BREAKING NEWS: SADDAM NOT INVOLVED IN LONDON BOMBING!

Mugsy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-07-05 08:06 PM
Original message

BREAKING NEWS: SADDAM NOT INVOLVED IN LONDON BOMBING!

"I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened." - Brian Kilmeade, Fox News this afternoon after the London terrorist attacks, glad that the attacks helped put terrorism "back on the front burner" of the G8 Summit.

Okay, it's been a while since I've ranted about anything, but I noticed many interesting things following today's events.

First off, as expected, the Right-wing dug in its heels and sank ever deeper into denial today as members of the delusional Right found *no* connection between todays terrorist bombings in London and the growing violence in Iraq. In fact, to them, this is just further evidence that they are doing the right thing by "concentrating on terrorism". The very thought that it is our presence in Iraq that triggered this attack on the first day of the "G8" Summit, never even crosses their mind.

Will public opinion follow suit?

Please note: Despite what millions of loyal Bush supporters believed (and many continue to this day), Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in the attacks on 9/11, and as if it needed to be said, nor was he involved with the attacks today in London. After 9/11, The Bush Administration argued vehemently that getting Saddam Hussein was more important than getting Osama bin Laden. Saddam is long gone, but al-Qaeda lives on (as Thursday's events clearly point out).

One of my first thoughts after hearing the news this morning was, "Will this *finally* help many Bush supporters see the light? That the war in Iraq isn't fighting terrorism but in fact actually breeding it?" Alas, in many reports, the answer is No, as many Right-wing pundits only saw this as proof that the war in Iraq is just.

Something I hear a lot of from supporters of the war, and you probably do too, is the line, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." I used to think "over there" meant Iraq and Afghanistan, but now I see it means "everyplace East of the Atlantic". These people don't care if London was bombed today because it's "over there". Just as long as the bombing is not "here".

And the fact that the violence is *spreading* doesn't register with them either. It was less than two weeks ago that Vice President Cheney said that the escalating violence in Iraq proves that the "terrorists" are "getting desperate" and are "in their last throes". Then Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld goes on every Sunday talk show last week, defending the Vice Presidents' characterization while suggesting the violence in Iraq could continue for "another 12 years". That's some "last throes"!

Which brings me back to my original question: "Will todays' bombings in London wake people up?" Must it be necessary for another attack to strike on this side of the Atlantic before these people finally see the error of their ways? Or would it only send them deeper into denial?

The good news is, we don't need "100%" of the people to come to grips with reality, just 51%... and from the last election, we know we are already 49% of the way there. And I'm confident there are at least 2% of Americans "on the fence" that could be easily swayed, and maybe... just maybe... the wind that blew through London today is all the breeze they needed to sway them.

Let us pray.

(PS: Anyone one willing to nominate this rant for the front page?)