You knew it was coming didn't ya? I mean, it was only inevitable after President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt yesterday. The GOP right wing nut brigade is in a tizzy today, parsing and out-of-context cherry picking Obama's speech, feverishly constructing their own bizarro-world narrative that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (in their own childish minds at least) that Obama is indeed a Muslim and is ready to turn over the reins of U.S. power to Al Qaeda.
And the GOP poobahs scratch their heads and wonder why they've lost all three branches of electoral government, are now the minority party for the forseeable future and have polls consistently indicating more and more Americans are rejecting their reactionary world-view every day.
Let's take a peek, shall we, at what the GOPers are braying about this morning. This is just a sampling from the great state of
Oklahoma contingent, with a special post-analysis from krazee:
Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo was "un-American" because he referred to the war in Iraq as "a war of choice" and didn't criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.
Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, "There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo."
"I just don't know whose side he's on,'' Inhofe said of the president.
krazee's analysis: Umm Jimmy Boy (I'm calling Inhofe a boy because the fully-developed brain of a normal man is more intellectually advanced than his is) -- Jimmy Boy --
The Iraq war was a war of choice.
Torture was documented at Guantanamo. The only people still in denial about those facts are men-children like yourself who are incapable of separating fact from fiction and whose moral character is as tenuous as your own grip on reality. As for "what side" President Obama is on - he's on America's side and the right side of history you fucking twit!
One down, two to go.
Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Oklahoma City, said Obama "needs to take a stronger stance against regimes which threaten international peace, sponsor terrorism, brutalize their own citizens and threaten the existence of other nations with the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction."
krazee's analysis: Ahhh yes -- the old "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria. Hmm - I wonder if Rep. Fallin is referring to the WMD's which the
Bush administration stated Iraq had (but never found) and were imminently going to use to incinerate America, or the ones America did have and which were used to
incinerate and pulverize the already weakened, but functional Iraqi infrastructure back into the stone age? It's all so confusing (if you're a brain-dead hillbilly wingnut that is.)
Two down, one to go.
And Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Cheyenne, said, "When the United States promotes peace around the world, it ensures our own security -- militarily, culturally and economically.
krazee's analysis: This one's my favorite. Say Rep. Lucas - you state that "when the United States promotes peace around the world, it ensures our own security." You may find this surprising, but I happen to agree with that statement. Having said that and if it's true, doesn't it necessarily stipulate then that "when the United States
DOES NOT promote peace around the world, it
DOES NOT ensure our own security?" I understand it's difficult for the average right-winger to wrap their heads around a lofty and elitist concept such as logic, but think about that for a moment. There - - - your moment is up - so please explain to me Rep. Lucas - how exactly does invading a sovereign Middle East nation
based on manufactured evidence, and
bombing that nation to smithereens,
torturing detainees, instilling
corrupt puppet leaders and
raping their natural resources (oil) equate to "promoting peace that will ensure our own security?" ?? Quite the conundrum huh?
This has been another fine edition of Bitch Slapping the Stoopid Out of Wingnuts!
----k
