Bush joins 'Blame America First' crowd; blames own dad for Iraqi suffering!

In a startling character reversal, Bush told eastern European Latvians to Blame America First for Soviet domination. It’s the first time a right-wing extremist, and a neocon at that, publicly blamed American foreign policy for the suffering of another country.

Not unexpectedly, right-wing media hacks have held their tongues regarding the Bush administration’s 180 turnabout. Back in 2001, some people queried if the 9/11 attacks might be “blowback” from aggressive U.S. foreign policy. Those people were labeled the “Blame America First” crowd. As usual, such criticisms only get applied to Democrats, never Republicans--even though the argumentation is identical.

What’s worse, Bush’s comments simply expose the depths of his hypocrisy. Bush laid this comment at FDR’s feet: "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability."

Does this mean Dubya hates his own dad? Bush the Elder is guilty of EXACTLY what Bush the Lesser is saying by running Saddam out of Kuwait but letting him keep power because that kept the middle east and Iraq stable (and from turning into another Iran). If Dubya doesn't want to travel all the way to Saudi Arabia to say this stuff to his dad, he can walk down the hall (push aside the Big Oil pigs) and say it to Cheney who was the Secretary of Defense at that time.

"Secret deals to determine somebody else's fate - I think that's what we're lamenting here today, one of those secret deals among large powers that consigns people to a way of government," Bush said. This could fit both his AND his dad’s handling of Iraq. What’s Dubya doing in Iraq if not using a coalition to consign the Iraqi people to a western-style government? And given the new revealing documents about 2002 Bush-Blair meetings, Dubya's deals were VERY secret!

Does this also mean Bush hates Eisenhower? General Ike bailed out of North Korea in 1953, consigning all those Koreans to suffer decades of communist oppression and tyranny.

Does this mean Bush hates Nixon? Nixon spent years trying to negotiate "peace with honor" with the North Vietnamese. What this really meant was Nixon was going to bail and consign all those Vietnamese to a communist government--but in a way it didn't LOOK like that's what he was doing.

Does this also mean Bush hates EVERY president since WW2, since not one of them attacked the USSR to run them out of the satellite states they controlled? What did Reagan do, except spend billions on unnecessary nukes and beg the Soviets to play nice with Berlin?

Does this also mean Bush hates the Founding Fathers? They all made a bloody pact to allow slavery to exist when they wrote the Constitution--all to keep the colonies “stable.”

Does this mean Bush hates every president before 1925, when the Indians became citizens? Every U.S. president through the 1800s aided or permitted the wholesale slaughter of innocent Indians and the blatant theft of their land--all to keep the land-hungry white people happy.

"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others."

I like that last quote. He’s saying we won’t do it anymore! Even as he is supporting, allowing, or ignoring the continuation of tyranny across the globe. What’s Bush done about Darfur, where thousands die every day? And what about the unfree people in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China? Nothing for any of them. They’re either already in Dubya’s pockets, too powerful to fight, or have no resources to steal.

It’s funny how Dubya conveniently singles out the one president who created Social Security--the very program Dubya is right now hell-bent to destroy.

But none of all that really exposes the complete ignorance of Bush's comments. In May, 1945, there was NOTHING the U.S. could do about Soviet presense in eastern European nations. NOTHING. America was still at war in the Pacific, and the Red Army was supposed to join the fight that fall. Does stupid-ass Bush think the U.S. could have fought both the Japanese and our ally at the time? There's no way the U.S. could have defeated a Soviet-Japanese alliance at that time. To divert attention away from winning a World War to fuss about the form of government would have been a minor detail at the time.

And Bush is WRONG that FDR never bothered with that small detail. FDR managed to squeeze out of Stalin his signature on the Declaration of Liberated Europe, which said eastern European nations had "the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live." This meant Stalin had to BETRAY the Yalta Agreement to take over of any satellite nations. FDR did everything within America's power to limit the USSR's presence in places like Latvia. It's truly amazing what a GOOD President can accomplish when he tries to make the world better. (Unlike Dubya, who acts only for GOP power and profit.)

Here’s a suggestion for you, Dubya: shut up before you look even more stupid. Compared to FDR, you're a dingleberry on a donkey's ass. FDR won a war against the biggest war machine in history; you can't whip a bunch of thugs hiding in alleyways. FDR saved the world from fascism; you saved Iraq’s oil from Saddam. FDR used the gov't coffers to help millions of people; you just help yourself to millions from the gov't's coffers. FDR was honestly elected four times; you've had to steal the two you got. FDR died early in his last term...

...and I bet you probably won't do us that same courtesy.