The pundits have decided to convince you that George W. Bush was an acceptable president. Among the huddled intelligentsia in the McCarthy Library, it was Victor Davis Hanson pulling the short straw:

At times the venom accorded Bush in popular culture reached absurd — and even sick — levels . . that hysteria once led to Charles Krauthammer’s identification of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” — a pathology in which the unbalanced seemed to channel all their anxieties, frustrations, and paranoias onto George W. Bush. And yet, following 9/11, Bush had calmly led the nation and enjoyed one of the highest positive appraisals of any president since the advent of modern polling . .

He was so great we could not resist. You’re the best, Junior! Having our psyches shattered to shards, driving ourselves to funerals, these were the things that buoyed our love for him. That guy is awesome.

Hanson’s six-point Bush rehabilitation continues in this manner, blind and debilitated, with a recurring theme: Other people were just as stupid. Good job! Go with that, Vic. Americans love a middling dolt, especially one you’re not allowed to assign any blame to ALTHOUGH HE WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

“Bush lied, thousands died,” was a popular mantra that followed from the absence of stockpiles of WMD in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — the chief casus belli of the Iraq War. But looking back, quite apart from the politics of the moment, we now remember that Congress had approved 23 writs authorizing the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Wrong. Despite the ongoing legislative rhetoric, only the Iraq War Resolution “authoriz[ed] the removal of Saddam Hussein.” The approval came only after 1.) The greatest failure of an American president to protect and defend his citizens, resulting in thousands of deaths, and 2.) A massive Bush administration deception, extending to the chambers of the U.N., to establish a bogus link between Hussein and Al Qaeda, and to forecast the use of fairytale weapons of mass destruction against us here at home. Whether it was purposeful lying or murderous incompetence to blame, the consequences were horrifying: 4,844 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis dead, many of them women and children.

The pro-war speeches of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were simply amplifications of President Clinton’s signing into law of the 1998 “Iraq Liberation Act,” in which were outlined in graphic detail the dangers of the Hussein WMD arsenal. We do not know what exactly happened to those weapons, but perhaps the end sometime soon of the Bashar Assad regime in Syria — amid rampant rumors of a sizable WMD depot — could shed some light on prior cross-border traffic between Assad and Hussein.

Do you love how breezy Victor is? George W. Bush was a lot like everybody else, so why fuss? Maybe this weekend we’ll find the weapons of mass destruction and everything will get sorted out. Right. Maybe we’ll hear clapping from the VA cemeteries and the sewers of Baghdad, but I wouldn’t count on it. Victor doesn’t hold the slightest interest in seeing a president as any different from you or me despite the gob-smacking power and responsibility. Until of course someone else enters the picture . .

George Bush averaged a 2.7 percent ratio of deficits to GDP (less than those of Reagan or George H. W. Bush), Barack Obama so far 8.9 percent. Under Bush, quite excessive federal spending reached about 20 percent of GDP, but under Obama it has already grown to 24 percent . . whether we count Bush’s responsibility from 2001 to 2008 or 2002 to 2009, and Obama’s from 2009 to 2012 or 2010 to 20012, we are nevertheless arguing whether the latter doubled or nearly tripled the Bush rate of borrowing.

By my calculations Franklin Roosevelt ran up a modest $23.5 billion yearly deficit throughout his first two administrations. But then his successor took over and the deficit exploded to $320.4 billion! In only his first year! Do any of you sleuths have any explanation why that should be, other than Truman being a bastard? Hint:



Oh I see. How about some hints for Victor? The current drivers of our deficits:



. . George W. Bush’s tax cuts, George W. Bush’s wars, George W. Bush’s collapsed economy and our attempts to clean up the mess. It’s his greed, his violence, his incompetence, but it’s only our desperate efforts that earn any criticism. Victor’s the kind of guy who’d run over your grandmother then complain about the sirens. He’d be appalled the way anorexia survivors eat like pigs. You can’t expect the deranged who would defend Bush to come to any terms with epic indictments: our current reality.

The bodies of Ambassador Stevens and three others killed in the attack on the Benghazi consulate were flown home recently. The President and the Secretary of State were present at a somber reception at Andrews Air Force base.

It was an “amazing ceremony,” [Chris Matthews] insisted. After an Obama clip, he said, “There was a moment in American history right there. Last week, when Obama spoke at the Democratic National Committee down in Charlotte, he said, ‘I am the president.’ Well, this week, he showed what it means to be president.”

Matthews’ commentary drove Brent Bozell crazy.

“This was a moment for pride? . .

If George Bush had been president, the arrival of these four caskets would have been painted as a sickening sign of failure and incompetence, of public servants needlessly losing their lives because the White House couldn’t piece together their intelligence reports. Matthews would have railed against Bush and “Cheeney” for failing to protect their diplomats in unstable Arab nations. Now it was time to tingle over the unified Democrats instead.”

I recall George W. Bush being president when three thousand people were killed by the bad Muslims. And the failure to save those lives was unequivocally Bush’s fault. He knew exactly who Osama bin Laden was. He knew Al Qaeda were planning to kill Americans. He knew a spectacular attack was imminent. But he never did a thing to prevent it.

Yet among the wingnuts you still hear crap like this:

“President Bush had at Ground Zero probably the most important moment in, uh, maybe in American history. It was when this wounded nation watched their commander-in-chief stand on that rubble and say they will hear us, we are going to avenge this . .”

Bush literally stood on the bodies of the people he failed to defend and did a tough guy routine. It was one of the most appalling spectacles in American history. But to fans like Bozell, Bush and his bullhorn beat the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Factually speaking, it was really Condoleezza Rice who liked it better than the moon landing, but why quibble? When Bush’s incompetent National Security Adviser can weigh in on Bush’s incompetence with tingling awe, we’re way out of reality-based Chris Matthews’ league.

Mitt Romney, The Candidate Who Wasn’t There, makes a surprise appearance. He talks to the voters! And while talking to them, he says something very quite peculiar. Mitt says, approximately: ‘I’ll tell you what makes for a great president. It’s a bit of wisdom that lingers in my mind as I recall this conversation I had with a friend of mine. Jupiter, it seems like only yesterday . . .’

“I’d like to have a provision in the Constitution,” he recalled the man saying, “that in addition to the age of the president and the citizenship of the president and the birthplace of the president being set by the Constitution, I’d like it also to say that the president has to spend at least three years working in business before he could become president of the United States.”

Interesting. I suppose no one should regulate the environment if they haven’t been the wind. No one should be Commander-in-Chief without having piloted a submarine. Or garroted a Nazi Corporal and eaten his ears, like potato chips. Aachh, zere krispy.

What a lot of good ideas. The choking of Nazis is always really very good. Wait — hold on, the business one is terrible:

Sorry Mitt Romney, Good Businessmen Rarely Make Good Presidents
US News | By Peter Allan

. . the men widely considered by historians to be the worst presidents of the modern era: Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush. One left the country on the verge of a depression, one left the country in a depression, and one presided over such corruption and ineptitude that despite the failings of the other two he still manages to get the lowest ranking of them all. And yet all three made millions of dollars in the private sector before entering politics. All three were successful businessmen (a newspaper publisher, a mining tycoon, and the owner of a professional baseball team).

Consider the better ones: The Roosevelts, or Truman. Or JFK, or even [yecch] Saint Ronnie. These were nothing like, in no way at all, your business tycoons. Nobody of course remembers this, least of all the industry captains:

“In my lifetime, Mitt Romney is the most qualified leader I’ve ever seen run for the presidency in the United States,” [Jack] Welch, 76, said during an appearance today on CNBC.

I’ve gone from contemplating The Candidate Who Wasn’t There to kicking dirt on him. If Neutron Jack reveres him, then Mitt’s guaranteed to be a hurricane of suck. That’s because Romney and Welch are organizational tyrants. They only listen to their thoughts and instincts. Which may serve them in a highly defined environment, like supplying Model Ts to the middle class. But it doesn’t work elsewhere.

Dealing in politics, and with an entire nation, is much more complicated. The people you want to please and the people who do your work are the same. You can’t lead voters with demands or threats. You can only do it by talking to them. By convincing them. You have to speak of a vision, of your concerns, your understanding of history, and of the essential American character. Politics is the art of begging Americans to make you the boss over and over again.

That’s the kind of demand — from the hoi polloi, ferchrissakes! — that gets American Mammon climbing his damask wallpaper. He can’t make the transition from pronouncements to enticements. He doesn’t want to plead with anyone. Compromise is for losers. If he didn’t already know better than everybody else, then why is he president?

During the last two years of his presidency as it became more and more apparent that the Depression was worsening and his program of confidence, voluntarism, and business support wasn’t working, President Hoover set his feet in concrete. He refused to recognize that his philosophy and programs weren’t working. Rather than try something different, he clung rigidly to his program, became more and more defensive, tried to convince himself and Americans that things were getting better, and lost the support of the nation. Why?

Partly, it was his personality. Joan Hoff Wilson, a Hoover biographer, maintains that Hoover was always unable to admit defeat or failure throughout his entire life.

That sounds familiar.

. . one question for which Bush was evidently not prepared invited him to name his biggest mistake since 9/11.

“I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it,” Bush joked before taking a long pause.

“I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet.”

Mitt Romney, you know, is an exact replica of these geniuses.

Well, aren’t we hilarious? Bush-era jurists are a jolly bunch.

The chief judge for one of 94 U.S. districts, the District of Montana, has apologized for a joke he circulated.

HELENA — Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull on Wednesday admitted to sending a racially charged email about President Barack Obama from his courthouse chambers.

Here it is. Try not to fall out of your chair…

The forwarded text reads as follow:

“Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.”

“A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’” the email joke reads. “His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

Get it? The President’s deceased mother had dog-sex! Hoo. I wonder if Cebull will appreciate all the good-natured chuckles coming his way now that we know who he is, what he’s like, and how well-suited he is to the chief district judgeship. Not that this isn’t predictable behavior for W.’s minions, the paragons of high class and ‘horse’ sense.

I rarely bother with Rush, he’s predictably vacuous and bizarre. Praising W. for “Ten years, not one attack”? For the eight years in which 9/11 was the historic, heart-breaking highlight? Twisted. Damning Obama because he used the day to serve his fellow man? Typical. Conservatives luxuriate in 9/11 victimhood. But this?

This is a new one. George Bush belongs on Mt. Rushmore. Good luck with that effort, Viagra Poppins. You won’t get 1% of America to back that idea. You will, however, get some right-wing lunatics wanting to shoot your face. They’ll not appreciate having George W. chiseled in next to the real George W., the father of our country.

Dug this one up from between the internet sofa cushions. Back in 2005, reporter Ted Olberg from Houston’s KTRK attempted to interview Governor Rick Perry about his evolving education policy. Refusing to reveal his newest proposals, the Governor tells Ted he’ll just have to wait to get the details.

And then, thinking the feed dead, Perry flashes his Texas-sized wit.

When you’re a big powerful Governor from a big powerful state, local TV faggots gotta learn to deal with your horseshit charm. That’s just the God’s honest truth. Call it ‘Texas’ if you like. It’s really George W. Bush, all the way.

Must we be subjected to the ugly and the uglier? Must we watch a cruel politician die before our eyes? Must we sit there somberly while he, bankrupted of vitality, makes a desperate case — again — for torture?

I don’t remember any of this in the job description. I thought this gig would subject me to mostly whimsy and snark-chuckles, not to watching horrifically the final media spasms of a ghoul’s ghoul.

Having borrowed one of David Byrne’s suits, the disappearing man appears on Fox to champion torture:

“We went to a lot of trouble to find out what we could do, how far we could go, what was legal and so forth. Out of that emerged what we called enhanced interrogation. It worked. It provided some absolutely vital pieces of intelligence. There is a study that was done by the CIA in the National Archives, some of it has been declassified now, that shows that enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided a vast treasure trove if you will of intelligence. It was a good program. It was a legal program. It was not torture. I would strongly recommend we continue it.”

Ever the politician, he doesn’t say what intelligence was gleaned by which method. And no one can say what we could have known had we not tortured Mohammed. And thus we get the thoroughly bullshit argument of “We tortured KSM, he told us stuff, we win, you lose.”

Under no circumstances, in no way conceivable, is that an argument for torture. You want to convince me it works as well as you say? Show me torture got you information that no other method could have. Then show me torture didn’t cause your detainee to resist giving up intelligence.

Simple as that. And you can’t do it.

Two thieves compare notes: both corner their victims in dark alleys and demand the money in their pockets. One says to the other, “I tell them, ‘I don’t want to hurt you,’ and then I pull a knife.” The other says, “I just kick them in the stomach and tell them to hand me everything they’ve got. That’s why I make more money than you.” He has no idea if it’s true.

Peter King doesn’t care, he never does:

“The first indication that he [courier] (al-Kuwaiti) was close to bin Laden and was a serious player came from (September 11 architect) Khalid Sheik Mohammed, right after he was waterboarded. Before that, KSM basically gave up nothing. After he was waterboarded, KSM gave an answer on the courier. This put the courier on the map. That was the first time they saw that he was close to bin Laden. That was in 2003 . .”

This is rank bullshit. King is telling us the exact opposite of the truth, it’s shameless lying.

[T]here are two points that seem key in assessing the torture question. First, both KSM and al-Libi had critical intelligence they withheld under torture. KSM knew of Abu Ahmed’s trusted role and real name . .

They waterboarded KSM 183 times in a month, and he either never got asked about couriers guarding OBL, or he avoided answering the question honestly. Had KSM revealed that detail, Bush might have gotten OBL 8 years ago.

And just as importantly, the whole time KSM was shielding Abu Ahmed’s true identity while being waterboarded, KSM was also lying to the CIA about where OBL was.

More:

Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later during standard interrogations.

So neither Cheney’s wink-wink at productive torture via KSM nor King’s flat-out assertion that torture got KSM to divulge the courier’s identity is true. They’re not even close to being true, they’re pure propaganda.

Ah, but it gets better:

In fact, two of the most high-value detainees — KSM and bin Laden chief operations man Abu Faraj al-Libi — actually lied about the important courier when asked about him.

They were dismissive about his importance, and didn’t identify him beyond the nickname the CIA already knew. The key here: The CIA already knew that the courier had been a KSM protégé.

“It was their lies that alerted us,” said one senior administration official with knowledge of the operation. All in all, Mohammed had been waterboarded 183 times — and he still lied. “The help that KSM provided was inadvertent,” this source said. “He didn’t know what we knew.”

Al-Libi was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, KSM was tortured . . and they both lied. The fact that they misled their captors while or after being tortured was critical to understanding how important the courier really was. You cannot make that key assessment while you think torture actually works. Case closed.

I think it’s worthwhile to consider the arguments against killing Osama bin Laden in a raid. It is not a trivial thing for a government to target a person, send a highly trained military team to a faraway place, and then assault them. It’s a shocking and dramatic thing.

But once you’re face-to-face with that person, what’s the right thing to do? Michael Moore opposes killing bin Laden:

“We’ve lost something of our soul here in this country. And maybe I’m an old school American who believes in our American judicial system, something that separates us from other parts, other countries, where we say everybody has their day in court no matter how bad of a person, no matter what piece of scum they are, they have a right to a trial. And this man was a mass murderer, he was responsible for the deaths, at least in this country, of nearly 3,000 people. And, you know, after World War II, we just didn’t go in and put a bullet to the head of all the top Nazis. We put them on trial. We took them to Nuremberg and we put them on trial, and we said ‘no, this important for the world to see . . ‘”

Michael is a good man, and he makes good points. But I differ with him. Perhaps if we were living in a more perfect world, we could have taken, rather than killed, bin Laden. I suppose that’s possible. But this ignores two realities: it’s far more dangerous to capture someone, and the terrorist mastermind was still at war with the United States.

I just don’t think it’s wise to demand your SEALs capture the guy. You’re sending them into a foreign country whose defense forces could, by reasonably assuming the Americans were carrying out an international assault, kill every one of the team, legally and without hesitation. The bin Laden security cadre would certainly kill them all, it’s their job. Bin Laden himself would happily kill them all, if he could, and then boast of it on video. The difficulties and dangers facing the operation team were so great, I find it difficult to fathom. So, I think it’s imprudent and unwise to make the ‘capture’ demand. It displays a recklessness I’d hope a sensible president would avoid.

More importantly, we’re at war with bin Laden and Al Qaeda. This is where Moore’s argument falls most flat — nations at war don’t have the luxury of trying every soldier their military comes across. Instead, they kill the enemy in order to defend their citizens and to end the imminent threat. This is the essential truth about bin Laden: he was a soldier who killed Americans in the past, and he planned to kill Americans in the future. As the commander of an effective military and terrorist organization, he’s an especially dangerous warrior. It’s absolutely fine, if not a moral imperative, to shoot the guy in the head.

Yes, certainly, we didn’t kill Nazis after the war, but then the threat was over. Only days earlier, we were killing them as fast as we could find them. Being at war with Al Qaeda’s terrorists makes the difference.

Now for an argument less thoughtful — John Yoo’s, from the Wall Street Journal:

” . . bin Laden was still issuing instructions and funds to a broad terrorist network and would have known where and how to find other key al Qaeda players. His capture, like Saddam Hussein’s in December 2003, would have provided invaluable intelligence and been an even greater example of U.S. military prowess than his death.

White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Monday that the SEAL team had orders to take bin Laden alive, ‘if he didn’t present any threat,’ though he correctly dismissed this possibility as ‘remote.’ This is hard to take seriously. No one could have expected bin Laden to surrender without a fight.”

So they should have, err . . come again? What? Yoo seems to be making the argument that the SEALs should have done anything (everything) to capture bin Laden. Sure, of course, he would have fought back — so what? He asks the team members to sacrifice their lives. But for what, exactly?

After maybe getting a couple Navy guys killed, John Yoo gets to jam some battery cables into bin Laden’s mouth? Yep. Yoo will say anything to steer the conversation toward an embrace of his beloved torture.

. . if they were going in with no options other than to kill him, then I do think that’s a problem . . it does seem from the initial reports that a deliberately small force was sent in and there wasn’t a lot of thought given to the idea of capturing him.

If they’re only going to kill bin Laden, what a problem. They should have thought about capturing him — but, oh, that paltry force. Yes, well, look at how badly everything went, it’s a shame.

John Yoo seems to think there’s no sacrifice great enough, no obstacle too big, to prevent our military from stuffing a guy in a bag and dragging him back to American soil. The mysteries wither.

Take that lash out of the President’s hands! Hear me, sir: you shall refrain from beating such kindly men of good will.

Mean streak: Obama is not as nice as he looks
Washington Examiner Editorial | 04/16/11

. . The speech was advertised by the White House as a major address in which the president would join the serious conversation initiated two weeks ago by Ryan in his detailed proposal for cutting spending. What Obama instead delivered, with Ryan sitting in the front row, was, in the Wall Street Journal’s unsparing description, a “poison pen” speech dripping with mean-spirited partisanship, gross misrepresentations of fact, and sophistry of the lowest sort concerning Republicans’ alleged desire to hurt old people, the poor and mentally challenged children. It was the sort of harangue one would expect from a rabidly devoted partisan hack, with no relation whatever to the thoughtful appeals to reason and common values that historically have characterized presidential leadership in this country.

Ha! Do you have to be mentally ill to write something like this? No, but it certainly helps.

Wasn’t anybody at the Washington Examiner alive during the Nixon years? Didn’t the President authorize his ‘Plumbers’ to break into Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office to get enough dirt on the guy to destroy him?

Nixon tells his aide Charles Colson: “We’ve got a countergovernment here and we’ve got to fight it. I don’t give a damn how it’s done. Do whatever has to be done to stop those leaks.… I don’t want to be told why it can’t be done.”

Yep. Dick, by way of Kissinger, also wiretapped reporters and employees because of their non-Nixon thoughts and opinions. He was kindness and civility personified.

George W. Bush and his buddies were similarly presidential, respectful and kind. George’s Vice President, Richard Cheney, got so annoyed with Senator Pat Leahy that he snapped “Go fuck yourself.” Because he’s so civil, this Dick not only refused to apologize for it, he actually crowed to Dennis Miller about it.

“That’s sort of the best thing I ever did.”

From the horse’s mouth, Dick’s life never got any better than that. Although it might have — Dennis would have gladly fellated his hero.

When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson took to the New York Times to criticize the administration’s false claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, Cheney and his aide Lewis Libby outed his wife, Valerie Plame, as a spy for the CIA.

That ended her career. In an investigation of the affair, Libby lied so thoroughly about his actions that he was convicted of multiple crimes. This is a routine consequence of acting civilized. The President, appearing presidential and non-partisan, commuted Libby’s sentence.

George’s penchant for trucking in class and mutual respect is legendary.

In a chapter entitled “The Smirk,” Dr. Frank offered abundant evidence for Bush’s sadism and destructiveness, from blowing up frogs as a child to rubber-stamping the execution of a record number of death-row inmates while governor of Texas.

George thought the executions were hilarious. Once he got to be President, after failing fatally to protect America on 9/11, he invaded two nations and waterboarded detainees. Nowadays, 60% of young Americans believe it’s okay to torture people, so Bush’s “thoughtful appeals to reason and common values” prove, unfortunately, to be contagious.

Perhaps Americans will avoid mimicking the cruel and nasty ways of this current President. He’s the type of guy who retaliates against his enemies with hurtful words, this way:

. . tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

But that’s not what happened.

They would do better to act like a guy who’d leave 100,000 corpses rotting in the Iraqi sun. Those people never did anything bad to George, but he murdered them anyway. Now that’s a mean streak.

Came across this bizarre little tidbit via RawStory. It originally came by way of Alexis Madrigal, science and technology writer over at The Atlantic.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has done an admirable job building out a digital document archive from his time in the government on his website, Rumsfeld.com. While I was watching the events in Libya unfold, I decided to search his papers to see what he’d written on the country. In so doing, I ran across a document that left me flabbergasted. It’s a message (probably an email) that Rumsfeld sent to then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith on April 7, 2003. Here it is in its entirety:

Is this some sort of joke? I had to double-check, I couldn’t believe it. Nope, it’s real. Madrigal’s co-worker couldn’t believe it either.

Do you figure Feith managed to “solve the Pakistan problem”? Did Doug get “Korea” to come around? What, there are two? Someone check the History books, try one dated a week later, like April 14. Take a look under ‘K.’ Still two of them? How did Pakistan end up, by the way?

If ever there were a more shallow, talentless Bureaucrat than Rumsfeld in a position of American power, I shudder for history. And he’s aware of his limitations. Why else would Rummy otherwise send out gobsmackers like this? Snap-snap, solutions for Syria, Libya, Pakistan and “Korea.” Time for one of his 56-word ditties, people need to get on this. Five of the hottest hot spots on Earth, 268 million people — I should e-mail Doug on it.

No wonder George W. Bush said, “You are a strong secretary of defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude.” The most difficult thing to grasp is just how stupid these people were, the winners of two elections. But there’s no other explanation . .

I got a case of the creeps by typing that title. Why are we still hearing from these Bush freaks anyway? Oh, right, because dumbshit wrote a book.

What a touching story:

“She said to her teenage kid, ‘Here’s the fetus,’ ” the shockingly candid Bush told NBC’s Matt Lauer, gesturing as if he were holding the jar during the TV chat, a DVD of which The Post exclusively obtained.

“There’s no question that affected me, a philosophy that we should respect life,” said the former president, who had to drive his distraught mother to the hospital at the time . .

“I never expected to see the remains of the fetus, which she had saved in a jar to bring to the hospital,” Bush writes in his new book, “Decision Points” . .

Guess I won’t finish this beer. Might I say, ‘yikes’? Or simulate some kind of puking? Or just ‘AAUUGGH!’? These people remain out-of-this-world bizarre.

BREAKING: oh, please, it wasn’t Mommy Bush that crammed the lifeless, blood-soaked fetus in that jar. It was her maid:

Isn’t your maid exactly the same way? Yes, of course, all maids are satanic. Mine, Frederica, is just like that. There she goes now, ‘What are you up to dear?’

Why she’s trying to cook the cat. Always thinking of others, that’s her. Good old Freddi, the normal maid. Whom I beat back into a dungeon every night.

This is almost too good to be true. Almost too good for words. Holy cow — is this for real? It looks to me like it actually happened. In Texas? Holy patty pies.

If I’m not fitfully napping right now, then this is some sort of holiday event I can enjoy even more than whatever tomorrow is. Tom DeLay, ‘The Hammer,’ legendary Republican ass-heart, America slasher, soulless political ghoul, just got convicted on both counts in his Texas criminal trial. Tom DeLay, ‘guilty’ and ‘guilty’:

DeLay, at one time one of the most powerful men in Washington, was charged with money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He faces a possible sentence of 5-99 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine on the money laundering charge, and 2-20 years in prison and a possible $10,000 fine on the conspiracy charge.

It almost makes me want to believe in Buddha. How often is it that bad things happen to bad people? Rare. How often is it that bad things happen to miserable, despicable cockroaches? Rarer. Getting a fetid, maggot-filled shit bag with no human decency like DeLay to face penitentiary is rarer still.

Let us take it all in. AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH. Yeeesssss, that is nice. America, the land of fair play, decency and the Constitution, almost never convicts these people. We act nothing like we say we do, so this is a wonderful and strange thing, indeed. This is absolutely a cause for some celebration.

Let us take his shallow protestations, his now useless spins, let us throw them on the ground and roll around in them. Like happy, careless dogs! Let’s roll around in these impotent words like we were puppies and they were milk bones! Yes!

“I praise the Lord for what’s going on . . ”

HA HA, oh man, that is rich. Like plenty of onlookers haven’t already remarked how shocked you looked when the verdict was read.

“It’s an abuse of power, a miscarraige of justice.”

Oh — those old cliches? How many times have I heard you smear your opposition with those hoary lines in the last 10 years? The computer is suffering banal app hang. Time to update your software Tom: you just got out of court. Your political enemies — the cut-throat partisan pigs — are a jury of your peers? Absolutely delicious.

“I’m very disappointed,” he said. “It is what it is. Maybe we can get it before people who understand the law.”

How great is that? Having gotten away with murder for so long, poor old Tom still doesn’t realize that the George W. Bush Beltway Pigeon Hole isn’t America. No, the ethics committees and the convenient colleagues and the federal overseers and the Department of Justice never bothered him in that little bit of Eden. Because they never bothered with the law, or oversight or justice. Because the Bushies were, almost to a man and woman, slavering criminals, and they were wisely aware of it. Justice doesn’t require a great deal of power, it merely requires a reasonably functioning system. I guess Texas — surprise! — is guilty of at least that.

“I still maintain that I’m innocent, and the criminalization of politics undermines our very system.”

Getting better! Lordy, I think I’m feeling light-headed. You can’t launder corporate money into Texas politics — the law is like a HUNDRED YEARS OLD. You never argued that you didn’t. You never countered even one of the obvious facts of the case. 12 out of 12 people concluded that you broke both money laundering laws — one of them for conspiracy. I’m rolling in ham bones and biscuits . . ahhooooooo! I’m crawling with fleas that have cupcakes for teeth . . rrrooowwrrrooooow!

Wait — video just now. .

THE LOOK ON YOUR FACE! ON. YOUR. FACE! RRROOOWRROOOOOOO!
Why am I licking my balls? BECAUSE NOW I CAN. AHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Go ahead, scratch my belly. Rrrrooowwwwrrr, look at my leg go.