Why It's 4 More Years For Bush

This guy has quite a sense of humor, as you can see from his blog. I was trying to keep from LOL here at work.


Why It's 4 More Years For Bush

All the polls show fallout from the prison abuse 'scandal' has been disastrous for him. With news from Iraq getting glummer by the hour, the drop in his poll numbers has been precipitous -- and sustained. Damaging pictures of shackled terrorists wearing ill-fitting panties on their heads at Abu Ghraib have Abu-grabbed headlines for weeks, prompting worries among party insiders and campaign strategists. The worries border on despair, as each new poll shows him losing ground.

And boy has he lost ground since Abu Ghraib. To get a sense of just how much, check out the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In a two-way matchup, Bush gets 45 percent, Kerry gets 46 percent -- a statistical dead-heat. Just a month ago, in April, this same NEWSWEEK poll had Bush at 43 percent, Kerry at 50 percent -- a 7-point lead, gone! Yep, like I said, boy has Kerry lost ground since Abu Ghraib. And the onslaught of graphic photos. (The photos were appalling, disgusting. One of them depicts a female guard holding a prisoner on a short leash -- you could swear it was Teresa and John Kerry). Kerry is losing ground even in rock-ribbed Democrat Illinois, a state Gore carried in 2000 (about 3 1/2 years before Abu Ghraib), where a brand new statewide poll shows Bush trailing Kerry by only 5 points, 48%-43%, after trailing by 13 points in March (One month before Abu Ghraib). In battleground Michigan, a state Gore carried in 2000 (41 months before Abu Ghraib!), Kerry now trails Bush by 4 points, 44%-40%, a new poll shows. The rest is Abu-Gravy.

On Monday, the news for Kerry got even bleaker, with the emergence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, this despite highly-publicized assurances from weapons expert Sean Penn, who conducted an intensive 3-day search on the eve of war (December, 2002 -- just 16 months before Abu Ghraib!) but found no WMD. "A roadside bomb containing deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy," the AP reported, citing the U.S. military. "It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war." (The Kerry camp immediately dismissed the news as no big deal, noting that the roadside bomb, despite the deadly nerve agent, was not wrapped in panties).

Thankfully, no one was critically injured -- the chemical components in the shell "did not mix properly or completely upon detonation." (Let me tell you, these Jihadis are pure geniuses). The detonation, involving up to 4 liters of nerve agent, had occurred on Saturday. The press says 4 liters is just a 'trace'. (Try hanging a sign that says $2.00 per trace of gasoline, and see how much business you drum up).

Speaking of geniuses, the AP reported that "two former weapons inspectors -- Hans Blix and David Kay -- said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles" of weapons. (Besides, large stockpiles of weapons pale next to the Real Smoking Gun -- pictures that signify large stockpiles of buttocks at Abu Ghraib).

Kay, "who led a U.S. team hunting for weapons" (then quit after a thorough partial hunt), said the WMD contained in the 155-millimeter artillery round was probably "one of tens of thousands produced for the Iran-Iraq war, which Saddam was supposed to destroy or turn over to the United Nations," in compliance with U.N. demands, the AP reports. But Kay, bowl of crow in mouth, insisted this evidence should not be held against Saddam -- there's no proof of non-compliance here and the reason for non-compliance here may have been innocent: Saddam, in his haste to fully comply, innocently "overlooked" the thingy, said Kay. (Absent-minded dictators overlook things like this all the time, like when Saddam innocently 'Overlooked' 'Stray Weapons' that 'strayed' into northern Iraq, gassing tens of thousands of Kurds in '88; that's 16 years before Abu Ghraib!) Then again, Kay is likely a stray weapons inspector whose 'Stray Weapons' theory does not signify large stockpiles of brains.

(The 4 tiny liters of sarin found in the 'stray weapon' could kill hundreds of thousands of people, so the media stressed how it was nothing to get worked-up about -- no one was humiliated. No one was abused. Have you hugged a captured terrorist today?)

But there's more. "Two weeks ago," Fox News reports, "U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an (Improvised Explosive Devise, or) IED." Apparently, the mustard gas shell was probably one of 550 mustard gas shells Kay says Saddam overlooked, like the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin Saddam overlooked, like the 26,000 liters of anthrax Saddam overlooked, like the 500 tons of sarin gas Saddam overlooked from stockpiles Kay says don't exist.

(Despite the stunning announcement, Democrats pressed for more definitive proof of WMD, suspicious that the stunning announcement was only meant to divert attention from ladies underwear at Abu Ghraib, which could've been meant to divert attention from Fallujah, which could've been meant to divert attention from Woodward's book, which could've been meant to divert attention from Dick Clarke's book, which could've been meant to divert attention from 31-year-old dental records. The sarin gas story would be more believable if the shell had "Made By Halliburton, Distributed by Rummy During Surprise Trip to Iraq Last Week" stamped on it).

If subsequent tests confirm the presence of WMD in Iraq, it "would be the first evidence" of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq "since the war began," says the AP. It would be the very "first evidence" after the very 'first evidence' called Uday and Qusay (maggot factories currently) and Saddam, captured and being brutally tortured by fake turkeys wearing ladies underwear on top.

Meanwhile, the Abu Ghraib prison abuse 'scandal' continues to grow.

CNN reports that "Sources have revealed new details from the Army's criminal investigation into reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees, including the location of the suspected crimes and evidence that is being sought." An official noted "what others in the Pentagon and Baghdad have said in recent days, which is that the matter is considered serious."

Oh wait -- that was CNN back in January, when Pentagon sources were busy covering up 'prison abuse' by revealing new details to CNN.

They just don't make 'Cover-Ups' like they used to anymore.

In the meantime, the Christian Science Monitor, citing extensive research by 'observers', reports that the 2004 race could be very close, or maybe not: "Ever since the 2000 election, political strategists have been bracing for another close presidential contest," especially given "polls showing a tight partisan divide across the nation..."

"But," the paper adds, "many observers are considering an alternative: that the election" won't be close. Crawling out on that limb even further, these "many observers," citing extensive research, predict that since Kerry and Bush are the two major candidates, either Kerry or Bush will win. Moreover, under this scenario, if the election isn't close, then the 2004 "contest could wind up resembling more of a sweep." (Bet you didn't see this one coming).

If the race isn't close, then the candidates aren't locked in a tight race, which could mean clear victory for Bush or for Kerry. (Got that?) This contest won't be "hinging on hanging chads." Not only that, but these brilliant 'observers' observe that the future hasn't happened yet (so it can be unpredictable), that candidates don't have total control over "national events," and that "national events" seem "likely to push public opinion." (That's never happened before!) Not only that, but this 'push' could be "in one direction or the other," and that the 'push' could be sharp. But even assuming the winning candidate sweeps to overwhelming victory, "the overall popular vote is likely to stay fairly close." In other words, this contest could be hinging on hanging chads.

Summing up, experts say this election could be close and, if not, this election could be a sweep and, if not, this election could be close and still be a sweep.

Here's my intrepid prediction: Whether the election is close or decisive, the winner won't be Kerry. Reason? Click on Hardball on any night. Chances are the show's blathering no-talent loudmouth will be drooling over naked guy prison photos from Baghdad. Now, ask yourself, even making allowances for addle-brain factor and fetid voyeurism which drives Matthews' unbridled fixation with prurient pictures of naked guys, is wallowing aimlessly on the subject a winning formula for the party of McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis? I'd wager no, and polls seem to bear this out. Even setting aside for a moment the party's quisling track record on military matters, the party which fought tooth-and-nail to disqualify military votes the last time around already was on a short leash, credibility-wise. Consequently, the more the Dems break into hives over Abu Ghraib or get their nose out of joint over interrogation techniques at Gitmo, the more they drive home to voters this basic, fundamental difference between the parties: With Republicans, you get a War On Terror. With Democrats, you get a War On Interrogation. That's it a nutshell, and that's why I predict it's Four More Years for Bush.

Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"

Link