Do We REALLY Want a Vindictive Asshole in the White House?

Wait didn't we already have a vindictive bitch in the White House?

...

I mean, if you can think of another reason W decided we should invade Iraq than "Saddam threatened my Daddy!" I'd sure like to hear it (I mean, people went along with him for all sorts of other reasons. I'm talking about his personal motivation)

I had to tell you, your headline had me absolutely rolling! I was thinking, c'mon, how do you really feel about it?

I have a ton of material about Palin on my blog, which you should check out.

My most recent piece reports on the 26 million dollar 'road to nowhere' that Palin would not cancel after the bridge project was rejected. This despite protest begging her to stop it. 26 million for a road that was no longer needed?

It is at:
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-2004-political-ads-sou…

If you just go to my site, you can find quite a few revealing pieces on Palin, including a great pic of lipstick on a pig that accompamanied a piece about the queen of pork.

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com

SARAH PALIN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

I find these things troubling:

The Trooper-Gate investigation and the link of Sarah Palin to the Extreme Right Wing Religious organization Focus On The Family. Liberty Legal Institute is the legal arm of the Free Market Foundation, a conservative activist group associated with James Dobson's Focus on the Family. They are now involved in the investigation.
(A Sign Of Things To Come?)

Some who worked with Palin termed her rise to power in Wassila as "The end of the innocence for the city,"

It has been reported that Palin broke the law by spending $55,000 of road maintenance funds, without the council's permission. When challenged Palins response, "I'm the mayor and I can do anything I want until the courts say I can't,'"

In Oct 1996 Palin inquired as to whether Emmons (Wasilla town Liberian) would object to library censorship. Emmons resisted. Palin then raised the possibility that people may circle the library in protest, to which Emmons replied that the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved. Palin backed down. Palin fired Emmons on 1/ 30/1997. The next day she withdrew the firing after an expression of public support for Emmons.

Regarding the bridge to nowhere. In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" in her platform. She urged speedy work on Alaska's infrastructure projects "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."
After the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain and other congressional members she backed down.

Palins lack of curiosity about the world and international affairs. Ms. Palin first applied for a passport last year.

Her lack of experience

Her resume:

Beauty Queen Contestant
After changing colleges 5 times she did graduate with a journalism degree
For a short time a sports reporter
4 years on a small town city council
6 years as the mayor of a small town with less than 7,000 people
20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people.
On the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

SARAH PALIN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Given McCains health issues and age Ms. Palin could in deed become the President of the United States.

Focus on the Family in the White House
Scary

Can you say the earth is flat??

You just heard about this? What's your excuse, that you've been out of the country or something?

Found this comment on a Google search, and had to speak up.

Last time I checked, the GOP consisted of human beings.

I take it also that this "vindictive bitch" is someone you know personally, and that you know the full facts re: the Troopergate situation? And of course, I am assuming that you have evidence of something the commission looking into the matter for months hasn't found?

Becca:
As for President Bush's personal motivation, I'd love to see actual evidence of this.

To be blunt here, as much as there are plenty of things Bush has done that I find incompetent or rash, I'm quite sure his decision in this regard was based on information available at that time, rather than what is known in hindsight.

In any event, I wonder how you would react to a guy who's throwing out UN weapons inspectors and violating UN resolutions, gassing citizens of his own nation, and has invaded his neighbour (Kuwait) and participated in outright was with his other neighbour (Iran)?

Would you trust that he's doing nothing wrong? Would you trust him?

To be blunt here, as much as there are plenty of things Bush has done that I find incompetent or rash, I'm quite sure his decision in this regard was based on information available at that time, rather than what is known in hindsight.

To be even more blunt, as well as letting you know that i am acutely aware of the world i live in, i was at several protests in NYC before and after the illegal invasion of Iraq happened. EVERY PERSON PRESENT (and even the police, fer crissakes) was acutely aware of the FACT that there was NO CREDIBLE LINK between 9-11 and Iraq! so how is it that all these people knew there was NO LINK between Iraq and 9-11 while the president and all his cronies remained blissfully ignorant?

not only that, but we all were VERY aware of the fact that BUSH and his DADDY are good friends with the Saudi royal family -- and there IS a strong link between Osama bin Laden and that family since he is a member of that family. yet we never even threatened Saudi Arabia, or even considered scolded the Saudi royal family (but bush did have time to hold the chief Saud's hand in public).

evidence? puhleeze. you know there was plenty of evidence, but BUSH and his cronies studiously ignored it ALL because BUSH knew if he started a war, he'd get re-elected because this country's electorate refuses to dump a president during a war. and them's the facts! and that's the reason we bombed the shit out of Iraq (although their oil fields were also a good secondary reason).

while you complain about Hussein, YOU are studiously ignoring the reality of North Korea and the nuclear weapons that, at that time, we KNEW for a fact existed, and we knew then that the leader of North Korea was (and still is) committing at least as many atrocities against his own countrymen as Hussein was against his .. but we ignored North Korea then, and sat around on our collective thumbs, whining to the UN and whining to the North Korean leadership to behave themselves. but, like true bullies, America never DID anything to back up our numerous threats against North Korea because they DO HAVE nuclear weapons, unlike Iraq!

really, you tell me how Hussein's murdering of his fellow Iraqis differs from the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that our american boys have killed? worse, besides destroying a nation and creating yet another generation of America-hating terrorists in the process, we have the added burden of having transformed perfectly decent american kids into professional murderers.

She is a politician like the rest (except extremely ignorant about international affairs and incapable of surviving interviews), but her personal vindications would not affect me as would Sen. Biden's agenda: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html

OneBuckFilms, it is ironic that your list of Saddam Hussein's offenses includes the fact that he "participated in outright wa[r] with his other neighbour (Iran)." Apparently you have forgotten (or never knew) that Hussein had our backing in that particular war.

and that you know the full facts re: the Troopergate situation? And of course, I am assuming that you have evidence of something the commission looking into the matter for months hasn't found?

I know a few things about it. I know that Gov. Palin promised to cooperate fully, but that now her staff is refusing to talk to investigators, and the McCain campaign is trying to muddy the waters so they can claim that the investigation is politically motivated, although the investigation was begun before Palin was selected as VP candidate.
Here's some background information.

As for President Bush's personal motivation, I'd love to see actual evidence of this.

To be blunt here, as much as there are plenty of things Bush has done that I find incompetent or rash, I'm quite sure his decision in this regard was based on information available at that time, rather than what is known in hindsight.

In any event, I wonder how you would react to a guy who's throwing out UN weapons inspectors and violating UN resolutions, gassing citizens of his own nation, and has invaded his neighbour (Kuwait) and participated in outright was with his other neighbour (Iran)?

Would you trust that he's doing nothing wrong? Would you trust him?

To be blunt here, I see no reason to trust Bush. Would you trust someone who claimed to be pro-life, but who turned Texas' death row into an assembly line? Someone who instructed the intelligence agencies at his disposal to go out and dig up some reasons so he could go to war? Who repeatedly (along with various of his subordinates) verbally linked Iraq to 9-11 even though there is not, and has never been, any evidence of such a link? Someone who cited "evidence" of Iraqi wrong-doing even though those same intelligence agencies told him it was a load of bunk? Sorry, I can't muster that much trust.
And just because Saddam Hussein was a ****** *** does not mean that George Bush is trustworthy. That would be fallacious reasoning.

To OneBuckfilms:

About this comment: "I wonder how you would react to a guy who's throwing out UN weapons inspectors"

You may be unaware of this, or simply willfully ignoring a fact you don't like, but Hussein didn't throw them out - they were gaining access to all the places they wanted: the "allies" simply told them to get out because time was up.

don't berate others for ignoring facts when you do the same.

@OneBuckFilms- I appreciate your thoughtful response to my somewhat flippant comment.
I agree we cannot know Bush's motivations; ultimately he must be judged by his actions. Actions which include issuing orders that resulted in thousands of innocent people dying.

Just as with Bush, Saddam Hussein must be judged on his actions not his (probably not very friendly) intentions.
Hussein's actions include invading his neighbor, Iran. I would like to point out that, had I been in charge at that time, I would not have been aiding him in that particular endevour, as the US did.
Throughout the "WMD" and "imminent threat" debates, there was a small but vocal minority of scientists who work in arms control.
At any time, Bush could have listened to their very clear input that the "intelligence" that "Saddam Hussein had WMDs or was attempting to acquire them" required a very convoluted definition of "Mass destruction" (chemical weapons are nasty but don't cross oceans; those are what we knew he had access to in the past) or "has".

Would I trust Hussein? No. Would I trust the assessments of professionals who have been in arms control for decades? Probably. Would I trust the data that the science behind "WMDs" makes their collective threat to USians trivial? You bet. And Bush should have too.

On another note, I think we loose a little everytime we focus on how bad Palin is. She's not evil because she's a bitch, or because she's a member of a fringe fundamentalistic religious group, or because she's inexperienced. She's not evil because her state gets lots of pork-barrel projects and she didn't stop it. She's simply a human being. There's at least a pinch of truth in most of those accusations, but ultimately, she's probably an ok person. If I met her in Toastmasters, we could probably learn something from each other.

None of that changes the fact she is very wrong for America; very wrong for the land of the free.

Troopergate is only the tip of the iceberg. Palin appointed a high school friend as attorney general. He was a lawyer who had very little law experience and no management experience. He went from nowhere to being in charge of the family courts, criminal prosecutions and all civil courts in the state.

Even Bush was not this bad. Alberto Gonzales abandoned his ethics to be loyal to Bush, but at least he was an intelligent successful attorney with relevant experience before he came AG.

I am very disappointed in the discussions of this topic. I have no idea what basis is considered "science" when so much non-factual information is being flung around.

I reached this blog through a link to bird ID, which has some beautiful photographs and informative paragraphs by Joseph Kennedy. I did not realize this was just another one of those sites with name-calling, with no regards to the actual facts, and a continuation of half-truths that are judged to be facts by ignorant people who cannot be bothered to investigate for themselves and instead accept the spin given by some members of the media.

Did you not read the statement you quoted? "Investigating" has never meant "proven", except to the small-minded and gullible. "Vindictive bitch" has never been a scientific term that I've been aware of, only a vulgar term which apparently describes the writer and her vehemence.

Too bad you can't stick with science, I guess the name of the site is just another half-truth that will be accepted as truth despite evidence to the contrary. I'll miss the bird photos, but it is not worth my time to have this propoganda thrown in my face in my quest for truth and beauty.

Factual Girl

Cheney redefined the Vice Presidency. (His first name is Richard: Dick is his honorary title.)

It looks like Palin is being groomed to slide right into place. I bet she can't wait to get drunk while hunting and shoot a lawyer in the face.

You are certainly attracting the concern trolls with this topic.
And yes, we indeed, "[w]e really want a vindictive bitch in the White House," if you mean "we" as in the nation of idiots, and "want" as the tyranny of the majority who refuse to consider dismantling the oligarchy of democrats and republicans under corporate control.

I agree completely with the sentiment of your post, and I most definitely don't want Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House.

I am uncomfortable, though, with your use of the word "bitch" in reference to her. It attacks her not only for her craptastic politics and morals, but also for her gender. Since we live with this sort of subtle sexism every day, it's easy to become immune to it, but I think it's important to call it out whenever possible. Could we not call her a bitch (which is used to refer to "unpleasant" women, often by people who wish to silence those women's voices, or to men who have been emasculated)? How about "Do We Really Want a Vindictive Asshole in the White House?" Or any other descriptive word which doesn't make gender an issue.

"Do We REALLY Want a Vindictive Bitch in the White House?"

Yes, every bit as much as I want a picture of my ass on the dollar bill.

His first name is Richard: Dick is his honorary title.

Why is it that the moment anyone called Richard gets close to the White House, they start acting like a dick?

[blah blah blah]

-"Factual Girl"

...has anyone thought to make a ScienceBlogs Troll Bingo sheet?

She's not a bitch. She's a MILF. Now, trolls, disprove THAT.

A LOT of us want that vindictive bitch in the Whitehouse, and my whole family (all 82 of us in New York alone and 47 more around the country!) are going to be first on line election day to vote the McCain/Palin ticket along with millions more! Now, go ahead ~ get rabid about that!! We're all loving this!!
Call her every vile name you can think of, threaten to rape her, keep saying that only retarded babies are Republicans, keep up these blogs, get more Woody Allens, Lindsay Lohans, Sandra Bernhards, Matt Damons, and Pamela Sue Andersons out there, you just help us gain more momentum!
Don't bother attacking me, I'm out of here! Good Riddance!

criticism noted, wendy, although i have been known to refer to certain male politicians as bitches, too (i'll leave which men those are as an exercise for the reader's imagination). but of course, the average reader wouldn't know that since i rarely use such words on my blog (nor in real life, actually).

Anders and his group-think crowd -- as far as threatening to rape palin, well, sorry, violence is not my forte -- i'll leave the torture, rape and murder to you rethuglicans since you are so good at it!

...I bet she can't wait to get drunk while hunting and shoot a lawyer in the face.
Posted by: Gilipollas Caraculo

There are a few lawyers who probably deserve that.

Seriously though, I suspect she is a better shot than Mr Cheney and getting drunk whilst hunting in Alaska isn't a sensible thing to do given the increased risk of hypothermia.

On another matter, what is it with adding gate to the end of words? Watergate was a long time ago and the investigation of a governor doesn't really match up with the actions of Mr Nixon when he was president.

#3 cawren
SARAH PALIN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Given McCains health issues and age Ms. Palin could in deed become the President of the United States

Oh please, that is a load of crap.
McCain and Palin get blown up in a gas accident, could happen, and Pelosi becomes president. Lots of things can happen. What is likely to happen is what you should work with not what you believe to be a worst case scenario.

Given that he will receive the best of health care I think the odds of McCain (if he is elected) of seeing out a term are fairly good, no worse than Reagan who saw out two.

He has had a few minor skin cancers and is old.
The first is not life threatening.
The second comes to us all sometimes wisdom comes with age sometimes senility.

But as I don't get a vote in your elections I won't lose sleep over it either way.

Grrl, are you now safely back home?

chris -- i am back home, and safely so, too! but going to London opened my eyes and the vision of the USA that i saw from across the pond was rather sad and very pathetic. i want to go back to the UK!

He has had a few minor skin cancers and is old.
The first is not life threatening.
The second comes to us all sometimes wisdom comes with age sometimes senility.

My anecdotal observation has been that dumb people tend to get dumber as they age, rabid people often run out of steam and become bitter instead, traditionally minded people never quite get their heads around the fact that the world and society and values have changed, and decent, tolerant people often develop some amazing insights.

A little more on whether we should accept that Bush & Co had legitimate reasons to start their war on Iraq. Let's consider one example, at length: The yellowcake papers. Word gets out of papers in Africa dealing with Iraqi attempts to buy uranium. U.S. intelligence agencies investigate, find the papers an obvious fraud, inform the White House of that. Ambassador Joe Wilson sent to investigate, finds the papers an obvious fraud, informs his chain of command of that. Bush, having heard from said agencies on the worthlessness of the yellowcake papers, mentions them anyway in a State of the Union address. shocked, Wilson goes public with his findings. The White House response? To smear Wilson and deliver a little payback by commiting treason, outing his wife, an undercover spy.

Does this sound like Bush & Co. legitimately believed, based on the best intelligence available, that Iraq really had secret weapons programs? Or does it sound like they were ginning up a phony case for war and got mad when sane people interfered?

And ask yourself just one more question: who forged those papers in the first place?

..., traditionally minded people never quite get their heads around the fact that the world and society and values have changed, and decent, tolerant people often develop some amazing insights.
Posted by: Azkyroth

Why the distinction between traditional and decent, tolerant?

The tradition I was raised in was to try my best to be decent and tolerant (though not to tolerate criminality and incivility). As, I suspect was the tradition for most of my peers.

I fail a lot of the time (mea maxima culpa), but it is the tradition I was raised in.