appropo of nothing i've been up since 3:45 this morning and have been, as usual, spending quality time with the 'SPAN.
on washington journal the question posed to callers today deals with which party (if either) they trust more on security. some braying JACKASS called in, naturally saying he trusts republicans because democrats only want people to "feel good", that we only concern ourselves with emotions and feelings.
tell me jackass, was it reason and fact that led us into iraq, or was it knee-jerk revenge and retribution? is vengeance an emotion? maybe it was one man's desire to one-up his father? is that more emotional or factual? bravado and chest-beating is not a legitimate impetus for war, dickhole.
how can we even measure the number of new america-haters we've created by our illegal occupation? the countless family and friends of innocent iraqis who have been maimed or killed or tortured now harbor nothing but the utmost ire for our country.
the 9-11 commission (which i don't recognize as a completely credible authority on anything, but at the moment it's all we've got) submitted an abhorrent report (pdf file here) on the progress our government has made on their recommendations of 3-plus years ago. eye on the ball? eye on the ball?
and how defenseless has the occupation left our "homeland" (i've never been comfortable with that term), with such a large number of our national guardsmen and equipment serving in the desert?
we had a 3-day head start on hurricane katrina and FEMA still bungled the rescue operation. what happens when another terrorist attack occurs and we have no preparation time? (incidentally, there were several harbingers of the 9-11 attacks that the bush administration either ignored, failed to recognize, or saw as an opportunity to accomlpish their agenda and let happen). how ready are we for chemical/biological attacks?
why does wisconsin get the same amount of funding per capita for security as new york city? does that make sense (flamingo i know you think so, but really)?
i don't completely trust democrats to do anything -- they're all politicians and their motives are never what they say they are. but jesus tap-dancing christ, at least the dems are not so brazen in their corruption as to put the security of the american people, and america itself, in jeopardy solely for money and power.
why did george "slam dunk" tenet get a presidential medal of freedom? because he did such a cracker-jack job of providing accurate intelligence on saddam's wmd's? or was it because he provided the administration with the exact intelligence they wanted to take us to war?
fuck, even in the morning idiots get my blood boiling. this is better than caffeine (almost).
3 comments:
Yes, I've also found the idiocy of our GOP leaders as a quick-and-easy blood boiler. In fact, it often works too well and I have to think of frosty ex-girlfriends to bring down my resultant migraine.
When Republicans say Democrats want people to feel good, it says a lot about their priorities. Do they want people not to feel good? I think they do! Fear and loathing sell missiles and insane "security" programs. Another thing to consider is that when conservatives say liberals don't want to face the facts, they of course are referring to the fake "facts" that the GOP insists we all blindly accept even though they were obvious cooked up in a paid-for think tank. No wonder we're seen as kneejerk; is there any other appropriate response to obvious Republican BS?
well said
I know having that much funding for Wisconsin seems ridiculous. And it really is, actually, but while Wisconsin is a) backwater and b) uninspiring, there are reasons that do, by GOP logic (if such a thing exists), justify it:
a. the green bay area (yes, think the football team the packers) is one of the most heavily industrialized areas in the united states, and the most heavily industrialized area in the midwest. Yeah, it's paper plants, but Yeah, paper plants still blow up.
b. there's a huge ammunitions factory in Watertown, and theoretically that was on the list for the 9/11 attacks as a back up target.
otherwise, i concur. well said.
Mairead.
Post a Comment