2004-11-14 - 7:03 a.m.

Here's my question....

It seems that since old Shrub man was elected to office again the war has taken a new step...invading cities left and right and the headlines now, instead of reading "two soilders die in ambush, assault, fight, explosion or whatever", they read, "US takes Fallujah, Mosel next." So, if it was bad for the election to invade cities with full force...why is it okay NOW? I mean, it was obviously not the thing to do back when he had a presidency to win. But now that he has secured that and doesn't have to worry about reelection, we can just invade and invade. And it also seems to me that we are invading and taking over with ease. So why wasn't that done before? (if that's what had to be done?) Was it better for the election and Bush to have a war going and for us to think that it was not going as easily as one would think? Because it would appear now that less people are getting killed on a daily basis than before (and I say it would seem because the headlines have stopped reporting on a daily basis about how many people got killed).

I hate politics. I hate Bush and his administration. I hate that Bush people view my thinking as wrong. How can someone like me, who craves peace, who craves a world in which we work together, who craves environmental stability and equal opportunity for all people to live in happiness?

I just don't get it.


Get your own
 diary at! contact me older entries

previous - next

Get your own
 diary at! contact me older entries

about me - read my profile! read other Diar
yLand diaries! recommend my diary to a friend! Get
 your own fun + free diary at!