Soylent Green is Made of Terrorists
See, I jinxed it last week when I said the nutbags were quieting down.
Good Happy Hopping Horseshit. This letter is so awful, it's almost a parody of itself. I initially had trouble taking it seriously, simply because reading it made me think of an old "Mr. Show" sketch involving a man who wrote letters using only sarcasm, and didn't understand that sarcasm doesn't translate well in written mediums. Then I got a clear visual of Mark, strapping on the goose-steppers and marching in the warm glow of ignorance, and realized that outside the confines of a sketch comedy show, this kind of stupidity isn't all that funny.
I don't think anyone was really unclear about the president's position on Iraq; Mark seems to feel like this speech cleared up some sort of confusion, but I don't really remember hearing anyone say, "Hey, you know, I wish President Bush would take a position on the situation in Iraq, because I really don't know where he stands on the issue, and I'm sick of him being wishy-washy about it." The problem isn't that we don't know his public position, it's that we're fully aware of it, and it's completely batshit. There are plenty of theories about whether he's sincere or has sinister ulterior motives, but that aside, the sales pitch he's giving us is complete pap, but Mark has really fallen for it hard.
I do kind of understand. What we were sold was a mission to spread freedom and democracy, and to fight the forces of evil who had the means and desire to cause global chaos and great harm to us. It was implied that this would be the World War II of our time, a chance for America to step out of the shadow of Vietnam and engage in a real battle for a good cause again. Of course, it was a complete crock of shit. While Saddam Hussein is a total dick and deserves nothing more than to be devoured by maggots in a salt silo, he didn't have the means to blow up anything more complex than a Coke can with a pack of firecrackers, and was far to comfortable to risk his situation by stirring up international tension. Spreading freedom and democracy didn't work so well either, if the imminent Afghanistan execution of a man who converted from Islam to Christianity is any measure of how well western values have been embraced. President Bush has said he's 'concerned' about the situation, which is good, since he is directly responsible for our pullin out of Afghantistan to invade Iraq, leaving the country with little guidance or reconstructive assistance. I'm glad to see he's 'concerned.' It's like we went to the store to get a really nice TV, and the salesman sold us what we thought was a Panasonic Plasma-Screen, but got home to find it to be a Parasomic Plastic-Screen television, now with 3 channels and 30% less static!* But Mark just wants to keep watching his new TV. He loves it. It's the best TV he's ever had. If you squint really hard, you can almost tell the difference between "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives." Nobody's going to tell him he got ripped off.
Why do people not see that we need to do this, Mark? Because we know that we've been sold a lie. Defeat those who would try to defeat us? We rolled through the Iraq military in a friggin' week. Why has this war gone on for years? Because foreigners have been pouring in to fight what they feel is an unjustified, sacrilegious American occupation. We've actually created people who want to defeat us, Mark. They might not have liked us before, but we got a big stick, walked out back, and smacked the hell out of that hornet's nest. We haven't been embraced as liberators, as we were assured would happen, but instead we've turned Iraq into a magnet for terrorists and served as the catalyst for what appears to be an imminent and unavoidable civil conflict. Oops. Also, some of us have noticed that the practice doesn't match the theory. We invaded Iraq because we thought they might have the capability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction, but we've basically let North Korea, a nation that definitely DOES have nuclear capability and a massive chip on its shoulder, slide without so much as a strongly-worded condemnation. That doesn't seem odd to you Mark? It seems kind of odd to us.
Of course, you have to know that you're wrong about future generations praising Bush. I mean, he can't get his approval rating over 36% now. As this occupation drags on, with more American deaths, more money spent without any hope of recovery, and more escalating violence among Iraqis, to believe that somehow it will become popular again you'd have to be on something just this side of black tar. Even if you think this occupation is worthwhile, which itself takes an amazing stretch of imagination, realistically you can't point to exactly what the president has accomplished. War presidents are remembered fondly if the war had tangible benefits. The American Revolution allowed for the creation of the country, the Civil War kept the union together, and World War II stopped nations that were actively attacking their neighbors in an attempt to dominate them. What great accomplishment will be remembered from this occupation? It hasn't prevented an imminent disaster, and there is no tangible benefit. Everything has been based on paranoid theories and fuzzy information, most of which has already been proven wrong. Even if Bush was deserving of such praise, and he isn't, he'd be unlikely to be remembered fondly simply because he hasn't 'protected' us from anything. We were promised a war of less than six months, and Bush now assures us we'll be there for at least six years. It was an elective war. We chose to go to war not because there was an immediate conflict, but because we were given faulty intelligence that painted implications of a shadowy threat. Nothing has happened as planned, and Iraq is in worse shape three years after our 'successful' invasion than it was before it. History books won't forget these things, Mark. It was people just like you who defended Joe McCarthy from Ed Murrow; your blind nationalism causes you to side with the flag-wavers against the real patriots. History isn't kind to corrupt flag-wavers or the ignorant masses who prop them up.
Of course, it's extremely telling that you take a jab of Helen Thomas. Why would you feel threatened by a reporter who asks tough questions, Mark? Isn't that the media's job? Or is your idea of a good White House reporter an internet porn performer hired to lob scripted softball questions? It's one thing to fall for misinformation... these guys are well paid and good at what they do. It's something else entirely to be afraid of someone uncovering the truth and being forced to recognize that you were fooled. You believed that Iraq was a threat because the case we were presented with looked strong. Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and a stash of WMDs. Saddam Hussein had conspired with al Quaida and Osama Bin Laden. The smoking gun was going to be a 'mushroom cloud.' All of these assertions, however, were false, and now the administration denies ever making them. Are terrorists from Iraq a threat to us? Sure, as much as terrorists from any country are. Terrorists are a reality, and we should be concerned and act against terrorism, but you've been fooled into living in fear and giving up your right to government ownership because you've bought a line of bullshit about keeping you safe from terrorists. Do you remember how many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq, Mark? None. Not one. So how does an occupation of Iraq directly tie to a war on terror? It's smoke and mirrors, and not only have you fallen for it, but you're threatened by anyone who might break the illusion for you.
The one thing you did get right was when you said, "If people don't know where he stands after Monday's speech, they need a lobotomy." I agree one hundred percent. Getting a lobotomy is probably one of the most effective ways to comprehend and accept the President's Middle East policy. Some of us would rather retain our frontal lobes and continue to think critically, however.
*Compared to other major brands of oil-burning television sets.
To the Editor:
Kudos to our president for laying it on the line! If people don't know where he stands after Monday's speech, they need a lobotomy. He clearly presented our objectives in Iraq: Defeat those who would try to defeat us.
Why do people not see that we need to do this? Future generations will praise this man for having the guts to protect us. The best part was putting that Helen Thomas in her place, finally!
Mark
Good Happy Hopping Horseshit. This letter is so awful, it's almost a parody of itself. I initially had trouble taking it seriously, simply because reading it made me think of an old "Mr. Show" sketch involving a man who wrote letters using only sarcasm, and didn't understand that sarcasm doesn't translate well in written mediums. Then I got a clear visual of Mark, strapping on the goose-steppers and marching in the warm glow of ignorance, and realized that outside the confines of a sketch comedy show, this kind of stupidity isn't all that funny.
I don't think anyone was really unclear about the president's position on Iraq; Mark seems to feel like this speech cleared up some sort of confusion, but I don't really remember hearing anyone say, "Hey, you know, I wish President Bush would take a position on the situation in Iraq, because I really don't know where he stands on the issue, and I'm sick of him being wishy-washy about it." The problem isn't that we don't know his public position, it's that we're fully aware of it, and it's completely batshit. There are plenty of theories about whether he's sincere or has sinister ulterior motives, but that aside, the sales pitch he's giving us is complete pap, but Mark has really fallen for it hard.
I do kind of understand. What we were sold was a mission to spread freedom and democracy, and to fight the forces of evil who had the means and desire to cause global chaos and great harm to us. It was implied that this would be the World War II of our time, a chance for America to step out of the shadow of Vietnam and engage in a real battle for a good cause again. Of course, it was a complete crock of shit. While Saddam Hussein is a total dick and deserves nothing more than to be devoured by maggots in a salt silo, he didn't have the means to blow up anything more complex than a Coke can with a pack of firecrackers, and was far to comfortable to risk his situation by stirring up international tension. Spreading freedom and democracy didn't work so well either, if the imminent Afghanistan execution of a man who converted from Islam to Christianity is any measure of how well western values have been embraced. President Bush has said he's 'concerned' about the situation, which is good, since he is directly responsible for our pullin out of Afghantistan to invade Iraq, leaving the country with little guidance or reconstructive assistance. I'm glad to see he's 'concerned.' It's like we went to the store to get a really nice TV, and the salesman sold us what we thought was a Panasonic Plasma-Screen, but got home to find it to be a Parasomic Plastic-Screen television, now with 3 channels and 30% less static!* But Mark just wants to keep watching his new TV. He loves it. It's the best TV he's ever had. If you squint really hard, you can almost tell the difference between "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives." Nobody's going to tell him he got ripped off.
Why do people not see that we need to do this, Mark? Because we know that we've been sold a lie. Defeat those who would try to defeat us? We rolled through the Iraq military in a friggin' week. Why has this war gone on for years? Because foreigners have been pouring in to fight what they feel is an unjustified, sacrilegious American occupation. We've actually created people who want to defeat us, Mark. They might not have liked us before, but we got a big stick, walked out back, and smacked the hell out of that hornet's nest. We haven't been embraced as liberators, as we were assured would happen, but instead we've turned Iraq into a magnet for terrorists and served as the catalyst for what appears to be an imminent and unavoidable civil conflict. Oops. Also, some of us have noticed that the practice doesn't match the theory. We invaded Iraq because we thought they might have the capability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction, but we've basically let North Korea, a nation that definitely DOES have nuclear capability and a massive chip on its shoulder, slide without so much as a strongly-worded condemnation. That doesn't seem odd to you Mark? It seems kind of odd to us.
Of course, you have to know that you're wrong about future generations praising Bush. I mean, he can't get his approval rating over 36% now. As this occupation drags on, with more American deaths, more money spent without any hope of recovery, and more escalating violence among Iraqis, to believe that somehow it will become popular again you'd have to be on something just this side of black tar. Even if you think this occupation is worthwhile, which itself takes an amazing stretch of imagination, realistically you can't point to exactly what the president has accomplished. War presidents are remembered fondly if the war had tangible benefits. The American Revolution allowed for the creation of the country, the Civil War kept the union together, and World War II stopped nations that were actively attacking their neighbors in an attempt to dominate them. What great accomplishment will be remembered from this occupation? It hasn't prevented an imminent disaster, and there is no tangible benefit. Everything has been based on paranoid theories and fuzzy information, most of which has already been proven wrong. Even if Bush was deserving of such praise, and he isn't, he'd be unlikely to be remembered fondly simply because he hasn't 'protected' us from anything. We were promised a war of less than six months, and Bush now assures us we'll be there for at least six years. It was an elective war. We chose to go to war not because there was an immediate conflict, but because we were given faulty intelligence that painted implications of a shadowy threat. Nothing has happened as planned, and Iraq is in worse shape three years after our 'successful' invasion than it was before it. History books won't forget these things, Mark. It was people just like you who defended Joe McCarthy from Ed Murrow; your blind nationalism causes you to side with the flag-wavers against the real patriots. History isn't kind to corrupt flag-wavers or the ignorant masses who prop them up.
Of course, it's extremely telling that you take a jab of Helen Thomas. Why would you feel threatened by a reporter who asks tough questions, Mark? Isn't that the media's job? Or is your idea of a good White House reporter an internet porn performer hired to lob scripted softball questions? It's one thing to fall for misinformation... these guys are well paid and good at what they do. It's something else entirely to be afraid of someone uncovering the truth and being forced to recognize that you were fooled. You believed that Iraq was a threat because the case we were presented with looked strong. Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and a stash of WMDs. Saddam Hussein had conspired with al Quaida and Osama Bin Laden. The smoking gun was going to be a 'mushroom cloud.' All of these assertions, however, were false, and now the administration denies ever making them. Are terrorists from Iraq a threat to us? Sure, as much as terrorists from any country are. Terrorists are a reality, and we should be concerned and act against terrorism, but you've been fooled into living in fear and giving up your right to government ownership because you've bought a line of bullshit about keeping you safe from terrorists. Do you remember how many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq, Mark? None. Not one. So how does an occupation of Iraq directly tie to a war on terror? It's smoke and mirrors, and not only have you fallen for it, but you're threatened by anyone who might break the illusion for you.
The one thing you did get right was when you said, "If people don't know where he stands after Monday's speech, they need a lobotomy." I agree one hundred percent. Getting a lobotomy is probably one of the most effective ways to comprehend and accept the President's Middle East policy. Some of us would rather retain our frontal lobes and continue to think critically, however.
*Compared to other major brands of oil-burning television sets.
posted by Zafrod at 11:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home