Thursday, February 06, 2003

Irony Department:   One of the most interesting things about this creepily Sudetenland-esque buildup to war has been that many American hawks have shown far more rancor towards France than towards Iraq.  I have no idea why France - which, after all, is only one of many countries that opposes our war plans - provokes this much enmity, but they do.  Charles Osgood had a snarky radio commentary today where he suggested that the French are proposing to deal with Saddam the same way they dealt with Hitler: let him win (what he is trying to "win" was less clear).   Richard Perle, the head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, has taken this weirdo France-bashing to new levels of extreme, recently proclaiming in a speech that (a) France is no longer a U.S. ally and (b) if the other NATO countries want the U.S. to stay in that alliance, they had better do something to "contain" France.   The funny thing is that, as Joe Conason points out in Salon today, Perle himself owns a house in the south of France, near Gordes.   Boy, could the administration be cynically exploiting the natural Euro-hatred of Americans while secretly laughing into their sleeves at the ease with which us rubes are duped? Sacre bleu!   - Consider Arms   (France, Germany and Russia - Bush's next 'Axis'?  What would he call it?  "The Axis of - um - Allies and Axises - um - well, anyway they're pussies." - Marcus-Marcus) 12:20:57 PM    comment []

Journey to the "Nexus of Poisons and Terror":   Ruminating over Colin Powell's no-big-deal revelations about Iraqi non-disarmament, which he delivered yesterday at the United Nations, I'm struck by one thing: Are we really going to war over this stupid bullshit?   Let's start with those satellite photos: They're just pictures of buildings from above, people. This whole thing reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the government is trying to locate its stolen trillion dollar bill:  "So far, all we've been able to determine from satellite photos is that it's not on the roof."    Fine, you say.  But what about the audio tapes of panicky Iraqi officials? Look, it's likely that Saddam has chemical or biological weapons somewhere in Iraq (after all, he did purchase the technology from us and Britain, the only two countries in the world that want to go to war with him).  The point is: so what?   Does this prove that Iraq is some kind of threat to the rest of the countries in the region? Of course it doesn't. Iraq doesn't even control its own territory, let alone have designs on controlling other peoples'.  Despite the claims of Charles Osgood (who more and more sounds eerily like Boyd Rice channeling Joseph Goebbels), Saddam does not want to "unify the Arab world under his leadership."    And as for the terrorism stuff, the administration has done a good job of convincing the public (wrongly) that Saddam is just Osama with less facial hair, but the only Al Qaeda officials Powell mentioned are located in Kurdish territory.  The Kurds are our allies, who we're funding and planning to use against Saddam in the event of war.  Why don't we just demand that the Kurds hand over the jihadis? Because the Kurds, like Al Qaeda, are radical fundamentalists.  Strange bedfellows indeed.   One of the things Powell didn't mention was a BBC report claiming that the U.S. has already chosen a successor to rule Iraq after we get rid of Saddam; it's the Iraqi National Congress guy, who hasn't lived in Iraq since the 1970s.  How much more like the Wars of Spanish Succession is this going to get?   - Consider Arms 12:13:12 PM    comment []

The party of fiscal (ir)responsibility:   Today's AP wire brings the news that the national debt ceiling will have to be raised from its current position of $6.4 trillion because the country is likely to hit that figure sometime around Feb. 20.  The Treasury Dept. estimates it can keep paying bills until April, but at that point Congress will have to authorize the government to borrow more money. Congress will have to do this, because otherwise the country would default on our loans, which would essentially cripple the economy.   Incidentally, the White House predicts a budget deficit for the current year of $307 billion, which would be an all-time record, and a deficit for next year of $304 billion.  The previous record, $290 billion, was held by the previous Republican and the previous Bush.   I offer this with only the following comment: Didn't Bush say one way to improve the economy was to "improve spending discipline in Washington"?   - Consider Arms 10:55:26 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Marc Hatfield. Last update: 02/28/2003; 9:38:45 AM.