It's good to be incumbent, isn't it?
As for me, you can already guess at my reaction.
I long ago gave up any expectation that the judicial system would be involved in this process in any way, shape, or form, so that whole "it's not justice unless he is tried in criminal court" attitude belongs somewhere in a past that ended when Bush II won his second term.
I guess I could look down my nose and call the celebrations of some citizens "unseemly", not only because "yay death" is a bit gross, but also because, you know, we killed a lot of other people on the road to this latest killing. But meh.
I'm just curious as to exactly what excuses will be concocted to continue our policies in the Middle East, which I doubt will change at all. I can't wait for the inevitable "we must remain in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen in order to aggressively defend ourselves against those who would want revenge for Bin Laden's death". You know it's coming.
EDIT:
Nice try. "When we lose the sadness part - when all we do is happily scream 'USA! USA! USA!' at news of yet more killing in a now unending back-and-forth war - it's a sign we may be inadvertently letting the monsters win." May? Inadvertently? Letting? Monsters? Oh, sir. Please. The bloodlust of the simple-minded is not a fucking Al Qaeda invention!
Also. Is it me, or is closure one of the worst words ever to enter the general lexicon? Why doesn't the death of Osama Bin Laden feel like that day when I paid off the last of my student loans?
The naivete of the mainstream liberal/Left world is really in stark evidence with those two posts. What halcyon place was America before 9/11? Clinton bombed people. Bush I bombed people. Reagan? Him, too! The gap between rich and poor has been growing for decades. Social services have been under attack for decades. It was only after 9/11 that it came to be seen as embarrassing to some to have voted for Nader in 2000. The same Nader who decried political corruption and the similar commitment to neo-liberal economic policy that was and is shared by both political parties. So what, exactly, are we trying to get back to? As far as I can tell, the desire is return to a time when illegal war didn't have the taint of ambiguity and doubt. Victory?
3 comments:
WIth the amount of civilians we've managed to turn into meat, how many times over do you figure we've replaced the deaths of the world trade center in order to achieve this single one more death? I'd say it has to be in the three digits.
There is no acceptable number, is there? I mean, yes, the number is obscenely high. But I don't think I would be happy if we had "only" killed 3,000 innocent civilians.
I mis-spoke a bit above, though. All those deaths were not "on the road" to this one, at least not in any sense besides chronologically. As far as I can tell, none of those people had to die in order for us to gain the intelligence to apprehend Bin Laden. Obviously there have been a lot of different motives for a lot of different bad acts over the last decade. Untangling is needed now that one motive is no longer available.
Post a Comment