Tearing It Up
Well, I lost a follow-up post to the ridiculous deification of Gerald Ford, expounding a bit on B.D.'s comments. Maybe it's sitting unsaved on my home machine, or not.
I wrote a letter to the editor, which I didn't expect would get published as I was sure there was a slew of responses.
Today's headlines. Bush crying at the ceremony awarding a posthumous Congressional Medal Of Honor. If I'd been family I'd have wanted someone else to award it, but out of respect for the tradition I would not have. Why was the pathetic pipsqueak bastard Bush shedding a tear? I'm incredulous. Was it fake? Possibly not. For the heck of it, lets assume it was a genuine tear. Was it for the bravery and romantic picture of a man throwing his body on a grenade? Was it because Bush realized he was directly responsible for wasting this brave man's life? Does Bush deserve the relief of shedding a tear.
The Whitehouse Weasel got his wish and had Saddam hung, though not as cleanly or secretly as he'd wanted. I got to thinking. Who has killed more innocent Iraqis? Saddam or the Whitehouse Weasel? Debatable. Which is the bigger terrorist? The one who killed with American made chemical agents or the one who killed with thousands of tons of American made bombs at a time? Oops both of them used chemical agents, our recent use of white phosphorous being the most recently publicized. Saddam used bombs, but not nearly as many. Again debatable. I'm really struggling to find any mitigating circumstances for the Whitehouse Weasel. I don't detest the man, but it is an exercise I should do. I've heard the conservative talking points, and they invariably cover up and obfuscate rather than promote transparency. Will we ever see justice? I want this to be debatable.
PS - I used a few blatant literary devices, to sate the same urge which gives rise to a tedious level of profanity. ;)
I wrote a letter to the editor, which I didn't expect would get published as I was sure there was a slew of responses.
Change? NOT
So how is this allegedly new tactic different from saying we'll stand down when Iraq stands up? Why is the media letting him get away with this make-believe change? Will the more than 20,000 troops who will be put back in harm's way while the commander in chief kicks back for an undeserved rest at his private dude ranch be proud and eager for another shot at getting into Arlington or Bethesda?
The media reports on the democrats 'arguing', rather than saying they are 'debating' the issue. I guess they are so accustomed to congress saying, "Yes sir, Mr. Cheney! Yes sir, Mr. Rove!", it is now assumed congress should be an unthinking rubber stamp. Where is this liberal media when you need them? How about, at the very least, an impartial one?
As a combat veteran, I thirst for an impartial and responsible media, one that understands that supporting the war and supporting the troops are actually distinct concepts. The next coward who tells me we have to support the troops by sending more to their deaths to honor our shameful sacrifice of those we've already killed and maimed will get an earful. Invariably it is some young man, who when I tell them they could best support the troops by serving with them, panics saying they can't possibly leave their families and more lucrative careers. I guess the war must not be that important to the supporters after all. It has certainly given me the impression that greedy people lack any vestige of courage.
Today's headlines. Bush crying at the ceremony awarding a posthumous Congressional Medal Of Honor. If I'd been family I'd have wanted someone else to award it, but out of respect for the tradition I would not have. Why was the pathetic pipsqueak bastard Bush shedding a tear? I'm incredulous. Was it fake? Possibly not. For the heck of it, lets assume it was a genuine tear. Was it for the bravery and romantic picture of a man throwing his body on a grenade? Was it because Bush realized he was directly responsible for wasting this brave man's life? Does Bush deserve the relief of shedding a tear.
The Whitehouse Weasel got his wish and had Saddam hung, though not as cleanly or secretly as he'd wanted. I got to thinking. Who has killed more innocent Iraqis? Saddam or the Whitehouse Weasel? Debatable. Which is the bigger terrorist? The one who killed with American made chemical agents or the one who killed with thousands of tons of American made bombs at a time? Oops both of them used chemical agents, our recent use of white phosphorous being the most recently publicized. Saddam used bombs, but not nearly as many. Again debatable. I'm really struggling to find any mitigating circumstances for the Whitehouse Weasel. I don't detest the man, but it is an exercise I should do. I've heard the conservative talking points, and they invariably cover up and obfuscate rather than promote transparency. Will we ever see justice? I want this to be debatable.
PS - I used a few blatant literary devices, to sate the same urge which gives rise to a tedious level of profanity. ;)
1 Comments:
Another thing that the media isn't being very explicit on is this: at least one brigade of those 20,000 troops is coming from our troops already stationed in Afghanistan. It is incredible to me that we would consider pulling troops from that country. Afghanistan, by all accounts, is dealing with a fierce backlash from Taliban forces. The British and Canadian troops on the front line there are facing a great deal of fighting and are losing soldiers. After pulling troops out of Afghanistan to battle George's folly, the last thing we need to do is worsen the situation and pull more out.
After all, Afghanistan is where bin Laden was stationed. It's rulers at the time were the ones who would not cooperate and hand over that criminal. The country's leadership was run out (and one can make a case that it was the ethical thing to do) and replaced with some semblance and more lenient government. As our original foothold in this war, it should receive our top priority and attention.
I don't know if pulling one brigade out of Afghanistan will make any difference. But, if we "lose Iraq" and on top of it "lose Afghanistan", this troop movement, even if it is symbolic, will be seen as more proof of the incompetence of this administration and the military commanders which advise it.
It's a huge gamble. One that may result in the loss of 2 countries, 2 war fronts and will certainly result in the loss of a lot of lives. Losing Iraq may be considered bad, but what are the consequences of losing Iraq and Afghanistan?
Post a Comment
<< Home