and other observations...
We are safer. The world is more dangerous. It seems contradictions like this are becoming more and more commonplace with the GOP these days. For the past 3 years, and especially in the last year, since the Iraq invasion. The administration is trying to convince us that at the same time, we are both safer, yet in more danger. Of course, this isn't atypical of the rhetoric that has become commonplace from the administration.
Whenever someone brings up questions about the war and issues surrounding it, we are told that we shouldn't dare question them, as the world is so dangerous and they are the only ones who can save us. Then, we are told how safe they are making things. Then, almost inevitably, the neoconservative clap trap will continue to include statements that are designed to create ridiculous or hyperbolic "straw man" arguements that the seemingly astute neocon can easily destroy. The war against terrorism is presented as "Bush's way" or "ignoring the threat of terrorism" like those are the only 2 choices.
Neocons seem to want to break everything into a black and white arguement. Not speaking racially (that's a whole other discussion) but they always seem to present an "either vs. or" scenario. They ignore the fact that the world does not work in such absolutes. Unfortunately for them, much of the electorate has thrown away this line of thinking that ran rampant after 9/11.
After 9/11, everything became good vs. evil or you are either with us or against us. If you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist kind of thinking. Of course, we have seen this methodology selectively applied around the world. Maybe the neoconservatives can convince each other and those who hover on the right side of the fence that their selective interpretations of their own rules is somehow just and fair. Meanwhile, the rest of the world sees an administration that doesn't seem to be able to distinguish justice from shinola.
Now the administration and it's pundits are promoting the idea that the terrorists caused the socialist party to win in Spain on Sunday. Did they? The polls, which are not as accurate as US polls, showed the race "neck and neck", with any edge to the incumbant being well within any margin of error. Also, just a short time ago, in the Iowa caucus, we saw how wrong polls can be. The Spanish people were against the goverment sending troops to Iraq 90% to 10%. Was it that inconceivable that the largest party who opposed the war could of won without the bomb? And the suggestion that just because a leader who is against the war is "letting the terrorists win." is simply hogwash. Like I mentioned before, fighting terrorism isn't limited to the methodology of a few rich neocons who think they know better than everyone else, even after the facts prove them wrong.
Today, Bush made a statement that really took me aback. When asked about John Kerry's recent statement about more leaders supporting him than Bush, Bush responded with this gem,,,,"If you are going to make accusations, you had better be able to prove it with facts." Immediately I chuckled to myself as I thought over the laundry list of Bush's accusations that later proved to be false, or in some cases already were proven false before the statement was made. The prime example of this being the references to Iraq's "nuclear program" which was spoken of well after documents and statements and supposed evidence were shown to be erroneous.
What was also funny was that Bush was actually sitting next to one of these leaders. Yet he didn't bother just to ask him right there who he preferred. Maybe he already knew the answer. Of course, Kerry necer said "foreign" leaders, that was just an inflammatory word put in by neocon journalists when the 1st attack on this statement came. Kerry said "more" leaders, not foreign. Yet GOP pundit journalists and administration cronies made a big deal out of that one word, more than any other in the statement...even tho he never said it. They kept pointing out that these were "foreigners" (typical GOP wedge ploys...us vs them in the black and white tradition of their newspeak) and "americans" decided elections.
Then, after it was realized by the public that these attack dogs were attacking something that wasn't said, it was then they started demanding names. Like they are some beacon of openness. They went as far as to do the same things they did to Dean in Iowa by planting cronies in his audiences and harrassing him over it. Of course, Kerry has no obligations to reveal confidential information between him and people that didn't even matter when they attacked the 1st time.
Fortunately, most Americans are sick and tired of the Bush's reindeer games.
Like father, like son
1 term, he's done!
sean:)