BrendanLoy.com: The One Blog | Photoblog | Weatherblog | Linklog | Old blog archives | Photos

« Previous post | Next post »
The liberators and the liberated
Posted by on Thursday, February 3, 2005 at 12:33 am

Okay, that’s enough SOTU blogging; I have Legal Ethics reading to do, and much-needed sleep to catch up on. I’ll leave you with some more photos of The Hug:

It really was poignant. And to those on the Left (cough cough, Wolf Blitzer) who would imply or insinuate that it was “scripted” or “staged,” I say you’re far too cynical for your own good. Is it really that difficult to believe that a woman whose country was liberated by the U.S. military would genuinely want to hug the mother of a soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice in that effort to secure freedom for her people? Even if you opposed the war, surely you can grasp the sincerity of that moment. Must every pro-Bush moment be assumed to be a nefarious Karl Rove plot? Jeez.

Anyway… I’m out. Happy Groundhog Day to all, and to all a good night.




9 Comments on “The liberators and the liberated”

  1. kormal Says:

    Wolf Blitzer as part of Left? Wolf “Torture’s just another way to say ‘I love you’” Blitzer? On what planet, exactly, is that man part of the Left? With a capital ‘L,’ no less!

  2. Brendan Says:

    I can’t say I know much about Wolf Blitzer’s political leanings… I just know he said something on CNN about the hug being scripted.

    What’s this torture business?

  3. Luke Says:

    Yeah, I would have made a comment on CNN about the hug being retarded propaganda. Didn’t they have Achmed Chalabi sitting right around that area last time?

  4. asdf Says:

    Of course it’s staged. They may not have been told what to do, but just bringing them together like that is contrived. Yup, both sides do it, but the wingnuts are becoming expert.

  5. Brendan Says:

    “Of course it’s staged. They may not have been told what to do…”

    Um, you really need to look up the definition of the term “staged.”

    “just bringing them together like that is contrived”

    Hmm, let’s see. Let’s review the facts:

    1) Guests of the president who are going to be pointed out during the SOTU address traditionally ALWAYS sit near the first lady; so, any two guests are ALWAYS going to be “together like that.”

    2) The president’s biggest and most recent achievement in Iraq is the elections, so one of his guests was an Iraqi voter.

    3) The president wanted to thank our troops for their sacrifice, so two of his guests were the mother and father of a soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice.

    Yup… so “contrived”… I mean, none of that makes ANY SENSE without some sort of grand conspiracy to “stage” a fake emotional moment. There is absolutely no possible alternative explanation. Nope. None.

    [/sacrasm (again)]

    These ridiculous anti-Bush, anti-Lieberman comments I’ve been reading have me this close to forsaking the Democratic Party forever. I don’t even want to live on the same planet as you logically challenged zealots, let alone be in the same party.

  6. Edward Ayres Says:

    It is staged in the sense that by putting them close together at such an emotional moment for them both it was easy to predict what would happen. What’s pathetic is how the State of the Union has become media manipulation event used for creating emotional hype. It started with Reagan and every President since has continued it. The people of this country can’t seem to stay focused on facts long enough so emotional manipulation to achieve policy goals has become the norm. I used to really enjoy politics but lately the whole process makes my skin crawl.

  7. Patrick Says:

    Wolf Blitzer is on the Left for sure.

    On election night 2004,. long after every other network was talking ‘bush mandate’, he was freaking out at the correspondents, “Kerry STILL has a shot in Ohio! The ‘provisional ballots’ STILL MUST be counted!!!” even though bush was up by like 150K there, and there were 150K ballots…. the almost childlike whining of him almost made me turn to FoxNews (almost).

  8. kk Says:

    What was revolting was “inviting” a woman whose son bush killed - and the soldier’s brother - an invitation that how many would be able to refuse? Few to none.

    Obviously the woman is unsophisticated enough to realize that she was being manipulated to give bush a big photo op.

    It is beyond disgusting.

    Worse than his talking about another talking to a woman whose husband he’d killed, saying something lilke

    It’s hard work to love a woman as best as I can knowing (I killed her husband).

  9. Brendan Says:

    Wow, I love how you assume that everyone agrees with you that the war is bad and the son therefore died in vain.

    Perhaps his mother actually agrees with Bush’s cause, and moreover, doesn’t believe that “Bush killed him,” but rather that THE IRAQIS KILLED HIM (just a thought).

    You want disgusting? Intolerance of other people’s opinions — now that’s disgusting.


This is an archived post. Comments are closed.

To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.


[powered by WordPress.]