implicit art

As CNN begins to look more and
more like Fox news (whose
CEO is none other than Bush’s cousin), I’m beginning to think there has
to be some irony in all of this. I mean, they can’t actually expect the American
people to buy into this crap, right? And even if they do, do we really have that
much selective amnesia about recent history/politics? Unless other Americans are
either laughing, or as angry, as I am (it seems most aren’t), I guess we do.
Here’s
an article about Ties
between Iraq and al Qaeda. It claims to have found a document, in some Iraqi
headquarters, that had bin Laden’s name on it, which means he may have been at
a meeting with their "intelligence people." Interesting. Now, how does
this compare to the fact the US trained, and put in power, both Hussein and bin
Laden? How does it compare to the actual PICTURES we have of our leaders meeting
with them (including Rumsfeld)? There’re pictures of us training them, too. This
is common knowledge; why do we ignore it so liberally when pointing blame? In
the US public eye this
new "amazing find" is going to justify the war (which was supposedly
for Weapons of Mass Destruction no one is yet to see), and yet it won’t stop the
US from making the same mistakes again – training and putting in a leader that
will help its short-term goals (the new world order) and hurt them (and more importantly,
the Iraqi people) in the long run.
"We have seen a dictator defy the world, and we have seen a coalition of
free nations give its answer," Bush is quoted saying in this
article. Bush, and most Americans that support him, believe he is talking about
Hussein. The rest of the world believes Bush is the dictator defying them.
Bush believes he is the leader of free nations, giving answer, and winning. The
rest of the world sees itself giving answer to Bush, and losing. So, which is
it?