Saturday, September 25, 2004
Damn that liberal media!
Hannity and Colmes comes to LHS
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.