So I surmise from a half-heard radio report this morning. On my way into town today I heard part of a story where Bush was said to have stated (I'm paraphrasing, from memory) taxpayers should not have to support the destruction of human life.
I can only assume this was a comment in reference to the Iraq War. What a remarkable reversal of policy! Does he now support ending bombings? Why isn't everyone talking about this?

Trying to find your way around this place? Like most expositions, we offer a map: 


Comments
Ahhh, the wonder of cognitive dissonance, and the amazing stories we tell ourselves to hide from the consequences of our decisions.
Imagine what we might do if we directed the effort we expend on high-maintenance belief systems toward functioning communities...
Posted by: etbnc | June 20, 2007 11:37 AM
Wild guess here: Bush may have been referring to the support of stem cell research (i.e. stem cell destruction = destroying "human life").
Sorry if that ruined any hope about seeing an end to the War in Iraq.
Posted by: Monimonika | June 20, 2007 12:26 PM
Kill all the stem cells, don't let them live on.
And kill the troops. Kill the insurgents. Kill the death squads. Kill the women and children. Kill the war victims. Kill the civilians -- hurry, quick, before millions more escape into exile.
(I'm channelling Smirky the Chimp, for your information. Thank you for asking.)
Posted by: Gork | June 20, 2007 1:37 PM
Sometimes it seems intentional irony is harder to pull off successfully than the random, unrehearsed hypocrisy of Pres. W. Decider, et al.
(just an observation from the ironic observers' unemployment line)
Posted by: irony miner | June 20, 2007 3:01 PM