Koinonia (koinonia) wrote,


Okay, let's accept from the outset that I am not the most PC of people.

That I have all the tact and sensitivity of an elephant with piles.

And that I am apt, except when prodded by survival instincts, to say the most unfortunate thing at the most unfortunate time.

All of these things being true, please make allowances while I vent.

We are supposedly fighting terrorism. Supposedly. The link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is still debateable . The link between Saddam and other terrorist groups is still debateable. That Saddam Hussein is Not A Nice Man is pretty well proven, and his two sons were completely awful.

However..we are as I said supposedly fighting terrorism. How are we going to defend ourselves against terrorism when we are sending our troops *and* our National Guard Reserves off to Iraq? Who will defend America's ports, harbors and airports? We have given all our troop cookies to Iraq and kept none for ourselves. EXcept for the Ready Reserve, and that as I have read (again contestable) may be called up to Iraq after the election. A national draft is not that far behind, at least in my opinion.

In recorded reports, it was and is fairly consistent for some terrorist groups in Israel and the Middle East to take hostages, and if their demands are not met, to execute them. Despite the fact that hostage taking is condemned by the Qu'ran. This is not news. It has been mentioned in newspaper articles and magazine articles before this. So *why*, as we go into Iraq, supposedly in search of, and to destroy terrorist groups, are we suprised when it happens to us?

Do we expect that somehow because we are Americans we are immune? I don't mean to be disrespectful to the families or to imply in any way that what has happened is in any way their fault or the fault of those who were taken hostage. That is cruel and idiotic. I just question why the press seems shocked and dismayed, when it is the same press that reported on previous hostage takings?

Thirdly..or lastly. I have heard that Dan Rather's apologies came because the stories he published about the papers questioning Bush's National Guard service record were questionable. However..in an interview with the BBC, the same Dan Rather mentioned that many times the press does not tell the entire story to the American public. Whether it is for fear of some sort of official reprisal on the part of the administration, refusal of their sources to cooperate in the future, or because they (the press) feel that we simply cannot deal with the truth.

So..now the apology. Who do we believe? Do we assume that yes, Mr. Rather jumped on a story without vetting the sources, and embarrassed himself, jeopardizing his credibility? That he has supposedly run questionable stories before this? Or is he once again either voluntarily or not backing down from a hot topic because he's afraid of reprisals?

Do I in short believe that the 'liberal Democrats' who are all 'out there somewhere' are making up these stories to defame the president because they just can't stand the fact that he won? Or do I believe that the President has defamed himself with his constantly shifting stories, and denials?

Is Kerry, who cannot seem to speak clearly and concisely about his plans for the future the candidate to follow? Or is Bush, with his evasions (his National Guard record) and his outright falsehoods (the 'yellowcake' scandal, the fact that the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was reported to Ms. Rice a day before the scandal broke) the candidate to follow? One's a personally brave man, who clearly thinks, but seems to overanalyze and the other's a man who has made an art form of malapropisms and evasion.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment