Sunday, October 21, 2007

[not-so-] trivial pursuit: okay, which of these guys is the PRESIDENT? and which one is the VICE president?

while george w. bush was holding an owl,
and later, fishing on the chesapeake, today. . .

[or linked here].

this very same sunday morning, vice president
dick cheney
was busily-slathering up a hip-
deep-layer of foreign policy agit-prop, the
goal of which seems to be to justify military
action against iran.

and soon.

here's a quote from cheney's speech:
. . .The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record. And now, of course, we have the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. The Security Council has twice imposed sanctions on Iran and called on the regime to cease enriching uranium. Yet the regime continues to do so, and continues to practice delay and deception in an obvious attempt to buy time.

Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region -- including direct involvement in the killing of Americans -- our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions.

The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. . .

America looks forward to the day when Iranians reclaim their destiny; the day that our two countries, as free and democratic nations, can be the closest of friends. . .

okay -- again -- who is the actual president?

the guy quoted above, or this guy?

s h e e s h.

it would be comical, if it weren't
so entirely tragic. . .

[not that i have anything
against owls, or fishing -- no,
it is the zombied-out chicken-
of a vice president i abhor.

it seems the new york times is on it, too.]

No comments: