Thursday, September 14, 2006

how there are understatements, and then there's colin powell

i've been trying to keep up with the debate in congress over the rewording of how to treat suspects under the rules set forth by the geneva convention. on one hand, rather scarily, i agree with the bush administration in that for there to be clarity, the restrictions need to be specific. on the other hand, it's pretty fucking common sense what you can and can't do.

then again, it is common sense, and if our adminstration had any, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in.

right now, and it's been awhile, i automatically assume that, with every proclamation, the bush administration has something dastardly up their sleeve, and that's not right. it's just not right. it shouldn't be. but it is. you know they're gonna light someone's legs on fire, and then claim it's all good, because their amendment stipulates that you can't light arms on fire, so legs are okay. that's how they do.

anyways, colin powell addressed his displeasure with the bush stance, and he stated:

"the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

really, colin? you think? gee, where did you get that idea from? hell, this country ranks above only turkey - turkey! - in the percentage of people who don't believe in evolution, and even this group of idiots overwhelmingly question this administration's moral basis for anything.

way to ease it in there, col.

what's next, general obvious? "the world is beginning to doubt whether or not suri cruise wasn't bought in an asian baby store".

No comments: