Friday, May 16, 2008

Righteous Rant

The man needs no introduction and I'll let him speak for himself.


Anonymous POD said... absolutely beautiful example of the expression of 1st Amendment Rights.

Furthermore, I do believe this to be more of a "self-righteous rant" than "righteous rant" due to the fact that he is speaking from the advantage of hind-sight - that his vitriol towards the president is very personal to him.

I don't know this for sure, but does he come on at the same time as O'Reilly? He seems very much the "anti" O'Reilly in my summation...

9:21 AM  
Blogger Daria said...

Thank you for posting this, Brandon.

POD, the kinds of problems we are facing in Iraq and that the Iraqi people are facing in their country were all very clearly laid out as high-probability risks well before the war was declared.

I would therefore argue that it is not hindsight from which he was speaking so angrily. I see what he was saying as coming from the rage and sorrow of seeing the very things having come to pass that all the experts had forewarned us and our government leaders about. : ( When someone is so impudent in their deception and is awfully hard not to feel rage over that.

As my family members and friends have served and are serving in Iraq, as I hold them in my prayers and worry over their safety, as I hold the devastated Iraqi people in my prayers, as I see the wretched, abysmal, *outrageous* lack of care being given to veterans and their families as our men and women are returning from the war zone with serious bodily and psychological damage--well, I, too, feel a great, seething wrath at Bush and the people behind him in power for making *millions* off the broken bodies and souls of all these people.

We were lied to and our concerns overrun as we tried to hold our leaders to a better path. We have been misunderstood by and misrepresented to our fellow Americans--as if saying, before the war, that the military leaders telling Bush his exit plan was paltry and ridiculous was somehow unpatriotic. huh? And how is it "not supporting the troops" if I am grieved over them being used as cannon-fodder for the Bush Good-ole-Boys (and one girl) club and their years'-long plans for controlling the oil in the Mid East?
It is *because* I care about our troops that I am enraged!! : (

This is not anger in hindsight--
this is calling out the truth about *what had been foretold* that President Bush *decided to ignore and discredit to his own--and his buddies'--ends*.

...and at such a cost...


3:37 AM  
Anonymous POD said...

What confuses me sometimes in the argument against the current situation in Iraq is the blatant assumption that President Bush made the call to go to war in Iraq based upon pure deception, cronyism, and greed.

Back in 2002, UN inspectors got kicked out of Iraq, and the UN did nothing about it... they passed 1440 and the deadline passed, and they did nothing about it... so Bush made a call and we invaded and did what he thought at the time was right...

Our exit strategy sucked, our occupation strategy (up until a year ago) sucked, and the propaganda war was lost because there were a plethora of other reasons beside the imminent threat of WMD that could have justified us having a reason to have Saddam overthrown...

I have a major beef now with how things have turned out just like the next guy, but to paint President Bush, someone who at least made a call and DID something rather than stand on the sidelines and wait for another disaster to happen... in hindsight he should have held out longer... but that was THEN and this was NOW. He made the decision to go war and he has to deal with the consequences of his leadership: the GOP is a broken party, he has an approval rating <30% and he will go down as the most reviled president since Nixon - and that is a pity because his presidency a 100 years from now, however contentious it may seem now, might be vindicated if things in the Middle East eventually pan out for the better...

7:06 AM  
Blogger Grinth said...

I'll have to do some research to back up the following assertion, but I am pretty sure the UN inspectors did not get "kicked out of Iraq", rather they reported they had not found any evidence of WMD's and needed more time before making the final call that this was, in fact, the case.

It was Bush and Co. that used the excuse of Hussein's administration not being completely cooperative to call off any further inspections and insist on invasion (using the reason of WMD's even though there had been zero evidence to suggest their presence).

Then of course nothing was found, and the spin machine took control. It wasn't because of WMDs that we invaded, it was because of freedom. Things get worse and then it wasn't because of freedom but because Iraq is permeated with terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, and we have to fight them there lest we face them on our own soil.

The last one really gets me. Iraq was essentially devoid of terrorist activity before we invaded. Now it has more terrorist activity than it has ever had, and not at the expense of terrorist activity elsewhere. But the one thing that hardly anyone talks about is that Al Qaeda mentioned in regards to Iraq is actually Al Qaeda of Iraq...actually a completely different organization than the one who enacted 9/11, one that also happened to form only after our invasion of Iraq. The group capitalizes on the Al Qaeda name and Bush and Co. does likewise...

In short, I don't think hindsight has anything to do with it.

12:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gt viagra generic,price viagra , online cialis ,

5:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus