Texas Rainmaker » “I Quit”

“I Quit”
May 24th, 2007 2:08 pm

A little Thursday afternoon red-meat. Enjoy. (hat tip: Old Soldier)
________________________________________________________

“Normally, I start these things out by saying “My Fellow Americans.” Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don’t know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you’re really not fellow Americans any longer.

I’ll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: there’s been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I’m quitting is simple. I’m fed up with you people.

I’m fed up because you have no understanding of what’s really going on in the world. Or of what’s going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let’s start local. You’ve been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that’s despite record numbers of homeowners including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we’re mentioning minorities, I’ll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. I’ve mentioned all those things before, but it doesn’t seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there’s increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don’t give me this “blood for oil” thing. If I was trading blood for oil I would’ve already seized Iraq’s oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don’t give me this ‘Bush Lied People Died’ crap either. If I was the liar you morons take me for, I could’ve easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be ‘discovered.’ Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ‘Clinton’ established that policy. Bet you didn’t know that, did you?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.

That’s not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don’t care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That’d be fine, as long as they weren’t also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven’t gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you’re not. That’s because you’ve got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I’m disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of ‘Survivor’.

Instead, you’ve grown impatient. You’re incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat’s political campaign, well, dammit, you might just as well Fedex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it’s easy enough to find the truth. It’s all over the Internet. It just isn’t on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you’d be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you’re too stupid to leave a city that’s below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I’ve come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I’m going back to Crawford. I’ve got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I’m done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I’ll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney’s quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there’re just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that’s it. God bless what’s left of America. Some of you know what I mean.

To the rest of you, up yours.

Signed,
George W. Bush”

20 Comments »

This is great stuff! Now be honest Tex, did you write this up or did you pilfridge it from somewhere?

Comment by MrCynic1 — 3:26 pm
Actually it’s been circulating in emails. And I just realized I forgot to give a hat tip to Old Soldier for sending it to me. Will correct that now.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 3:27 pm
I feel exactly the same way. What a country full of lazy and dumb self-absorbed people. Many born every day. Get a decent guy in the WH and you all beat the hell out of him daily. BTW, over on Little Green Footballs Chas has the manual of Al Queda torture systems and tools. Makes Abu Ghraib look like cream puffs. Wonder if they did this to our missing soldiers? Makes me sick.

Comment by Judith — 8:43 pm
The only reason the economy isn’t in the tank is because Bush is mortgaging our future - pushing off the inevitable bad economy on our children.

And as for the war on terror - what we have is a long and difficult fight turned into an impossible one by Bush’s incompetance.

Comment by djernigan — 10:04 pm
Priceless. Brilliant. I love it. I’m so tired of whiney-ass liberals ruining MY country.

Great topic!

Comment by sandy — 5:30 am
“And as for the war on terror - what we have is a long and difficult fight turned into an impossible one by Bush’s incompetance.”

For some perspective here: by what experience or credentials do you make that assessment?

Comment by Old Soldier — 6:35 am
Ok - so if you’re not going to believe me, Old Soldier, simply because you served - and I didn’t - what do you have to say in response to Lt. General GREGORY NEWBOLD — http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html

Also, Major General John Batiste - http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E15FE39550C708DDDAC0894DF404482

And plenty more where these came from - but I wouldn’t want to overwhelm you with legitimate and reliable sources, when what you really want is my opinion so that you can ignore it because of your vast experience.

Comment by djernigan — 7:50 am
I certainly have no credentials, but of the several men I know who served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, all did and still do support the mission. I rely on their first-hand experience and opinions when forming mine.

djernigan, it’s certainly valid to be critical of any war, but I hope you haven’t sincerely given up hope.

Comment by thegentlecricket — 9:41 am
djernigan, I could care less about what MG Batiste or LTG Newbold or any “overwhelming list” thinks; I want to know your basis for proclaiming that ”Bush’s incompetence…” has .”…turned a long and difficult fight into an impossible one…”/i> You didn’t [initially] quote Batiste or Newbold or anyone else as [according to] sources, you made the statement and I am merely trying to establish your expertise/background. Whether or not you or I served is totally immaterial; you accused the president of incompetently handling this war and I would like to know by what proficiency you arrived at such a conclusion.

Comment by Old Soldier — 12:08 pm
John, based on your demand to djernigan, I will now expect you to fully explain your expertise on topics for which you comment. That will probably include taxation, medicine, the state of the healthcare system, international relations, religion, and history among others.

Thanks!

Comment by forrest — 1:38 pm
Forrest, I demanded nothing; but asked questions - just like you and many other commenters (to include djernigan). Do not presume more than actually exists.

Comment by Old Soldier — 2:32 pm
John, lets not get into issues of semantics. You can claim its not a demand yet, but if this comment thread was to carry out and djernigan never answered you, it would likely turn into a demand. I’m also willing to bet that most people would describe statements like the below one a “demand”

jernigan, I could care less about what MG Batiste or LTG Newbold or any “overwhelming list” thinks; I want to know your basis for…

You’re asking someone to explain how they are believe themselves qualified to make judgements on a single issue. I can only assume that if his answer does not meet your satisfaction, you’ll blow it off as uninformed and thus irrelevant. Perhaps you could give a different reason for asking this question?

If it turns out I’m correct, you can expect me to ask the same question of you on issues that you comment on from here out.

If it turns out I’m wrong, you have my apology. But you’ll really be the only who knows why you -really- asked the question to begin with.

Comment by forrest — 2:55 pm
Come on - Old Soldier. Your just chomping at the bit to discredit my credentials. Really - am I not allowed to rely on the ideas and experience and wisdom of others? This defies all kinds of common sense - and moreover, conveniently allows you to ignore what these other professionals are saying while waiting around to discredit me. I guess we should take Georege Bush’s advisors away from him - and allow him to muddle through completely on his own (not that he could do much worse by himself).

If you want me to give you a list of his mistakes - I can do that - but even providing such a list at some point requires referencing the work of others (so - what - I have to work for the CIA now to comment on this website?). Moreover, you specifically asked about my credential - not for an explanation on what I think he did wrong.

Comment by djernigan — 8:19 pm
Video when Michelle Malkin was embedded with U.S. Troops for a week in Baghdad.

She walks around a Baghdad neighborhood with U.S. and Iraqi Soldiers.

She stops to have tea with Iraqi civilians.

It’s very interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6xKXUCYzM

Comment by Gunner — 9:38 pm
So is Bush a bumbling fool who attacked Iraq out of incompetence… Or is he a brilliant mastermind who concocted this war and duped hundreds of intelligent leaders in Washington and around the world? Make up your minds.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 8:07 am
djernigan, let me remind you (and Forrest) of your original statement:

”And as for the war on terror - what we have is a long and difficult fight turned into an impossible one by Bush’s incompetance.”

To me, that is a an extremely strong statement; one I do not perceive you as being qualified to make; but I may be mistaken – that’s why I asked questions… not to blow you off or “disqualify” your comment as Forrest postulates – but to try to understand your substantiation.

{Again] to me, declaring the president’s war decisions as “incompetent” is a very serious allegation. It ranks along side ‘dereliction of duty.’ It also begs some sort of credential or experience for substantiation. You are certainly welcome to your opinion and you are certainly welcome to others’ opinions, and you are certainly welcomed to express either (or both); however, when you base such a statement upon your opinion or someone else’s opinion it seems appropriate to make that identification.

Very few people are sworn into the presidency with experience running a war from the executive level. Clinton loathed the military and was absolutely clueless about the military, yet he made decisions as the CINC that involved deployment of our armed forces. Were they the right decisions? History isn’t finished analyzing them yet.

In this comment stream, if you perceived me as trying to put you over a barrel, or set you up for some sort of take-down; then I offer my apology – that was not my intent. Hopefully, my explanation makes that clear.

Comment by Old Soldier — 6:58 am
Gunner, thanks for the link. It looks a lot like the footage from Saigon. Open restaurants, food on the table, friendly people everywhere (aside from the firefighting station). Situation under control. Until you need to evac from the roofs…

Comment by endorendil — 2:47 pm
OS, I think that there are three reasons why people consider Bush’s war leadership as incompetent.

First is the fact that, despite overwhelming military superiority, the fighting continues with no real improvement in sight. There is no clear exit strategy at this point, and that is worrisome. You can blame the army, or you can blame the leadership. But you can’t say that anything unexpected has happened in the Iraqi war.

Second is that several high-ranking military personnel has spoken out against his decisions.

Third is the fact that Bush himself has lost confidence in his ability to run the war. Why else does he needs a war czar?

Comment by endorendil — 2:55 pm
Endo, “exit strategy” is an intentionally distracting term designed to insinuate that proper planning was not accomplished. It is meant to call into question the ability, competency, etc., of the president, leadership, (plug in your favorite goat). Clearly when the USA enters into war, the only acceptable “exit strategy” is victory; anything short of that is not acceptable in terms of the loss of life associated with war. There are consequences associated with losing a war and I do not believe President Bush entered Afghanistan and Iraq with any intent other than victory. The political landscape in Congress is trying to force an exit short of achieving victory. That being the case – an “exit strategy” is incumbent upon Congress, not the president.

For each disgruntled “high-ranking” military person that is against the war, there are others who believe the war is just and is winnable. Varying opinions… who is right? From my perspective (which includes talking to “high-ranking” as well as not-so-high-ranking military personnel) the overwhelming opinion is that Iraq is winnable if given enough time. If a time limit of a year (plus or minus) is imposed, then most feel Iraq will probably explode as we depart. What a legacy that would be for the American people.

There are many legitimate reasons for Bush to want a “war czar.” Other presidents haven’t used such an office (perhaps because they never thought of it), but that does not mean that Bush has lost confidence in himself. As the CINC he still makes the final decisions.

I do not believe you have made a case to claim Bush is incompetent.

Comment by Old Soldier — 5:59 pm
OS, you say that
“exit strategy” is an intentionally distracting term designed to insinuate that proper planning was not accomplished. It is meant to call into question the ability, competency, etc., of the president, leadership, (plug in your favorite goat).

Let me quote President Bush (then candidate Bush):
“[There was a question about] deployment. It must be in the national interests. It must be in our vital interest whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we’re going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined.”

You say that:
“There are consequences associated with losing a war and I do not believe President Bush entered Afghanistan and Iraq with any intent other than victory”

I am absolutely sure that you are right on this. But good intentions alone don’t make much difference, do they? To achieve “victory”, it needs to be defined, and the way to achieve it needs to be clear. To put it diferently, there has to be a point where the war is over and we won. Victory is not perpetual war, or hasty withdrawal, it is the ability to claim the battlefield by defeating the enemy.

The fact that we’re still in essentially the same fight we were in 1, 2 or 3 years ago, shows that the plans have failed. You can’t blame that on the Democrats, since Republicans were in charge of both Congress and Presidency during most of that time. I find this a compelling argument in favour of incompetent leadership. The alternative is to blame the military, which I think would be unfair, or to point at completely unexpected developments, of which there were none.

“That being the case – an “exit strategy” is incumbent upon Congress, not the president.”

It never is. The US military has more than enough funds to pursue the war, even if the supplementary spending would not materialize. To pare down the defense budget to the point where the army would not be able to fight on in Iraq is simply not possible.

The American people are concerned that there has not been any progress towards victory for years. Congress has tried to make clear to the President that this is a real concern. But it has become abundantly clear that Congress is no longer a counterweight to the power of the Presidency. This has been proven amply by both Newt and Nancy. The balance of power between the branches is gone.

“From my perspective (which includes talking to “high-ranking” as well as not-so-high-ranking military personnel) the overwhelming opinion is that Iraq is winnable if given enough time.”

With enough time and enough people, I believe that the war is winnable too. I’ve discussed this before. With troop levels in the neighbourhood of Shinseki’s estimate (200,000 or more) and a binding long-term commitment (at least 5, more likely 10 years) AT THAT LEVEL of troop strength, I think that the US could still win. It would be enough time to scratch the Iraqi government, impose a fair, moderately federal constitution, help establish non-sectarian parties and have real elections (in a few years).

“What a legacy that would be for the American people.”

I agree. Another Vietnam, but this time with more serious geopolitical consequences. Bush was given YEARS to get some kind of progress, and he was not able to come up with anything. The legacy will be Bush’s, just as in the UK, it is Blair’s.

“There are many legitimate reasons for Bush to want a “war czar.””

Name one. If it is not possible for the US President to act as the commander in chief, then perhaps he should not be allowed to. However, other presidents have been able to fulfill this constitutional requirement quite well. One can only conclude that Bush wants to have a more capable person as commander in chief, or that he wants someone he can fire when things go wrong.

Comment by endorendil — 5:38 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI