critics say

oh do they? here's what i saw in a brief moment of CNN-with-the-sound-on (much more blood boiling than the silent alternative):

critics say rumsfeld shouldn't have compared iraq to nazi germany
critics say that the prosecution in the moussaoui case...
critics say bush needs to change course in iraq
critics say iraq is already in a civil war
critics say we are all fucked and going to die any minute now

they didn't do the last one.

so

fucking

lazy

bush's rhetorical strawman magic (ably pointed out here by the AP) is lame. it makes him and those who back him up on it look like dumb people. and losers. mostly dumb, though.

"some on the other side of this issue would turn our seniors into food and distribute that food to terrorist insurgents. we are against that"

he may not have said that exactly. i don't remember. point is, this is the dumb loser lazy reporter version: who are those critics? do they have credibility to opine on the subject on which they are being (albeit incredibly broadly) quoted?

for instance, if one of those "critics" about whether or not iraq was or was not in a civil war turned out to be...ayad allawi, former PM and our man in havana, wouldn't that be worthy of mentioning?

nope, too fucking hard.

then we cut to "your technology future" in which holograms.are.the.future.maybe and some guy gets about 2 seconds to say "they may be the future, in ten years."

all these people suck. their newsreaders suck. their writers and editors and producers suck. and they are doing the bidding of their bosses, who SSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKkk

f em all

found the mute button.

out.