Our only weapon is the truth.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/
This is the weblog of bestselling author Matthew Woodring Stover. WARNING: use of this product may result in intestinal upset, mental disturbance, sudden mood swings, dental caries and occasional anal leakage. Management denies responsibility for any and all injury.
If you're gonna play Poke the Bear, you better keep in mind the bear doesn't give a shit it's just a game.
About Me
- MWS
- firmly believes that if you don't already know who he is, you're wasting your time hanging around here. Go buy a book or something.
6 comments:
I, like many others, can't wait until they vote mini-Bush out of office.
But looking at my map of the Middle East, where all the American troops are deployed, who do you think will be the next "target"?
Hm.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040802/ts_latimes/terrorismsuspectstracedtoiran&cid=2026&ncid=1478
Hey forgive me for my confusion but...
Here's how I look at it. Bush is our leader and he's telling us one side of the story.
Then you have all these other people who are "advisors" and, in that article in particular, they were telling Bush he's wrong.
So I'm confused. Who is telling the truth? Who should I believe? Think you can clear it up Matt...cuz both cases sound pretty good.
President Bush is veracity-challenged, and has been ever since his preposterous "compassionate conservative" campaign.
When one's actions are driven by ideology instead of insight, we get the kind of "moral clarity" that accepts any justification that might offer itself, true or not. Does anyone remember that the original justifcation for the massive tax giveaways was that the economy as TOO STRONG? That the budget surplus was TOO BIG?
Then, when that turned out to be false, the same tax cuts were justified as being necesssary to "jump-start" the economy. When that didn't work, the answer was MORE tax cuts.
Here's the point: the Bush Administration simply decides what it wants to do, and constructs rationales for it after the fact. As we've seen in Iraq, as well; as we have seen in the way we have abandoned Afghanistan, handing it back to the Taliban (who currently control a third of the country) and the heroin producers, who run the other two thirds. As we have seen in the devotion of nearly our entire pool of combat ground forces to taking out Saddam -- who has never attacked our country -- and letting Osama bin Laden, who has, run free in the hills of Pakistan.
Does anyone believe that if we had sent -- oh, say, let's pick a number out of the air -- 140,000 troops into Afghanistan, Mullah Omar and bin Laden would be alive and free today?
You want to hear me say it flat out?
How do you know Dick Cheney is lying? His lips are moving.
I can't speak for President Bush. He may actually be dim enough to believe he's telling the truth.
Doesn't make him right.
Oh ok. I get it now. I always thought Iraq was somehow responsible but now I see that they WEREN'T. It puts a whole new light on it. I mean I just had refused to believe that there was any reason for not going in. I had believed the lies.
Between that article and Matt's explination I see that Bush and them are lying to get what they want. But now I want to know WHY. WHY do they lie and pursue false goals? WHY are we even in Iraq to begin with?
There are a number of possible explanations; the most generous is that they sincerely believed we would be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people, and we would be able to safely and easily create a stable democracy in the Muslim Middle East.
I hope that's the truth, because it means they're just stupid, as opposed to actively rotten.
There are other likely explanations; one is a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein by Mr. Bush, seeing as how Hussein did try to have his father, George H. W. Bush, assassinated.
It's also possible that Michael Moore was right. What d'you think the odds might be that the real reason Dick Cheney has been fighting the release of records of the energy task force meetings is that they contain (hypothetical, one hopes) discussions on how to divvy up the oil fields in Iraq?
For an overview of what the American Left Wing seems to suspect, check this out:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/these_are_their_ends.php
I do not fully endorse the arguments in this essay -- but I do think they raise the important questions, and I do think the Bush Administration owes the American people, and the world, some straight talk. We just don't seem to be getting it.
If it ever gets old, you have my permission to shoot my ungrateful ass.
Post a Comment