Bad Day
Even though I'm no longer across the pond I will still occassionally update this blog just for the hell of it. I need no reason, so don't ask for one. If you do, I'll just make one up.
Let me explain the title. First of all, I'd have everyone know that today was a good day. I woke up not late, had a delicious cup of coffee, slice of 12-grain toast, went to class, ate lunch, read a little, went to my next class, came home, and, it being a nice day out weather-wise, we guys decided it'd be fun to go swimming in the gorges. So we swam until the sun began setting, then we all came home. I came home, had a pita, egg, cheese, and hummus sandwhich, and did some reading. Good day.
So why "bad day?" The reading I did before my second class was for my legislative behavior class, in which before each session we do a "news drill" where we discuss current events. I sit down with the Times and start reading. First of all there is the hurricane splashed all over it. Clearly that's a downer. True it is happening many miles away, but any time you see people in such distress and pain your heart goes out to them. And when you see how your leadership is fumbling around helping them, and how the New York Times editorial begins with the line "George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday," you get a little scared. What is scariest is that thousands are expected to be dead. Just a horrible, disgusting disaster that should have been forseen, but was instead neglected due to more important issues, namely fighting Iraq. Funny, isn't it how the war in Iraq, this ambiguous war on terror, distracts us from the fact that we are being stolen from, that the ruling class is enslaving us to their will and we obediently march along with our tail between our legs because we don't want gas prices to go up any more. So clearly I was having issues with this. However, I'm searching for stories with Senatorial implications so I keep reading. On the bottom right corner on the front page I read that 950 Iraqis were killed yesterday from a stampede after hearing suicide bomb threats. That's a pretty big number. Three Americans, too, but no ones counting anymore. Once the number reached 1000, everyone stopped caring. Funny that almost 1000 Iraqis die in one day and it barely makes the front page. I guess we can't feel too bad for them; they were all freedom-hating terrorists anyway.
So I keep readin,g because theres still nothing about the Senate. Oh, Justice John Roberts is getting questioned by the Senate Judiciary committee next week so yesterday he went through a mock hearing. There's something senatorial! Bush's nominee for the Supreme court is going to get questioned and voted on by the Rebublican Senate. That's a great example of checks and balances.
So I keep reading and learn of another Senate Judiciary hearing coming up. Aparently 2 military officers from the Pentagon reported that an intelligence briefing was released identifying Muhammed Atta, the man who led the 9/11 attacks, as a terrorist, back in 2000. That's a whole year before the sorrowful day. The publishers of the briefing tried ushering it to the FBI for investigation into the terrorist not once, not twice, but 3 times, but always getting turned down by "military lawyers."
So now, they're coming out with this story and the Pentagon is reporting that there is no "evidence to back up the evidence" or some contrived cliche like that. Some are even claiming that these guys are making the whole thing up. The military officers claim that the Pentagon destroyed the evidence. The Pentagon denys everything. The Times, in the article, which was not an op-ed, said that if this info were to be found to be true then it would be an "embarrassment" for the Bush administration. No way. This is more than an embarrassment. This is an uncovery. People need to look into this and realize that all of these people who claim to their graves, Washington insiders, Pentagon officials, CIA agents, that Bush knew about a 9/11 attack are telling the truth. He's not negligent, he's not stupid. He took that information, and used it to his advantage. I'm not saying Bush was behind the attacks. But I am saying that he let them happen on purpose. He purposely did nothing to stop the horrific events. There is no evidence, no true evidence, you can give me that he's definately 100% clean on this. And don't say, "oh you're rediculous" or "oh there's no way." Good lord I would pray that there would be "no way" that our leader could allow such horrific events to occur. Just look at what's happening now. He publicly said that there was no way of knowing such a tragedy in New Orleans could occur. Right, because New Orleans isn't located below sea level. Sorry I forgot. Just like they want me to. I'm walking to school tomorrow.
Let me explain the title. First of all, I'd have everyone know that today was a good day. I woke up not late, had a delicious cup of coffee, slice of 12-grain toast, went to class, ate lunch, read a little, went to my next class, came home, and, it being a nice day out weather-wise, we guys decided it'd be fun to go swimming in the gorges. So we swam until the sun began setting, then we all came home. I came home, had a pita, egg, cheese, and hummus sandwhich, and did some reading. Good day.
So why "bad day?" The reading I did before my second class was for my legislative behavior class, in which before each session we do a "news drill" where we discuss current events. I sit down with the Times and start reading. First of all there is the hurricane splashed all over it. Clearly that's a downer. True it is happening many miles away, but any time you see people in such distress and pain your heart goes out to them. And when you see how your leadership is fumbling around helping them, and how the New York Times editorial begins with the line "George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday," you get a little scared. What is scariest is that thousands are expected to be dead. Just a horrible, disgusting disaster that should have been forseen, but was instead neglected due to more important issues, namely fighting Iraq. Funny, isn't it how the war in Iraq, this ambiguous war on terror, distracts us from the fact that we are being stolen from, that the ruling class is enslaving us to their will and we obediently march along with our tail between our legs because we don't want gas prices to go up any more. So clearly I was having issues with this. However, I'm searching for stories with Senatorial implications so I keep reading. On the bottom right corner on the front page I read that 950 Iraqis were killed yesterday from a stampede after hearing suicide bomb threats. That's a pretty big number. Three Americans, too, but no ones counting anymore. Once the number reached 1000, everyone stopped caring. Funny that almost 1000 Iraqis die in one day and it barely makes the front page. I guess we can't feel too bad for them; they were all freedom-hating terrorists anyway.
So I keep readin,g because theres still nothing about the Senate. Oh, Justice John Roberts is getting questioned by the Senate Judiciary committee next week so yesterday he went through a mock hearing. There's something senatorial! Bush's nominee for the Supreme court is going to get questioned and voted on by the Rebublican Senate. That's a great example of checks and balances.
So I keep reading and learn of another Senate Judiciary hearing coming up. Aparently 2 military officers from the Pentagon reported that an intelligence briefing was released identifying Muhammed Atta, the man who led the 9/11 attacks, as a terrorist, back in 2000. That's a whole year before the sorrowful day. The publishers of the briefing tried ushering it to the FBI for investigation into the terrorist not once, not twice, but 3 times, but always getting turned down by "military lawyers."
So now, they're coming out with this story and the Pentagon is reporting that there is no "evidence to back up the evidence" or some contrived cliche like that. Some are even claiming that these guys are making the whole thing up. The military officers claim that the Pentagon destroyed the evidence. The Pentagon denys everything. The Times, in the article, which was not an op-ed, said that if this info were to be found to be true then it would be an "embarrassment" for the Bush administration. No way. This is more than an embarrassment. This is an uncovery. People need to look into this and realize that all of these people who claim to their graves, Washington insiders, Pentagon officials, CIA agents, that Bush knew about a 9/11 attack are telling the truth. He's not negligent, he's not stupid. He took that information, and used it to his advantage. I'm not saying Bush was behind the attacks. But I am saying that he let them happen on purpose. He purposely did nothing to stop the horrific events. There is no evidence, no true evidence, you can give me that he's definately 100% clean on this. And don't say, "oh you're rediculous" or "oh there's no way." Good lord I would pray that there would be "no way" that our leader could allow such horrific events to occur. Just look at what's happening now. He publicly said that there was no way of knowing such a tragedy in New Orleans could occur. Right, because New Orleans isn't located below sea level. Sorry I forgot. Just like they want me to. I'm walking to school tomorrow.
posted by xdredd at 10:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home