First, let's assume you like your uncle, so let's keep things light-hearted. Confusing the personal and the political is a legacy from the Communists. Let's not emulate them.
In that spirit, you have to compliment your uncle on his penultimate line: "I'm yellow dog with a full bladder who's found his Shrub." That's pretty good stuff. Have to give him credit there.
And then you kick him around a bit like the mangy ol' yellow dog he is.
He was not elected by a majority,
Ok. So you want to change the Constitition, Article 2, section 1. Start a petition, and let me know how that goes for you.
he was anointed by a fiercely right wing supreme court majority,
Riiiiight. So fiercely right wing that they'll get around to overturning Roe vs. Wade any day now. Which justice tipped the balance so far to the right for you? Ruth Bader Ginsberg? David Souter? There are only three justices that most conservatives give a damn about. Which other ones are so lacking in leftist favor these days? You have to practically view Chairman Mao as a centrist to view the Supreme Court as "fiercely right wing."
most of whom owe their positions to the Shrub man's father and party, undermining the court's legitimacy and that of the Shrub's administration.
Well let's count how many parties have appointed Supreme Court justices. By my count, it's two. By some weird coincidence, both of those parties had a stake in the election. So we could either have had a majority appointed by the president's party, or the other guy's party. Forgive me if I don't join you in your fevered paranoia over this one. If you think the court is only "legtimate" when the majority of justices were appointed by the opposition party, you have a lot larger beef with the legitimacy of the government than getting rid of the current president can resolve.
He has kept the country in fear since 9/11 and sought to campaign as a WAR president, because most war presidents have an easier time passing legislation and getting reelected. He even created a war for that purpose.
Look, braniac. Someone out there flew airplanes into American buildings. Most of us considered that an act of war. Feel free to contend that we should have phoned that one in to the Hague to let them deal with it if you want. The rest of us think war was declared by the other side. We'll just have to agree to disagree there.
Remember, it was leaked before the mid-term election, by a White House source, that the sudden irrational run up to the war with Iraq was a matter of "marketing"
Try getting your "leaks" from somewhere other than La Monde. There was nothing sudden or irrational about going to war with Iraq. And about this "marketing" thing....
On the way to Iraq he undid decades' of diplomacy and alienated all of our traditional allies and others whose support we might have expected, except for those he bought or frightened into being "willing".
So the war was "marketed," but not well enough in your opinion? Is this "marketing" supposed be global or domestic or what? You seem confused. You want us to line up behind keeping France and Russia happy while crazy Arabs attack us willy nilly. I think your priorities are a little out of whack.
And of course, you once again decend into the fever swamps of paranoia. Those who oppose us are "traditional allies" we must not offend. Those who join us are frightened or bribed. My question: what is the purpose of allies who won't ally themselves with us? In your opinion our "allies" either refuse or have to be intimidated or bribed. Those don't sound like allies to me. Maybe those "decades of diplomacy" weren't so skillful after all.
Oh yeah, we've also lost our position (as if we ever really held or deserved it) as the beacon of hope and freedom for the world.
Parse that thought for me. We've lost a position we may have not ever held, and if we did we didn't deserve? Get back to me when you decide whether anything happened here, and if so whether it was a good thing.
We are undeniably a world bully now, and there is no realistic chance of a meaningful international consensus on any issue while the Shrub Man speaks for us.
I'm don't value the consensus of Syria, Iran, and China very highly when we're acting in our national interest. I'd rather be right than loved by those sort of nations. Again, we'll just agree to disagree.
Sheesh... just a mound of gold in the first paragraph alone. I don't have the time to do the rest justice. But hopefully someone will.