- Marcus Tullius Cicero
The current leadership of this great nation of ours is unfit, unworthy and unrepresentative of the ideals upon which this country was founded.
Don't get me wrong, the first few Continental Congresses had their fair share of scoundrels, idiots and thieves. While the Army shivered and starved at Valley Forge, the representatives of the individual colonies in nearby Philadelphia had no such problems.
It is my opinion that politics attracts two types of beings. Those who genuinely wish to serve the public good and those who wish to serve only themselves. It seems to me, that at the current moment in time, the latter far outnumber the former. A greater bunch of self-serving, thieving, dishonest, dishonorable, disreputable a$$hats would be hard to find. The state legislatures aren't much better. The idiot politicians at the state level are simply a$$hats-in-training, waiting to take their turn on the national stage and steal from all the citizens. Not just the ones in their home state.
By now you might be wondering what has set me off. Other than watching the Lame Stream Media (LSM) lie to us and manipulate the LIVs*. (Which always sets me off.) No, it isn't the LSM this time, well perhaps indirectly, it was watching a movie (which I really enjoyed the first time I saw it, maybe I was paying better attention this time).
The movie was Shooter.
Shooter is based on the Stephen Hunter book Point of Impact. (And while I'm on that topic, Stephen Hunter is an awesome writer. If he wrote the phone book, I would read it, cover to cover. Especially if Bob Lee Swagger was in it. If you haven't read any of his books, do so. Again, he's awesome.) The book (as usual) is superior to the movie. But the movie is not bad, not bad at all. Problem is they let some political male bovine feces wander into the dialog.
I'm thinking of the scene where Bob Lee and the FBI guy are in the backwoods talking to this old guy who is supposedly some famous old shooter (or something). And the guy makes some throwaway comment about "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". Yup, a bit of Bush bashing. Something I cannot stomach.
Okay, Dubya wasn't "the best president of all time". Nor was he the worst (that title is held by the current holder of the office). But he wasn't bad, he wasn't bad at all. I also believe that he was and is an honorable man. Unlike most politicians, most of whom could have their pictures in the dictionary next to the definition for "dishonorable". That being my, ever so humble and honest, opinion.
So Shooter planted a seed, which has been germinating.
Then I read this. Basically, if Bush went to war, that was bad. If Bush didn't go to war, that too was bad. I'm thinking a Republican President is only allowed to make war upon those whom the cocktail circuit in Hollywood deem evil.
And then those nasty chemical weapons Syria may or may not have used against the rebels. Which I read about here. So where did all that (according to the LSM) non-existent WMD in Iraq go to? To Syria, just next door, right? Nah, couldn't be. And if it did, well it was Bush's fault, right?
Oh yeah, I'm angry.
*LIV = Low Information Voter