Thursday, November 15, 2007

An Answer for Glenn Greenwald

Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of a sovereign country that had not attacked us and could not attack us -- as did some of the commentators now aggressively questioning Ron Paul's mental health or, at least, his "seriousness." She supported the occupation of that country for years -- until it became politically unpalatable. That war has killed hundreds of thousands of people at least and wreaked untold havoc on our country. Are those who supported that war extremist, or big weirdos, or fruitcakes?

I understand there are a lot of them, but they're out and out nuts. Is it a little clearer, now, how we can make our only available inhabitable planet unlivable? Almost everyone is batshit crazy.

1 comment:

nephos said...

Actually, inane wars are about the best means we have at our disposal for keeping the planet livable. Perhaps not for our species of course, but wars tend to make it much more difficult for people to go about raping the environment to further their own economic growth.

I mean look at our own economy. Bush is the ultimate environmentalist. We just can't consume as many of our planet's resources precisely because he is so bat-shit crazy that he consumes the US treasury in pointless military excursions.

OK, "Kill and Iraqi, Save a Tree" is a bit overly macabre as a bumper sticker, but given we're all doomed anyway, we might as well be pro-active about it and give some other species a chance.