a broken lull.

this is an afterthought (weeks and months after the fact, but it just hit me this week): how the hell did the white house decide that june 30 2004 was the right date to hand over the country to the iraqi people, if not for political safety? i mean, we know this is just so that bush can then go on the campaign trail for the rest of the year. the country isn't even safe *now*, how can they be planning ahead and know that in 6 months it'll be alright to hand the country over? i mean, it won't be safe and the iraqis will be left to their own devices just so bush can come back to the safe confines of the u.s. for a quick and swift election process? come on.

i hope that once a democratic nominee is chosen, he or she will start chipping away at bush (they won't have those other pesky dems standing in the way no more). i really hope they do 'cause this administration is still acting outrageously (every single week there's something surreal!) but no one in the mainstream seems to care or even bother to notice these acts (mars?? wow, what an idea! get me charts and let's flood the airwaves with talk of how grand and visionary this is!! what? he's doing this so we don't notce all the crappy things he's doing? you're nuts; look, there's the moon!).

rove and perle must think you guys are idiots if they keep throwing stuff like this out there and no one even raises an eyebrow.

wake up, people.
i really hope the real campaign will get some backbone once it really starts. and i can't wait for the (clark, or dean/bush) debates.

Posted by Anonymous | 11:04 AM |