Again, reality matters.
Regarding the 9-11 attacks. All of the empirical data that most sane people who don’t live in caves agree upon tells us that we were attacked by a (non-national) independent terrorist group based in Afghanistan.
In the real world realm of reality, the real evidence supports the FACT that we were NOT attacked by Iraq. No evidence has ever existed to support the idea that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks.
Contrary to what so many right-wing lunatics would have us believe, Bin Ladin and Hussein are not the same person. This has got to be the most wide spread case of mass delusion in the history of our species. I can’t remember the number but I remember my horrifying feeling of astonishment when I heard the statistic of how many Americans actually believe that on 9/11 we were attacked by Iraq.
This is perhaps the most relentless, full blown, nation wide rejection of reality in American history. Hundreds of thousands of Fox News fans looking at the moon and insisting that it is the sun. And this disdain for what is factual is by no means limited to ignorant hicks. Very well educated presidential candidates also seem to be afflicted with this inability to accept what is real.
During the last republican debate, Mitt Romney’s remarks about President Bush’s Iraq policy started with comments about the 9-11 attacks. He very blatantly and directly related 9-11 to the Iraq war, referring to our invasion of Iraq as a message to terrorists that if you attack us we will respond.
Hey Mitt! Got a little secret for you… Since you’re running for president and all – and you should like, know stuff… Iraq has never attacked the US. I know that you’re a republican. So you have fun making your little wise cracks against democrats by deliberately confusing Barak Obama's name with Osama Bin Ladin's… Yeah, that was pretty cute Mitt. Come up with that one all by your self? Anyhow, that’s all fun and games. But you really should know the difference between Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. Bin Ladin is the one who was actually responsible for 9-11… Husain is the one who had nothing to do with it. Nor did he have WMD. Don’t get me wrong. Saddam Hussein was a serious fucking asshole. And he did need to go. But not at the cost of the lives of THOUSANDS of American soldiers and nearly a TRILLION DOLLARS of debt, which may contribute to the devastation of the American and global economy.
Really! Let’s put these matters on the scale.
Like many tyrants around the world, Saddam Hussein was guilty of human rights atrocities and other really bad stuff.
Now look at the cost of going after him.
- We let Osama Bin Ladin get away
- We annihilated every infrastructure of Iraq
- We turned Iraq into the official global mecca for anti-American terror groups
- We had the power and support of the free world totally behind us after 9-11. It was a massive world-wide spike in pro-Americanism. Until with our unilateral determination to invade Iraq we told the rest of the world to fuck off.
- We sacrificed THOUSANDS of American soldiers.
- We’ve created a national debt that is devastating our economy, while it turns China into the next superpower.
- And did I mention that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11
- And Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11
- And the list goes on.
So, when comparing the horrible deeds of Saddam Hussein to the horrible deeds of George W. Bush – I can say with absolute certainty, that despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was one of the most sadistic mother fuckers running a country, if bringing that piece of shit back from the grave would be the price to pay for erasing George W. Bush from ever existing, the world would be a much better place.
No comments:
Post a Comment