Just when I thought that I could stay away from American polo-ticks:
Uncle Joe tells the Iraqis not to worry because the Americans are gonna appeal the dismissal of the Blackwater case. You may recall that that has something to do with a civilian arm of the US Military engaging in coldblooded murder of innocents.
So it was good enough for the Iraqis to hang Hussein high for all to see - to carry out their justice upon the dictator for having used allegedly homemade mustard on the Kurds (forget that the deployment of that condiment had been provided by good ol' American knewhow). But god forbid they be allowed to try American product in the form of slimy swine asshole murdering thugs in the flesh.
What does this have to do with Joe Biden? To begin with, saying, "They tricked me!" regarding a resolution to use military force does not excuse a senator for not having done due-diligence, no matter how convenient it was to the politician at that stage of his or her career. More on that further down the page.
My intention today was to fulfill a maternal request and muse about that creepy John Edwards guy, but this shit distracted me.
Now, my feeling about the former Senator from Carolina is not due to his spooging in cooters other than the one he took a vow to blow his wad in exclusively. Okay, yes it is. But only indirectly.
You see, my distaste for Edwards developed at the same time it did for all of the eventual favored three, when they (Mr Folksy, Democracy's Messiah, and the Crying Cunt) all established themselves as indistinguishable from one another when it came to questions of faith, marriage, and the equal right to state-sanctioned murder irrespective of expressed genital intent.
Back to jurisprudence: The latter two mnemonically aspersed upon people in my previous paragraph, along with Joltin' Joe, occupy the top three executive positions in the current administration. All three have law degrees and have been legislators in the upper house in Washington. As channelers of the Rama will remind you, one is a constitutional scholar of the cum loud variety.
The two that made it to the semifinals of the Commander in Chief competition worked hard to see who could use the phrase "let me be clear" more often. Biden, on the other hand, is known to be about as direct as they come. Those three hold arguably the greatest influence in matters of America's position regarding international law.
So in the name of international law, why can't we be clear about the question of Iraq's sovereignty?
With Bo Rama cumming loud about the flood gates of corporate political influence having just been reopened by Supreme Justice (as if), I have to wonder if we can really view America's supreme lawmakers as having been lied to in 2002 regarding our re-excursion into the cradle of civilization. I mean, are we talking about the failure of due diligence here, or the success of due expedience? And in all sombre honesty, is either really acceptable?
I am sure that the folks I am lambasting here have done many great things in the name of justice and human rights. But that doesn't mean shit if you piss all over them as a matter of international policy. Wasn't the ascension of this president supposed to be about restoration of something or another?
Well, alright. That was the fucking Sunday Paper!
Uncle Joe tells the Iraqis not to worry because the Americans are gonna appeal the dismissal of the Blackwater case. You may recall that that has something to do with a civilian arm of the US Military engaging in coldblooded murder of innocents.
So it was good enough for the Iraqis to hang Hussein high for all to see - to carry out their justice upon the dictator for having used allegedly homemade mustard on the Kurds (forget that the deployment of that condiment had been provided by good ol' American knewhow). But god forbid they be allowed to try American product in the form of slimy swine asshole murdering thugs in the flesh.
What does this have to do with Joe Biden? To begin with, saying, "They tricked me!" regarding a resolution to use military force does not excuse a senator for not having done due-diligence, no matter how convenient it was to the politician at that stage of his or her career. More on that further down the page.
_____________
My intention today was to fulfill a maternal request and muse about that creepy John Edwards guy, but this shit distracted me.
Now, my feeling about the former Senator from Carolina is not due to his spooging in cooters other than the one he took a vow to blow his wad in exclusively. Okay, yes it is. But only indirectly.
You see, my distaste for Edwards developed at the same time it did for all of the eventual favored three, when they (Mr Folksy, Democracy's Messiah, and the Crying Cunt) all established themselves as indistinguishable from one another when it came to questions of faith, marriage, and the equal right to state-sanctioned murder irrespective of expressed genital intent.
Back to jurisprudence: The latter two mnemonically aspersed upon people in my previous paragraph, along with Joltin' Joe, occupy the top three executive positions in the current administration. All three have law degrees and have been legislators in the upper house in Washington. As channelers of the Rama will remind you, one is a constitutional scholar of the cum loud variety.
The two that made it to the semifinals of the Commander in Chief competition worked hard to see who could use the phrase "let me be clear" more often. Biden, on the other hand, is known to be about as direct as they come. Those three hold arguably the greatest influence in matters of America's position regarding international law.
So in the name of international law, why can't we be clear about the question of Iraq's sovereignty?
With Bo Rama cumming loud about the flood gates of corporate political influence having just been reopened by Supreme Justice (as if), I have to wonder if we can really view America's supreme lawmakers as having been lied to in 2002 regarding our re-excursion into the cradle of civilization. I mean, are we talking about the failure of due diligence here, or the success of due expedience? And in all sombre honesty, is either really acceptable?
I am sure that the folks I am lambasting here have done many great things in the name of justice and human rights. But that doesn't mean shit if you piss all over them as a matter of international policy. Wasn't the ascension of this president supposed to be about restoration of something or another?
Well, alright. That was the fucking Sunday Paper!
