HYPOCRISY IN THE WHITE HOUSE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801282.html

Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!
This is the link to the Washington Post Story, "With Kazakh's Visit, Bush Priorities Clash
Autocrat Leads an Oil-Rich Country"

I read this, and then immediately thought of Donald Rumsfeld's comment about suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion". It would seem that this comment would accurately describe our President.

The article states:
'President Bush launched an initiative this month to combat international kleptocracy, the sort of high-level corruption by foreign officials that he called "a grave and corrosive abuse of power" that "threatens our national interest and violates our values." The plan, he said, would be "a critical component of our freedom agenda."
Three weeks later, the White House is making arrangements to host the leader of Kazakhstan, an autocrat who runs a nation that is anything but free and who has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing the bulk of $78 million in bribes from an American businessman. Not only will President Nursultan Nazarbayev visit the White House, people involved say, but he also will travel to the Bush family compound in Maine.'

Are you kidding? We should stand behind our Presidents Freedom Agenda, leave our troops in Iraq, support the fact that he is spending federal dollars to "launch an initiative to combat international kleptocracy" and in the mean time one of the more psycho leaders of the world will vacation with our First Family.

Personally, I am just happy that his Presidency will soon be coming to an end, this is past the point of ridiculous.

Technorati Profile

Rumsfeld Comments

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14570794/

This news article is on today's MSNBC news page. I read it and was offended.
It is titled, Rumsfeld: War critics suffer ‘moral confusion’

It reports that "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease “a new type of fascism.”"

Again! Heaven forbid anyone try to take a stand against President Bush and the current administration.

Question: If we have removed Sadaam Hussein from power and replaced him with someone our federal government approves of, then how are we trying to "appease a new type of fascism"?
We are not in Iraq because that is where the terrorists are, we took over the country, according to our federal government, to give the people of Iraq the freedom we think they want.

I personally am so fed up with President Bush's focus on Iraq. If we truly want to rid the world of terrorists, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Hell, why don't we just nuke the entire Middle East and wipe it off the face of the Earth?
Oh, that's right, if we did that we wouldn't be able to make any money rebuilding it once we destroy it, and oops forgot how important that oil is. Forgot about that.

All sarcasm aside, when will our current administrators stop accusing every one who does not agree with them of being anti-patriotic or suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion".

Just in case you forgot Mr. Rumsfeld, we live in the USA, and are protected by our Constitution which allows us to speak freely and disagree with our leaders. Shame on you for belittling those who do not see things your way or the Presidents way.

Technorati Profile