Who To Blame?

As a follow up to his verbal ass-licking of President Bush, I want to ask Mr. Hinderaker a few questions (not that he will hear them, seeing as Bush's butt cheeks are clamped down over his ears). I know you believe that every ice-cream cone that doesn't drip is the result of the sage pronouncements of our president. But if it comes to nuclear war between Israel and Iran, who will take ownership of that?

Developments beneficial to the U.S., like the welcome disarming of Libya and the inspirational elections in Lebanon, seem to you to occur solely because of Bush's wisdom. What about the ugly developments? Do those not count? How about Iraq's overthrow directly emboldening Iran's military ambition? Do you actually think that only good and happy things are the result of George Bush's "brushstrokes" (don't get too excited now) whereas any bad and frowny things must be due to the "evil" in others? Do you realize how ridiculous that line of reasoning is?

If, as you suggest, Bush's policy is responsible for Ukraine, Lebanon, and Libya, which it may very well be, do I have your permission to blame him utterly if there's a nuclear war with Iran?

I think that the context of Hind-rocket's fawning was over the alternate climate treaty Bush recently proposed. I'm not sure he realizes how low he's setting the bar for our President. Putting aside for a moment what total horseshit Bush's proposal is, a smart move would have been to have rejected Kyoto and IMMEDIATELY come back with a counterproposal. Bumbling around for five years ignoring an issue is not good diplomacy, it's not smart politics, and it's certainly not genius. But I realize it must be tough for John to see the big picture when all he sees when he opens his eyes are huge close-ups of in-grown ass hairs.