Friday, June 06, 2008

BUCKED OVER


THE SOWDIES:
America’s Enemies/Washington’s Friends

Our government is friends with our enemies, the Sowdies, and hush money doesn’t even begin to explain it, as 9/11 has come and gone and this 'special relationship' hasn’t missed a beat, or payment. These royal scumbags have been collecting American’s since they could afford to buy them, weak Americans, ones with no allegiance to this country, and particularly those in power who have sworn allegiance to this country. And the one place where the buck is supposed to stop is where the buck's begin. When a clear enemy of the American people doesn’t need to worry about paying any price for it, stories like the following are reported and forgotten about the next day:

Indicted Saudi Gets $80 Million US Contract

Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?


For the record, the accompanying visual is meant to convey how compromised our government's become in the face of temptation, with dire consequences that we can't even begin to see. And that's Pigman standing in for the incorruptible American Individual. As well as the Saudi flag, which is spreading it's green within Washington P.C.s flag, as distinguished from The American Flag, which stays a true red white and blue.

23 comments:

Damien said...

Bosch,

Nice picture. Your a good artist.

Speaking of dhimmis,
here is someone who is anything but one. It is Geert Wilders discussing Fitna. I give you the link to it in case you haven't seen it yet. It was also posted on the Infidel Bloggers Alliance.
Geert Wilders

Bosch Fawstin said...

Damien,

Thanks, going to check out the video later. It will always be The Individual who takes a stand and inspires others, as is the case in Wilders. His rarity is a sad tell of our times, but that he's out there telling the truth we all need to hear is great nonetheless.

Damien said...

Bosch,

I am glad you appreciate it.

Bosch Fawstin said...

It gets worse. From The Wall Street Journal today:
Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?

Damien said...

Bosch,

Bush seems to be making the mistake that the Saudis are our friends because they are Iran's enemies.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Could be, but he has to realize that the old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' idea doesn't work in the Muslim world. In the context of their Shiite/Sunni rift, they're enemies, but when it comes to us, they're Muslims and we're Infidels, period. If Bush ever picked up a book on Islam, it may have penetrated his thick skull. I have to say, I don't glory in dismissing Bush entirely here, I was rooting for him after 9/11 and he's truly left me feeling nothing but contempt for him.

Damien said...

Bosch,

Unfortunately a lot politicians are even more PC than the general public. I hope it doesn't take a nuclear 9/11 to get us to truly stand up to them.

Bosch Fawstin said...

If political correctness is the art of avoiding reality, politicians are its masters.
Behind our government's lack of fight in this war, I sense an irrational attempt at fair play here. This enemy is so weak in a conventional war sense, that he makes our leaders feel like it'd be overkill to go all out in a war against them. It's as if Washington is waiting for them to attain the power to really hurt us before they feel justified in retaliating, as if 9/11 didn't happen and wasn't enough reason to crush them. And then there's the fact that since Bush did not put the enemy in their place right after 9/11, that he lost the initiative and allowed the white hot lust for vengeance within all of us dissipate, which while alive, gave him a blank check to do what had to be done to crush the bastards and achieve peace. No matter what 'wins' we like to cite, as when our government tells us they've got a big fish in al Queda, one that none of us knew of before. Those behind 9/11 aren't defeated and so our government has not done their job. When I hear that we can't really defeat this enemy, that we will always be at war, that's simply a choice on our government's part to not do what needs to be done.

George guy said...

Great picture, it's always fun to see how different people interpret these things.

I can sort of imagine someone throwing a bucket of Jihad-colored paint at the flag, with Pigman standing in the way.

An interesting thought came to me as I watched that Wilders speech Damien linked, in the part where he mentioned that 1/10 of France's population is now Muslim.

Specifically, I seem to recall that there are two or three texts in the Koran or other central Islamic text saying something to the effect of "Where there are ten of you, you shall triumph over a hundred," and "Where there are a hundred of you, you shall defeat a thousand". What that seems to suggest strongly is that when the Muslim population reaches that 1:10 proportion with its host population, uprising is commanded.

It would be interesting to see how closely Islamic unrest correlates with the population ratio against that benchmark.

Bosch Fawstin said...

George Guy,

The Big Bang Jihad, that was always part of the plan, this procreation jihad, with even one our enemies literally saying that 'We will conquer you with the wombs of our women.' That's just one of their many weapons in their arsenal against us, while we sit here and can't even call out Islam.

Bosch Fawstin said...

And now this, New York skyscrapers for sale to our enemies.

Rebel Radius said...

Excellent work yet again Bosch!!

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks, Rebel Radius, always nice to hear.

Robert Jones said...

I've been saying for over a year now:

Impeach and imprison traitor G.W. Bush, and his puppet master, Dick Cheney.

Damien said...

Robert Jones,

There are at least several problems with your impeach Bush idea.
One problem, many of the people who could replace him would be even worse. Plus, I am not really sure he isn't naive enough to think that the Saudis are our friends because they are enemies with Iran. In order to prove treason we would have to show that Bush knew the Saudis were our enemies when he made this deal with them. Its possible he doesn't realize what they are up to. Hard as that may be for you to believe it is not impossible.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Robert,

I can't defend the man, not anymore, he seems bound and determined to prove that he really is as daft as we've all feared him to be. To Bush, so long as the Saudis smile at him without laughing in his face, they're our friends, even if they sponsor terrorism. And Damien, if Bush doesn't realize, as we all do, that his friends the Saudis are America's enemies, then doesn't that make a further case against him? Even worse, our American tax dollars have paid to arm palestinian terrorists against Israel, perpetuating this idea of even handedness that our government has engaged in for decades, which is criminal, but in a post 9/11 world, is treasonous. Bush as 'the best friend Israel has ever had'? Does a friend ask a friend to absorb the murder of loved ones, while supplying the weapons? No. Bush is the best friend our enemies ever had, for his decision, whether aware of it or not, to not defeat this enemy when we have the power to. It's not complex, in war you destroy your enemies, you don't buddy up with them. And now, our Supreme court has given terrorist's constitutional rights as if they were Americans. If Bush did what a president is supposed to do after an attack like 9/11, we would not be at war 7 years later where something as impossible as this has actually happened

Damien said...

Bosch,

If Bush actually doesn't realize the Saudis or the Palestinians are our enemies, than impeaching becomes problematic, since you can't impeach the president for stupidity. There's nothing in the constitution that says you can do that. The constitution clearly states that the president can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Plus every president since Reagan has acted like the Palestinians can be reasoned with and that Israel and Palestine and peacefully coexist. I have lost a lot of respect for him lately. But, one thing I must say in his defense is that he doesn't support the supreme court's decision giving gitmo detainees due process rights.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Damien,

Post 9/11 is the thing, Damien. Post 9/11 politics as usual should have ended and did not, and if there's one man to blame, it's Bush.

Damien said...

Bosch

You said
"Post 9/11 is the thing, Damien. Post 9/11 politics as usual should have ended and did not, and if there's one man to blame, it's Bush."

I am sorry it took me awhile to formulate a response. Look Regardless of whether or not what you say is true, the only way you can impeach Bush without violating the constitution is if he committed a crime. So what exactly was Bush's crime? How did he violate the law? If no one can answer that question, there is no legal grounds to impeach him. Bosch, please don't misunderstand me, I know how you feel. But I have to be honest. I am well aware that the constitution is not a suicide pack, but you can't just impeach a president if he didn't violate the law in some way.

The constitution has been shredded enough as it is. So unless someone can tell me exactly what Bush's crime was, and present convincing evidence of guilt, the case for impeachment cannot be made. To try to impeach a president, knowing he didn't violate the law would be itself a violation of the rule of law.

Even if Bush is the most responsible for the maintenance of politics as usually, is that a crime? Has he broken the law? If Bush actually believes that he can trust the Saudis, he may be a fool, but they have not been officially declared our enemies. Make no mistake, I am not saying they haven't declared themselves our enemies, but unfortunately too many of us don't realize they are our enemies. What if Bush actually believes his "Religion of Peace" nonsense? If that's the case, he may be a naive, and maybe a fool, but does that make him a criminal?

Look I hate to tell you this, in the political climate we have today, even if we had an American equivalent of Geert Wilders in the white house, he would have a lot of trouble doing his job just because of political correctness. Most likely he would be chastised by congress and the politically correct media for being Islamophobic.

The Dutch establishment is treating the real Geert Wilders like he is some kind of hate monger. He is having trouble getting through to them. There's even the disturbing possibility, the Dutch goverment may try to punish him for speaking the truth, rather than face the truth. He is an elected government official, and other people in his politically correct government are treating him like he is a bad person for doing what he is doing, and they have it worse in Europe than we have it here.

Damien said...

Lets face it, the only way we are going to be able to change post 9/11 politics as usual is convince enough people to think like us. Unfortunately, that is far easier said than done.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Damien,

You're in an argument with me about why Bush shouldn't be impeached, when I never made the argument that he should be. I simply cannot defend the man and he makes it incredibly easy, as he's defaulted since day one in this war and has not done Anything to rectify that, spouting the same pc bs he did that day, 7 years later, truly not learning anything since about the threat we face. And keep in mind, that this is not an average American here, who can afford to remain ignorant about Islam, as many do, this is the president of the United States of America who duty calls him to find out for HIMSELF who this enemy is and then act accordingly. It's a dereliction of duty, and it's the indifference of his fellow politicians that makes it too obviously hypocritical for them to hold him to it. If they're guilty of being indifferent to gaining crucial knowledge that will lead us to victory, he's more guilty. I suggest that you really think about why I'm hard on Bush instead of your attempt to give him a pass because what he's NOT doing isn't deemed as technically criminal. If a detective doesn't follow serious leads in a criminal case, for Whatever damn reason, it's a dereliction of duty and there's a price to pay. Bush hasn't paid any price for his pathetic pretense at fighting an enemy that he doesn't want to know. Whatever reason he has for maintaining his willful blindness matters less than that he maintains it. I can go on, but I just can't wait for this 'cowboy' to walk into the sunset and officially end a presidency he gave up over two years ago. My mind's already on 2012, where I want a Guliani or a Bolton to Give Us Liberty and Give Them Death.

Damien said...

Bosch,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't correctly interpret what you were saying. I am sorry I made you post for nothing, but I must agree with you, as of late, Bush has been a disappointment to say the least.

But it looks like our next president could make him look like FDR fighting WW2 by comparison.
If even some of the claims made in this video are true, Obama, may be a far worse president than Bush when it comes to taking on our enemies.
stoptheaclu

Personally am some what skeptical, but not too long ago, I wouldn't have believed, a 9/11 memorial could end up being made into a Muslim Shine to Jihad.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Damien,

I'm with you, the next president could make Bush look good by comparison, but if it is McCain, he may even fight the war harder. Don't care for him, as he's always willing to wheal and deal with the left, but compared to Obama, he's the only sane choice. He was a soldier, suffered for it and is an American through and through. An Obama presidency would tell the world that we're not serious as a country, that we're looking to work with our enemies instead of defeat them and it would truly be a Carter type presidency at the worst time imagineable. And Obama's distancing himself away from his Muslim heritage makes him suspect, as if he really has something to hide about it. Fact is, he was born Muslim. That is incredibly relevant at the present time, but his cheerleaders couldn't give a damn, because they really can't appreciate the difference between what's important and what's not. To them, the fact that he's half black trumps the content of his character. Personally, I think he doesn't have a chance in hell, no matter what we're fed about the possible outcome of this election. Now, McCain had better pick the best possible running mate he can, a Guliani or John Bolton. These are tough, principled men who would set themselves up to be there when we need exactly that in the White House. Then there's Romney, who I'm not sure about, but for the fact that he was the only candidate who consistently used the term Jihad and seemed to understand more than the rest what we're facing.