The Terioist at 1600 Penn. Ave

[yogib37 3]

The terrorist who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

September 25, 2006 6:04 AM | Rant | 19 Comments .

By DOUG THOMPSON

In George W. Bush's perverted, pathetic, partisan view of the world, anyone who disagrees with his lunacies is not only wrong but unpatriotic - a traitor who cannot be trusted and a voice of dissent that must be silenced.

In recent weeks, a growing number of Republicans have joined the loyal opposition, telling the President, mostly in private, he is dead wrong to wage his illegal invasion of Iraq while refusing to appear with him in public because they are scared shitless that his escalating unpopularity will rub off and end their miserable careers in elected office.

Now Bush has a new set of "enemies," ones that are neither partisan nor political in their assessment of his failures but provide a sobering look at just what a miserable failure his Presidency has become and verifies what many have known for months - that the actions of this madman has placed this country in harm's way more than any acts of terrorism that have been waged on our shores or elsewhere in the world.

The National Intelligence Estimate, a compilation of information from seasoned professionals in the many spy agencies that now exist in this country, concludes that Bush's war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism against the United States and the world, putting to bed the President's longstanding lie that he has made the world a safer place by waging war against those who had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Completed in April, the NIE is the first intra-agency assessment of the terror threat worldwide since the invasion of Iraq and it concludes that Bush's dirty little war there has spawned a new generation of terrorists bent on revenge against the United States and those who support our war mongering.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official told The Washington Post, "It's stating the obvious."

Obvious, apparently, to everyone except George W. Bush and the lemmings who follow him. The Bush administration continues to claim, falsely, that the war in Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism against the United States.

It's a lie, like just about all the verbal diarrhea that spills out of the mouth of Bush, destined to become the most despised, most venal and most rights-robbing President of modern times if not in the entire history of the American democratic republic.

"Together with our coalition partners, we've removed terrorist sanctuaries, disrupted their finances, killed and captured key operatives, broken up terrorist cells in America and other nations, and stopped new attacks before they're carried out. We're on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront, and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory," Bush claimed earlier this month.

"Bullshit, total bullshit," says a friend who works in the intelligence community. "It doesn't take a code-level security clearance to know the President is lying when he claims we have reduced the threat of terrorism. We've increased it by quantum leaps and we add new enemies every day in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in the rest of the Mideast because of our failed and flawed policies. When the next major attack comes - and it will come - it will be planned and financed by those who had no real beef with America before we invaded Iraq."

The White House, spinning the conclusions of the report the best way it can, says the conclusions support the President's position that America cannot withdraw from Iraq because doing so would open the door for terrorists who exist there. Such spin, of course, ignores the fact that we created the environment for these terrorists and now use their existence to justify our original illegal actions based on false information.

The military has an acronym for this: FUBAR, which stands for "###### Up Beyond All Recognition" (or "Repair" depending on the branch of military involved). In Bush's case it should be changed to "###### Up Beyond All Reality."

The reality is that America is less safe today than it was on September 10, 2001, and that decline in our security stems from a threat that lives not in a cave in Afghanistan but in a suite of rooms on the second floor of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue

[Heracles 417]

The reality is that America is less safe today than it was on September 10, 2001, and that decline in our security stems from a threat that lives not in a cave in Afghanistan but in a suite of rooms on the second floor of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The 'reality' is that terrorists are most likely to target key cities like NY, LA, Boston and DC. Funnily enough democrat strong holds.. The president and co should sit back and let them destroy these cities.

PS After all democrats are saying it was wrong of the US to pretty much take any action unless of course it somehow got 20,000 troops, as stated by billy boy, into Pakistan to get Bin Laden..

Edited September 25, 2006 by Infidel

[garya505 2]

If we are less safe since 9/11 2001 and invading Iraq has made us less safe then why hasn't there been a successful attack on American soil since then?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

The reality is that America is less safe today than it was on September 10, 2001, and that decline in our security stems from a threat that lives not in a cave in Afghanistan but in a suite of rooms on the second floor of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The 'reality' is that terrorists are most likely to target key cities like NY, LA, Boston and DC. Funnily enough democrat strong holds.. The president and co should sit back and let them destroy these cities.

Since the reality is that a larger portion of US GDP comes from Blue states ($900 billion more than Red States)I don't think that would be too smart.

[Jenn! 918]

The 'reality' is that terrorists are most likely to target key cities like NY, LA, Boston and DC. Funnily enough democrat strong holds.. The president and co should sit back and let them destroy these cities.

So democrats deserve to die?

Hmm, interesting point of view.

[Heracles 417]

Since the reality is that a larger portion of US GDP comes from Blue states ($900 billion more than Red States)I don't think that would be too smart.

Hmm. Yes, very interesting point yet apparently it's the red states who are greedy capitalists...

It is funny to hear liberals say how much they absolutely HATE corporations yet the majority of wealth creation and 'self indulgence' comes from Blue states..

So democrats deserve to die?

Hmm, interesting point of view.

It seems that the 'Red States' are the ones who actually care about defending America. The irony is that democrat strong holds are the most likely targets. Yet it is the republicans who are trying to do everything they can to secure 'the democrats safety'..

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Who would blame everything on if all the democrats were dead though? Pat Buchanan? John McCain?

Face it, you need those evil liberuhls

[Marc and Olga 0]

If we are less safe since 9/11 2001 and invading Iraq has made us less safe then why hasn't there been a successful attack on American soil since then?

NEWS FLASH it was 8 years between the last 2 attacks in the continential United States (1993 - 2001). Of course this was mentioned the LAST time you posed a similar question.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Since the reality is that a larger portion of US GDP comes from Blue states ($900 billion more than Red States)I don't think that would be too smart.

Hmm. Yes, very interesting point yet apparently it's the red states who are greedy capitalists...

It is funny to hear liberals say how much they absolutely HATE corporations yet the majority of wealth creation and 'self indulgence' comes from Blue states..

So democrats deserve to die?

Hmm, interesting point of view.

It seems that the 'Red States' are the ones who actually care about defending America. The irony is that democrat strong holds are the most likely targets. Yet it is the republicans who are trying to do everything they can to secure 'the democrats safety'..

You're views are about as extreme as they get...even the John Birch Society would reject you.

[Marc and Olga 0]

It seems that the 'Red States' are the ones who actually care about defending America. The irony is that democrat strong holds are the most likely targets. Yet it is the republicans who are trying to do everything they can to secure 'the democrats safety'..

Yep, like lying to start an unjustified and unneeded war in Iraq for starters...should have kept up in Afgahanstan...you know, where AQ primarily exists...

I'm still curious how the war in Iraq makes us safer in you Bushite's eye?

Edited September 25, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[ieldanth 0]

"In George W. Bush's perverted, pathetic, partisan view of the world, anyone who disagrees with his lunacies is not only wrong but unpatriotic - a traitor who cannot be trusted and a voice of dissent that must be silenced."

LOL look in a mirror, Doug. A few changes and we have an extremist liberal instead of a neocon. Replace unpatriotic with unenlightened and traitor with fascist. Same canned message with different labels.

For those of you just immigrating here, welcome to American politics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is funny to hear liberals say how much they absolutely HATE corporations yet the majority of wealth creation and 'self indulgence' comes from Blue states..

Some relevant reading perhaps?

It seems that the 'Red States' are the ones who actually care about defending America. The irony is that democrat strong holds are the most likely targets. Yet it is the republicans who are trying to do everything they can to secure 'the democrats safety'..

Are you sure about that? Last time I checked, the Bush administration did not enjoy anything approaching unanimous support among the Republican party, though I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong about that...

Every adminstration since Reagan (and even before that) has for the most part, pandered to Social Conservatives on social issues, while pushing the same old Liberal economic model.

But then you'd know about that - with your background in business and ecnomics

Edited September 25, 2006 by erekose

[Heracles 417]

Don't get me wrong there are a lot of great democrats, unfortunately they are masked by hard line liberals. The same applies to the right, in terms of their

If only the US could cut the extremes at both ends, the country would have a super government..

But then you'd know about that - with your background in business and ecnomics

At least I don't need to hide behind forums like some hey..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At least I don't need to hide behind forums like some hey..

Hiding? You must mean in the sense that everyone who uses an internet handle to represent themselves is "hiding".

[Heracles 417]

If we are less safe since 9/11 2001 and invading Iraq has made us less safe then why hasn't there been a successful attack on American soil since then?

NEWS FLASH it was 8 years between the last 2 attacks in the continential United States (1993 - 2001). Of course this was mentioned the LAST time you posed a similar question.

The sept 11 attacks were planned during those years? At least the current administration has the 'terrorists' running for their lives..