So I came across a lot of people who thought Obama’s speech last week in Norway was pretty nifty. And by “a lot of people,” I mean my mom, and by “nifty” I mean “not stinky.”
To me, the speech was little different from whatever President Bush would have given – that is, a capable defense of American interests based on an acknowledgment of evil in the world.
Which raises the question: where are the protests against this new wartime President?
Viewer Chad Smith wrote in to remind me of the infamous Rock Against Bush campaign – started by some low level punk rockers. Its goal, presumably, was to create an antiwar movement with Bush as the primary target of relentless, brutal (warlike, even!) scorn.
But hey – it was called Rock Against Bush, not Rock against War. And that tells you something. Rock Against Bush wasn’t a campaign to force the President to rethink war, it was a campaign to use war to crap all over Bush, an ideological enemy. So, it wasn’t about pacifism, it was about politics. Which is why – after crapping on Bush – they remain mysteriously silent over Obama, now. I say “mysteriously” because I’m stupid.
Look – a drone still kills people, whether it’s commanded to do so by a Republican or a Democrat. So, it comes down to consistency. If you’re critical of war under Bush, you gotta be critical of war under of Obama. I’ve been critical of our President over a crapload of things, but I support him in this troop build-up, the same way I supported the surge under Bush. So one must wonder: if there was a Rock Against Bush, why not a Rock Against Obama?
I’m glad for our troops that these sellouts found something else to do.
And if you disagree with me, then you sir, are probably a racist.
Tonight: Jim Norton, Tamara Holder, Oderus Urangus and Billy West
(that’s a line-up you’d only see at the police department)