the "Iraq never attacked us" thing one more time, I may have to break something. News flash: WE ATTACKED IRAQ SO THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO WHAT AL QAEDA DID TO US. Moron.

Bush diverts forces from Afghanistan and bombs Iraq.

Why do they always use that phrase? We didn't "bomb Iraq." We bombed strategic targets, then sent in ground forces to clean up. But I guess that's not what moonbats see when they picture a war. They just see bombs falling all over, killing innocent women and children indiscriminately while the eeeeeeevil Bush regime laughs at the destruction they've caused for their Halliburtonoilwar.

Even though the generals tell him that a small force can't secure Iraq, Rumsfeld proceeds with a small force.

130,000 is a small force?

Even though a Palestinian state is a top issue to Muslims everywhere...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, every single Muslim in the world is united against the Zionist conspiracy. Are these people even capable of independent thought, or do they base their arguments on the signs at A.N.S.W.E.R. rallies?

...Bush throws salt in the wound by backing Ariel Sharon.

"How dare those Jooooooooos defend themselves! They're oppressing innocent Muslims by not being in the sea!"

Even though Rumsfeld and Cheney sold war with Iraq using lies about weapons of mass destruction...

Can't leave that one out, can we? I'm not even going to justify that idiocy with an argument.

...and brought our country's international reputation to its lowest point in many decades...

Wait a minute! You're telling me that if we're popular, people will stop attacking us?! Why didn't someone say this before? Awwww...let's all hold hands and sing songs about rainbows and love.

...Bush keeps them on!

What does this say about Bush?

It says that Bush actually has character and beliefs. He doesn't just base his ideology on polls and moonbat myths like certain other politicians who are in the spotlight right now.

Are these still the best arguments they can come up with?

"Bush lied! There were no WMD! Iraq didn't attack us! Nobody likes us! We're hurting Muslims' feeeeeeelings! Tax cuts for the rich! Israel is evil!"

Let's see if the next letter is more logical:

On the mark

Rob Roger's May 11 cartoon of Bush hiding behind Donald Rumsfeld, who is being pummeled by rotten vegetables, is right on the mark.

I mentioned that the PG cartoonists are like Ted Rall lite, right?

Also, Mr. Bush's statement that Rumsfeld's performance is "superb," is revealing of his approval of Rumsfeld's despicable performance.

There's that ideological elitism again: "I think that Rumsfeld has done a despicable job, and therefore, he has! So when Bush says that Rumsfeld has done a superb job, he must be lying, because everybody knows and agrees that Rumsfeld should resign!"

They're like little children who can't get what they want.

The irony of it all is that the lowly GIs get court-martialed for following orders from their higher-ups...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Free will is not a movie about a whale.

...which came from their higher-ups. The buck stops at your desk, Mr. President.

Do they really believe this? Let's try to imagine the scene that they picture in their tiny minds when trying to make these arguments (here comes my inner screenwriter):

INT. THE OVAL OFFICE. PRESIDENT BUSH PICKS UP THE TELEPHONE AND DIALS

Bush: Hello? Is this Abu Ghraib Prison?

Charles Graner: Yes sir, Mr. President.

Bush: Do you have any A-rabs there?

Graner: Yes sir, dozens of 'em.

Bush: Are they responsible for terrah?

Graner: We don't know, sir. That's why we're treating them so well.

Bush: Well F**K THOSE MAJOR LEAGUE A**HOLES! I WANT YOU TO STACK 'EM NEKKID!

Graner: But sir, that's a violation of the Geneva Convention!

Bush: F**k that! I'm the president! I want you to torture those prisoners until I tell you to stop! I can have you terminated, because I'm the president! Did I mention that I'm the president?

GRANER HANGS UP THE PHONE, BEGINS STRIPPING PRISONERS. FADE OUT.

...Wow, I got carried away with that one. Let's move on to one more letter, and then I'm going to start another post for the other section:

Sign of incompetence

President Bush's vote of confidence for Donald Rumsfeld is further evidence of incompetency.

Anyone else seeing a common theme here?

The defense secretary could not dissuade the president from -- or he actively encouraged him into -- a pre-emptive war.

*GASP!* Really? Because, you know, I could've sworn that pre-emptive war was what they were TRYING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Rumsfeld grossly underestimated the troops and resources necessary to win the peace after removing Iraq's dictator and destroying its infrastructure.

Have you personally seen his plans, or are you assuming? Because when you assume, you make a Democrat out of the University of Maine...wait, that's not right.

Rumsfeld allowed the sadistic humiliation of Iraqi prisoners...

Why the crap does everyone think that Rumsfeld actively encouraged that? Was he there? NO! Has he already said that it was wrong? YES! You idiots.

...to simultaneously inflame the Arab world...

From what I've seen, a lot of Arabs really don't give a crap. It's just the American left expressing their outrage at the "atrocities" committed by the eeeeeeevil imperialistic Americans.

...give Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida recruitment fodder...

WHAT?!

...and soil America's world image.

Because a few soldiers represent 285 million people!

Rumsfeld then made the president appear a dope by being the "last to know."

Wait...you're blaming Rumsfeld for how you perceive the president? You've gotta be kidding me.

Yet the president wants Rumsfeld to stay on.

Do we want Bush to stay on?

Yes we do. Because it's fun watching people like you try to come up with coherent arguments without actually saying anything original.

I'm going to start a new post now.

Posted by CD on May 16, 2004 06:33 PM
Category: