Monthly Archive

You’ll All Pay #19

© 2004 Joe Conat

Michigan Senate Bill No. 972.

Evil. Pure, unadulterated, undiluted EVIL!

Bad enough George W. Bush has announced his intention to promote marginalization of homosexuals in regard to marriage IN THE CONSTITUTION, but Michigan’s House has passed a bill that allows DOCTORS to refuse to treat homosexual patients and NOT BE SUED FOR IT!

The bill states: Sec. 5. (1) A health care provider may assert as a matter
of conscience an objection to providing or participating in a
health care service that conflicts with his or her sincerely held
religious or moral beliefs.

(2) A health care provider shall notify his or her employer
in writing of a conscientious objection described in subsection
(1).

(3) A health care provider may assert his or her
conscientious objection under any of the following conditions:
(a) Upon being offered employment.
(b) At the time the health care provider adopts a religious
or moral belief system that conflicts with participation in a
health care service.
(c) At any other time the health care provider considers it
necessary to assert a conscientious objection.
(d) Within 24 hours after receiving notice that he or she may
be asked or scheduled to participate in a health care service to
which he or she conscientiously objects. If the health care
provider is given less than 24 hours’ notice that he or she has
been scheduled to participate in an objectionable health care
service, the health care provider shall assert an objection,
either orally or in writing, as soon as it is practicable.

Earlier, it says:

(c) “Health care service” means the provision or withdrawal
of, or research or experimentation involving, a medical
treatment, procedure, device, medication, drug, or other
substance intended to affect the physical or mental condition of
an individual.

Okay, fine. Doctors can say, in essence (since this is what they appear to be driving at anyway) “I don’t wanna do an abortion, I find it morally wrong and you can’t sue me.”

Further it says:

Sec. 11. (1) The protections afforded to a health care
provider under this act do not apply under any of the following
circumstances:
(a) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to a
health care service if a patient’s condition, in the reasonable
medical judgment of an attending physician or medical director,
requires immediate action to prevent the death of that patient.
(b) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to
providing or participating in a health care service based on the
classification of a patient or group of patients protected under
the Elliot-Larsen civil rights act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101 to
37.2804, or based on a disease or other medical condition.
(c) A health care provider shall not make an objection known
to or in the presence of a patient who is or may be the subject
of the health care service to which the health care provider is
objecting.

So what’s the problem?

Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. (excerpted)

AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status…

What is NOT listed is “sexual orientation”.

So the doctor could, conceivably, say “I don’t wanna work on no homos and you can’t sue me” and be protected under the new law.

Let’s go over the Hippocratic Oath (modern version)

“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.”

The Oath does not allow a doctor to make distinctions based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. Is that clear? Nowhere in there does it say “except for those I find repugnant, creepy or those who make me uncomfortable”. Nowhere does it say “except for those with lifestyles I approve of”.

Refusal to treat anyone based on any such grounds is unforgivably vile. These are DOCTORS, they are supposed to be apart from such considerations in the practice of their craft! Any doctor who isn’t, who refuses to treat a patient for these reasons should be punished. It’s inhumane; it’s criminal negligence; IT JUST ISN’T DONE!

Until now.

I’m a native Michigander, I am now ashamed to admit. I was born and raised there. I have it ingrained deeply into my heart that the people I was raised around are the salt of the earth…the best there is, deep down.

I used to be annoyed…occasionally incensed…at the misapprehension of Midwesterners as “backwards hicks” and yokels. “We are just as progressive and educated as anyone out there! We are no different, certainly not dumber!”

I take it back. I take it all back. With the exception of my friends and family still trapped in Bizarro Land Michigan, I must now assume that the entire state is filled with backwards yahoos with their heads jammed so far up their behinds that it would take a TEAM of (hopefully tolerant) doctors and the Jaws of Life to remove them.

To my trapped friends and family I can only say: RUN! MOVE AWAY! GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!

My loathing and hatred for this bill is absolute. I am so mad…so disappointed…that I can barely articulate myself.

And how will the doctors know to refuse people? How will they know a patient is “morally disagreeable” to them? They can’t, according to the Oath, act upon their knowledge of a person’s sexuality or moral character. “I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”

So how will doctors determine what patients they will and will not treat without violating their oath? Will the legislature help them with that? Require a notation on their drivers’ licenses (”homosexual” next to “corrective lenses”)? Pink triangles pinned to their shirts? Tattoos?! How far are they going to go?

Doctors don’t get to choose. They swore it. It was a necessary part of assuming their profession. No patient is undeserving of care and compassion, no patient may be turned away. Doctors fulfill a role in society that they MUST live up to: they are impartial saviors. To fail at that, to abrogate that duty is a crime against humanity. And to make it LAW that they can…

It’s unspeakable.

It’s evil.

It’s too bad they didn’t stick with the classical version of the Hippocratic Oath, which ends:

“If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.”

May that last part befall the Michigan House.

You’ll all pay is written by Joe Conat. You can tell him he’s an obnoxious loudmouth here. He won’t be able to hear you over his own screaming in incoherent rage at the injustice of it all, but what the hell, right?

Like what you read? Want to know when there are updates? Click here.

You’ll All Pay #18

© 2004 Joe Conat

…or:

“Why I No Longer Watch Fox 11 L.A. Morning News”

Bob Woodward released his “tell-all” behind the scenes of the Iraq war book “Plan of Attack”. You might have heard this. It’s been all over the news. “Ooh, a BOOK!”

What hasn’t been all over the news, at least my morning news, is any sort of intensive response to the contents of the book.

I used to get up every morning to go to work and immediately click over to Fox 11 L.A. Jillian Barberie is cute and funny. Dorothy Lucey is annoying, but sometimes incoherent rage at the uselessness of that parasitic breed of “journalists” the Entertainment Reporter is better than coffee to get you bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and ready to kick someone’s ass. And Steve Edwards seemed a bright, stand-up guy who actually cared about truth in reporting.

Until Woodward’s book came out.

In the book Woodward alleges that President Bush shifted $700 million from the Afghanistan war to preparatory measures for a strike against Iraq…before he’d publically announced his intention to invade Iraq and apparently without Congressional approval.

In an on-air discussion with Dorothy Lucey (who knew she could read?) Mr. Edwards alluded to the other off-air reporters speculating that shifting funds in such a manner without the approval of Congress was illegal, unconstitutional or an impeachable offense.

When pressed for his opinion as a journalist, Edwards said (paraphrased) “I don’t think this is the time. We’re at war. We shouldn’t go after the leadership now.”

I find this appalling coming from a journalist. Aren’t they supposed to uncover the truth and report it to the public? If the truth has consequences, so be it. I wonder if Mr. Edwards was so vocally apathetic during Watergate? Or Iran-Contra?

But Mr. Edwards isn’t alone. In the days since the release of “Plan of Attack” Fox 11 may be the only local news broadcast I’ve heard the book even mentioned on. What is with TV journalism these days that they are such…cowards?

Well, okay. TV stations are owned by large conglomerates. These conglomerates are run by rich people who are benefitting from huge tax cuts for the rich given to them by the Bush administration. Support for Bush = mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money.

And so that support filters down. “Don’t tattle on the Pres” is the watchword for Fox, owned by News Corporation, and CBS, NBC, ABC…owned respectively by Viacom, General Electric and Disney. Giant companies all, with vast media holdings that funnel lots and lots of money into their shareholders and chief officers’ pockets. Money that those shareholders and officers want to keep, not give to the federal government.

So it’s a game of “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. “You let me keep my money and I won’t let my reporters tell the world what you did.”

News to any of you, dear readers? No, probably not. One would have to be singularly naïve to think that the situation was any different.

So why am I so mad?

There are areas in life where apathy, lassitude and disinterest should be…in my opinion, have to be…anathema. Police officers, firemen and –women, paramedics…they cannot afford to be apathetic or lazy or disinterested. Society depends on their commitment. Statesmen have to be interested in the betterment of the country or…what the hell are they doing there?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? “Who watches the watchmen?” In America it’s assumed that the average citizen watches the watchmen. We vote, we protest, we yell a lot if we think things are wrong. But your average schmoe doesn’t have the informational resources or the forum that your average journalist does. This includes everyone from the obit reporter in the Podunk Daily News to Dan Rather. Average citizens can yell…reporters can THUNDER!

There’s another saying I use a lot. “With great power comes great responsibility”. And I think the media have abrogated their responsibility. Why isn’t Ted Koppel screaming to the public about misappropriation of funds? Why isn’t Dan Rather doing intensive pieces on the misleading statements Bush made in regard to WMDs in Iraq every day? Why isn’t Larry King interviewing JEB Bush and asking him “How and when did you decide to subvert the election process and hand your brother Florida?”

We know there are lies being told at the highest levels of our government, we’ve seen them lie and yet the TV journalists are somehow not attacking the story like a pack of starving wolves. They tell us about Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson and let Internet reporters (and columnists) and stand-up comics rail against the deceit in our most esteemed offices. They’re not handing the truth to the guy on the street…they’re hoping the controversial story goes away.

I mean, I can sympathize to an extent. Everybody’s hanging on until the next paycheck. Nobody wants to tell their family “It’s ramen for dinner again tonight because Daddy couldn’t keep his mouth shut. Sorry.”

But, people…the country is at stake. We are at war, and more American soldiers die every day. We have to prepare for the inevitability of another attempted large scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil. More than ever we need clear and trustworthy leadership…not a liar who actually threatens our national security by going to war against the wrong country and creating a potential terrorist state that hates America even more than it did because we are now an oppressive occupying force.

We need honest people in charge of this country. We need people who work for the best interests of this country, not charlatans and puppets working to line their own pockets.

But can we get them out if the average voter doesn’t know they should be gotten out?

“Not now” Mr. Edwards? Then when? When will it be more important to expose the truth about the leader of the most powerful country in the world? After his second term, when he’s led the economy deeper down the well and more of the world despises us? When the morass we’ve been led into may be too deep to extricate ourselves from it? When, dammit?.

When?

You’ll all pay is written by Joe Conat. You can tell him he’s an obnoxious loudmouth here. He won’t be able to hear you over his own bellowing pontification, but what the hell, right?

Like what you read? Want to know when there are updates? Click here.

You’ll All Pay #17

© Joe Conat 2004

Well, it’s been a real interesting week or so. I’m not sure where to begin, really.

On April 8th, Condoleeza “The Alien Parrot” Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission. The main point of her testimony seemed to be a presentation (sadly, not a PowerPoint accompaniment) of Why 9/11 Is Not My Fault or Screw You, Richard Clarke.

A quick Find run over the transcript shows:

She used the phrase “silver bullet” three times. I imagine she probably meant “magic bullet” as, to my knowledge, nobody has accused Osama bin Laden of being a werewolf.

Trotted out the old adage “we have to be right 100 percent of the time, they only have to be right once”, or variations thereof, three times. So, Condi knows odds. Condi needs a new speechwriter, though, because repetition is boring and annoying.

I’ve read that reaction to Dr. Rice’s testimony is split. Pro-Bush people think she did an admirable job of defending herself and the president from horrendous and misled allegations of neglect in regard to pre-9/11 intelligence. Anti-Bush people think she came across as defensive, evasive, belligerent and spent the entire time trying to shift the blame…a sure sign of “guilt”.

I’m off to the side. I think the anti-Bush people are absolutely right while adding “Plus, she looks like a giant BUG! Dude!”

Another thing Dr. Rice could use lessons in is: conciseness.

I see her strategy. Each commissioner has ten minutes to toss questions at Condi. Every moment she eats up babbling away while not answering a question is a moment they can’t get back and can’t use to toss another hard question at her that she can’t answer. She added irrelevant and confusing “context” to every answer to swallow whole entire minutes. Like in this exchange with Commission Member Richard Ben-Veniste:

BEN-VENISTE: I want to ask you some questions about the August 6, 2001, PDB. We had been advised in writing by CIA on March 19, 2004, that the August 6 PDB was prepared and self-generated by a CIA employee. Following Director Tenet’s testimony on March 26 before us, the CIA clarified its version of events, saying that questions by the president prompted them to prepare the August 6 PDB.

Now, you have said to us in our meeting together earlier in February, that the president directed the CIA to prepare the August 6 PDB.
The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well-documented. And Richard Clarke’s testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well-documented.
You acknowledged to us in your interview of February 7, 2004, that Richard Clarke told you that al Qaeda cells were in the United States.

(Joe here! There he’s setting up his question, which is: )

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6, of the existence of al Qaeda cells in the United States?

(Pretty simple, right?)

RICE: First, let me just make certain…

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited…

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it’s important…

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president…

RICE: … that I also address…It’s also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you’ll just give me a moment.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you…

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will…

BEN-VENISTE: … told the president.

RICE: If you’ll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you’ve asked. First of all, yes, the August 6 PDB was in response to questions of the president — and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al Qaeda’s operations. Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum — I remember it as being only a line or two — that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States.
Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?
And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the August 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don’t remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

(So the answer is: “I don’t know”.)

But with the arguing and the qualification and the blahdeeblah to get to “I don’t know” while trying to mask the fact that she didn’t know…two or three of Ben-Veniste’s ten minutes are gone. Phew. Good work, Condi, dodged a real “silver bullet” there.

Another classic exchange:

BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” Now, the…

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste…

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the…

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn’t know there was a point.

RICE: Given that — you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

(To be fair…Dr. Rice is correct. Ben-Veniste did ask that, as evidenced above)

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

(And yet…)

Bob Kerrey, Commision Member: …In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6 memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.
That’s the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6 of August.

(So…the Aug. 6 PDB did warn of hijacking? Looks like, don’t it?)

RICE: And that was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to warn of hijackings. But when you cannot tell people where a hijacking might occur, under what circumstances — I can tell you that I think the best antidote to what happened in that regard would have been many years before to think about what you could do for instance to harden cockpits. That would have made a difference. We weren’t going to harden cockpits in the three months that we had a threat spike. The really difficult thing for all of us, and I’m sure for those who came before us as well as for those of us who are here, is that the structural and systematic changes that needed to be made — not on July 5th or not on June 25th or not on January 1st — those structures and those changes needed to be made a long time ago so that the country was in fact hardened against the kind of threat that we faced on September 11.
The problem was that for a country that had not been attacked on its territory in a major way in almost 200 years…

(…or, say 60 years. Pearl Harbor, anyone? Not just a movie.
Granted, Hawai’i was not a state at that time…and yet, still our territory. In 1941 Hawai’i was an annex of the United States and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was considered an attack on U.S. soil within the United States.
Isn’t she supposed to be an historian?)

RICE:…there were a lot of structural impediments to those kinds of attacks.
Those changes should have been made over a long period of time. I fully agree with you that, in hindsight, now looking back, there are many things structurally that were out of kilter. And one reason that we’re here is to look at what was out of kilter structurally, to look at needed to be done, to look at what we already have done, and to see what more we need to do.
But I think it is really quite unfair to suggest that something that was a threat spike in June or July gave you the kind of opportunity to make the changes in air security that could have been — that needed to be made.

(What with the who now?)

Let me get this straight…the President has, by his own request, a PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” In that PDB there is specific mention “that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.”

Now I’ll grant you that that doesn’t spell out “On September 11, y’all in New York City better watch out”, but it does indicate something was up. Al Qaeda…planes…determined to attack…

Maybe they couldn’t have stopped 9/11.

But maybe they could have.

In other news, the President gave one of his rare and exciting press conferences.
Oddly, the mass reaction seemed to be more about the tie than about Bush’s outrageous prevarication and question-dodging.

The tie, a blue affair with small white dots, made a moire pattern on TV screens which caused it to appear to move independently and to float off the screen.

“Move independently”. That’s something W. can’t seem to do…move independently of Cheney.

It’s not surprising that the reaction to Bush’s press conference is muted. Aside from the Magical Dancing Tie, nothing was said. That’s not a typo…it’s not that “nothing earth-shattering was said”. Nothing. Was. Said. It was the Magical Dancing Around the Question President that we’ve all come to know and…know and his constant evasion is so routine and expected by now that it’s boring.

You would have seen a crapload of headlines had something else happened. Imagine, slapped across the New York Times the next day:
”President Says Something Useful!”
or:
“Bush Coherent!”
“President Actually Manages to String Words Together into Sentence That is Relevant to Question Asked!”

Instead Bush again decided to repeatedly pimp-slap the American people in the mouth during his press conference.

From the www.whitehouse.gov transcript:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. To move to the 9/11 Commission. You, yourself, have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. “I was not on point,” you told the journalist, Bob Woodward, “I didn’t feel that sense of urgency.” Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me put that quote to Woodward in context.

(Ah! Now we see where Condi gets it!)

He had asked me if I was — something about killing bin Laden. That’s what the question was. And I said, compared to how I felt at the time, after the attack, I didn’t have that — I also went on to say, my blood wasn’t boiling, I think is what the quote said. I didn’t see — I mean, I didn’t have that great sense of outrage that I felt on September the 11th. I was — on that day I was angry and sad: angry that al Qaeda had — well, at the time, thought al Qaeda, found out shortly thereafter it was al Qaeda — had unleashed this attack; sad for those who lost their life.

Your question — do I feel –

Q Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family members, and I do quite frequently. I grieve for the incredible loss of life that they feel, the emptiness they feel.
There are some things I wish we’d have done when I look back. I mean, hindsight is easy. It’s easy for a President to stand up and say, now that I know what happened, it would have been nice if there were certain things in place; for example, a homeland security department. And why I — I say that because it’s — that provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before.
I think the hearings will show that the Patriot Act is an important change in the law that will allow the FBI and the CIA to better share information together. We were kind of stove-piped, I guess is a way to describe it. There was kind of — departments that at times didn’t communicate, because of law, in the FBI’s case.
And the other thing I look back on and realize is that we weren’t on a war footing. The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it’s — it didn’t take me long to put us on a war footing. And we’ve been on war ever since. The lessons of 9/11 that I — one lesson was, we must deal with gathering threats. And that’s part of the reason I dealt with Iraq the way I did.
The other lesson is, is that this country must go on the offense and stay on the offense. In order to secure the country, we must do everything in our power to find these killers and bring them to justice, before they hurt us again. I’m afraid they want to hurt us again. They’re still there.
They can be right one time; we’ve got to be right a hundred percent of the time in order to protect the country.

(And more evidence that Condi is Bush’s “love child”.)

It’s a mighty task. But our government has changed since the 9/11 attacks. We’re better equipped to respond; we’re better at sharing intelligence. But we’ve still got a lot of work to do.

Dave.

(And we’ve moved on.)

Essentially it boils down to “No, but I can’t say that, so I’ll ramble on. Eventually, they will fall asleep and I can go back to reading the funnies.”

Q Mr. President, I’d like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it’s WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it’s — the country wasn’t on war footing, and yet we’re at war. And that’s just a reality, Dave. I mean, that’s — that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we’d be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a — nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.
The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven’t found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don’t think anybody can — maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don’t believe that, that they’re better off with Saddam Hussein — would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there’s an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it’s very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

Let’s see — Ed.

(So not what the dude asked.)

“Do you feel that people saying ‘Bush never admits when he makes a mistake’ is a fair thing for them to say?”

“Blah blah blah war-footing blah blah blah Hussein blah blah blah WMD blah blah blah cookies.”

Leader of the Free World, kids.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I can understand why people in my administration anguished over the fact that people lost their life. I feel the same way. I mean, I’m sick when I think about the death that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I’ve met with a lot of family members and I do the best I do to console them about the loss of their loved one. As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have done differently. I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that this was going to happen, we would have done everything in our power to stop the attack.
Here’s what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That’s who’s responsible for killing Americans. And that’s why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice.
John.

“Do you owe the American people a (token) apology for not preventing 9/11?”

“Pfft. No. Blah blah blah cookies.”

At least he didn’t talk about “silver bullets”. Or “garlic” or “holy water” for that matter.

Did we expect better of the man? No. Should we expect better of the man? This man? No.

Should we expect better of the President of the United States of America?

Hell yeah.

This man obviously doesn’t feel the need to answer to the people he claim put him there. Sure, Cheney and JEB Bush and his daddy are the ones who actually put him in the White House, but if he’d like to truly cement the image that, no, he was elected then he may as well play along and pretend to listen to us. He doesn’t even do that. He doesn’t listen to anything. There’s a magical tune playing in the echoing chambers of his empty head and that magical tune is “I’m the bestest in the whole wide world I deserve some candy”.

Presidential material? No, not in my opinion. He might do well with a local kids’ show, however.

“Busho the Clown! Heya heya heya kids…wanna see your future Social Security disappear?” “YYYAAAYYYY!!!!”

This YAP is late because…what the hell? I’m bored. Same old crap. “Bush lied, he’s an idiot, Condoleeza Rice probably lied, she’s funny lookin’ blah dee blah blah blah cookies.”

Mmm. Cookies….

You’ll All Pay is written by Joe Conat. You can tell him to fry in the lowest bowels of Hell here. He won’t listen, but there’s always hope, right? Clap your hands, children, believe believe…