the village idiot gave a speech the other day,
and he said this “The security of the civilized world
depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends
on victory in Iraq” Direct quote.
Now if this were actually true, don’t you think his ACTIONS,
would support this his viewpoint. For example, if the war in terror
is actually key to the security of the civilized world, you would
act accordingly. Then you reactivated the draft, you print war bonds,
double the military budget, you strenuously rally the allies to
the cause. As bush is the FIRST president in the history of
the UNITED STATES to give tax cuts in wartime. He says it to
aid the economy, but in every single war fought since time
began, the economy is a second consideration.
Which did Roosevelt put first, the war or the economy?
So if you are serious about fighting this war on terrorism, you
act as if it is serious. You don’t do half measures, you go all the way.
And the village idiot’s actions don’t support his rhetoric.
If the war on terrorism is as important as world war 2,
then you make the war primary, everything else is a distant
second and the village idiot’s own actions tell us he doesn’t believe
this is true. I don’t see the drive to get metals to the war effort,
I don’t see anybody buying war bonds, (and in fact, bush and his
cronies have bashed war bonds as valueless) I don’t see a draft.
I don’t even see the village idiot asking for any real sacrifice’s.
His own actions suggest it is about politics and terror and not
a real war. So why should we believe someone whose own actions
don’t support his words. So over the next couple of weeks,
the village idiot will give a series of speeches culminating in
9/11 and yet at no point will he offer anything resembling
real actions, it will be pretend actions for a pretend war.
Kropotkin