Or, Perhaps Bush Is Not Lying This One Time When He Says He Is Not Planning An Immediate New Invasion

For about the first time in about seven years, I find myself agreeing that Bush is possibly telling the truth (to the extent that he is capable of it) when he says that he has no immediate plans to invade Iran. After all, he knows (or at least should know if he bothers to read the data regarding the total number of our men and women in uniform) that the minimum necessary number of trained and equipped combat troops are simply not available, let alone on short notice.

Granted, he may want to invade. He probably does despise or fear the Iranians since he seems to despise or fear anyone who doesn’t believe he should be Emperor of the World, but even Bush must recognize that mounting an attempted invasion or even military intervention in Iran would leave us critically under strength to fulfill our commitments elsewhere in the world, not to mention put guarding our installations at home in jeopardy.

It's puzzling then why Bush would seem to be deliberately, almost recklessly, provoking the Iranians by instilling in them a worry he may start yet another “pre-emptive” war as he did with Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush’s sudden planned deployment of about half our currently sailing nuclear carrier fleets at Iran’s very doorstep, not to mention the countless press briefings on supposed Iranian supplied weapon attacks on our troops and the possibility that Iran might someday have WMD, all add up to what sounds like yet another prelude to war.

Why then? Could it be that Bush is inciting the Iranians because he would welcome the opportunity for an excuse to use nuclear weapon if our ships that he has chosen to provocatively put in harms' way are attacked. It is almost as if he is siting them there because he wants someone to attack them (as former President Johnson did so he could have his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution allowing a major escalation in Vietnam). If even some two bit pirate or independent insurgent in a dingy fires a couple of rounds at our armadas, Bush could then announce he was "forced" to use nukes to "defend" the new task forces he is putting in the Gulf and Red Sea because he has insufficient "conventional" forces to stop them otherwise. I hate to be that paranoid about Bush's intentions, but he has proven in the past that he is capable of unimaginable excesses.

Of course, it is always possible that when Bush says he is not planning to invade, he is just lying to us and will do so regardless of whether we are ready or have enough troops. Unfortunately, our military prowess is always bigger in Bush’s imagination than it turns out to be in real life, especially as to "nation building" and territory occupying tasks. Perhaps he is simply taking another step proceeding with his and his fellow Neocons' early revealed intentions to sweep the Middle Eastern oil producing countries clear of anyone who might threaten supply.

Still, my gut says he might actually be telling the truth for once on this one issue. The problem with Bush's credibility on any subject is that he is seems to have a pathology against telling the truth. He often seems to be someone who lies even when he does not have to do so. Take for instance his response to the British 22% troop reduction in Iraq shortly after Bush had been telling Congress he needed to increase US troop strength by 16% in order to "win." His Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said in a press conference immediately afterwards that the British withdrawal was all part of the "plan." That would imply we no somehow longer needed the British troop for our Baghdad "surge." Unfortunately, the statements emanating from the White House and Ms. Rice so defy logic and common sense as to suggest she and her boss are outright prevaricating or, at least, trying to "BS" us with the usual automatic politician “spin” response.

If Bush had simply indicated he strongly disagreed with the Brits and preferred the maximum number of troops from all nations stay to support our "surge," we could have understood that. That would have merely meant Bush was not persuasive enough with Blair or that Blair bowed to Parliament pressure. Alternatively, if it was truly all part of the "plan," Bush have announced the Brit intention to withdraw before Blair did. That way, he could have said our own troop surge was needed precisely BECAUSE OF the British reduction. Instead, Bush and his Secretary of State spokeswoman tried to play games with our minds again.

It makes you wonder if they are really that stupid or just assume all of us are. Either way, Bush convinces me once again that, liar or not on a planned invasion of Iran, he needs to be stopped cold.



Challenging the Theory That We Must Stay in Iraq So Terrorism Won’t Come to America

Republican diehard Bush supporters contend that if we pull out of Iraq, the insurgents we’re fighting’ll follow us home and attack us here. The theory being, it is better to battle them “over there” than in the streets of Astoria or Portland. Just once though, wouldn’t it be nice if people making such assertions looked at history, facts or even logic before mouthing such simplitudes?

For instance, can those who constantly parrot the Bush position point to a single example of that ever happening to us before? It doesn’t seem to have occurred after any of our other wars in the last century or so. Where are the newspaper and textbook accounts of any demolitions, arsons, ambushes or anything else conducted by defeated Nazis or Ninjas anywhere in North America. After we smashed their entire civilizations, they certainly had reason to seek revenge or punishment, not to mention the technical knowhow to do so. Castro? North Koreans? They still don’t like us after half a lifetime, but they didn’t “follow us home.” Castro is only 90 miles away.

Might it make a difference if we are the ones defeated or who give up? Look at Lebanon in the 70s. When a Lebanese suicide truck bomber blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, Regan hastily tucked his tail between his legs and slunk out of town. Clinton did much the same in Somalia after Blackhawk down. When was the last time you heard of a followup by either Lebanese or Somali Muslims on this continent afterwards?

Those were relatively isolated incidents. We left quickly after just one major adverse confrontation. Does it make a difference if we leave after a long nasty conflict? Well, the Vietnam War was certainly comparable to what is happening in Iraq, more so all the time. We could look to it to see what might happen if we pulled out after essentially acknowledging either defeat or at least that it is not worth the cost. Almost everyone will admit the Viet Cong were tenacious, fierce insurgents who fought using terror tactics for literally decades. Name one example of where the victorious insurgents in that conflict followed us home.

Does that mean it is not possible? Of course not. The point is that the Iraqi insurgents could do so right now without having to wait. Thanks to an Administration that acts on wishes, a remarkably incompetent Homeland Security agency and a cheapskate Congress, an almost porous border exists. Pregnant women can walk across the border almost at will. What makes anyone think that’s a perfect defense against a stealthy terrorist? Worse, maybe one in ten thousand cargo containers docking in our ports are inspected. Put a nuke in any of them and a terrorist could touch off a bomb a few hundred feet from Wall Street. Hell, there is probably at least a one in ten chance that an uninspected weapon could be flown in on a FedEx plane if asked to pick up a package. Consequently, the terrorists don’t even need to come here.

Why haven’t they attacked so far? Good question, but it does not seem to have anything to do with inability to get here. Perhaps part of the answer lies in the statistics on violence in Iraq. They seem to be killing more of each other than us. If we leave Iraq, is that likely to diminish so that they could come after us alone? Is there any evidence of that in the past? Usually in similar situations, they seem to spend a long time fighting for power among themselves, then concentrating control once received and rebuilding after the consolidation. It typically takes years.

And, what happens after the rebuilding that’s distracting their attention and energy is finally successful? We could again look to our enemies in prior conflicts, whether Cold War or Brush Fire War. Look at our bitter foe Vietnam. Communist Vietnam has been now granted favored nation trading partner status with state visits by none other than Bush himself.

Should we be sanguine about the possibility of future terror attacks here? Never! At the same time, the next time a bellicose Republican starts spouting off about at least this particular justification for staying as an occupying belligerent in Iraq indefinitely, ask for an iota of proof. If not, let’s bury this bit of nonsense. Otherwise, we might end up getting more of our people killed than we might save.



Or, Trimming the Bushes Obscuring What Could or Should Be Done about Iraq

Possibly the most, certainly one of the most, pressing and divisive questions facing our country today is whether we should stay in Iraq or leave. If you believe the former, start with numbered paragraph 1 below for a way to ultimately determine whether that is a wise decision. If you believe the latter, start with numbered paragraph 8.

1. The current policy being pursued by the President, in its essence, seems to be simply adding approximately 21,000 military personnel to the 135,000 or so already there and staying there for an indefinite period conducting training and counter “insurgency” activities. If you favor that idea or are at least willing to investigate it further, proceed to paragraph 2. Keep in mind that even if you initially trust the President or any other “decider” for that matter, that does not excuse you as a citizen from exercising judgment of the decision, particularly when it is a literally life and death result at stake.

2. Begin with determining what are the potential benefits from the current “surge” policy as it is commonly called. Is it a prevention of civil war between one or more of the three Iraq religious factions? That would be a good thing. Is it an end to or at least substantial reduction of insurgency activities? An end to suicide bombers, kidnaping, mortar attacks and other terrorist activities in Iraq? Elimination of terrorist threats in allied countries? In America? Capture of Osama bin Laden? An end or at least substantial reduction of influence in predominately Shiite Iraq by predominately Shiite Iran and predominately Shiite Syria or other countries? A stable and/or democratic government capable of defending itself and rebuilding Iraq? A stable and/or democratic Middle Eastern region? Cheap oil? A permanent base for military and other operations in the regions? Significantly improved admiration, respect and/or at least fear of the US in Iraq or elsewhere? Prevention of nuclear weapons development by antagonist countries? Assuming there are any genuine potential benefits from the course of action under investigation, proceed to paragraph 3.

3. More important than the mere possibility of benefits is the question of how likely is it that each of the alleged benefits or goals will actually be accomplished by such a policy? It does not matter that we desire something in the abstract. Examples would be a perpetual motion machine or permanent peace in the ethnically and religiously divided Middle East. They are nice concepts, but not likely in our lifetimes, if at all. You should conduct a hard look to determine such likelihood. For some reason, that seems to be particularly difficult for Americans. Our particular view of history is that we will always prevail regardless of what history has to say on the subject when closely examined. The fact that we are almost as likely to be eaten by a shark in Nebraska as win the big lottery does not seem to deter us from gambling. Nevertheless, it will not help if we continue acting on wishes, assumptions, hope, ideology, arrogance, pride, or misinformation. Review each of the supposed benefits as to the realistic probabilities they will happen when the policy being considered is carried out. Assuming you ultimately conclude based upon real evidence that all, or perhaps any, of those proposed benefits are relatively likely if we continue pursuing the current White House policy, then skip to paragraph 6. If you are no longer as sure, proceed to paragraph 4.

4. If 21,000 additional boots on the ground, many to be “embedded” with Iraqi forces, are deemed by you to be insufficient to accomplish the desired goals, is there anything else that might achieve them? 100,000 troops? 1,000,000? Of course, if you start thinking that way, you must also answer the question of whether we have that many spare troops, especially the actual combat ones as opposed to support troops who typically outnumber ground pounders ten to one? Remember, we only count less than a million and a half military on active duty in the entire world at the moment. It is any easy confirmation on the internet with a Google or other search. So, do we need a draft? Factor in how long it will take to train them. Will other counties or the UN willingly supply all that is necessary? Are they interested in the same results as we are? Do they want that oil for themselves? Would they like us taken down a peg or two? Are they courting some of the other players such as Iran? Okay, how about then bringing in more pure mercenaries hired by our mercenary companies like Blackwater instead? Be sure to consider the effect though if they are not governed by our morals, ethics, or laws. Same issue on timing too. Can we train the new Iraq troops to adequately do the job? If so, can we do so before the American voter runs out of patience, not to mention can such newly trained Iraqi soldiers stay loyal to a national government instead of sectarian groups? How will they be used? Will it matter if electricity, jobs, schools, and other infrastructure are not restored and remain secure? If the answer to any of the forgoing is no, how about splitting Iraq to separate the warring factions? Monetary bribes perhaps? To whom? Bigger rewards for bringing in villains? Given what we are already offering, do we have enough money in the Treasury? Are we likely to interest anyone in accepting even if offered? Would more diplomacy work? That does not seem to have been tried. How about returning to a semblance of neutrality regarding Israel and Palestine issues? Sacrificing Israel? Everything is on the table for the purpose of analyzing alternative routes as to whether they would have any chance at success. Would that buy Iraq friends? How about nuking Iran? Would that eliminate an enemy or just create new ones? How about permanent relocation or internment or maybe just outright genocide of one or more of the groups in Iraq? Offering the testicles of Bush and Cheney? Be creative. We are not discussing morality at this point, but mere feasibility. Morality and legality are a second level for elimination of any particular alternative. Go to paragraph 5 now.

5. If any likely new possibilities or alternate policies present themselves to you as potentially successful avenues for accomplishing the chosen goals you are articulating, then you can determine if they are permissible to be implemented. If they are still viable after consideration of applicable laws and still acceptable to you based on your morality and ethics, proceed to paragraph 6. If not, proceed to paragraph 8 (because at this point you have in essence concurred in a choice to leave rather than stay.)

6. Assuming any of the proposed benefits are genuinely likely, what are they worth? Values must be assigned. Assigning value will be tough. For instance, how much is a live trained solider worth versus a dead one? Be sure to count all the future earnings and children and happiness they could create if not killed or mangled in Iraq carrying out the President’s current policy. It is tough, but not impossible to assign dollar values to human suffering. Courts and juries do it all the time. For the moment, ignore the dead Iraqi citizens, even the women and children being constantly killed. That is a moral/legal question unless we are paying money to the relatives of the dead civilians as we do when it is a “friendly fire” situation. For the most part though, at the moment, we are only discussing direct costs to American citizens either as treasury expenditures or lost opportunity costs. The bottom line is you are trying to decide the potential costs to achieve the stated goals and whether we can afford it. In addition to the obvious increase in deaths and wounds to our soldiers and treasury dollars going to Iraq, what about the costs to the active duty military in terms of morale, recruiting and readiness to respond to other crisis? What about such costs to the National Guard and the Reserves, not to mention equipment replacement and re-training? What about the costs to our economy, social programs, oil energy independence, global warming? What about the costs to civil liberties elsewhere? Civil liberties here? Those are a bit more intangible, but still quantifiable to a certain extent in terms of dollars. Same for the adverse effect on our international credibility, prestige, trust and respect. Those affect whether or not other nations contribute to this and future causes and whether they agree to future proposed treaties such as NAFTA. Equally important, although again hard to put an exact dollar figure on, what will be the effect internally concerning credibility, prestige, trust and respect for American institutions such as the three branches of government and our two party system? What will it do to our national morale and stalemates? How about our willingness to remain involved in international affairs? Will corruption and its fallout increase? Will prices go up? An atmosphere of hypocrisy, lack of honor or morals, might tend to increase government spending losses and waste due to corruption for instance. Worse yet, are we increasing the number of those inclined to be terrorists? Will we further destabilize friendly or former friendly regimes in the area or elsewhere? Will moderation in tactics disappear? Will it make nuclear proliferation more likely or more likely for their use against us? Are the increased number of spawned terrorists likely to ultimately attack the US or just our offices and people abroad? What will be the costs of future 9/11s? How many can we afford? Ask the insurance industry. Ask the municipalities. Can we actually make our borders impregnable? How and at what expense? Again the effort should be to analyze all costs and consequences including the intangible ones. The analysis should be a sober one based on hard facts and figures to the extent possible, but add in some extra amounts as a contingency for the unknowns that usually are discovered too late and the unintended consequences that so often occur. Proceed to paragraph 7.

7. What would happen if we are precipitously kicked out of town and opposed to an orderly withdrawal? Review the history books for a starting point. This step is to insure “Plan Bs” exist and that they too are analyzed. For instance, do we want to leave behind a large stock pile of modern weapons in the hands of those who don’t like us as we did in Vietnam? Look what happened when we merely left Saddam’s ammo dumps unguarded and that was relatively low tech outdated stuff that could be used against us. What if our modern tank and smart bomb arsenals are seized or left behind? Now, proceed to paragraph 9.

8. If you believe leaving is the necessary or desired route, you must decide between a quick and a fast pullout. For each, you need to apply the same analysis as above regarding what are the potential benefits and their individual likelihood. The same for what are the respective costs and their respective likelihood. Presumably, pulling out earlier would result in less troop loss and less money spent than pulling out later. It is also presumed that pulling out would “embolden” the enemy and increase bombing here. These are all mere presumptions though for discussion purposes and more in depth determinations should be made to see if it actually does make a difference. Neither the dreaded “dominos falling” nor increased terrorist attacks occurred here after the fall of South Vietnam. The Viet Cong certainly had the terrorist know-how to do so, but the end of the war was the end of aggression toward us. They were apparently too busy in other things. Would that be true of Iraq? Is the mere sight of our uniforms in Iraq inflammatory? Would they bother to travel to this country to continue blowing themselves up out of pure revenge or would they tend to be more occupied with rebuilding in a best case scenario or destroying each other in a worse case scenario? From the casualty counts, it is sure looking like they like to blow each other up more than us, at least at the moment. Perhaps some investigation should be made into whether even the 9/11 attack was truly an attack on our “values” or merely to get us to “butt out” of an internal dispute in Saudi Arabia in which a rival faction wanted to diminish the ruling family’s protector. (Don’t forget the nationalities of Osama and most of the hijackers. Forgetting things like that can distort analysis.) We probably would have stayed in Saudi Arabia anyway, but the issue is the real motivation. After the same sort of analysis to determine first benefits of leaving and then costs, proceed to paragraph 9.

9. As always should be done, compare the costs to the achievable benefits. Be liberal on the side of costs and conservative on the side of potential benefits. The goal is to achieve a cost/benefit ratio greater than 1. If the value of the benefits does not exceed the costs, don’t do it. Try another route. If all the choices generate a negative ratio result, proceed, with a heavy sigh, to paragraph 10.

10. At one point in time, we had many options including to not invade Iraq at all. We are long past that point. Blame should be assigned and punishment enacted for any grossly incompetent or even criminal decisions that got us to where we are, BUT merely because the only decisions left are excruciatingly painful ones does not excuse us from making a new decision, albeit one literally a “Hobbsian Choice.” In any event, if the costs will exceed the potential benefits under every single alternative, then the last issue is comparing the various cost/benefit ratios to each other. If leaving is even marginally less a disaster than the disaster of staying, you are relegated to choosing the lesser of the two evils. Could have beens, would have beens, no longer have a place. Reality must trump desire.

The foregoing is what is known as a “decision tree,” albeit one with regretfully fewer and fewer branches available regarding Iraq. Utilization of decision trees is a common technique in business (and for many life choices as well whether recognized as such officially or not). The method is designed to maximize the return on the minimum investment or, in this case, to minimize the maximum losses, sometimes referred to as the MiniMax Principle.

What is not clear whether any official presently in the White House has bothered to employ it regarding the thorny problem of Iraq. If they won’t, you should. And, if you can’t get those in charge to adopt the least costly alternative, then you need to consider how to best truncate those in charge and bud in their place someone who will. That decision too is amenable to scaling the branches of yet another decision tree.



Or, Bush Should Picture the Opportunities for Even Worse Disaster in Iraq

Prior to invading Iraq, apparently all Bush could visualize in his mind’s eye was a photo op like the iconic one of Marines planting the flag on Mt. Suribachi. To insure a prominent place in the history books, he staged his own with the pretentious flight suit speech aboard a carrier while backdropped by the infamous (and ultimately ironic) “Mission Accomplished” banner. One wonders if he regrets now at least that particular bit of over the top arrogance and delusion.

Unfortunately, Bush proved incapable of visualizing the other potent photo opportunities that would start surfacing from the botched attempt at subjugating a now increasingly hostile populace. Flag draped row upon row of coffins, shrouded infant bodies awaiting burial in shallow dirt graves, crumpled headless bodies, blood splattered and dust covered soldiers gripping shattered limbs in agony, choking dust and crumpled car parts littering the landscape in aftermath of roadside explosions, handsome young boys and girls in silent slide shows of the deceased on PBS news, grieving mothers camped outside Bush’s fortress in Crawford, Texas - all unending and multiplying daily. That’s what happens when you only plan for the initial conquering and not the subsequent pacifying. That’s what happens when you put party hacks in charge who wish instead of plan. There are consequences from incompetence including plenty of photographs that will make it seem even worse. Now days, with a camera in almost every cell phone and lots of outlets to circulate them, the spreading images are uncontrollable.

True, there were “feel good” photos taken of newly rebuilt schools, but they are not as newsworthy the third time the same school must be rebuilt, especially when the photographers are afraid to attend the ceremony fearing it a likely suicide bomber target. Yeah, there was the interesting picture of purple fingered voters who promptly proceeded to, democratically, vote for replacing the nasty Sunni minority with the equally nasty Shiite majority. The Sunnis then sought for a recount with mortar shot at mosques. None of those resulting shots, either digital or explosive, were ones Bush was hoping would appear in the news. Similarly, there were the traditional and innumerable photos of grinning US troops tossing gum and candy to the clutching fingers of local children trooping around. Invariably cute. Heart warming even. Now though, the receding image as the trucks roll on past is, as often as not, of the same kids with suddenly upraised middle fingers pointing at the camo covered backs of our men. In a way, the young Iraqi too are voting with their fingers and it’s all caught on camera.

Since Bush seems Hell bent on continuing without real hope of success at accomplishing any of his stated goals, let’s hope he doesn’t forget that one even more unsettling famous photo, the one showing hundreds of desperate people climbing a shaky rooftop ladder scrambling to be on the last helicopter out of Saigon. Since Bush did not plan for the “peace,” it’s unlikely he has planned for the possibility of defeat either. Secretary of State Rice admitted as much by stating they were not even considering a “Plan B” to the new“surge” initiative that is supposed to “win” for us.

Must we repeat every aspect of the fiasco we went through in Vietnam? Will we witness brand new photos of perilous rooftop rescues?

More importantly, in Vietnam, that precipitous exodus left a vast store of our military equipment in that civil war torn Southeast Asian country. Some contemporary estimates said it automatically made communist Vietnam the fourth best equipped military in the world. What will an even better equipped hostile Iraq be or do?

Has Bush thought about the consequences of being forced to suddenly abandon the vast inventory of sophisticated, “state of the art” night vision tanks and depleted uranium tipped ammunition for instance? You can’t move it all in a day. If that enormous arsenal dump in Iraq is ever left in the control of a country tilting toward Iran, Syria and/or Palestine and if it is used against Israel, wouldn’t that be an incredible irony? Imagine the resulting photo shot of a former US Abrahams tank emblazoned with a freshly painted Crescent and parked atop the rubble of the Israeli Knesset?

It is obvious that Bush does not care much for laws, but perhaps he should at least study up on the Law of Unintended Consequences before there is the last photo of Bush skulking or, worse yet (from his perspective at least), being hauled out of the White House.



Or, How to Solve the Illegal Immigrant and Indolent Aristocracy Problem at the Same Time

Ya know, as I listen to all the facile “solutions” debated by office seeking politicians and spittle spewing pundits in their 30-second unilateral sound bites regarding what they term the “illegal immigration problem,” it occurs to me that there is potential alternative that can actually address the concerns of both camps in this controversy.

The “keep ‘em out” crowd says there are too many immigrants taking up jobs, costing the government money for health care, etc. In fact, many of this persuasion insist there are too many people in this country period. They claim we should make it even more difficult to enter by building a huge fence and obstacle course blocking their way.

The other side claims that anyone who unstoppably goes through such hurdles, barriers and difficulties is exactly what this county needs. Dedicated, hard working, family oriented people willing to do anything to get here and do whatever is necessary to stay.

When contemplating the dilemma, I can’t help but remember the obstacle courses from my army basic training days. They made us run them to turn us into better, stronger soldiers and it worked.

So, let’s go ahead and build a spectacularly difficult obstacle course to get into this country that must be surmounted before you can hold a job or be a citizen. While we are at it though, let’s also impose a 100% estate tax and transport every teenager outside our borders on their 21st birthday. Or, maybe just tell them they can’t come back from the Budweiser “Girls Gone Wild” Spring Break in Matzatlan.

Allot them food for a couple of days and, say, $20. Tell them that if they want to return, they must prove their future worth by running the gauntlet. They don’t get in otherwise and we live it to the smart tenacious ones to figure it out. The concept is that they don’t automatically get to have welfare or rely on inheritance or any other free ride merely because of where a sperm happened to fertilize an egg. Let everyone independently prove their worth by successfully scaling the obstacle course.

Since that would be merely a physical test of endurance and skill, maybe once they make it back here, they also should be required to pass the same basic knowledge tests as “legal” immigrants must do now before they can be full citizens and vote. If some one does not know, for instance, that there are three equal branches of government or that kings do not occupy the White House, then why should they be entrusted to figure out a voting machine?

It’s going to be tough on pampered rich kids likes the Bushes or the Kennedys who grew up feeling entitled suddenly being equalized. But, if they pass all the tests and obstacles, then even they deserve to be citizens.



Or, a Comparison of Molly Ivins and George Bush

The Wit

The Halfwit

Sexy Female

Former college Cheerleader

Genuine Texan (i.e. one who wear boots on which the only sh*t is found on the outside)

Erzatz Texan who likes to play dress up with cowboy hat and boot costumes

Spoke Texan whirling words like a whip

Flunked English and can’t even speak Texan

Drank with the Boys

Former drunk

Compassionate Liberal

Not even a real Conservative

Believed in the Golden Rule

Took gold in exchange for getting to rule

Proved that we ought to be eternally embarrassed for voting for most politicians

An eternal embarrassment

Brilliant humorist

Punch line of jokes

Made reading fun

Has trouble reading from a children’s book

Essence of wicked wisdom

As Molly said, “doesn’t have the wisdom God gave a duck” but indulges in wickedness

Knew how to curse

Deserved to be cursed

Proved not every Texan is a cartoon

World’s greatest inspiration for cartoons

The very definition of a true Patriot (the kind the Founding Fathers and Mothers were in 1176)

Puzzled as to what actual patriotism means

Not afraid of either combat or the press

Hides out from even questions and only knows about combat from sending others to die

Says what she means and means what she says

We only need to remember how his bills are titled and what they are really designed to accomplish

Disarms even enemies

Recruits and arms future enemies

Big hearted and friendly of all

Fair weather friend (just ask Scooter Libby)

Honest about politics

Dishonest politician

Insights so sharp they could cut saddle leather

Can’t tell an armadillo from his a**hole

Proves investigative journalism is never dull


Always known for taking on “bidnez”

Always lost money for his businesses

Should have been President

Stole the Presidency

National Treasure

Robs the National Treasury

Akin to a Suarro Cactus

Barely a shrub

Was a hero to the end

Played one on TV

Sadly deceased in her early 60's

Sadly still Prez in his early 60's

Mourned by one and all

What would Molly say?

Who will hold the mirror up to the naked Emperor now?