I want to punch George Bush

According to the BBC President Fuckhead stood up at Gleneagles and said “the war on terror goes on”. Guess what? It wouldn’t have to if you and your cronies weren’t such incompetent, arrogant warmongering pricks.

Whilst I’m at it, Blair deserves a slapping as well. His statement is slimy twat for “Oh look, something else I can use to justify identity cards.”

Update Thanks to being linked from some rightwing site or other I’m getting a few visitors who want to lecture me on how wrong I am, so I ought to clarify a little.

I want to punch George Bush on a good day, he just has one of those faces. What drove me to my outburst is two things.

Ever since he started pulling troops out of Afghanistan and lining up the lies about Iraq, Wubble U hasn’t been fighting a war on terror, he’s been conducting one to encourage terrorism. He’s admitted that he wasn’t interested in tracking down Bin Laden. The head of the CIA has said that they know where OBL is, but they’re not going to get him. So standing up and touting the “war on terror” after abandoning it over two years ago is one reason he deserves a slapping.

The other reason is that he’s a callous little fuck. Within hours of a terror attack he was already lining up the dead so he could spit on their graves every time he invokes this bombing to justify another false start in combatting global terror.

So I put down what I felt, as succinctly as possible. Thanks for all the comments. Your presumptions about me, based upon a few sentences, have been amusing.

Technorati tag: , ,


0 Responses to I want to punch George Bush

  1. Avatar Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    You are absolutely right. Before Bush and Blair there was no terrorism in the world.

    You are a fucking douchebag.

  2. Since Bush and Blair declared war on it, there’s a lot more terrorism. Odd how that happened, isn’t it?

    Frankly, your opinion of me is irrelevant.

  3. Don’t worry. We’ll win it despite you. Please go on about your life with your eloquent political offerings, name calling and threats of physical violence against people genuinely interested in protecting you.

    Keep listening to the BBC… it seems to be a great news source for you.

  4. Avatar Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    Black and white thinking huh?
    Doesn’t work does it?
    Try refining it a bit. Attacks on Afghanistan, the known source of terrorist attacks = good.
    Attacks on Iraq, known source of oil = bad.
    Attack on Afghanistan easily justified by all but religious extremists. Attack on Iraq easily creates religious extremists.
    Question – How do you win a war against terrorists? Blow them all up? Show me how you’ll do that.

  5. You win a fight against terrorism by:

    a. taking the fight to them
    b. cutting off the head, the supply, the funds, the recruits
    c. repeat steps a&b as necessary

    Or do you need some sense of closure? Would you like maybe a ceremony at the last battlefield where the last terrorist died? We could have cake there and maybe hum a tune.

    This bugs me deeply about the left… if you’re all so enlightened and nuanced, I’d hope you’re capable of defining your stance without namecalling and threats of violence (see the top of the page) or saying only *we* see it in black and white with inane posts such as the above by the fearless anonymous poster.

  6. Except Bush took the fight to a country that wasn’t where the terrorists were (at least, they weren’t before the invasion) and said he wasn’t interested in finding the head any more. The country that supplies most of the funds isn’t subject to any pressure because it also supplies a lot of the US’s oil and the recruits are just going to keep rolling in whilst we occupy Iraq.

    Apart from that, your plan looks good.

  7. Avatar Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    “Before Bush and Blair there was no terrorism in the world”? WHAT?!!

    You’re kidding, right?

    Douchebag Anonymous needs a history lesson. and an ass-whipping.

  8. I think it was an attempt at irony.

    But feel free to administer an ass-whipping if you want.

  9. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

    http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=66355&d=4&m=7&y=2005

    Those two should suffice.

    Though what it seems you’re suggesting is that we invade Saudi Arabia, if that’s where the head is. Isn’t that entirely the opposite of what you’ve been suggesting? That our invasion of Iraq is creating terrorists… so why then would you suggest entering Saudi holy land would do anything different? We’re what, five or six posts into this and you’ve entirely flip-flopped? Crazy!

    Here’s a test… what if we rescue Tibet? Do you have one of those stickers on your (presumably hybrid) car? Or is that ok since it fits your world view…?

    So if bush ‘said’ he’s not going after the head anymore, that’d be quite a surprise round here. I’m certain Saudi Arabia just decided to track down those bad bad men (that we should reach our arms out to and ‘understand’) on their own and without pressure from us. Yup… that’s it.

  10. Avatar Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    The Islamic world is a mess.

    The Islamists blame all their problems on Jews and on the West. Scapegoating works, always did. It’s easier to blame your troubles on the Jews than to address your troubles, because reality is always complicated and intractable, while lunatic conspiracy theories are simple, and point to a simple solution: If there’s a sole cause of everything that’s wrong, just kill him and you’ll be fine.

    It’s always been easier for young people to die romantically for a cause than to live humbly for it, as they say, but dying romantically in the act of murdering civilians in other countries is perfectly orthogonal to the issues the killers believe themselves to be exercised about. There may be worthwhile romantic dying to be done in establishing reasonably sane and just governments in Muslim nations, but the jihadis are defining the debate thereabouts, so as to keep that option off the table — and those governments, who control their mass media, are happy to play along. They’d much rather see their kids dying uselessly to murder infidels than dying in a productive fight against the local Mukhabarat.

    The real “root cause” is not the Jews, nor the Americans, nor the Illuminati, nor “globalism”. In fact, there is no single, easily-isolated and easily-treated “root cause”. Anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods. Sorry to disappoint all the lefties, but there’s no magic switch anybody can flip to make the world a perfect place. There are, however, ways to make things better. One of those is helping democracy take root in the Arab world.

    The left doesn’t want democracy in the Arab world. Rather, they want to support and encourage all the worst and most retrograde forces in the region. If you want to keep terrorism a growth industry forever (and a lot of lefties do, having subscribed to the same list of scapegoats as the jihadis, and having shared the same “magic bullet” theory of politics since the French Revolution, at least), you’re on the right track.

  11. Avatar Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    It is easier to win elections if you brand anyone who doesn’t vote for you as unpatriotic and it is easier to control people if they are in a perpetual state of fear and disinformation. I know what I’d do if I was a leader of a western country.

    Scott needs to realise that if you invade other peoples’ countries and kill their friends and family they are not going to just say ‘Yeah, sorry, hands up, you were right’. Especially if you get the wrong country and especially if it is a country that happens to have a natural resource that you are in desperate need of.

    It seems to me that a lot hawks are toddlers stuck in adults body’s. Consider the evidence:
    *They can’t understand that other people have their own minds and lives?
    *They think that answer to violence is stronger violence?
    *If they what something they take it without asking?

  12. …and in the alternative are we supposed to react simply “yeah, sorry, hands up, you were right” when they attack us? That’s pretty much what you’re saying, on today of all days.

    Stop being afraid. Fight them and win.

    Let’s see… liberal 101:

    “*They can’t understand that other people have their own minds and lives?”

    Ah, so by posting my responses and by disagreeing with you equates to not being able to comprehend your comments. Ain’t seen much on here but name-callin’ so far. Care to step up?

    “*They think that answer to violence is stronger violence?”

    …again in the alternative, are you suggesting we do nothing? Here, read this: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000099.html

    “hawks are toddlers stuck in adults body’s”

    I know you are but what am I? Is that your best?

    Seriously… what addle-minded pap!

    I’ve heard two mentions along the whole blood-for-oil theme. Can I get a ‘Halliburton’ anyone? It doesn’t seem fun until I hear at least one ‘Halliburton’.

  13. To Anonymous,

    when you say see ‘we deserved this’ or ‘we were asking for it’ you are verbally extending the attacks by offering rational explanation. An act of terror is an act of obliterating reason; you would extend equanimity to an act that is defiant of any human meaning. If your right leg were blown off in a London subway would you, in your anger, join up with the people who blew it off, in order tostop Blair/Bsh? Just curious…

  14. Scott-

    I’m suggesting that Bush stop touting the “war on terror” if he’s no longer interested in capturing the person it was originally about. The head, or figurehead, is Osama Bin Laden, and Bush has said he’s not interested where OBL is.

    I never said anything about invading Saudi Arabia. You’re the one who’s promoting the concept of peace through eternal war, so why don’t you say we should invade Saudi Arabia? And seeing as you’re supporting the “liberation”, surely you should be the one shouting for a free Tibet. If liberation is such a good thing in Iraq why not extend it to all the other countries that need it?

    Personally I don’t have a car. I cycle and walk everywhere I need to go. Therefore I’m doing infinitely more than you to halt the flow of funds to terrorists.

    And yes, the BBC is the right news station for me. It’s intelligent and independent and it reports the news rather than spinning it.

    Oh, and I have to congratulate you on going from “Your opinions are worthless” to “But what about my right to free speech!” within three comments. Almost seamless. Have you ever considered a career in politics?

  15. Finally… a thoughtful response.

    I’m not sure who informed you we’re no longer going after OBL. Aside from the plethora of news articles about where he is and who’s chasing him, I’m surprised to hear such a claim considering how huge a pr win capturing him would be.

    Regarding going in to Saudi Arabia, no, I don’t believe now is the time, nor may it ever be the time to do so. Although… the creation of democracies in the Mid East will do more to undermine the Wahhabi religion of ‘peace’ long-term and at it’s root. Those purple fingers of freedom say a lot to citizens in countries built on submission.

    You’re most interesting reply, and I think a clue to where you really stand, is about doing ‘infinitely more to halt the funds of terrorists’. Really? How about the frozen assets of OBL and the systemic crackdown on terrorist sympathizing groups in the U.S. and abroad. How about keeping them on the run and finding their caches? How about training the Iraqi’s and Afghani’s to use their own forces to hunt down the terrorists among them? Are you aware they are starting to defent themselves? Are you aware of the protests of free Iraqi’s against the terrorists? I’d suggest these are a far cry from simply riding a bike. Ride a bike to fight terror!

    Ian… again. Stop being afraid. Find some commitment. Stop accepting that these people who want to kill you need to be simply understood. What they do requires measured response… and a heavy one at that.

    And I’m not interested in politics… I’m a trained journalist frankly sickened by my profession. Let me assure you (in fact accept it as a challenge) that the BBC is *far* more biased than you may realize.

    Re your last comment, are you referring to something I said? Please show me if you’d like a response.

  16. I’m not afraid of the terrorists. I reckon I’m in as much danger from them as I have been all my life. It’s just that it used to be the Irish and now it’s people pretending to be muslims. Horrific as 9/11 was, terrorism didn’t start that day. Other countries were fighting terrorism, and doing a far better job of it, long before George Bush decided to use it as a catchphrase to help him win a second term.