Facts Not Required

[JGowans]

This was a letter in the Seattle Times from a reader. Regardless of political affiliation, it boggles my mind that there are people out there with the ability to vote and the reasoning powers of a gnat.

 

Either that, or this is a cleverly disguised sarcastic letter that I didn't quite get at first?

 

------

Seattle Times Readers Letters

 

Bad yarn unravels

 

I'm sick of all these Bush-hating liberals attacking our president. So what if we didn't find any WMDs like the president said we would? If John Kerry had been president, Saddam Hussein might still be in power and he might even have tried to kill George W. Bush's father again.

 

And now former counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke is trying to discredit our commander-in-chief by saying Bush failed to act on Clarke's warnings about al-Qaida prior to 9-11, and then wanted to pin the attacks on Saddam.

 

Bush sees the world in black and white. He doesn't need facts — he's a leader. Facts just make the world gray and hard to understand. Even if President Bush did make the decision about going to war on bad intelligence, it was still good leadership and it's patriotic to follow your leader, no matter what.

 

John Kerry would have made us go to the U.N. first — if we don't need facts or good intelligence, we certainly don't need anyone else's opinion.

 

Forget about the elephant — let's make the sheep the symbol of the GOP

Emily Salisbury Keene, Seattle

Edited March 23, 2004 by JGowans

[klenke]

Say, that is pretty funny. I'm surprised the Seattle Times would even choose to print it.

[erik]

i think that they are/were trying to show how obvious that facts are not required to start a dialouge...shit between not using facts and poor spelling/grammer i can do anything!

[glacier]

"He doesn't need facts — he's a leader. Facts just make the world gray and hard to understand."

 

That's classic.

[badvoodoo]

"Facts are meaningless. Facts can be used to prove anything that's even REMOTELY true!"

 

- Homer Simpson