Paul Harvey, who is 86 and senile, but still popular in Christian dominionist, anti-immigrant, and war mongering circles, thinks we should nuke, um, somebody:
So, following the New York disaster (911), we mustered our humanity.
We gave old pals a pass, even though men and money from Saudi Arabia were largely responsible for the devastation of New York and Pennsylvania and our Pentagon.
We called Saudi Arabians our partners against terrorism and we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we kept our best weapons in our silos.
Even now we're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive, because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies -- more moral, more civilized.
Our image is at stake, we insist.
But we didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy.
Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever."
And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."
Yeah, we should drop the Bomb on, um, Afghanistan. Maybe Saudi Arabia. And Iraq. Yeah that would be good. What an ass-clown.
But Paul Harvey has competition in the race to be top ass-clown.
I give you Big Story John Gibson of Fox "news" (also popular, by the way, with American fascists everywhere):
All day long people have been saying to me, "Wasn't it great they didn't pick Paris?" And I've been saying, "No, no, no."
Paris was exactly the right place to pick and the Olympic committee screwed up.
Why? Simple. It would have been a three-week period where we wouldn't have had to worry about terrorism.
First, the French think they are so good at dealing with the Arab world that they would have gone out and paid every terrorist off. And things would have been calm.
Or another way to look at it is the French are already up to their eyeballs in terrorists. The French hide them in miserable slums, out of sight of the rich people in Paris.
So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.
What would the French have done about rounding up their own citizens?
Would they have afforded their own terrorists the rights they insist we give the detainees at Gitmo? Not a chance. They'd throw them in the clink, or ship them off to North Africa pronto.
Would they have blocked terrorists at the border with unreasonable search and seizure ? precisely what they say we should not do? Of course they would. Anybody looking faintly Arab would have had the gendarmerie on them in a flash.
It would have been a delight to have Parisians worried about security instead of New Yorkers. It would have been exquisite to watch.
John Gibson, you ignorant slut.
The president you admire so much says we're different than "them". This morning he said:
On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill -- those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.
Are you different from "them"? 'Cause you sound a lot like the terrorists you claim to want punished.