Rosebud #50
Special Dark Comedy
The New York Times Magazine has a special issue all about comedy, but the funniest thing in Medialand today is the cover of the New York Post: a picture of President Bush wiping a tear from his eye—I think the tears are actually digitally enhanced, they look very shiny—with the headline, “Tears For A Hero.” The story is about the president’s awarding the Medal of Honor to a New York Marine, Cpl. Jason Dunham, who died in Iraq after diving on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers. “You might say he was born to be a Marine,” said a “choked-up W.,” on what would have been Dunham’s 25th birthday. You also might say that Cpl. Dunham was born to be a good father, a teacher, or president of the United States. But we’ll never know, will we? And neither will he. This president, who has not attended one funeral of the nearly 3,000 American soldiers who have died since he started this phony war for oil, could have, should have been crying for a lot of reasons. Including realizing he has a very good chance of going to hell, if such a place exists anywhere but in Iraq itself. It’s funny that the spin doctors tell us it’s because he was moved.
I’m over the election, over the Democrats. Could they be the worst, stupidest politicians we've ever seen? Do they really think we elected them to watch them skipping around the corridors of power hand in hand with these madmen who started the Iraq war? Oh wait a minnit, I forgot: they voted for it too. They’re singing love songs of bi-partisanship—but we gave them the whole damn Congress. Where was the bipartisanship when the Republicans were in power, ramrodding through legislation that would make an Eastern bloc dictator blush? Where are the calls for investigations, calls for repeal? They still don’t seem to understand who they’re dealing with; but we do.
I think, with all this pie-in-the-sky friendliness to the other side (which they think makes them looks politically mature, or gracious, but really only makes them look morally bereft, or compromised), they’re walking right into a trap. The voting machines were hardly cold when none other than Henry Kissinger was on TV (Wolf Blitzer) talking about how this election would be seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the American people by–yep, you guessed it, “the terrorists.”
Now, if you were a young man, or woman, who was a candidate for recruitment by Al Qaeda, would the American people’s repudiation of George Bush and Co. make you feel more, or less, angry at America?
But how would you feel if you saw no real change in policy; no end to the war; and no punishment for the lies and liars that started it?
The United States is currently, busily building military installations in Iraq.
What do the Democrats have to say about that?
The New York Times Magazine has a special issue all about comedy, but the funniest thing in Medialand today is the cover of the New York Post: a picture of President Bush wiping a tear from his eye—I think the tears are actually digitally enhanced, they look very shiny—with the headline, “Tears For A Hero.” The story is about the president’s awarding the Medal of Honor to a New York Marine, Cpl. Jason Dunham, who died in Iraq after diving on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers. “You might say he was born to be a Marine,” said a “choked-up W.,” on what would have been Dunham’s 25th birthday. You also might say that Cpl. Dunham was born to be a good father, a teacher, or president of the United States. But we’ll never know, will we? And neither will he. This president, who has not attended one funeral of the nearly 3,000 American soldiers who have died since he started this phony war for oil, could have, should have been crying for a lot of reasons. Including realizing he has a very good chance of going to hell, if such a place exists anywhere but in Iraq itself. It’s funny that the spin doctors tell us it’s because he was moved.
I’m over the election, over the Democrats. Could they be the worst, stupidest politicians we've ever seen? Do they really think we elected them to watch them skipping around the corridors of power hand in hand with these madmen who started the Iraq war? Oh wait a minnit, I forgot: they voted for it too. They’re singing love songs of bi-partisanship—but we gave them the whole damn Congress. Where was the bipartisanship when the Republicans were in power, ramrodding through legislation that would make an Eastern bloc dictator blush? Where are the calls for investigations, calls for repeal? They still don’t seem to understand who they’re dealing with; but we do.
I think, with all this pie-in-the-sky friendliness to the other side (which they think makes them looks politically mature, or gracious, but really only makes them look morally bereft, or compromised), they’re walking right into a trap. The voting machines were hardly cold when none other than Henry Kissinger was on TV (Wolf Blitzer) talking about how this election would be seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the American people by–yep, you guessed it, “the terrorists.”
Now, if you were a young man, or woman, who was a candidate for recruitment by Al Qaeda, would the American people’s repudiation of George Bush and Co. make you feel more, or less, angry at America?
But how would you feel if you saw no real change in policy; no end to the war; and no punishment for the lies and liars that started it?
The United States is currently, busily building military installations in Iraq.
What do the Democrats have to say about that?
posted by NancyJo at 10:43 AM
<< Home