Sterling Ambivalence (sterlingnorth) wrote,
Sterling Ambivalence

It's nothing I am surprised at...

...but hearing somebody say everything that I suspected about the Bush War on Terrorism makes my blood run cold at the same time as it is boiling... There's not enough bile in the world to process all that I feel against someone who is exploiting attacks his men were not serious about averting until it was too late, and who currently aren't serious about preventing the attacks to occur again.

Or to put it in a way Bush can understand... you were not with Richard Clarke. You were against Richard Clarke. In effect, you were with Al Qaeda. Before the September 11th attacks, each time you ignored warnings from Richard Clarke, you were working for Al Qaeda. Each time you obsessed with the probably never going to work missle defense at the expense of shoring up civil defense, you were on the side of Al Qaeda. Each time you discussed attacking Iraq despite pleas not to, you were working for Al Qaeda. For every bit of manpower you diverted from Afghanistan to prepare to, invade, and fail to secure Iraq, you were on the side of Al Qaeda. Each time you shoot down legitimate criticism like this, you are aiding Al Qaeda in their plans to launch a new holy war. And with that, with each advertisement where you tout your 'response' to the terror attacks with images from the scene that day, you Bush, as an agent of Al Qaeda, desicrate the graves of the men and women who gave their lives that day because you were unserious about terrorism.

Yes, that rhetorical device is over the top and bad, but I cannot even process the magnitude of the tragedy I've witnessed on 60 Minutes.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    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.