Friday, June 17, 2005

The Nostradamus of our times


In the most shocking story of 2005 to date, James Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) has been proven a prophet. He was called a partisan hack when he made reference to the Democrats as " ... people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality" but now he has shown himself to be one of the greatest visionaries of our time.

How else can you describe this scene of actual Democratic Congressman holding a mock 'impeachment inquiry' in a small meeting room while supports watch a live feed back at Democratic headquarters. They even called 'expert' witnesses.

It's this type of actions by elected officials, and not some stories about a guard holding the Koran with his right hand instead of his left, that give the US a bad name. This is just getting too painful to watch, and I'm not even American.

In the immortal words of Susan Powter, "Stop the insanity!".

Found via lgf

Welcome to readers (and to the man himself). I was wondering where my spike in traffic was coming from.
Thanks for dropping by. Pull up a seat and stay awhile.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please. You guys are pathetic. Detached from reality?

Sorta like the admin's insistence on raising the bloody flag of 9/11 to justify the war - then saying quite candidly one has nothing to do with other.

Sorta like Cheney's "Last Thoes" comment, succeeded with Abizaid's saying the insurgencey is "Just as stronghnow as it was 6 months ago" -

Sorta like the president calling a Iraq a breeding ground for terrorists before the war, then the CIA saying that "Iraq has become the new training camp..." of terrorists since the war BEGAN.

Sorta like the admin calling the terorists "foreign fighters", when General Myers has state that the large majority of insurgant / terrorsit fighters are Sunni Iraqis.

Are you for the war? do you believe in the reasoning begind it? The reasons we went, etc...?

June 29, 2005 2:18 p.m.  
Blogger Bic said...

And all of that has exactly what to do with the way the Democrats on the Hill were/are behaving? If you watched the actual footage of the 'hearing' it's even funnier than the article makes it sound. The funniest scene was show on the Daily Show where while the 'Chair' is giving an address there is a women not 10 feet behind him breastfeeding. It just looked hilarious.

Anyways, to answer your question: yes I support the war. I don't necessarily agree with the job the admin does in presenting their side but I still support the actual war.

Basically it comes down to short vs long term. The war a lot of people wanted was a short term thing, a quick eye for an eye type deal. Attack the 'terrorists' (i.e. Bin Laden)and then go about your business.

The Bush admin wanted to make things a little more long term where the Middle East finally joins the rest of us in the 21st century, thereby reducing the actual root causes of terrorism. As almost any study shows, the more prosperous a region the less violent it becomes. Although the religous aspect can not be totally ignored.

Which method you choose is up to you, but I personally think there has been enough of this stupid tit for tat going on (you bomb our ship, we bomb your camp) with little to show for it.

Democracies may oppose one another but they rarely outright attack each other. Once the people are given the responsibility of self rule they tend to focus more on things closer to home.

June 29, 2005 7:50 p.m.  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Who Links Here