I found that I could listen to exactly 1:02 of the president's speech last night. It is probably more than I have heard from him in some time, since I don't have TV and tend to read his speeches rather than watch embedded videos online. While I can't say that I have been his biggest fan, I also admit that I hoped for something with him that would not be more of the same. And while I don't entertain any illusions that things would be much better under a different administration, I must still admit that I found shocking the language he used last night and the proposal for what I can only assume will be the extension of an already indefinite war (in both time and space) into who knows what or when. My frustration is of course no match for the real suffering and devastation that will be rained down, or the various forms of asymmetrical warfare that will also continue in a vicious circle, in all its gruesomeness. Perhaps I should listen for his analogies rather than his rhetoric, but already, this non-war-war is slated to extend beyond his administration. Ultimately, then, such distinctions may not matter. So, just basic questions from an ignorant person: is this really necessary? Is this the best "we" can do?
I found that I could listen to exactly 1:02 of the president's speech last night. It is probably more than I have heard from him in some time, since I don't have TV and tend to read his speeches rather than watch embedded videos online. While I can't say that I have been his biggest fan, I also admit that I hoped for something with him that would not be more of the same. And while I don't entertain any illusions that things would be much better under a different administration, I must still admit that I found shocking the language he used last night and the proposal for what I can only assume will be the extension of an already indefinite war (in both time and space) into who knows what or when. My frustration is of course no match for the real suffering and devastation that will be rained down, or the various forms of asymmetrical warfare that will also continue in a vicious circle, in all its gruesomeness. Perhaps I should listen for his analogies rather than his rhetoric, but already, this non-war-war is slated to extend beyond his administration. Ultimately, then, such distinctions may not matter. So, just basic questions from an ignorant person: is this really necessary? Is this the best "we" can do?