| I'm not very politically savvy. I don't know a whole lot about world affairs, or about "political philosophy" or any of that highfalutin' stuff they teach you kids in the schools these days. So I really do have an honest question for the Bush supporters out there, which is this: Have you lost your fucking minds?
First, Bush says we have to go to war becuase Iraq has "Weapons of Mass Destruction(tm)" which, as it turns out, are less deadly in terms of potential body count than conventional weapons, which we seem, for undisclosed reasons, to have no problem with. A number of people, leading up to the war, point out that Bush hasn't shown any evidence whatsoever. This is met with the rejoiner, "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." When I heard that, it went over and over in my head for about sixty seconds, and then I put my hand through a wall to bring me back to reality, where I realized that the aforementioned phrase doesn't mean shit, and fails to address the fairly straightforward fact that there still wasn't any evidence. So off to war we go, after being told that we know for a fact that Saddam not only has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in development, production and deployment, but is planning on using them in the near future - enough so that it's worth the obvious risk that he'll use them when cornered and under siege. We go, we kill some Iraqis, occupy the country, and so on and so forth, and then something interesting, and typical happens. There are no weapons. There is no coke on the proverbial boat. It's closing in on a year without any significant justification for the war. So what do we get? Predictably, "Well, intelligence seems to have suggested that there was a threat." That also baffled me, because either you SEE the weapons and the production facilities, or you DON'T see them, and if it's the second, why would you say that? So it comes then that the director of the CIA mentioned to the president that at least one part of his state of the union address, specifically regarding Iraq's uranium acquisition, was almost certainly based on "forged" intelligence and pretty clearly not true. He said it anyway. Then the apologists go in overtime saying that he had to to get people riled up, and so on and so forth, and there's all this quibbling over exact quotes and whether he really said there were weapons and whether his STAFF said there were, but HE didn't.... and I want to move to Libya, becuase I'd be tortured to death, but at least the bastards doing it wouldn't be telling me that they were good people who just want to help me. At the end of the day, here's where it stands: $500 billion is missing from a diminished tax pool for the sake of this operation, which has so far yielded nothing. Bush lied about the motivation for the expense. Why does he still have a job? Like, if I work at Taco Bell, and I lie and say I'm using $50 from the register to pay a plumber to fix a leak in the resturant bathroom, and it turns out there's no leak, I will no longer have a job. So someone is going to have to explain why we hold TACO BELL EMPLOYEES to a higher standard of accountability than someone with more power than any other individual on the face of the planet, because that pretty much blows my mind. cranked out at 5:55 AM | |
|
| template © elementopia 2003 |
 |