Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Speaking For The President

Greatest Hits Ancient History Revisited

It just occurred to me again that this blog has a birthday coming up this month.

Four years, and If I write an essay a day between now and then the total would be 1900 essays in 1460 days.

Not bad for a guy that hated English class and most people that taught English for the first 30 years of my life. Writing was a nuisance back then. Certainly not a hobby or even a potential profession like it is today in our little world here in my home on the banks of the Mighty Tennessee River.

Since I'm extremely busy at work during the day and even in the evening now preparing for a working vacation back to our Little Island on the Georgia coast, I thought that instead of writing new material for the rest of this week leading up to August 10th that I'd republish the first five postings I made as the "Coastal Companion" Blog got off the ground back in 2004.

Here's my first rant, published online August 10th, 2004:

I sent this E-mail to the Neal Boortz show this morning:

Mr. Boortz,

How about looking at this story linked from Drudge Report:

In summary, after Candidate John sKerry admitted that he would have gone to war with or without the presence of weapons of mass destruction, he then goes insane again with this gem: "Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own -- why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table."

Here are my answers if I were President Bush:

President Bush- Question 1: "Here John, take a load off and have a Wendy's burger on me ( I know how much you and the missus love them) and listen for a moment so we can straighten out you and the rest of the Democratic Party.

First of all, I'm not aware of a single war fought in US history in which the plan for peace didn't involve first bringing our foe to their knees and, after thoroughly kicking their ass(es), spending a few years overseeing restoration of order and a functioning government on an organized basis according to OUR RULES. In addition, we generally pay for the repairs and restoration of the country involved (even if we didn't cause the damage or deficiency) out of US taxpayer funds.

And by the way, ask the French, Spanish, Russians, Germans, or Hannibal about their diplomatic policy in the 1500's to 1700's for alternate policies. We've voluntarily omitted the raping and pillaging (but we do put panties on the heads of prisoners occasionally.)

President Bush- Question 2: "Yes, some of the intelligence that the Congress, the office of the President of the United States, and our Allies used to make the decision to go to war has since proved to be flawed...but, it's not like we started out on a 1000 mile airplane trip with a wing or propeller blade missing off of the airframe. The flaws were subtle, John, and only proven years after the fact. Hell, we still took off, made altitude, and landed at our destination with fuel to spare. Most of the American people think that the general outcome was worthwhile in the end. Get over it.

President Bush - Question 3: "Now Mr. sKerry, how did I mislead Americans about how I would go to war? Were not the numerous UN resolutions, the obvious danger to the rest of the free world, and America attacked on our own soil not enough?

What part of this equation do you and Mr. Edwards think that Americans didn't understand?

Were people confused about which end of the gun would be pointed at Iraq, who made the bullets, or how effective our state-of-the-art military would be at reducing the Iraqi Military to "resistance status?" Call them bands of street thugs, call them insurgents, they are anything but an organized army/fighting force once we got through with them. Let the liberal press use their code words, the problems in Iraq today are caused by TERRORISTS, not freedom-fighters.

President Bush - Question 4: "John, John, John, why do you and the liberal media insist on stating that the US has prosecuted a unilateral attack on Iraq when British, Italian, Polish, Ukrainian, Dutch, Australian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Japanese, Thai, Danish and other forces have been involved in concert with our efforts for over a year? Why, I've heard that even the Spanish continued to send Sherry, Port wine and Tappas snacks after they pulled out their troops this spring. Why do you insist that because France, Germany, and Russia are not supportive that somehow our efforts are less effective or illegitimate?

For the record, since 1947, any UN effort that has actually seen real combat and security threats involved primarily US troops, US designed/built ordinance, and US lead command and communication structure. Excuse me if I just cut to the chase and got the job done. By the way, I'm not one bit sorry that we have been so effective to date."

"Now excuse me, Mr. sKerry--I have a country (and unfortunately--a campaign) to run."
See You in November.....

Why can't Mr Bush and the Republican Party just come out and tell it like it is???

No comments: