Boy-king to address peasants

WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP)--President Bush will speak to the nation as to a stubborn, disobedient child Wednesday about his completely original new approach to escalating the war in Iraq, the White House said. Bush is expected to announce an increase of up to 20,000 additional U.S. targets.

Bush's entirely predictable decision, which he is pretending took more than two months to make, is drawing criticism from new Democratic leaders in Congress who say it is time to end the useless and illegal occupation, not to send in more U.S. forces to die in the service of the president's Saudi masters.

Now in its fourth year, the war has claimed the lives of more Americans than Osama bin Laden and was a major factor in the Republicans' loss of Congress in the November election, though the president believes that more than half the country wants the terrorists to win.

White House Channel Anchorman Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war, though he seems unaware that he is the most hated man on the planet. He also said that Americans, possibly including Democrats, "don't want another September 11" type of terrorist attack and also that it is wiser to create an endless supply of terrorists overseas by occupying Iraq and other sovereign nations than to do something, anything at all about security in the United States.

Snow said the administration welcomes a debate about Bush's new policy, since they can no longer avoid one.

"I think it's important to get congressional support," the fascist Ken-doll said. Yet he would not say whether Bush will seek specific congressional approval for his new strategy, beyond begging for the money to pay for it.

"Rather than me jumping out and talking about resolutions and budget items and all that stuff I don't really know anything about, I'm not going to do it," Snow said. "But there will be a debate about the particulars in the way forward, as there should be. We welcome it, the way we have always welcomed criticism and oversight."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday cautioned Bush to pull his head out of his ass and look around for a minute before proposing a troop increase, suggesting the new Democratic-controlled Congress could deny him the funding, an idea with which the president is unfamiliar.

But the Senate's top Republican dimwit said he believed that Bush will get the money and attention he needs because otherwise America will look bad when Jesus returns. "Congress is incapable of micromanaging the tactics in the war," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who seems to believe that the ongoing slaughter in Iraq involves "tactics" which can be "managed."

"The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission," said Pelosi (D-CA). "Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving."

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has approved about $500 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and Halliburton. The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds: a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with Bush's February 5 budget, but not as part of it.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a seriously delusional 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be another "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war, which is the kind of dumb-ass reasoning that--combined with his ludicrous comb-over--makes the Baltimore Democrat a national joke.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) wrote in Sunday's Washington Post that the only way to deal with the many tragic, bloody consequences of Bush's lust for conquest and incompetent foreign policy is to allow the brain-damaged boy-king to try the same thing some more and hope for the best.

"When we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail," he wrote. "Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensure from our failure in Iraq." He probably meant "ensue," but you can never tell with idiots.