I watched an hour or so of the ongoing debate in the House about the Democrat-sponsored "non-binding" resolution to disapprove of Bush's escalation of the Iraq war/occupation. Two observations:
(1) My congressperson, Lois Capps, happened to be at the podium for her five minutes and, to me, gave a creditable--more than creditable in substance, a bit weak in delivery--speech about the state of affairs in Iraq, and in this nation. I felt proud that she was my voice in Congress, even though she's nowhere near as radical in her views as I. She's good people, Lois Capps is.
(2) The Republicans, alternating speeches with the Democrats, were absolutely nuts. Speaker after speaker kept invoking "the war on terr'r," widening the debate to one of a global nature, calling any hesitation to support Bush's escalation as a capitulation to "those who would kill us" and "the extremist radical forces of Islam."
My reaction to the latter: I thought they were joking, that they'd drunk Kool-Aid or toked something. Their speeches sounded like lunacy, truly drug-driven.
But later this evening, on the Internet, I found out I was wrong. No lunacy, no Kool-Aid was at work. They were just following orders.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't understand the difference between kool-aid lunacy and following orders for the sake of political expedience. Aren't both basically bugnuts?
Good point. If I remember right, those folks who drank the Kool-Aid were just following the orders of an identically insane dictator.
Post a Comment