The depraved beast on the environment, Israel, Jimmy Carter, and Iraq.

The Politico gives us the transcript of the dictator’s latest interview (if, by “interview”, you mean yet another tedious exercise in reportorial fellatio).

The shrub lies about what his regime has done about the environment, acknowledges Global Warming, says others have to do the work on fixing it before the U.S. can even get involved, and lies again about why he’s done nothing.

Q: I wonder if in your eight years in office what the changes have been, in your view, of climate change?

THE SHRUB: I think it’s been more clearly defined as a problem. But what hasn’t changed is the realistic notion that new technologies are going to be the solution, and the fundamental question is how do you grow the economy at the same time, and at the same time encourage new technologies. And my administration has done more for the new technologies necessary to change our lifestyles without sacrificing wealth than any other administration.

Q: For the record, is global warming real?

THE SHRUB: Yes, it is real, sure is. But the solutions — having said that, the solutions have got to be measured and realistic — you can’t have a solution to global warming unless China and India are part of any international pact. It’s one of the reasons I didn’t accept what’s called the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore was labeled as anti-environment. I’m a realistic guy. If the major emitters of greenhouse gases are not a part of a solution, then those who are part of a solution are acting in a way that’s simply not going to — it will affect their own economies, but it won’t affect the overall global warming issue.

So, yes, I put forth a very realistic, straightforward program that makes sense.

Q: Acknowledging those constraints, you’re an oil man — some people say that climate change, global warming could have been your Nixon-to-China. Do you wish you’d done more?

THE SHRUB: I did what I think is necessary to actually work, Michael. I mean, I could have signed a — I could have supported a lousy treaty and everybody would have went, “Oh, man, what a wonderful sounding fellow he is.” But it just wouldn’t have worked. I don’t think you want your president trying to be the cool guy and not end up with policies that actually make a difference.

So the policies I’ve outlined are policies that will actually make a difference: nuclear power for generating electricity; battery driven cars; ethanol. There’s a variety of initiatives — clean coal technology — all of which will help us sustain our economic vitality and at the same time be better stewards of the environment.

Of course, it all makes sense now.  The shrub didn’t want to try to be cool by doing anything about the environment, and that’s why his regime has sat on its ass and done absolutely nothing to help solve the problem of Global Warming.  Wow, how enlightened he has made us plebeians!  All this time he was sacrificing his “coolness” for us!

On Jimmy Carter:

Q: President Carter recently told Charlie Rose the next president could change America’s image in 10 minutes. Here’s what he said: “I think the next president could change the image of this country around the world in 10 minutes by making an inaugural speech that would start off and say, ‘As long as I’m president we will never torture another prisoner, as long as I’m president we will never attack or invade another country unless our own security is directly threatened.'”

THE SHRUB: Yes, well, what he ought to be saying is, is that America doesn’t torture. If the implication there is that we do now, then he’s wrong. And you bet we’re going to protect ourselves by the use of military force. What he really is implying is — or some imply — you can be popular; if you want to be popular in the Middle East just go blame Israel for every problem. That will make you popular. Or if you want to be popular in Europe, say you’re going to join the International Criminal Court.

Popularity is fleeting, Michael. Principles are forever.

Uh-huh.  The boy who has instituted a policy of torture by the U.S. against prisoners in our custody is telling a former president to lie.  Never mind that, under the shrub, the U.S. is torturing prisoners, and that the shrub and his flunkies ordered it.  Because he doesn’t like being called out on it, he wants Jimmy Carter to lie and say we don’t.  What a fucking piece of shit the shrub is.  Because, you know, even though the shrub doesn’t care about being popular, he still doesn’t want to be known as the dictator who turned the United States into a country that is now on other nations’ lists of countries that torture prisoners.  The boy who has no principles is telling a former U.S. president, essentially, that he is trying to be popular by blaming Israel for everything that goes wrong in the Middle East.  The boy who hasn’t seen a law he couldn’t break is telling us that joining the International Criminal Court is just some sorry attempt to be cool with the other kids on the playground.

Q: You’re headed later today to the Middle East. The prospects for brokering peace between Israelis and Palestinians look bleak. I wonder what the best is you can hope for, and why should Americans back home care about your efforts over there?

THE SHRUB: It’s a great question. Americans at home ought to care for the advance of free societies throughout the Middle East, after all, this is the center of anti-Americanism and hatred. In other words, the people that attacked us on 9/11 came from this part of the world. By far the vast majority of people aren’t haters, and by far the vast majority of people don’t hate America. But there are enough to be able to recruit if forms of government repress people. In other words, if there’s hopelessness — there’s nothing more hopeless, by the way, than becoming a suicide bomber. And yet, these ideologues require hopeless situations.

So it’s the advance of freedom throughout the Middle East which ought to be interesting — which ought to say to the American people it’s the best way to keep us secure.

No, we have seen — we’ve witnessed this type of history before, Michael. In Europe it was the advance of freedom that now makes Europe whole, free and at peace. But that wasn’t the case throughout the 1900s. In Japan, democracy came along and that enemy of ours is now an ally. In other words, freedom is transformative. And the big challenge in the 21st century is to advance freedom in the Middle East, for our security.

And you said about the Israeli-Palestinian issue? It’s been tough for a long time. But I do believe we’ve got — we’re on the right track to defining a Palestinian state, what it looks like, so that the moderate people, the reasonable people in the region have something to be for.

So giving Israel a blank check to murder Palestinians, keep them mired in a perpetual state of apartheid (thereby perpetuating the hopeless situation that makes it easy to recruit them to strap bombs on their bodies and blow up Israelis), all this is just part of the plan to bring peace, eh?

Q: Mr. President, turning to the biggest issue of all, Iraq. I wonder if you — various people and various candidates talk about pulling out next year. If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what’s the worst that could happen, what’s the doomsday scenario?

THE SHRUB: Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.

The biggest issue we face is — it’s bigger than Iraq — it’s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives. Iraq just happens to be a part of this global war. Iraq is the place where al Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand — and they will be defeated. They’ll be defeated through military action, but they’ll also be defeated as this young democracy takes hold. They can’t stand to live in a free society, that’s why they try to fight free societies.

The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East. And it would shake everybody’s nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we’re trying to defeat.

What’s you just read is the dictator of the United States threatening the country with a terrorist attack if the next executive pulls our nation out of Iraq.  On whose watch was the 9/11/2001 attack carried out?  And who let it happen, even though they knew something was up?  The shrub and his flunkies, that’s who.

The boy thinks we are stupid, that we’ll believe his lies, and even if we don’t, it doesn’t matter because there’s no way he’s going to face punishment.

2 comments

  1. you are not wrong.  He should already be on trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity.  The biggest bet I ever lost was when I said (prior to the 2006 elections) that if we even got a majority in one house, he would be impeached so fast it’d make your head spin.

    Ooops…boy was I wrong there!  Who knew Nancy Pelosi would condone all that shrubbo wrought?  Not me.

    Impeach!  Impeach!  Impeach!  And then can we please put this buncha crooks on trial in The Hague?

    • nocatz on May 15, 2008 at 3:37 am

    I hate to admit it, but you’re right.   But guess what….

    If the major emitters of greenhouse gases are not a part of a solution, then those who are part of a solution are acting in a way that’s simply not going to — it will affect their own economies, but it won’t affect the overall global warming issue.

Comments have been disabled.