Tuesday, April 06, 2004

Sure, Buzzflash doesn't believe ME when I say it...

Amazingly, the mainstream liberal, Buzzflash, that thinks Kerry is the savior, publishes this article by Maureen Farrell predicting that a "terrorist event" will result in martial law and the cancelling of the elections in 2004. I, of course, in my witty, insightful and eerily prescient (hey, you write YOUR OWN REVIEWS you get to say what you want) Gambler's Guide to the 2004 Elections gave 10 to 1 odds that the elections would be "Code Redded" out of existence. I said this in September, 2003. Nevermind that I provided no EVIDENCE, as Ms Farrell bothered to do. If I said it, this should be enough. Nevertheless, Mr. Flash, or Buzz to his friends greeted my hours of hard, scriptatorial labor with the uncapitalized response (Buzz is too busy to use capital letters) "can't use now." That was it. Nothing else.

I'm glad they put Ms. Farrell's piece in there. The new information is particularly helpful: all the strangely similar messages emanating from rightwing talk radio/tv about how we should cancel the elections in the event of a major terrorist attack and how likely such a scenario might be. After all, notes Rush (am I the first to get the joke of his first name and his drug habit. Surely not. ) a vote for Kerry is, in fact, a vote for the terrorists.

Go read the article and follow the links. Then let me know if I should raise the odds from 10 to 1. I have a business to run here, ya know.

I also want to implore all the fascist trolls who occasionally look away from their autographed, G Gordon Liddy girly "Stacked and Packed Calendars" and eject their sputum onto my comments sections, to call your Senators and Congressmen or their corresponding stunt doubles in the Shadow Government and implore them to start providing decent health care to the returning wounded from Iraq. They are warehousing these guys in horrible conditions and making them wait ridiculous amounts of time for treatment. Now, what I've said before goes, G.I.'s: You can't break international law just because you are ordered to do so, and you'll get no sympathy from me if you are firing missiles into civilian homes. However, most of our military are doing what they think is right or just trying to make a living and they've been sent to this hell hole which is about to come crumbling down around their ears. Saigon anyone? In any event, here is just one of MANY, MANY articles about the substandard care provided to these wounded. And remember, wounded often means lost limbs and severe disability. Where's the Bush photo op of him visiting these soldiers? And where are all the Clear Channel rally participants when it counts? If you REALLY want to support the military, go here.

Let us also pause to remember, as dozens (I've seen estimates of up to 160 coalition dead in the last two days, but CNN just says 12. Whatever.) of U.S. military are cut down by rebelling Shia AND Sunni militants, that it was BUSH who said "Bring 'em on." I guess he got what he wanted.

By the way, for those of you interested in international law: If a military power occupies another country and an armed militia attacks military targets of the occupying power, the militants are not terrorists; they are called ARMED COMBATANTS. The occupying power doesn't get to shoot their children or blow up their houses with their families inside. Even without taking sides in the actual combat, their actions are LEGAL in humanitarian (armed combat law). This also means you can't shoot at them when they are wounded or otherwise "hors du combat" (out of combat) and that you must treat any prisoners according to the guidelines of the Geneva conventions. If you'd like to learn more about this topic, go to the Red Cross site here.


Post a Comment

<< Home