this is how w's writers come up with his speeches: let's take into account everything that has happened in the past four years under our administration and say that the polar opposite has happened, and we'll come out sounding rosy (the absolute best is when someone from the commerce department tries to explain how exporting jobs to other countries is actually good for the economy. entertainment gold!).
do some fact-checking, i promise i'm not kidding. and please don't watch the news, or at least realize that it is all skewed. we see the story as interpreted by the media, whatever their political alignment (or misalignment) may be. observing the subject always changes it. so read, or watch cspan, because nothing you hear or see on any news network is true. this is not me being cynical, take any news story and google it, or whatever. find out for yourself.
something else that's interesting to do: go on cnn and read any particular global story and then go on al jazeera (or any foreign news network, bbc, etc.) and read their story on the smae thing. i don't mean to imply that either is more accurate than the other, but you can see how at least one is propagandizing the story. who's to say which is right? how can anyone be obtuse enough to believe that we get the straight story 100% of the time because we live in america and foreign news agencies spout lies 100% of the time because they don't?
and how much sense does it make that terrorists hate us because we are free and enjoy a better quality of life. does anyone seriously believe that religious jihads are undertaken because of jealousy? bin laden is (or at least was) wealthier than most of us will ever be. i can't imagine he had a very difficult life. why then all the hatred for america?
the people we went to "liberate" are now being referred to as "insurgents". and another interesting tidbit - one of saddam's former generals (jassim mohammed saleh) has now been made leader of iraqi troops (you have to check out the picture of him in this article and the article itself, it's eerie). but this is perfectly fine, i'm sure he was one of those top-tiered underlings of saddam that had absolutely no idea about the atrocities he committed (or ordered to be committed?), and was completely innocent of any wrong-doing. maybe he's one of those "nice" former iraqi generals with a heart of gold. "i was just following orders" comes to mind.
aside from the fact that saddam hussein was evil and inhumane to his people (and if that's our only rationale how many other countries can we thus "liberate"), i see no redeeming quality whatsoever in invading iraq. there's that whole "region-stablizing" theory that we can't know for sure about for several years, but that seems at best flimsy to me. maybe there's something i'm missing in all this; i honestly and truly hope so. if anyone can offer some semblance of a sensible reason why any of this is going on please let me know, because i'm getting exponentially disheartened in our country as the days go by.
this is why we shouldn't vote for kerry: he threw away two medals he was awarded for his vietnam service 30 years ago and owns an suv. i know these aren't the only arguments, but it's funny how they're the ones you hear being shouted most loudly from the peanut gallery.
sorry about the political tirade, i needed it.
album du jour: french kicks the trial of the century
No comments:
Post a Comment