Sunday, August 14, 2005

Why should I believe a proven liar?

A Rethuglican tool has whined at me, "why do you automatically disbelieve anything that our President says?" when I pooh-pooh the propaganda that all the problems in Iraq are the fault of foreign jihadis.

Well, I have a policy: I don't believe the word of proven liars and incompetents until I see proof otherwise that they're *still* not liars and incompetents.

I'll admit it, the Busheviks fooled me about that whole weapons of mass destruction deal. I really did think that Iraq had chemical weapons. (Didn't see any big deal about it, given the many problems with effectively using chemical weapons, but I believed them when they said Saddam had them).

Of course, we all know how many weapons of mass destruction Saddam *REALLY* had, now... none. NADA. Not a single WMD has been found in Iraq. And that ain't me talking. That's the U.S. government. No WMD. None. Nada. Now, whether you say it's because the Busheviks lied, or were just incompetent, I gotta say this: Why do you think they're any more competent today than they were in 2002 when they were claiming that Iraq was brimming, just brimming I say, with weapons of mass destruction in every basement!

Where's the fuckin' WMD's, you moron Bush worshippers? Where's those fuckin' WMD's?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, I'd have to be a stupid motherfucker to believe a damned thing you tell me. I'll believe in these foreign jihadis the moment that Donald Rumsfeld parades one of their dead bodies across my television screen and CNN is interviewing the dead man's Mom in Jordan or Saudi Arabia or etc... until then, I call bullshit.

- Badtux the Once-Fooled Penguin


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. I didn't even believe in the WMD lies because of the various articles I'd read. Sanctions and no fly zones created a hardship on the Iraqis, no matter how much Saddam supposedly siphoned off the oil for food revenues.

    I agree with your question! The proven liars have shown, many times, that they cannot be trusted. As you say, even if they did have chemical weapons, what's the big deal? How many weapons do we have? How can the other countries trust US when we go and "shock and awe" (bomb the hell out of) a third world country we'd kept sactioned for 10 (or so) long years?

  3. I also didn't buy the WMD arguments, but I can definitely see where someone might have. What's driving me nuts is that the hardcore wingnuts are still insisiting that we HAVE found WMDs in Iraq. Their white-knuckled grip on their own fantasyland is truly mind boggling.

  4. Yeah, they even think Bush's hand-picked WMD investigator (Duelfer) is lying to them when he says that Saddam had neither a WMD program nor WMD stockpiles at the time he was overthrown. It's mind-boggling.


Ground rules: Comments that consist solely of insults, fact-free talking points, are off-topic, or simply spam the same argument over and over will be deleted. The penguin is the only one allowed to be an ass here. All viewpoints, however, are welcomed, even if I disagree vehemently with you.

WARNING: You are entitled to create your own arguments, but you are NOT entitled to create your own facts. If you spew scientific denialism, or insist that the sky is purple, or otherwise insist that your made-up universe of pink unicorns and cotton candy trees is "real", well -- expect the banhammer.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.