Monday, May 18, 2015

Marco Rubio - Another Reepo Buffoon - Falls Into the Iraq Trap

Marco Rubio gets his comeuppance: How his Fox News interview on Iraq went disastrously wrong
Rubio pouts after mucking up an Iraq question from FOX's Chris Wallace.

What is it with these mentally deficient Republican presidential candidates that even after they behold the alleged "front runner'" stumble over an Iraq question ('if you knew what you do now would you still have invaded?') they still get tongue tied and end up spouting a dopey, half-assed response? The latest chowderhead is Marco Rubio, a junior Senator from Florida and Tea Party gadfly who somehow fancies himself another Obama. He isn't.  He barely qualifies as a 'Barney Fife' wannabe. (Google the name if you don't know it.)

Asked  on Sunday by a Fox anchor (Chris Wallace) a similar question, Rubio could only sputter:

"I still say it was not a mistake because the president was presented with intelligence that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it was governed by a man who had committed atrocities in the past with weapons of mass destruction.”

Bull Pockey! You dodged the question, you putz!

When Wallace pushed him to say whether he’d call it a mistake, even knowing about the faulty intelligence, he responded in classic 'Barney Fife' fashion:

“The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein is not there…” .

Uh no, Barney, errr....Marco. In case you haven't noticed, a bunch of vicious terrorists called ISIS are running amuck - pillaging, murdering and raping- unleashed by Bush's folly - barging into a sectarian Muslim nation using a total BS ruse.. (More on this below)

When a CBS News political analyst was asked this morning what he made of these stumbles, he replied: "Well, none of these guys want to second guess the signature event of the last Republican president".

Which is beyond pathetic, given how 75 percent of the country now believes the Iraq invasion and occupation was not worth it - according to polls.  It also leaves open the possibility that any one or all of these losers would re- invade (Lindsey Graham calling for "10,000 troops" this morning to secure Anbar province) and make the situation even worse. I suppose one ought not second guess Reepo insanity - which is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

The brutal fact none of these monkeys can grasp? That Bush Jr. ought to have left Saddam alone, and not invaded to satiate little Georgie's pique that the "bad man" threatened his daddy. That is what it was all about after all, and the "WMD" bullshit was just an elaborate ruse and cover to justify invasion of a sovereign state.

True, Saddam was no angel, not one bit. But the Bushies'  2002 exploitation of the false "al Qaeda-WMD" narrative to justify an American invasion actually back fired, because now an even more malignant force - ISIS -  has taken up residence in the chaotic vacuum left behind. What the invasion did, which had been controlled up until then, was unleash the sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shi'ites which Saddam had controlled by his anti-religious, secular power. Once Saddam was removed from power, the Sunnis and Shi'ites were free to go at each others' throats - and all the American occupation did was delay it.

When the American phony program for Iraqi  democracy spawned a pseudo-dictatorship run by the Shia - the stage was set for a Sunni spinoff bunch of terrorists to wage bloody onslaughts - as they are now doing in Ramadi  - on the verge of taking it over. No one but a certified idiot could believe any of this shit would be going down if Saddam was still around and in control.

So this is what Rubio, Jeb Bush and likely some of the other Reeptard clowns don't get, and why they make mince meat of what should be straightforward answers to simple, direct questions. Which elicits the question of why anyone would want any of these dolts occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  I mean, are voters really that stupid to want the country expending more vital resources in Iraq Showdown II? I would hope not, or I'd have to seriously consider moving back to Bim.

But by all standards of reason and processing of history, there's no going back now. We already wasted $4 trillion there, which we could have better used to repair our crumbling infrastructure here at home. What one does hope is that in the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan - we finally re-learn the lessons we ought to have learned after Vietnam. That is to stay the fuck out of places where our immediate domestic security isn't threatened.  Were all those troops" fighting for my freedom"? Hell no! They were fighting for Wall Street, the Bushie opportunist Oil imperialists and their privateer companies (like Halliburton and Bechtel) and the advance of Amerikkan Neoliberalism.

If you don't understand that then you don't know recent history and aren't paying attention.

The rich humor of it all is that at the time the Bushie PR and propaganda machine actually compared Saddam to Hitler! Never mind that Saddam was the one being pounded by the most devastating shock and awe attack since the Blitzkrieg launched by Hitler on Poland in 1939. But this sort of human evil had been strenuously reasoned and formally justified by Bushie Neocons like William Kristal, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney!  Most of whom Jeb Bush wants back on his "team" if he should become President. (He finally declared his candidacy in NV last week.)

In addition, the U.S. corporate media acted as a willing accomplice, fully complicit in spreading the WMD hysteria that led to the Iraq invasion on March 17, 2003.  Hence each and every one of these actors, agents  (such as then NY Times troll Judith Miller) share blame in manifesting and accommodating human evil, including the devastating costs exacted on Iraqi civilians. (Which the World Health Organization add up to 600,000 deaths or one hundred times more than even Saddam would have wrought if left in power)

A final bit of historical reference to jog the brains of the remaining Reepo herd re: Iraq. Its invasion didn't emerge all of a sudden but was planned as long ago as 1992,  This was as part of the Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) which had originally designated Iraq's seizure and Saddam's ouster for 1993 after an expected Bush Sr. election win. This plan had been originally designed by the likes of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld to extend American power in the world starting in the Middle East, namely Iraq and Afghanistan. Oil also figured mightily into the planning, and no surprise a big Oil honcho like Cheney would be humping and pumping it to the nth degree. A secondary aspect was to oust Saddam which George Sr. stopped short of doing in the Gulf War.

All the best laid plans went askew after Clinton won the 1992 election, and so the PNAC plan had to be put on hold, specifically its plan for an Iraq invasion and occupation.  The plan sprung to life anew after the Bush Jr. win in the 2000 general election (though Al Gore won the popular vote). Cheney, Wolfowitz et al knew they needed an excuse for invasion, however, since "Americans are still suffering from Vietnam hangover" as Wolfie once put it.  The event for springing into action occurred with 9/11 - and all the Bushies needed was an invention (WMD) to link Saddam to it - even if it was all bullshit.

Will the Reepos learn from their mistakes? I doubt it as they haven't yet. Nor will they if elected. As Joan Walsh points out in a piece on Rubio at

Rubio’s been trying to challenge Bush for neocon support. Check out his campaign tagline — “Join Marco’s Fight For A New American Century!” – which suggests homage to the Project for a New American Century, peddlers of the Iraq war (Jeb Bush signed their founding document.)"

One can only hope voters next year will be brighter than these dim bulbs!

See also:

No comments: