SUPERFRANKENSTEIN: If You Could Ask President Bush One Question

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

If You Could Ask President Bush One Question

Posted by Stang at 08:42

What would it be? Leave it in the comments.

bush_scowl

23 comments:

Stang said...: "Dude, why is your mom such a bitch?"; 5/02/2006 8:44 AM
Brian Hinshaw said...: "Why do you suppose that God picked a coke-sniffing, dry-drunk, trust-funded, corpratist ne'er-do-well to bring democracy to the middle east? And if God wanted it so badly, why isn't He paying for it?"

Okay, that's two questions...; 5/02/2006 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: "Why did you kill Tom Peyer's dog?"; 5/02/2006 10:06 AM
Odd Man Out said...: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?; 5/02/2006 12:56 PM
Odd Man Out said...: Did President Clinton have have sexual relations with that woman? (don't ask which one, just pick); 5/02/2006 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: If I asked Bush, "Why is Al Qaeda retreating from Iraq?"

He might answer:

"Despite the many brickbats of the media, al Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq, and is now retreating to lick its wounds where it can. If it can. Just over four and a half years, al Qaeda has gone from being the dominant terrorist group in the world to a defeated shell of its former self. In trying to defeat the United States, al Qaeda made three big mistakes: They fought the last information war, they underestimated the American leadership, and they also managed to anger the Iraqi people.

From the moment the United States and al Qaeda began fighting in Afghanistan, the terrorists were looking for a chance to re-create images similar to those of American troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in 1993 or Walter Cronkite calling the Vietnam War a stalemate in 1968. It was hoped that such a moment would cause a dramatic drop in support for the war among the American people and force the United States out of Iraq. It did not happen.

The first problem was that al Qaeda failed to realize just how much the terrain had shifted on the media battlefield, particularly the growth of alternative outlets. In 1993, CNN was the only 24-hour news network. In 1996, two other 24-hour news networks were founded, MSNBC on July 15, and Fox News on October 7. These started to establish competition. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Fox News began pulling ahead of the other two networks, largely because it was taking a position that was seen as being reasonably supportive of the American efforts.

Also on the media front, the Internet was already becoming a major player. In 1998, Matt Drudge was showing that one person with a web site could break a major story. In 2004, a few bloggers were able to start the chain of events that led to Dan Rather's retirement from CBS. In 2006, bloggers are now an acknowledged player on the media battlefield. These efforts were dismissed by al Qaeda, and as a result, while al Qaeda hit its target, the effect was grossly minimized due to the fact that the "silent majority" now had tools by which they could be heard. The media created a false picture after the 1968 Tet Offensive, but was unable to do the same in Iraq.

The next mistake was underestimating American leadership. Al Qaeda assumed that the posture of the Clinton Administration (specifically, treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue) would continue. Instead, the Bush Administration went after al Qaeda's host (the Taliban regime Afghanistan), then proceeded to go after another regime that sponsored terrorism (Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq – as indicated by documents recovered after the liberation of Iraq in 2003). Then, when the media firestorms hit, rather than fold as the Clinton Administration did after the CNN images were shown in 1993, the Bush Administration stayed the course. This eventually unnerved al Qaeda, and led to its third, and most fatal, mistake.

The third mistake was to wage a campaign of terror against Iraqi civilians. This was intended to intimidate them into at least acquiescing to al Qaeda's presence, if not supporting al Qaeda at all. It didn't work. Instead, as the car bombs went off , and drew CNN headlines in the United States, al Qaeda managed to become more and more unpopular with Iraqis. Even the Arab Sunnis began to view the Americans, who had displaced them from the power they had held under Saddam, as a better option than supporting al Qaeda. Eventually, the Sunnis joined the democratic process and when that happened, al Qaeda's eventual defeat was assured with increasing Sunni participation over three elections in the space of less than a year.

These three mistakes resulted in the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, a defeat has left that group largely discredited. Osama bin Laden is now reduced to making audio tapes with grand pronouncements which have little or no likelihood of ever becoming reality, since al Qaeda has no safe havens where they can train new recruits, nor countries willing to support them. In less than five years, al Qaeda has gone from being feared by the world, to little more than a sideshow in the long war that the United States is now fighting.; 5/02/2006 7:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Quit Stealin'!

(And buy Kruggerands!); 5/02/2006 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...: WHY?; 5/02/2006 11:43 PM
Anonymous said...: How the fuck can you look at your self in the mirror?

or perhaps...

Dang hoss! Whats up with those daughters of yours? What a couple of skanks!; 5/03/2006 2:03 AM
Carrie Oakey said...: How does it feel to be the greatest President ever?!?!; 5/03/2006 7:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Who does God hate more? Non-Christians or St Louis Blues fans?; 5/03/2006 7:53 PM
Anonymous said...: "Is it getting harder and harder to do your "job" now that the only people left who support you are either REALLY evil or REALLY stupid?"

(That's your cue, Spice.); 5/04/2006 5:35 AM
Anonymous said...: "Would you like a pretzel?"; 5/04/2006 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Would you elaborate as to the specific "pleasure" Secretary Rumsfeld serves?; 5/04/2006 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: "Is it getting harder and harder to do your job when the people who criticize you NEVER have specific facts, and rely instead on smears and 'jokes' ?"; 5/05/2006 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Hmmmm...

I'd like to give that Spysmasher an 'ol fashioned Crawford cornholin'!

He'd take it real good, heh, heh, heh.; 5/06/2006 12:19 AM
Anonymous said...: A Crawford Cornholin?

Well, at least you're keeping this discussion on a mature level.

P.S. Don't you know only stupid cowardly consevatives like me are allowed to leave anonymous comments? Watch it, or you will be called every name in the book.

(Unless you're a liberal, then it's OK. Say anything, factual or not. Just make stuff up. It's the liberal way of life!); 5/06/2006 7:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Spysmasher, I wish I knew how to quit you.; 5/08/2006 11:06 PM
Anonymous said...: "Since you've been gobbling it for the last 6 years, what does Dick Cheney's fecal matter taste like, and is there any truth to the rumor that you've eaten so much of it that you've fallen off the wagon and are drinking Mad Dog 20/20 and bootleg bathtub gin like in your Air Force Reserve days to get the taste out of your lying mouth?"; 5/11/2006 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: As I said, if you're a liberal, then it's OK to say anything, factual or not. Just make stuff up. It's the liberal way of life! See post above for a perfect example.; 5/12/2006 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: yeah, your "consevative" (sic) brain trust leaves me in awe. Rush Windbag, hypocrite. Karl Rove, the visionary. (Herr)Don Rumsfeldt, master tactician. And The Dickster, old Eagle Eye Cheney himself, helping Halliburton and the rest of the oil monopoly, loot us like the Vandals and make record profits.
Yeah, you've got a lot to be proud of. You kiss your mother with that mouth?; 5/12/2006 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...: The post above is a great example of liberal "arguments." All smear (you left out poo poo face, by the way), no facts, no ideas, no positions -- save one: Everything Bush does sucks, and everyone he appoints sucks.

Of course, the economy is BOOMING, and we have not been attacked since 9/11, and Bush and his team are the reason for those two FACTS -- but still, THEY SUCK! Because YOU SAY SO!

Ladies and gents, there you have it: Liberal "thought" at its finest!; 5/14/2006 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Thanks Mark.
I've been away, and haven't had a chance to respond.
Spysmasher, you myopic dolt, any 12 year old child that can read the headlines (which puts "The Shrub" off that list) could also mention record oil prices, record oil profits, and record tax breaks for oil companies (gas averaged under $1.90 a gallon at this time last year), "only" 2600+ dead American soldiers (and at least 16 more yesterday- proof that the "democratic" Iraqi gov't is being well received within the country), inflation rising fast and stocks beginning to fall, Tom DeLay leaving Congress in disgrace, ditto "Duke" Cunningham (after pleading guilty to bribery), the Abramoff debacle (and a "shocked" Bush who doesn't recognize his fundraising pal that visited him and Rove at the White House on several occasions, Dick Cheney's chief of staff "Scooter" Libby taking the fall for revealing a covert CIA operative to friendly media muckraker Robert Novak...the list is virtually endless. Of course, that's only "anecdotal" evidence, unlike your facts.
Instead, we should thank the mindless imbeciles for protecting us so well since 9/11, when they would have known from Clinton's intel (had they bothered to read it) that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were gunning for us, and prevented 3,000 more deaths. Remind me, how many of the 19 terrorists have they shown were working for Iraq?
I thought so.
Thanks again for your insights.
Now wipe the poopy off your own face. We're sick of smelling it.; 5/22/2006 10:04 PM