*sometimes*i'm*dreaming* (celestialbliss) wrote,
*sometimes*i'm*dreaming*
celestialbliss

  • Mood:

I'm a little disturbed, to say the least

U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq

I would just like to note that last night, somewhere between 11 PM and 1 AM EST, this article was the main headline on the front page of CNN.com.

This morning, when I looked for it, not only was it no longer on the front page, but I had to search Google in order to find it. It turns out that the article was hidden in the World section of CNN.com, and it has now been relegated to a tiny headline entitled "US protects Iran militants" in the top right-hand corner of the page.

My stomach is kind of queasy, and I'm truly sickened. It's a good thing I happened to check the CNN front page last night during the critical window of time when this extremely frightening 'discovery' was published where people could actually find it.

PS-I can't find any mention of this situation on the BBC, which makes me sad.

**Edit**

Dick Cheney on Nancy Pelosi's "bad behavior" in Syria

Just to emphasize my disquiet:

(from the above article)

Rush Limbaugh: Well, how much damage has she done by conveying to Assad that Israel is ready for peace talks when Israel is not ready for peace talks, as Syria is currently constituted?

Dick Cheney: Well, I think it clearly stimulated a reaction out of the Israelis. Prime Minister Olmert immediately made it clear that she was not authorized to make any such offer to Bashar Assad. Among other things, of course,
the Syrians have not renounced their support for terror. The major terrorist organizations that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, such as Hamas, are headquartered in Damascus, Syria.

It was a non-statement, nonsensical statement and didn’t make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as
the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror.

Can the pot and the kettle be any blacker? I mean, I know that everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, but aren't we supposed to, like, at least TRY to set a good example? Maybe? Because I feel like it's much easier, and obviously more justified, to condemn a country for harboring terrorist organizations when we ourselves do not support/protect any of them.

If someone can explain the logic of this contradiction, by all means, please please do. Because I'm really at a loss here.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments