Saturday, July 17, 2004

Why Irony Defines My Generation

Via Digby from The Agonist:


Moscow and Washington are quietly negotiating a request by the Bush administration to send Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan this fall, Russian government sources tell Stratfor. The talks are intense, our contacts close to the U.S. State Department say, and the timing is not insignificant. A Russian troop lift to either country before the U.S. presidential election would give U.S. President George W. Bush a powerful boost in the campaign.


Quick, we need the Islamists to get the Russians out of Afgan- I mean, we need the Russians to get the Islamists out of Afghanistan! Russian president Poody Poot Putin was a head honcho in the KGB, and now he's our best friend. Sadam used to be our best friend cause he hated the commies and the Shiites, and now look at him; he looks like a mullah. What the fuck is going on?


In other news DeForest Soaries, head of the Election Assistance Commission, has asked Homeland Security Chief, Tom Ridge to come up with some contingency plans for postponing elections incase of a terrorist attack on election day. There's a little voice in my head that sounds suspiciously like professional finger wagging editorialists across the nation that tells me to not go overboard and think through this rationally. Why Should I?! The Bush Administration has overstepped every boundary, and mismanaged every trust of power given to them. First of all only Congress has the power to set election policy. But you know that might not be clear enough to the Bush people. This is the administrator that thinks the ability to set aside the law is inherent in the president. So that he can order the systematic torture of secret captives in hidden locations. So that’s ok I guess. But what if - and I'm going out on a limb here - what if congress says no, but Bush halts elections anyway because, hey, this is a national emergency, were at war, etc, etc. And once we've stopped them we can't have them until we're free from the threat that they might be disrupted again; whenever that is. I guess he'll let us know. His people will call our people, and everything will be fine, go back to your jobs etc.


How about NO, BITCH! I wouldn't trust George W. Bush with a stapler, let a lone the power to postpone elections. I don't think it will actually happen, but then I didn't think they'd actually TORTURE people either. So while the tally of people tortured by a government, N, is greater than zero my trust of said government is equal to -N, thus forming an inverse relationship, asshole. Why should ANYONE trust a government with the competence and intelligence of Aquaman. And not just any Aquaman, I'm talking about Superfriends Aquaman. We shouldn't be considering this proposal. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. It needs to be known that NO we Don't Want This To Happen. You want to know what was happening last time electoins were suspended? The fucking Civil War. I know the south may rise again, but its probably only to get some more chips and maybe a glass of water. The south loves chips and water.


Of course, this all fits nicely under the unofficial Bush Administration philosophy: In order to save it, we have to destroy it. That’s right, in order to prevent terrorists from disrupting the election, we have to disrupt the election. Its like dad told us to go into the basement and drink all the antifreeze and we're going to run down there first and drink it all so there's none left for anyone else. Take that enemies of freedom!


All this talk of terrorists and elections has everyone chittering about who the terrorists want to win. And while some terrorists have spoken out on the issue:


Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a terrorist group with links with al Qaeda released a statement about the bombings in Spain. The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."


In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."


"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."



But there are still lots of people who feel that the terrorists want Kerry to win. But why? Is it the hair cut? He's overt "Frenchness"? Or is the illogical dichotomy that if Bush hates terrorists, then his opponent loves terrorists? Or in the similar mindset that if that Bush wants to fight terrorists then logically his opponent doesn't want to fight them? Lets let the head of the Jefferson County Republicans, Jack Richardon IV speak for this crowd:


[The Jefferson County Republican Party] is handing out signs that read "Kerry is bin Laden's Man/Bush is My Man." I put in a call to the head of the Jefferson County Republicans, Jack Richardon IV and asked him if this were true.
Richardson told me that he'd seen a bumper sticker with that phrase on it and agreed with it heartily. "I believe that if you look at John Kerry's voting record in the senate," he told me, "why wouldn't bin Laden prefer Kerry over Bush?"
When I pressed Richardson on whether or not his party organization was distributing it, he acknowledged that they probably were handing it out on their campaign literature tables at recent events. And if it was being handed out, "I make no apologies for it."


"I think it's funny how the truth not only can be amusing but also make a point," Richardson went on. "Why wouldn't Kerry be bin Laden's man? Bush certainly isn't bin Laden's man."



Illogical thinking takes the lead! Again! We must not do what the terrorists want! Forget all the terrible decisions and vote Bush! Bush: Not Endorsed Terrorists! Oh right, he IS the candidate endorsed by terrorists. Must not do what the terrorists want! Vote Kerry! Kerry: "I say to you now: I am not endorsed by terrorists."