Wednesday, August 22, 2007


Have you been watching John Stewart lately? The faux correspondent, I think his name’s something like Rob Rickle, an actual veteran who served in Iraq, is reporting from Iraq—really, not faking it like they usually do—with real troops in the field, and revealing more truth about that folly and what “support our troops” really means than any “real” news report or rightwing supporter of this war ever has.

And tonight Stewart had on Barak Obama, who impressed me more than he has in a while. I’m beginning to believe, even if I still have some doubts that he can actually do it.

But it’s the reports from Iraq that are scoring, that and Stewart’s bit tonight on “America to the Rescue” and how we had to give all these billions in and for arms to the Saudis to balance the power of the Iranians, “because twenty percent of the 9/11 suicide attackers were not from Saudi Arabia” so nothing to worry about, and that rattled the Israelis so we’re increasing our military largesse to them by billions, and then he went into the enemies we now have and how we did the same things for them, like supplying weapons to Iraq to balance out Iran in their war, to supplying Bin Laden and the Taliban with weapons to fight the Russians.

He could have gone back even further, to our government supplying Iran with weapons after overthrowing their democratically elected leaders back in the 1950s. In fact, he could have gone on all night tracing back all the mistakes made in foreign policies helping dictators and oligarchies that eventually fall and are replaced by regimes that hate us for our support of these dictators and oligarchies and end up with the money and weapons we supplied the previous regimes with, etfuckingcetera.

I wish you had seen it, if you didn’t. But they’ll replay it and it’ll probably be available on the web pretty quickly. Check it out tomorrow night if you can, I’m sure they’ll have another report from Iraq that’ll tell some truths nobody else is addressing, or at least not addressing realistically. In fact all the humor tonight was in the honesty of the report, our troops in the field saying how “happy” they were about the Iraqi politicians taking a month’s vacation, getting to spend more time with their families, etc. while the troops stay and as one soldier put it “hold down the fort, because this actually is a friggin’ fort.”


Another Lally said...

Oh Holier Than the Imaginary Right Wing that Hillary so often invokes, it is always a pleasure to see you profess your love for this nation and its governments in our history.

It seems that if you didn't love this nation so deeply, you could never abhor its so absolutely.

Back in the 60's we would say "it seems like the right thing to do at the time."

Hold the Fort Bro.

Lally said...

A. L. Like I've said before, I can't believe we share the same last name, whoever you are. How presumptious of you, and rightwingers in general, to assume those who would like to see their government live up to the principles in the Constitution, "abhor" their country. Especially since so many of the rightwing spokesmen, and women, never served their country, as I did, did you?

Another Lally said...

Our governments throughout our history have had no problem living up to the principles of the Constitution.

I and others like me have aimed higher and have sought to have our governments live up to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

As a nation, we are still a work in progress in that regard.

Foreign policy on the other hand has never been pretty and our history is full of bad decisions. One of the most noteworthy points concerning war in my studies has always been that we have never before this war on terror been led into a war by a Republican.

The right wing remember is a fluctuating group depending on the status quo of the day. I seem to recall JFK being termed a left wing Liberal by his fellow Democrats for cutting taxes and leaning towards Civil Rights.

Anonymous said...

Lal--Notice that "Another Lally" never answers your question as to whether he/she ever served in uniform. Another arm-chair warrior libertarian, eh?
Bob Berner, US 55791471
Btry C, 3rd Msl Bn, 71st Arty

Another Lally said...

My service or lack thereof is not pre-requisite to enter into the discussion.

Anonymous said...

Another Lally's "service or lack thereof" may indeed be "not pre-requisite to enter into the discussion," but the phrasing is tantamount to an admission that he/ she was never in uniform, a non-admission admission, if you will. Moreover, non-service, by my lights, disqualifies and invalidates any defense of the Bushevik wars: you are NOT entitled to advocate that anyone else do what you yourself are not willing to do.
Bob Berner

Another Lally said...

Ah, how typical of you assuming without being fully informed.

Your post though belies your thinking. You are not against war, but against Bush.

Remember, as is often ponted out in the Democratic debates, Bush couldn't have used the military in Iraq if not for Congressional approval. All of the Dem candidates that voted to use the military against Sadaam were never against military action, but they complain about the tactics used in Iraq.

I have been steadfast in my statements against using the military for anything except for the reason that they exist. That is to eliminate enemies of the nation. (Not peace keeping)

Further my point about failed foreign policy decisions throughout our history are easily verifiable. They are not specific to Bush or any other politician decieved by the poor intel provided by the CIA. You can refer to Hillary's statements concerning her vote to approve military action.

It is always better to speak from an informed position rather than surmising basd on flawed deduction.