Bush's Resignation Speech

DeepGreen · June 25, 2008

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maineiac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Now some of you morons are considering another and more evil Clinton for president !!!! Go figure that one!! She wants to take your kids away and let the 'Whole Village' raise them! i.e. governmental indoctrination .. Look this one up you dumb asses!

The rest of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan, a nucular ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to reelect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nucular weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

UNTflyer · June 25, 2008

Bush doesn't care what people think of him... he doesn't even attempt to defend himself. His mind is set on doing his job, protecting the American people.

Not one major terrorist attack against American interests since 9/11/01. No embassy bombed, no ship attacked, no plane hijacked, no building blown up. And he did it without me having to give up one single right. I can still call him an asshole, and I can still refuse to worship any God. I can still own a gun. No troops were quartered in my house. I still have 4th amendment protection and 5th amendment privilege, and if I were put on trial I still get a trial by jury. I can still call him an asshole, again. I can still work, play, and live as I choose.

Love him or hate him, the man has done his job.

Green Mean · June 25, 2008

Love him or hate him, the man has done his job.

I disagree...The chances of another attack happening on U.S. soil etc was slim to none anyway regardless who was president. He and administration practically lied to the world about Iraq's WMD. The whole Guantanamo thing was very wheels off as well. The spending on defense I thought was too much. Instead I would like to see that money start a healthcare sytem here. I am not a republican nor democrat nor have anything personal against Bush but anybody who thinks he was good or did his job well is way off in my opinion.

Censored by Laurie · June 25, 2008

Bush doesn't care what people think of him... he doesn't even attempt to defend himself. His mind is set on doing his job, protecting the American people.
Not one major terrorist attack against American interests since 9/11/01. No embassy bombed, no ship attacked, no plane hijacked, no building blown up. And he did it without me having to give up one single right. I can still call him an asshole, and I can still refuse to worship any God. I can still own a gun. No troops were quartered in my house. I still have 4th amendment protection and 5th amendment privilege, and if I were put on trial I still get a trial by jury. I can still call him an asshole, again. I can still work, play, and live as I choose.
Love him or hate him, the man has done his job.

On 9/11 I purchased this Japanese Peace Lily. I have not been attacked by terrorists...

or Bengal Tigers, African Killer Bees, 7th Day Adventists, the Grizzly bear that killed Timothy Treadwell, Milton Bradley, crazed Yankee fan with her car, pit bulls (thanks FFR) housed at Bad Newz Kennels, ecoli aquired through neither spinach nor tomatos, femine-named Hurricanes or headless zombies.

God Bless that Japanese Peace Lily

Edited June 25, 2008 by Censored by Laurie

meangreenacct · June 25, 2008

On 9/11 I purchased this Japanese Peace Lily. I have not been attacked by terrorists...
or Bengal Tigers, African Killer Bees, 7th Day Adventists, the Grizzly bear that killed Timothy Treadwell, Milton Bradley, crazed Yankee fan with her car, pit bulls (thanks FFR) housed at Bad Newz Kennels, ecoli aquired through neither spinach nor tomatos, femine-named Hurricanes or headless zombies.
God Bless that Japanese Peace Lily

Pure greatness.

UNTflyer · June 25, 2008

Interesting... so you claim that Bush's policy of actually fighting terrorist groups and state sponsors of terrorism played no part whatsoever in the sudden and historic drop in terrorist attacks against U.S. targets around the world?

While your peace lilly analogy is cute, it certainly does nothing to disprove causality.

I think it is quite clear, and certainly not a stretch of logic to claim, that killing terrorists, destroying governments that sponsor terrorism, and freezing the assets of so-called Muslim "charities" that funnel money to terrorists has led to fewer terrorist attacks.

Edited June 25, 2008 by UNTflyer

Green Mean · June 25, 2008

Interesting... so you claim that Bush's policy of actually fighting terrorist groups and state sponsors of terrorism played no part whatsoever in the sudden and historic drop in terrorist attacks against U.S. targets around the world?
While your peace lilly analogy is cute, it certainly does nothing to disprove causality.
I think it is quite clear, and certainly not a stretch of logic to claim, that killing terrorists, destroying governments that sponsor terrorism, and freezing the assets of so-called Muslim "charities" that funnel money to terrorists has led to fewer terrorist attacks.

Its maybe helped a little but at what cost? Do you really think that these "charities" have stopped? If you really think so then you are very naive and believe everything you see on TV. I bet there are more things like that have been created since the attack on Iraq. And another successful attack on U.S. soil was highly unlikely. Do you know that there are threats on the U.S. everyday? And it did not start after 9/11. It has been going on for decades and decades.

EagleD · June 25, 2008

I think it is quite clear, and certainly not a stretch of logic, to claim that killing terrorists, destroying governments that sponsor terrorism, and freezing the assets of so-called Muslim "charities" has led to fewer terrorist attacks.

I could be wrong here, but I believe the person responsible for the 9/11 attacks is still out roaming free. But I'm sure it has nothing to do with the close relationship between the Bush family and the binLaden's. Also, the Taliban is on the rise again in Afghanistan, helped I'm sure by the escape of 200-300 prisoners thought to be Taliban members. Yeah, Bush is doing a hell of a job.

UNTflyer · June 25, 2008

I could be wrong here, but I believe the person responsible for the 9/11 attacks is still out roaming free. But I'm sure it has nothing to do with the close relationship between the Bush family and the binLaden's. Also, the Taliban is on the rise again in Afghanistan, helped I'm sure by the escape of 200-300 prisoners thought to be Taliban members. Yeah, Bush is doing a hell of a job.

Actually, the person who planned and was responsible for 9/11 is sitting in a cell in Guantanamo.

And I wouldn't exactly say the Taliban is "on the rise" in Afghanistan, but let's not let facts get in the way of good hyperbole.

Still walking around with that signature? I'd think you would have updated it by now since it was pretty much discredited.

yyz28 · June 25, 2008

...Milton Bradley...

See, I was attacked by Milton Bradley... TWICE... since 9/11. ...but I've got NO LILY! I wish I knew then what I know now...

yyz28 · June 25, 2008

$12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth.

ugh... the federal department of education has a $69,000,000,000 budget for 2009, which is a fraction of what is spent at the state and local level on education in THIS COUNTRY ALONE. ...yet we're still chunin' out dunces at a rather alarming rate, and do so no matter what party is in power.

That's some fuzzy math strategery goin' on in your sig there bro...

Edited June 25, 2008 by yyz28

Green Mean · June 25, 2008

Actually, the person who planned and was responsible for 9/11 is sitting in a cell in Guantanamo.
And I wouldn't exactly say the Taliban is "on the rise" in Afghanistan, but let's not let facts get in the way of good hyperbole.
Still walking around with that signature? I'd think you would have updated it by now since it was pretty much discredited.

Yes he was one of the masterminds caught but everybody knows the leader of the pact is Osama. Thats just a useless arguement. Oh so the Taliban are not on the rise? Well they certainly are not dying are they? Not to mention just think how many other Taliban/Al Qaida type groupls have been formed and/or have gotten stronger since 9/11. People just have to accept that he has done an awful job as being president in his 8 years. Most republicans will admit that Bush is an idiot and his administration has been god awful.

emmitt01 · June 25, 2008

Interesting... so you claim that Bush's policy of actually fighting terrorist groups and state sponsors of terrorism played no part whatsoever in the sudden and historic drop in terrorist attacks against U.S. targets around the world?
While your peace lilly analogy is cute, it certainly does nothing to disprove causality.
I think it is quite clear, and certainly not a stretch of logic to claim, that killing terrorists, destroying governments that sponsor terrorism, and freezing the assets of so-called Muslim "charities" that funnel money to terrorists has led to fewer terrorist attacks.

Osama Bin Laden is in which cell in Guantanamo Bay?

Don't worry....I'll wait..........................

Surely we should have found him by now...we found the weapons of mass destruction........................

Wait, we didn't find those either? Oh, ok, I can understand the mix up since we don't have the world's most advanced and well funded intelligence network.....

What's that you say? We do. Damn. At least we got his friend Sadam Hussein, you know, cuz we proved the positive link between the two men.

Struck out on that one too huh? 8-years well spent if you ask me.

And for the record, on 9/11 I put a post it note on my car that said "Please don't steal my stuff" and then kicked a puppy. Since that day nobody has burglarized my vehicle. I deserve a Nobel Prize or something. Couldn't be a coincidence...or just the result of me taking asinine action against a "culprit" that had nothing to do with motor vehicle burglary. Nope, must've been the post it note.

emmitt01 · June 25, 2008

Most republicans will admit that Bush is an idiot and his administration has been god awful.

Want proof? Tell me how closely John McCain will align himself and/or his policy promises this upcoming election.

FirefightnRick · June 25, 2008

Too many short memories.

:no:

FirefightnRick · June 25, 2008

Want proof? Tell me how closely John McCain will align himself and/or his policy promises this upcoming election.

I'm not exactly sure how close McCain will align himself with Bush's policies, but I bet it would be closer than Al Gore would have aligned himself with Bill Clinton's.

Rick

BeanCounterGrad'03 · June 25, 2008

Too many short memories.

That's on the Republicans' wish list this fall.

emmitt01 · June 26, 2008

Too many short memories.

Rick, you know I respect you more than most (hell, all save a few) on this board. That said, though, tell me how questioning whether our current administration is effectively going after those responsible for terrorism, and those they said they were after, means that anyone has forgotten the atrocities of 9/11.

Better yet, let me illustrate it this way. If there was a child molester loose on my beat there would be a natural public outcry for the police to do something. I could institute a "no exceptions" curfew for all children...they get bused to school, bused home, and don't leave their homes otherwise...and then went out and arrested every person within 10 miles of my beat with a criminal history even suggesting child abuse. I guarantee you that the child molestation would stop. Oh yeah, and if you question my methods I'll just say that "You don't care about children", that you have "forgotten" those children who were violated. And every parent would feel so much better. But have I actually solved the problem? Have I caught the real bad guy?

Call me an optimist, or overly demanding, but I want Justice done the right way.

Come November I think we'll see that many many Americans agree...and not even because they like Barack Obama mind you, they'll be voting for the "anything new" candidate.

meangreenacct · June 26, 2008

Rick, you know I respect you more than most (hell, all save a few) on this board. That said, though, tell me how questioning whether our current administration is effectively going after those responsible for terrorism, and those they said they were after, means that anyone has forgotten the atrocities of 9/11.
Better yet, let me illustrate it this way. If there was a child molester loose on my beat there would be a natural public outcry for the police to do something. I could institute a "no exceptions" curfew for all children...they get bused to school, bused home, and don't leave their homes otherwise...and then went out and arrested every person within 10 miles of my beat with a criminal history even suggesting child abuse. I guarantee you that the child molestation would stop. Oh yeah, and if you question my methods I'll just say that "You don't care about children", that you have "forgotten" those children who were violated. And every parent would feel so much better. But have I actually solved the problem? Have I caught the real bad guy?
Call me an optimist, or overly demanding, but I want Justice done the right way.
Come November I think we'll see that many many Americans agree...and not even because they like Barack Obama mind you, they'll be voting for the "anything new" candidate.

Or we could pay the equivalent of militia's money for every per they arrest who they say are child molestor's and then we could lock all of them up indefinitely based solely on their word. Surely that would just make the problem go away.

UNTflyer · June 26, 2008

Emmitt, I respect and like you. We've hung out and I always come to say hi when I see you at Mean Green events. But I respectfully disagree with you.

al-Qaeda declared war on us, when Clinton was President. The only solution is to knock them down until they don't get up again. They will not surrender, and they will not negotiate.

The 9/11 Commission found that there were attempts between Iraq and al-Qaeda to form a partnership. Everyone focused on one sentence: "...no collaborative relationship..." However the same report said that al-Qaeda and Iraq met several times in an attempt to form just such a relationship. Given what happened on 9/11, that was enough justification to invade Iraq. Not to mention the almost weekly pot shots they took at our planes since the Gulf War, the attempted assassination of a former President, the funding of Hamas and PLO terrorists, the refusal to comply with 17 U.N. Resolutions, the constant stonewalling of UN weapons inspectors, UN Resolution 678 authorizing force against Iraq, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (signed by Bill Clinton), the fact that he DID have WMDs at one time and used them against Iran and his own people.... we could go on and on. Iraq was a menace, and was deemed a menace long before Bush became President.

BTW, about those WMDs... we found 1.2 tons of enriched uranium and lots of centrifuges shortly after the war began, a story that has long been forgotten. Iraq clearly had a nuclear weapons program, feeble as it was. And we did find sarin gas and mustard gas missiles, even though they were old and pretty much useless. With these facts in hand, I don't think you can say that Bush (and every other intelligence agency in the western world) was completely wrong about the WMDs.

Incidentally, I DO NOT LIKE BUSH. He is weak on illegal immigration, energy, and foreign trade policies. And I do have issues with the war. My problem with it is not that we invaded Iraq, it's that the whole war plan was crap. We expected to go in there, take out Saddam, mop up for a month or so, and it would be over. What we should have done was roll across the border, set up a perimeter along the border of Iran, and slowly tighten the noose around Baghdad. We should have arrested Mookie when he started his sectarian violence.

But again, I fail to see how you can say that killing terrorists, knocking out their support from state-sponsors of terrorism, and putting a crimp in their flow of money has had no impact on the drop in terror attacks against American interests.

UNTflyer · June 26, 2008

Or we could pay the equivalent of militia's money for every per they arrest who they say are child molestor's and then we could lock all of them up indefinitely based solely on their word. Surely that would just make the problem go away.

We're not holding people there indefinitely. Of the 775 prisoners that have been checked into Camp X-Ray, 420 have been released. Another 50 or so are cleared to be released, but not one country will accept them. We are pretty certain that a lot of them are terrorists, but we don't have the evidence to put them on trial. Incidentally, the Pentagon says 36 of those who have been released have returned to terrorist organizations.

KingDL1 · June 26, 2008

Flyer you should know better then confuse people with facts and reality, they are only worried about the headlines and the spin. It would not matter what Bush did the media would hammer him. The liberals would make up more shit just to throw him under the bus.

In most cases even if you had video tape and absolute proof that a person's allegiance to the liberal point of view is based on pure spin, fabrication, and flat-out lies they would still tell you that you are wrong.

The sad situation is reality and facts have no point in the libs point of view, they just make up a story to fit their needs. Just as show in the Peace Lily, and worse even is if presented to the liberal base they would swear that the lily thing was a fact.

GoMeanGreen1999 · June 26, 2008

The spending on defense I thought was too much. Instead I would like to see that money start a healthcare sytem here.

I don't much think we really want the government being in charge of a Healthcare system. We still can't figure out how to make Social Security last. I was a Bush supporter 8 years ago, but minus a couple of things here and there, he really hasn't done a whole lot in my mind. This next statement is really for a different thread in this forum, but I saw a report that showed when Bush took office, oil was $27 a barrel, and today it is $136. Nice in crease there in 8 years.

I have never understood why we stopped going after Bin Laden, which we knew was the main threat, to go back after Saddam again. If we had put the same resources into Bin Laden, that we did for Iraq, we wouldn't be wondering today where Bin Laden is.

Edited June 26, 2008 by GoMeanGreen1999

UNTflyer · June 26, 2008

I have never understood why we stopped going after Bin Laden, which we knew was the main threat, to go back after Saddam again. If we had put the same resources into Bin Laden, that we did for Iraq, we wouldn't be wondering today where Bin Laden is.

We know exactly where he is... or at least the general area. The Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan.

Censored by Laurie · June 26, 2008

For CBL:
Lisa, I'd like to BUY your rock.

I first looked for a picture of a rock but thought that would be to obvious and decided to give a nod to Simon Pegg. Also the term I learned that day from the Simpson's: Specious Reasoning

al-Qaeda declared war on us, when Clinton was President.
The 9/11 Commission found that there were attempts between Iraq and al-Qaeda to form a partnership. Everyone focused on one sentence: "...no collaborative relationship..." However the same report said that al-Qaeda and Iraq met several times in an attempt to form just such a relationship. Given what happened on 9/11, that was enough justification to invade Iraq. Not to mention the almost weekly pot shots they took at our planes since the Gulf War, the attempted assassination of a former President, the funding of Hamas and PLO terrorists, the refusal to comply with 17 U.N. Resolutions, the constant stonewalling of UN weapons inspectors, UN Resolution 678 authorizing force against Iraq, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (signed by Bill Clinton), the fact that he DID have WMDs at one time and used them against Iran and his own people.... we could go on and on. Iraq was a menace, and was deemed a menace long before Bush became President.
BTW, about those WMDs... we found 1.2 tons of enriched uranium and lots of centrifuges shortly after the war began, a story that has long been forgotten. Iraq clearly had a nuclear weapons program, feeble as it was. And we did find sarin gas and mustard gas missiles, even though they were old and pretty much useless. With these facts in hand, I don't think you can say that Bush (and every other intelligence agency in the western world) was completely wrong about the WMDs.
Incidentally, I DO NOT LIKE BUSH. He is weak on illegal immigration, energy, and foreign trade policies. And I do have issues with the war. My problem with it is not that we invaded Iraq, it's that the whole war plan was crap. We expected to go in there, take out Saddam, mop up for a month or so, and it would be over. What we should have done was roll across the border, set up a perimeter along the border of Iran, and slowly tighten the noose around Baghdad. We should have arrested Mookie when he started his sectarian violence.
But again, I fail to see how you can say that killing terrorists, knocking out their support from state-sponsors of terrorism, and putting a crimp in their flow of money has had no impact on the drop in terror attacks against American interests.

First...lets not be so short-sighted. This "war:" did not start with the Clinton administration...this "war" started in the mid to late 1940s when we (the West) absolutly butchered the creation of the Zionist state of Israel by essentially removing the nation of Palestine and uprooting roughly 600,000 people. You'd probably have some animosity if someone took your country away from you too. Now before this gets posted...I'm not anti-Israel...but I am upset by the abortion of the job done by the U.N. (with strong Truman backing) in creating Israel and our continued blind support of Israel in their conflict with Palestine.

You call Hamas and the PLO "terrorist" organizations. Then are Aman and the Mossad not "terrorists" because they use American missles and weapons rather than suicide bombers? And since I know you love stats: 1, 2, 3. I'm not naive enough to believe that some or all of these sites may have an agenda...so I'll cede that at best we can call combatant, civilian and children deaths a wash.

Also...is that the wording in the 9/11 report? "al-Queda and Iraq met several times"? That doesn't seem the least bit vague. I'm sorry but I have a difficult time believing that a paranoid and controlling dictator like Saddam would yield any control over his country by welcoming in a group like al-Queda...but of course I wasn't there.