The Top 11 Dumbest
Statements from House Majority Leader John A. Boehner’s Confidential
Messaging Memo Regarding the Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Ron Schalow, Author of "Bullshit Artist – The 9/11 Leadership
The memo can be downloaded
as a PDF.
1. “The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of
the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world.”
Here we go again with the post-9/11 world baloney. The Republican
President forgot to defend the country before and during the attacks
and suddenly the past 20 years of terrorist attacks on Americans disappear
from history. The post-9/11 label was invented to cover for the incompetence
and cowardice of the George Bush. Evidently, it was easier to rewrite
reality than try to explain it.
2. “We can no longer expect oceans between us and our enemies
to keep us safe.”
Who expected the oceans to keep us safe? Was it Brownie? No, not
George! Seriously? “Golly Dick, what happened? I thought we were protected
by the oceans—the big, wet and angry seas? Do you think they
figured out how to use boats like those British guys who fought Mel
3. “The plotting and planning taking place in terror camps protected
by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or unchallenged.”
Nobody ever said that any terror camps should go unchecked or un-bombed.
If George W. Bush wanted to wipe out the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan,
who was stopping him—the Taliban and their two boxes of old Kalashnikov’s?
Did the President need to get permission from Pakistan or Dick to
defend the country?
And Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was sitting in the northern part of Iraq,
outside of Saddam’s control, camping out with his pals, mixing
up a little sarin gas to sell at the flea market before the shock
and awe. The Pentagon came to the White House three times with plans
explode the whole works, but Bush said no. Pretty much unchecked
4. “In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow despots and
dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to ignore international
sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.”
Resolutions and sanctions—that’s it—for tens of
thousands of deaths? Well hell, that was really sweet of George to
defend the honor of the UN, but we had real threats to deal with. Saddam
couldn’t fight his way out of a walk-in closet—and our
President thought he was the primary danger to the U.S.
5. …the United States had to show our resolve as the world’s
premier defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals were preyed
upon, rather than after standing witness to their demise at the hands
of our enemies.
6. In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat
of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon
our efforts against these threats in the hopes that they will just
fade away on their own?
Yes, let’s do the second one…the fade away thing. Good
grief—no one has ever suggested not confronting countries that
pose an actual threat. It’s blowing up the ones that couldn’t
take Rhode Island in a fair fight that are a waste of life and loot.
7. Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to
terrorism and the threat it poses around the world.
There were more al Qaeda dudes hanging out in the clubs in Florida,
than in Iraq before the invasion. If Bush was looking for bin Laden’s
boys, he could have picked 60 countries with a larger contingency.
8. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about
the use of force to protect American ideals.
9. Capitol Hill Democrats’ only specific policy proposals are
to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the
threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.
I’d like to see the paperwork and first draft of the speech
to promote that policy. “My fellow American’s; unlike the
manly George Bush, who ran away like a little girl and conceded defeat
to the terrorists on 9/11, I propose we merely manage the threat of
terrorism, whatever that means, and not run away from the danger—or
10…they [the voters] have a clear choice between a Republican
Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat
Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses
the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world.
The Republican Coherent National Security Policy: A Republican President
will dismissively ignore the threats of al Qaeda attacks, including
hijackings, and stand around like a doorman while terrorists fly
unimpeded through the friendly skies and turn the World Trade Center
rubble. Sensing something is up; a Republican President will write
and recite a speech while another airliner bears down on the Pentagon.
Aware of the stakes—as concerns his life—the President
will then sashay off to Louisiana and Nebraska to sheepishly look for
a very deep hole—a hidey hole.
11. Building democracies in a part of the world that has known nothing
but tyranny and despotism is a difficult task. But achieving victory
there and gaining democratic allies in the region will be the best
gift of security we can give to future generations of Americans.
If we wanted democratic allies in the region, why not just politely
ask Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt—our allies—to give
us a break and change their ways. Or, since we had already started
Afghanistan, perhaps we could have stayed there with a full force
and made it the gem of democracy and beacon of hope for the Mideast,
of letting it drift back to hell.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Ron Schalow is
the author of "Bullshit Artist -- The 9/11 Leadership Myth"
-- On sale soon in the BuzzFlash