Chuckie's been ravin' again about that Liberal Press! Liberal Press! Liberal Press! in One Sided 06/24/05.
Some thangs are pretty simple in ChuckieWorld:
Who bombed our Trade Towers? Who flew a plane into the Pentagon? Who was responsible for a plane full of innocent people crashing in a field in Pennsylvania? Who bombed the U.S.S. Cole? Who destroyed our embassies in Africa? Who are we fighting in Iraq?
The answer is Al Qaida and our blood enemy is Al Qaida whether they’re flying planes into buildings in New York or sneaking around Iraq killing citizens, never mind whether they’re women or babies.
Why isn’t it being reported that way?
Out here in the reality-based world, we have known for a long time that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and the rest he mentions. Now it's true that jihadists are coming into Iraq to fight Americans now. Which became possible thanks to the Bush administration's brilliant plans which have turned Iraq into something like a "failed state" at the moment.
Chuckie spent so much time talking to the troops when he was over yonder in Iraq, you'd thank someone might'a told him that most of the people our soldiers are fightin' there are Iraqis of one variety or another.
Or maybe Chuckie just thanks "Al Qaeda" is Arabic for "A-rab." In that case, he might have meant not that Al Qaeda is killin' people, never mind whether the people are "women or babies." Maybe he means that Al Qaeda is our "blood enemy" not matter whether the Al Qaeda's are "women or babies." You have to read Chuckie kind of closely sometimes.
Chuckie also asks:
Why does the New York Times spend ten times more print space on the Abu Ghraib prison affair than they do on the inhuman beheading of people at the hands of terrorists?
Now Chuckie's done told us in an earlier column that he don't have no Lexus-Nexus access. And also that he don't much like the New York Times anyhow. So I wonder how he came up with his "print count" on this.
But it's probably true that most media in the United States have spent more time and space discussing the Abu Ghuraib "prison affair" - it ain't a torture scandal because if Warlord Bush said it was all right, it don't count as "torture" - than to spelling out the graphic details of beheadings.
Uh, Chuckie, it could have something to do with the fact that the torture scandal involves widespread and serious violations of American law. And because it required at least the tacit approval of some senior officers in the military. And because the current US Attorney General was writing (il)legal "justifications" for sadistic, criminal acts. And because the torture scandal has seriously damaged the image of the US, especially among the Muslims who you would thank we might be wantin' to convince not to support The Terrorists.
But, heck far. Who cares if we have a good image as long as people are afraid of us, right Chuckie?
And besides, even if it is being reported the way Chuckie says, isn't it a good thing from Chuckie's point of view to hear that the US is torturing terrorists? I mean, he says in this rant that we should give The Terrorists no quarter and "no mercy offered." (see below.) So torture in the Bush Gulag would be the good news, wouldn't it, Chuckie? And isn't the beheading of hostages the bad news? Chuckie just ain't so clear on what he's trying to tell us here.
I was surprised to see Chuckie criticizing his Dear Leader Bush, though:
This is a war to the death, there will be no quarter given, no mercy offered and no end to it until the last terrorist is six feet under.
I mean, with Bush and Rummy holding negotiations with terrorists and all... oh, wait, what am I thankin'? Chuckie's ahead of me again, like usual. If we're negotiatin' with 'em, then they ain't Terrorists. If they're "insurgents", it's okay to talk to 'em. But if they're The Terrorists, Chuckie says we just have to kill 'em all.
And Chuckie don't understand why anybody would git upset about descrating this here Qu'ran. I'm mean, it's all just a bunch of heathen lies, ain't it? So why should anyone worry about it all? Yep, that's how it looks from ChuckieWorld.
2 comments:
The inability of Bush's hardcore supporters to see the obvious has to be one of the greatest wonders of the world.
Like you said, it was Al-Queda who did all the attacks Chuck mentions, not Iraq.
I wish this guy would take the wool off of his eyes, run out of Kool-Aid, whatever metaphor ya want to use.
And it would do us much good not to make the decision for people who are contemplating whether or not they should take up arms against our forces.
And Al-Queda's are "blood enemy"? I thought we had differences politically, not that it was something inherent. Chuck -and his like-minded ilk- definately is on another wavelength completely different from people who have based their opinions and ideas off of facts and statistics.
Oh, look, Chuck is listed on AOL Radio under "Patriotic Songs." Why do I have the feeling you won't find any "it's wrong to lie to the public to support a unjust war" type songs on there?
Anyway, sorry I wasted up so much room here. Good post, as always. Keep it up!
At this point in his career, and actually for quite a few years, Chuckie has been restricting himself pretty much to the yee-haw blowhard market segment. His patriotic songs tend to be more nationalistic than patriotic in the more general sense. And his "Flag Not a Rag" is something that would be at home on the Patriot Militia Channel. - Bruce
Post a Comment