Saturday, September 25, 2004

Damn that liberal media!


Hannity and Colmes comes to LHS Posted by Hello

The page at which you are looking comes from the newest Lafayette High Parlez-Vous, obtained by my sister (I like to read it because I used to be the editor-in-chief and designed it back in the day when it looked good). When I opened to page three, I reacted with a half-gasp-half-laughter expression. What would you call that? Gaughter? Lausp? I don't know...

This point-counterpoint section is about (maybe you heard about this) the war on terror. The conservative column, written by Hunter Simmons, charges that the Clinton years were horrible, warless years for the United States. The nation, however, found its purpose after the 9/11 attacks--which is, of course, never-ending war. From then on, Simmons' editorial reads like a bad Republican Party press release:

The terrorists came knocking on that day, expecting no one to be home. What they found was a Texan with the means to finish what the Islamists have started. Woe to these men who thought that their loathsome call to war would go unanswered. When the piper came calling, the Taliban was left in ruins and Al Qaeda [sic] was scattered: their training camps destroyed their leaders on the run [sic]. The war on terror had commenced.

Simmons also shows a general ignorance of terrorism:

We can't afford to have another 9-11; it is why we fight. You can't thwart a terrorist's plan by waiting for it to happen. Why wait in fear when we can take the the fight to the terrorists and divert their attention from the States?

Here he's ignoring a few things: 1) We will never have another 9/11, because terrorists rely on one earth-shattering attack to frighten people and then go back into hiding. Now that everyone's awake to the peril (and going batshit with fear and security measures), there's no need for another attack; just the lingering threat is enough. That's why it's called "terror." Terrorists might be bad guys, but they're not stupid. 2) It's already happened.

And like any good conservative columnist, Simmons indirectly invokes God in ways that would make Dubya proud:

Three thousand innocent souls cry out from the grave for justice--a righteous call that must be answered. No, this is not a war that will be won in your lifetime, but it is that which we owe until our last fallen hero rests in peace.

I'm not sure exactly what he means by fighting "until our last fallen hero rests in peace," but I'm sure it sounds like music to Halliburton's ears. For a high school editorial, Simmons actually does pretty good; hell, he's no worse than the actual GOP. And, as is the par with the media these days, he gets the bulk of the newspaper space. To the lazy public, this shows that his views must hold more merit. Nicely subliminal.

The liberal column, written by Lacey Johnston, begins on a bad note by misstating the point of the war on terror (not that it isn't all a web of lies to begin with):

The War on Terror began with the "knowledge" of mass weapons of destruction held in Iraq.

Actually, no, it began with 9/11. But if you count the Bush drive to invade Iraq as early as January 2001 (or earlier), then she might have gotten it right. Johnston gets really specific into facts and figures, which would be good if not for two things: 1) she lacks the space, being a liberal and all and 2) people in general are too ignorant to care about facts and figures; they want easy problems, easy solutions and an outlet for ethnic anger.

Johnston does end strong, however, by noting that Australia, Russia and Canada (Canada?) should be our next WMD targets under our current mentality. Additionally, she says, the GOP has shown its true colors by waffling on the premise for the Iraq war:

All of these excuses just don't add up. To put it simply, this was the excuse for President Bush [sic] and the Conservative Party [sic again], to settle an old score with Saddam Hussein. Many people say, "We had to take Saddam out. He was killing his people to keep his power." What's the difference between Saddam killing his people to maintain power, and the U.S. killing 500,000 innocent children in Iraq, in our quest to find "weapons of mass destruction," to maintain world power? ...

Well, now that everything is "settled" the rest of us sane Americans can rest assured that our families and friends are going to war and dying on the battle line for something great. A speculation of weapons to be "settled."

While I'm not surprised that even high school students are opining on the current world situation, I am awed at how much their respective comments (not to mention the inequality of word length) reflect the real party lines and coverage of American politics. Hey, at least they're thinking about it.

12 comments:

scarlett said...

interesting points of view

Ian McGibboney said...

Bienvenido, scarlett!

Hegemon said...

"We will never have another 9/11, because terrorists rely on one earth-shattering attack to frighten people and then go back into hiding."

Oh yeah, they're sure in hiding now, tell that to the people of Saudi Arabia, Bali, Spain, Indonesia....and so on and so on.

Why do you think you can just wish the terrorist threat away? Clinton tried that after he let them win in Somalia and look what it got us, Khobar..Nairobi...Kenya...the Cole...and eventually 9-11. You can't just expect them to "go into hiding" based on whatever bullsit timetable you seem to think they follow, you can't rely on their good faith that "Ok infidels, we killed 3000 of you, now we'll go away!" Only a fucking braindead retard would think that, or perhaps someone that has been locked in a hole for the last 15 years.

Michael said...

Why do you think you can just wish the terrorist threat away?Gee, Tom, you might want to rush that message to the White House, stat. Because what you've just described sure looks an awful lot like the CheneyBushCo Approach to Terrorism (patent pending). God knows they've tried everything except anything that actually stands a chance of stopping al Qaeda. In fact, most of what they've been doing in the last year has been helping al Qaeda more than it's hindered them. There may not have been an AQ presence in Iraq before Commander Codpiece got his war on, but there sure as hell is now.

Afghanistan was the right way to go about things. We took measured action against an actual terrorist supporting nation, and we were on the verge of both pacifying the country and catching the guy responsible for 11 September 2001. Then Preznit Inigo Montoya decided he had a hard-on to go after the guy who'd tried (and failed) to kill his father. End result? The Taliban is resurgent, Afghanistan is a bigger shambles than it was when we went in, Osama bin Laden is still at large, and the biggest opium crop in history has just been planted because that's the only way the average Afghan farmer has of making enough money to feed himself and his family. And we don't have enough troops to stop any of that, because they're all getting the shite kicked out of them in Iraq.

If that's an example of Bush's "steady leadership" in action, I'll take the lesser of the two flip-floppers any day, and twice on Sundays. Kerry all the way!

Ian McGibboney said...

Tom, when I say another 9/11 won't happen, I define "9/11" as a severe and organized attack on a complacent nation to assert their strength and resolve. The attack worked because it was so huge and so unexpected. Anything else that happened would be expected (and possibly thwarted), so there would be no reason to do it again. You can't lose your virginity twice.

Hegemon said...

"and we were on the verge of both pacifying the country and catching the guy responsible for 11 September 2001. Then Preznit Inigo Montoya decided he had a hard-on to go after the guy who'd tried (and failed) to kill his father."

And what proof do you have that we were "on the verge" of catching Bin Laden? Was he seen standing on some far off, wind swept cliff when Bush radioed in "Alright guys, leave him be"? For all anyone knows Bin Laden died in Tora Bora, funny you don't hear much from him, only his little mouthpiece.

Ian McGibboney said...

The fact is, Osama bin Laden is still not accounted for. And it's also a fact that Bush diverted valuable resources such as funds, troops and provisions to invade Iraq without even making a convincing case for doing so. This is from whence we draw the conclusion that Bush all but abandoned the hunt for bin Laden.

Hegemon said...

I think Afghanistan showed you can't catch Bin Laden with 100,000 troops, you need covert ops and a small sampling of soldiers, plus the fact that he's very likely to be in Pakistan kinda nixes any reasoning to have lots of troops because Mushareef, while an ally, wouldn't take to kindly to 100,000 US troops traipsing around his country shooting the joint up. The main thing is Bin Laden's little islam heaven in Afghanistan is no more and he's either taken to hiding in caves or he's a smear on the walls of Tora Bora, and either is more than Clinton accomplished after Bin Laden laughed at him and killed US citizens basically whenever he felt like it without having to worry about retaliation.

Ian McGibboney said...

So because we couldn't catch bin Laden, he suddenly became unimportant. And it doesn't matter what he does anymore because we can't find him. Nice circular logic there.

Incidentally, diverting what could have been extra troop strength for Afghanistan into to Iraq has not solved any problem.

Michael said...

You might have something there, Tom, were it not for the fact that the Special Forces units who were on the ground and hunting bin Laden (quite successfully, if the reports in the media at the time were accurate) were among the first ones pulled out to go get ready for Bush's Big Adventure in Baghdad. Ooops.

Hegemon said...

How do you "hunt someone, quite successfully" yet not get him? Isn't that some kind of oxymoron?

Michael said...

How do you "hunt someone, quite successfully" yet not get him? Isn't that some kind of oxymoron?I didn't vote for the oxymoron, so I can't speak for him. But yeah, that's certainly a question I'd love to see Senator Kerry ask in a debate, if only for the pleasure of watching Bush's head explode on national television.