Sponsors

Time for a Rant Email Print

(Warning: The following article contains language that is bluer than the testicles of an Amish man  spending his rumspringa in a strip club, so if coarse words and crass insults offend you, don't continue reading this piece. Again, "reader discretion" is advised.)

Perusing some left-wing blogs this evening, I came across this post by the Carpetbagger, who links to a Washington Post story from last week in which Scott McClellan, evolutionary set-back that he is, had the gall to spew some venom.

It's gotten me a tad riled up.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said it was "regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush than he ever did about Saddam Hussein" and added: "If America were to follow Senator Kennedy's foreign policy, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, he would be oppressing and occupying Kuwait."
Okay, you ugly-ass, hobbit-lookin' motherf**ker, ya wanna play nasty?

Saddam Hussein didn't spend over 2,000 American soldiers' lives and $300 billion on a needless war.

Saddam Hussein didn't lie to America about Iraq possessing WMDs and cherry pick intelligence in order to sell a war with Iraq.

Saddam Hussein didn't allow North Korea and Iran to glide closer to being nuclearized states while letting Osama bin Ladin make a clean get-away.

Saddam Hussein didn't spark an increase in global terrorism and destabilize the global oil supply, thus helping Big Oil rake in record profits while ramping-up American inflation rates.

You wanna know something else Saddam Hussein didn't do, McClellan? He didn't invade Kuwait until April Glaspie gave him Daddy Bush's blessing. And he never told his people that the Kuwaitis would welcome Iraqi forces with open arms as liberators, or that the war with Kuwait would be a cakewalk lasting a few weeks or months at most.

And since you are to C.J.Cregg what McDonald's is to a five-star restaurant, I'm going to reiterate one of the above-mentioned facts for you using small words, so as not to produce that "deer-in-the-headlights" look you always sport on those rare occasions when the White House press corps actually does it's f**king job: Ted Kennedy wasn't our president during the first war with Iraq, your boss' daddy was.

Thanks to Daddy Bush's foreign policy, Saddam Hussein got a smack on the wrist for attacking Kuwait and was then allowed to remain in power for an extra decade, during which he oppressed his people while your party took over Congress and deemed him a non-entity... until 2002, when he was given an extreme make-over by Baby Bush.

To sum up: Yeah, Scotty -- you smarmy little smegma-stain of a man -- Ted Kennedy and every other patriotic American is going to find time to say negative (but truthful) things about that hypocritical, draft-dodging, lying frat boy thug you call "Mr. President" because his corruption and incompetence and imperialistic bullshit make him the worst president in U.S. history, bar none.


KEYWORDS: , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Fire Bill O'Reilly: Week II | Newsweek Op/Ed: Murtha's Right. Get Out Now! (Murtha Open Thread) >
 Display:
I recommend a dictionary for smegma-it's a howler.

However, wasn't it the conservatives in the Repub party that were content to let Saddam be and the Neocons that never forgot he stayed in power?

This needs to get to the White House Hobbit, express mail, signature required.

Thank you

Your rants inspire me.

All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss. (Douglas Adams)

by scoophound on 11/18/2005 01:15:40 PM EST

...I was wiping juice off my monitor scream after squirting a stream through my nostrils because of your rumspringa comment. But then you didn't deliver the obscene goods.

But it was a good rant, nonetheless.

by Meteor Blades on 11/18/2005 01:18:30 PM EST

I thought calling him a "smegma stain of a man" was pretty obscene; I must be slipping...

In hindsight, I probably should have posted this as a diary, and not on the front page. Of course, I'm usually not given to online rants. Cheap shots at Reublicans, yes, but not full-on rants.

by S M Dixon on 11/18/2005 02:07:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Except for thanks for saying it so I don't have to.

And I think a nice, healthy rant is a good thing for the front page now and then.

by SusanG on 11/18/2005 03:46:52 PM EST

 Display: