As pontificated on the December 21st episode of Meet The Press.
• [Concerning the "situation in Iraq".] "Well, I think it's very exciting."
• "Iraq, as the president has said, is a battle in that war on terror, and we're going to fight terrorists whether it be in Israel, or Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or anywhere in the Philippines; this is a war that we're in." [Got that? Anywhere in the Philippines.]
• "Well, first, Tim, I don't accept your premise. The president didn't overemphasize weapons of mass destruction as the only reason to go into Iraq." [In Bushspeak: "What's the difference" whether he had them or not?]
• "He was violating UN resolutions for 10, almost 12 years. He violated every agreement that he made after he lost the war in Desert Storm." [Translation: no banned weapons found proves once and for all that he was violating resolutions mandating the destruction of his banned weapons...]
• "This was the Clinton administration, who wasn't exactly good on the war on terrorism." [No comment.]
• "So everybody knew that we had to have a regime change." ["Everybody", presumably, includes that 90% of the World's population opposed to the war. Does this mean that "everybody" is a Saddam apologist? No more so than anybody opposing a hypothetical war for "regime change" in the United States -- George Bush is, after all, a far, far, far greater threat to world peace that Saddam could ever conceive of being -- would want to be considered a Bush apologist. But murdering tens of thousands of people, radiating the environment, throwing the country into utter chaos, and selling off its resources to the "liberators"' cronies might -- just might -- not be the best way to go about removing Saddam (or Bush, or Sharon, or Putin, or Uribe) from office.]
• "If we don't find weapons of mass destruction -- and I think we will, and we've already found evidence that not only did he have it, but he violated United Nations resolutions all along the lines, particularly when it comes to weapons instructions. So, you know, we are winning this war on terror." [Do we have a winner for the lost-train-of-thought-slash-non-sequitur-of-the-year award? And, actually, we didn't find any evidence that he had "it". We did, though, hear plenty of credible testimony, before the war was initiated, indicating that he'd gotten rid of "it" no later than 1995.]
• "I knew that that would be the first thing the Democrats said after we got Saddam Hussein. They said, 'Oh, well, that's good we got Saddam Hussein, but you haven't gotten Osama bin Laden.' What we have gotten is we've destroyed his network. The president took the war to them in Afghanistan." [How embarrassing that the Department of "Homeland Security" raised the "terror-alert" level to "high" more less at the same time DeLay was speaking. Er, and, uh, he may have missed Aschcroft's warning of just a few months ago that, "The potential for us to be hit again is a very real potential," not to mention the warning of Western and Arab intelligence agencies from just a few weeks ago that al-Qaida had "split into dozens of autonomous, hard-to-find 'franchises'." Finally, what the fuck was Tom DeLay doing when he was supposed to be learning English grammar -- out snorting lines with George W., or something?]
• "You'd think it would come from the French or their party or from these demonstrators that demonstrate in the streets that you see. But these are supposed to be legitimate people saying some pretty outrageous things, like Wesley Clark." [Straight from the horse's mouth: the French, and the demonstrators demonstrating in the street that you see (and, one assumes, the rest of the 90% of the World opposed to the Bush Doctrine), are "illegitimate". (Though that's not how DeLay's gramatically-challenged sentence would literally decode.)]
• "If we left it up to Wesley Clark, Saddam Hussein would still be in place and he'd be paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel." [As it now stands, the American Taxpayer ponies up several billions of dollars a year in support of the Israeli occupation. (Uh, was DeLay mentioning UN resolutions before? No, didn't think so.)]
• "But they've gone over the top. I mean, Howard Dean saying that we're not safer because Saddam Hussein is out of office..." [Of course, Hussein's been "out of office" since April. But anyway, damn that Tom Ridge!]
• "If we were waiting for permission, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan." [He's right. While 90% of the World's population opposed the war on Iraq, something like 80% opposed the war on Afghanistan.]
• "Howard Dean just is an extreme extremist." [Maybe that's why Dean is so popular with the kids: he's beyond the extreme. Sadly, DeLay did not classify Dennis Kucinich's standing on the extreme-scale.]
• "Tax cuts will lower the deficit and bring us to balance. That's how we balance the budget." [No comment. Would make a nice children's song, though: "This is the way we balance the budget / Balance the Budget / Balance the Budget / This is the way we balance the Budget / Early in the morning".]
• "You cut taxes so it leaves more money in people's pockets. They save. They invest. The economy grows. And from the economy, the revenues to the government grows. It's history. It's always happened that way." [No examples given.]
• "It's how you balance the budget that's important. You know, the Democrats want to balance the budget by raising spending and raising taxes. The Soviet Union had a balanced budget. Well, you can raise taxes until you balance it, but the economy will go into the toilet. We have shown and we have credibility on the economy and the economy's recovering because of Republican policies." [No comment, except that: this motherfucker's meds are either working just a little too well or just a little too poorly. Maybe there's a puzzle-book logic problem in here somewhere: "Using only his Words of Wisdom listed below, help Tom DeLay determine his proper dosage."]
Another village in Texas is missing it's idiot. This guy inspires me to become American so I can vote his ass out of power.
Posted by: Mitch on December 21, 2003 09:11 PMMitch: Sounds like a plan, but you would have to live in Texas.
Posted by: dack on December 22, 2003 02:59 PMWell I *do* live in Texas (Houston), and I know people who live in DeLay's district and would love to get rid of him but unfortunately, the Dems keep putting up weak candidates to run against him. A well funded candidate who was willing to go after him hard could win in the right year.
Posted by: Barry on December 24, 2003 11:25 AM