Burning Bush
I'm sick of this campaign. I'm sick of the mud slinging, the buzzwords, the soundbites, the misrepresentation and the outright lies. I'm sick at the fact that the Kerry campaign has shifted its focus in the wake of the GOP convention and has allowed this election to be about the [sic] "War on Terror," exactly what the Bush campaign wanted it to be about.
In case it isn't obvious (and apparently it isn't...), you can't really fight a war against an abstract concept. We can have a war in Iraq; we can have a war in Afghanistan; we can (and, if Bush gets another term, we quite possibly WILL) have wars in any number of countries. But we CANNOT have a war in Terrorismland. Except, of course, in Bush's rhetoric.
I'm insulted by the whole War on Terror(ism) routine. I can't even begin to detail the flaws in reason. But here's a recent favorite:
Blindly Idiotic Bush Supporter: "I feel safer because George W. Bush is President."
Me: "Why, and how, exactly?"
B.I.B.S: "We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11."
Me: "Well, according to that logic, we should be safer without Bush as president."
B.I.B.S: "Huh?"
Me: "The worst terrorist attack to ever occur on American soil, one of the most devistating single terrorist attacks ever, occurred while Bush was President. Shouldn't that scare you?"
B.I.B.S.: "Huh? That's ridiculous..."
Me: "Granted. Yes, it is ridiculous. It's also following the same post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning you're using when you give Bush some sort of credit for having kept us safe."
B.I.B.S.: "You think he hasn't made us safer?"
Me: "Not really, no. In truth, I feel less safe because of Bush. In terms of my human rights and American freedoms, I feel more threatened by the Patriot Act than by any possible terrorist actions."
I just can't figure out how -- much less why -- anyone would think this man ought to be in office for another four years.
In case it isn't obvious (and apparently it isn't...), you can't really fight a war against an abstract concept. We can have a war in Iraq; we can have a war in Afghanistan; we can (and, if Bush gets another term, we quite possibly WILL) have wars in any number of countries. But we CANNOT have a war in Terrorismland. Except, of course, in Bush's rhetoric.
I'm insulted by the whole War on Terror(ism) routine. I can't even begin to detail the flaws in reason. But here's a recent favorite:
Blindly Idiotic Bush Supporter: "I feel safer because George W. Bush is President."
Me: "Why, and how, exactly?"
B.I.B.S: "We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11."
Me: "Well, according to that logic, we should be safer without Bush as president."
B.I.B.S: "Huh?"
Me: "The worst terrorist attack to ever occur on American soil, one of the most devistating single terrorist attacks ever, occurred while Bush was President. Shouldn't that scare you?"
B.I.B.S.: "Huh? That's ridiculous..."
Me: "Granted. Yes, it is ridiculous. It's also following the same post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning you're using when you give Bush some sort of credit for having kept us safe."
B.I.B.S.: "You think he hasn't made us safer?"
Me: "Not really, no. In truth, I feel less safe because of Bush. In terms of my human rights and American freedoms, I feel more threatened by the Patriot Act than by any possible terrorist actions."
I just can't figure out how -- much less why -- anyone would think this man ought to be in office for another four years.