The President Wants War with Bigger Tits

[chefmike]

The President Wants War with Bigger Tits


While Fox New and the far-right Lords of Loud took aim at the important news at the Senate Hearings - namely Barbara Boxer telling Condaleezza Rice that either of them might not suffer through the war that someone with a kid over there would - they completely ignored what Rice suggested that President Bush really had in mind.


Sending additional troops into Iraq is not intended as a escalation. Rather she would call it "an augmentation."

Augmentation. Now that made a hell of a lot more sense than sending more soldiers into a growing quagmire. And it's also something most guys would buy and women will understand. Not like, but have experiential familiarity with.

You see, sometimes, when a President hits the big 6-0 he has a life-changing itch. Past wars he's lived with tend to get boring. Maybe they put on a little weight. Perhaps they lose a bit of luster as the taut buttocks and breasts lose their battle with gravity. And while you wake up every morning next to the same old war (and war-horse), you are besieged by younger and more erogenous wars splashed across the pages of "Soldier of Fortune" or on Fox News, outfitted in those tight belly-baring tops and derriere-crack revealing shorts that the younger wars are wearing today..

Most shallow war-mongers would toss aside their old war like you toss out thousands of men and women who have died in a wrongheaded President's pursuit of a disastrous foreign policy. I mean, what lame duck President wouldn't rather have a trophy war to show to all his rich neocon friends? But President Bush is far more isn't your run of the mill Republican skirt chaser. The man is loyal to his war. He doesn't leave a war just because it's gotten a little crusty around the edges or a few more hairs are showing on the upper lip. No, this president has refused to leave his longtime Iraqi war. But since he does have the extra billions that for some reason don't affect the Federal budget, his thought is, why not spruce up the old battle and her ax?

That's why this president has chosen augmentation over ending his five-year relationship with the war in Iraq. With the president's strategy and poll numbers sagging down to just above its knees, pulling up the old bosom back up to its earlier and more supple days keeps both the president and his war nipples erect.

Certainly the President's approach is a more decent and honest approach than the Democrats who always promise withdrawal. Sure, and the check is in the mail..

Still, aging wars would be wise to make every effort to keep their relationship with those who brought them to the dance, because no matter what the President says, things could change tomorrow. Temptation could always raise its sensual head and looking into the next yard could entice even the most seemingly loyal suitor.

Afterall, tell me a war with Iran doesn't have an ass you could eat off of.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/the-president-wants-war-w_b_38809.html

[BeardedOne]

Barbara Boxer said what? Is this the same Senator from CA that was going on about the details of the White House South Lawn wedding that her daughter, Nicole, had with Tony Rodham (As in Hillary Rodham Clinton's brother)?

[chefmike]

Newsweek editor Eleanor Clift defends questioning of Condi Rice by Senator Barbara Boxer

RAW STORY
Published: Sunday January 14, 2007


In a clip from this weekend's McLaughlin Group, Newsweek editor Eleanor Clift defends Sen. Barbara Boxer's questioning of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a Senate committee hearing on the war in Iraq.

Conservative pundits had accused Boxer of inappropriately mentioning Rice's marital status and the fact that she did not have children or grandchildren eligible for service as a way of demonstrating that neither of them would pay a personal price for the Iraq war.

At the hearing, Boxer included herself in the description of those who would not 'pay a personal price.' With children too old and grandchildren to young to be eligible for service in Iraq, Boxer asked, "So who pays the price?" The American military and their families," she said, answering her own question.

"That's entirely appropriate," Clift said of Boxer's question to Rice. "She included herself. She is not paying a personal price. She could have asked that of any of the architects of this war."


continued-
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Newsweek_editor_Eleanor_Clift_defends_question_011 4.html

[chefmike]

Sen. Boxer right: Personal price of the war paid by few Americans
by Pierre Tristam | Jan 16 2007 - 7:58am

Two years ago this week, Condoleezza Rice was before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, seeking confirmation as secretary of state. By then, 1,366 American soldiers had died in Iraq, 10,300 had been wounded and 58 percent of Americans disapproved of President Bush's handling of the war. Iraq had been the principal issue of the presidential election two months before, when a record 137 Americans were killed. In her 3,700-word opening statement to the Senate committee, Rice not once mentioned the casualties. Nor did she mention the Iraq war. Her only references to war, other than plugging Pakistan as "a vital ally in the war on terror" (she calls Pakistan's dictator, Pervez Musharraf, "a good friend") had to do with World War II and the Cold War. She was not only in a time-warp. She was in an empathy warp.

Publicly, Rice has shown more emotion about Brahms' second piano concerto, which she's promised herself to learn "before I leave this Earth," than she has about her own and her employer's mistakes, which now have the United States fighting three losing wars -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on "terror" -- and winning only one: the domestic one on liberties. As a national security adviser, Rice, an old Chevron director who once had an oil tanker named after her, was the pipeline through which the greased machinations for serially failing strategies made it to the president's ears. "Constantly mother-henning me," is how Bush once described that role. As a secretary of state, Rice has been the frequent flier to nowhere. Every one of the foreign-policy hot spots she inherited -- North Korea, Iran, Israel and Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, the Horn of Africa -- is in worse shape today than in 2005, when things were bad enough. As a member of the Bush administration, she's been a perfect fit.

So, when Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., brought up the matter of Americans dying in Iraq and making their families suffer consequences Rice may not understand personally, Boxer was not making an isolated observation. She had Rice's sorry record before her. This, specifically, is what Boxer said: "Now, the issue is who pays the price? Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So, who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact."

Reactionaries spent the last two decades glorifying the virtues of motherhood, parenting and "family values." Boxer's words should have rung true. Instead, led by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, the reactionary class attacked Boxer for her "far-left" insensitivity to single women. Boxer's observation, so rarely made -- most Americans have as much personally at stake in this war as they do in weather patterns on Jupiter, which is partly why it's dragging on -- was ideologically neutered.

Boxer never questioned Rice's empathy. She merely pointed out that Rice and Boxer herself will never know the personal sacrifice that families losing sons and daughters to the war must live with every day. She should have pointed out that Rice's empathy for the war's human cost is nil, because it derives from the deepest disconnect between the administration and the country, as proved yet again by Bush's speech last week: the most astounding expression of presidential contempt for the nation to date. This Boxer did point out: "Madame Secretary, you are not listening to the American people. You are not listening to the military. You are not listening to the bipartisan voices from the Senate. You are not listening to the Iraq Study Group. Only you know who you are listening to, and you wonder why there is a dark cloud of skepticism and pessimism over this nation. I think people are right to be skeptical after listening to some of the things that have been said by your administration."

Should the personal play a role in this? Put it this way: I don't know if anyone who's not a parent can feel what a parent does over the loss of a child. I doubt Rice can. What's clearer is that this administration has been fighting the war as if its human consequences were as outsourced as its location. What's clearest is that someone is being mother-henned who shouldn't be, and tens of thousands of young men and women aren't, who should have been.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4776