Daddy Complex, Israel, & Oil
Hey, here's a quote for ya:
From Chris Matthews, during a speech in Canada:
"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said. "If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."
Got that? People who blow up innocent civilians are not evil. People who behead soldiers and civilians and videotape it for broadcast to the world are not evil. People who fill up mass graves with innocent countrymen are not evil. What an idiot.
Chris Matthews was on foreign soil, saying this about his country and his President:
"I think the father-son relationship with the Bushes is part of it. I think the oil thing is part of it," Matthews said of the current president and his father, George Bush Sr., who was president during the Gulf War more than a decade ago.
"Our friendship with Israel (is part of it) and 9-11 created a kind of crazy Zeitgeist in the country. Bush wanted to do something big. It couldn't just be tracking down al-Qaida. He wanted a big bang. I think it's a mixture of these things."
Hey Chris, do you think murderous thugs who attacked us on our own soil could have been "part of it?"
JAS adds: "There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing" between 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom? What quantum reality was Matthews living in? That's all anybody talked about during those eighteen months.
Maybe he's referring to the Democrats, whose contribution to the public war debate was indulgence in crazy conspiracism about Bush knowing 9/11 was coming or even being in on it and then turning around to vote in substantial numbers to support the invasion of Iraq. If only Donks had voted their consciences! Then they could credibly call Iraq "Bush's war" and have a legit shot at converting it into Vietnam v. 2.0.
Of course, had they done so then they'd have turned an underachieving 2002 midterm campaign into another 1994-like massacre and Bush would have had a free hand to invade two or three or fifteen more countries, maybe even take over the world outright, and even worse, get all his appellate court nominees confirmed and abolish Social Security and Medicare and the IRS and heat up the climate for his Big Oil Halliburton buddies and legalize the use of baby seals in "Whack-A-Mole" games.
See the calamities Dem pro-war votes in October 2002 prevented, Chris? Or would you like to robustly discuss it for a while?
From Chris Matthews, during a speech in Canada:
"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said. "If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."
Got that? People who blow up innocent civilians are not evil. People who behead soldiers and civilians and videotape it for broadcast to the world are not evil. People who fill up mass graves with innocent countrymen are not evil. What an idiot.
Chris Matthews was on foreign soil, saying this about his country and his President:
"I think the father-son relationship with the Bushes is part of it. I think the oil thing is part of it," Matthews said of the current president and his father, George Bush Sr., who was president during the Gulf War more than a decade ago.
"Our friendship with Israel (is part of it) and 9-11 created a kind of crazy Zeitgeist in the country. Bush wanted to do something big. It couldn't just be tracking down al-Qaida. He wanted a big bang. I think it's a mixture of these things."
Hey Chris, do you think murderous thugs who attacked us on our own soil could have been "part of it?"
JAS adds: "There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing" between 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom? What quantum reality was Matthews living in? That's all anybody talked about during those eighteen months.
Maybe he's referring to the Democrats, whose contribution to the public war debate was indulgence in crazy conspiracism about Bush knowing 9/11 was coming or even being in on it and then turning around to vote in substantial numbers to support the invasion of Iraq. If only Donks had voted their consciences! Then they could credibly call Iraq "Bush's war" and have a legit shot at converting it into Vietnam v. 2.0.
Of course, had they done so then they'd have turned an underachieving 2002 midterm campaign into another 1994-like massacre and Bush would have had a free hand to invade two or three or fifteen more countries, maybe even take over the world outright, and even worse, get all his appellate court nominees confirmed and abolish Social Security and Medicare and the IRS and heat up the climate for his Big Oil Halliburton buddies and legalize the use of baby seals in "Whack-A-Mole" games.
See the calamities Dem pro-war votes in October 2002 prevented, Chris? Or would you like to robustly discuss it for a while?
posted by Jennifer at 10:25 AM
<<< Home