A reader recently commented on Lynn Chu’s poem, and it’s appropriateness here. As I explained, I intially read "Why I Continue to Believe" too forgivinginly, maybe, or at least with an idea that the author was trying to be Harold Pinter. I think I was wrong, but now there’s a more interesting question: how does one person’s reaction to war rhetoric differ from another’s, and what do those discrepancies suggest? So far, I can find three reactions to this poem: outrage, as in the comment; satisfaction, as on the milblog that linked to the poem from here and called it a "good read"; and my own reaction. I wasn’t reading Chu and getting outraged or satisfied, instead thinking that this kind of language, in the form of a poem, could only be deliberatly and supremely scathing — it was war critique through war rhetoric. Even if I was wrong and Chu means to be staight-and-narrow Administration, the poem shows it can move and be read as a pro-war rally or as a sarcastic exposé on the rally.