“The war reached our shores on September 11th, 2001,” President Bush said in his recent speech. “Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war,” he continued.
Bush can repeat that lie (and has) 10,000 times, yet it will always remain a lie. Truth does not come by way of repetition.
Shame on Bush for lying to his country. And shame on us for letting him.
It seems that the opposite of truth is not falsehood, but ease. Apparently, it is easier for Bush to lie about his invasion of Iraq and easier for us to believe it.
It is such a shame. While we've certainly had our faults as a nation, we've always had such grand ideals and hopes. Has it all been for nothing?
I expect that, in the end, the books will record the Fall of the US thusly:
“The United States of America was a once powerful nation that stood for many lofty ideals, including liberty, truth and justice. She fell quickly when the fear of outside attack led her people to support leaders with contempt for both truth and justice and only a foggy concept of the notion of liberty.”
Truly, what a shame.
11 comments:
Did youreally send this to the editor of your paper? I hope so. There needs to be more people who speak up!
Yeah, it was printed today. Along with three other letters criticizing Bush's speech and an editorial against Bush.
Maybe the tide's a-turnin'.
Sending you a cyber high five, Dan! Your letter was more than a sound bite criticism of Bush, it made the necessary point of what his leadership could mean to the future of our nation...if we let things continue to go unchallenged.
Did you hear a loud resounding Yes screamed in Michigan? Wow, you are good and I thank you for all you do in this effort.
Your best line:
Truth does not come by way of repetition.
Yes!!!
I don't get the problem with the sentence. Do you mean that the date should actually be the first time that they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1991? Or, maybe the blown up embassies in the years intervening since embassy property is considered US soil? Or, maybe you think this is not a war? Hmmm. If Iraq is not the battlefield for this war against jihadists, where is it? Who are all those people?
dan, thanks for having a brave and powerful voice! i really appreciate all that you write! keep on preaching brother!
Thanks all.
Brother Kevin,
Thou dost know that the Iraqis had naught to do with 9/11. Now that Bush invaded this country (formerly with an admittedly bad ruler), it has become a "terrorists" playground. So Bush is creating and concentrating the terrorists, but not really stopping them, is he?
As I've said before, the fact is, we do not want others to invade countries unprovoked, therefore, we shouldn't. Those Bush supporters out there who believe for us to say one thing and do another are simply being hypocritcal.
Or, if you wish, you can explain to me how their terrorism is different than ours (ie, why it's okay for us to invade them and not them us).
Love ya.
And you know, the fact that we went to war against Germany after Japan invaded us in 1941 was quite similar. This is a war, not against OBL, but against Jihadists who in a worldwide attack had killed hundreds of our embassy personnel and soldiers before the 3000 OBL took out on 9/11. We warned all at the UN that we were finished considering it a police action. We knew one country which was provoking violence, funding terrorist attacks in Israel and against our allies, was ignoring or defying UN resolutions (and paying off the UN bureaucrats and a couple of other countries to do so). So, we followed the money, gave them six months of warning while we diddled away at the UN (talk about a telegraphed punch) and then struck. No WMDs? He had them. He'd used them against his own people. Someday we'll find out where they went. The fact that we haven't found them is inconvenient, but his abuses of his own people in deaths per month (5,000+) and his destabilizing actions in the region was enough rationale for a liberal-valued war against him.
The concentrating of jihadists in one place is an unexpected positive side effect, of course. But, let's face it. If Al Zarqawi was not fighting us in Iraq, there is little possibility that he would be selling felafel in Beirut. He'd be killing us somewhere else. He was before the war and he will be again if he gets away.
But, you knew that.
Your buddy, Kevin.
Of course he had WMD, Kevin. Bush's Daddy sold them to him.
The fact is, we have invaded a country illegally and no amount of reinterpretation will change that. Bush et al should go to jail.
I'm not going to argue your principle assertion.
But I think you gave too much credit when you wrote:
“I expect that, in the end, the books will record the Fall of the US thusly:
The United States of America was a once powerful nation that stood for many lofty ideals, including liberty, truth and justice. She fell quickly when the fear of outside attack led her people to support leaders with contempt for both truth and justice and only a foggy concept of the notion of liberty.”
I think it will be more like:
“I expect that, in the end, the books will record the Fall of the US thusly:
The United States of America was a once powerful nation that stood for many lofty ideals, including liberty, truth and justice. She fell slowly as her people wallowed in indifference bred via the entertainment culture and in the way their overconsumtive nature despised any but their own selves. While this happened, a few people led her to spend her abundant resources on furthering the consumtive, gluttonous nature her people demonstrate so well. Ultimately, the unwise spending of resources was her downfall.”
Anyone up for a happy meal with a toy? We can take it home and watch T.V.! (shudder)
jholder, for our many differences, I don't think I disagree with a single thing in the previous comment. My only difference is that I would add:
"Ultimately, the unwise AND UNJUST spending of resources was her downfall."
Post a Comment