Friday, May 23, 2003

Dead or Alive? Originally Posted March 21, 2003   So, they think they got Saddam? Nah. I didn't believe it the first, or third, or fifth time they said it, and I don't believe it now. Seriously, folks, exactly how far are we expected to suspend our disbelief after the 3,497,649 reported slayings of bin Laden? He's dead. He's not. He's on the run. He's dead. He's... But then, Osama's not important anymore. Hey, I didn't say it; Mr. Bush did. Of course, he said a lot of things about Osama in the first six months after 9-11... The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him. -- George W. Bush September 13, 2001 I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority. I am truly not that concerned about him. -- George W. Bush March 13, 2002 Hmm. Well now, really... It must be awful gosh-darn hard for such a busy, important man to remember everything he says -- he must be purty darn well near exhaustion, what with all them weekends at Camp David. Heck, he was so plum tuckered out after giving the order to start bombin' them wicked heathens Wednesday night, he was tucked in with his teddy before 11:00 p.m., lettin' that good ol' boy Tommy Franks bomb away while visions of Tomahawks danced in his head. Anyway, just for kicks, let's say Osama-- I mean Saddam! is dead. Let's say they hit him in the first strike (although ABC News identifies last night's lone dead civilian as a taxi driver in the wrong place at the wrong time). More TV news tells us that members of Saddam's Republican guard are surrending "in droves." And they've got the video to prove it. Okay, let's take that at face value too. Now, you righties might think we lefties would be our awful little hypocritical selves and suffer some sort of deranged disappointment at the swift accomplishment of Mr. Bush's current primary objective (at the moment it's "regime change" -- although that objective can switch to "disarmament," "Iraqi liberation," or "kickin' hell outta them all's what's harborin' terra-ists" at any moment). See, some righties (not all of them, mind you -- just a few loud ones) think we peaceniks secretly want to see a protracted, bloody conflict, so that we can look down our long, bony, elitist noses and spit, "I told you so." Sorry to let you down, but if we thought this invasion was actually over, we'd be out in the streets again -- only this time, we'd be weeping for joy that the conflict was so short, with (under the circumstances) a truly minimal loss of life. But, when the celebrations were over, we would say this: If the conquest of Saddam really was so quick and easy, then it appears Saddam wasn't the big, bad threat y'all made him out to be. Nevertheless, this is all fantasy. I'd bet my 11-year-old economy car that Saddam is very much alive and well -- and has been absent from Baghdad for weeks. (I expect the moment Dan Rather exited the palace, Saddam darted out the back way, through the kitchen.) The point? Nobody wants a long "war" -- but a protracted conflict would benefit the warmongers, not the peaceniks. After all, the more difficult it is to conquer Iraq, the more justified the reiteration that Iraq is a threat. And -- while I'm not a tinfoil-hatter -- the prospect of never finding, capturing, or killing Saddam (or Osama, for that matter) would be an even greater benefit to the warmongers. No, no, dear reader, I'm not suggesting that either Saddam or Osama has been accidentally-on-purpose allowed to get away (although if I were to suggest it, it would hardly be my own original thought). I'm saying that never knowing what happened to either Big, Bad Wolf would simply benefit the ongoing cause of Mr. Bush & Co. That is all I am saying, so don't anybody dare twist my words. And why would it be a benefit? If you're a leader -- of a nation, a Boy Scout troop, or the Marketing Department where you work -- your employment depends on making yourself indispensible. And when you're leading a nation, in order to justify your own existence, you need a perpetual state of war -- and for that, you need a bogeyman. And that's hardly an original thought, either. Every great thinker and every successful warrior knows that. Sun-Tsu knew it: The art of war is of vital importance to the State. Edward Abbey knew it:   All governments need enemies. How else to justify their existence?   And Herman Göring certainly knew it:   People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism.     Now, one last time: I'd never accuse anybody in the Bush admin of planning such a thing. All I'm saying is that the eternal disappearance of Saddam and/or Osama would only benefit those who need an excuse for keeping us in fear, and thus at war. Every country needs its Emmanuel Goldstein. We have two.   4:12:08 PM

Staring into the abyss Originally Posted March 20, 2003   I do understand the necessity of being tough when confronting a potential POW / potential threat, BUT... I am very disturbed by this: Disarming of POWs requires special drill   If an Iraqi soldier is lying on the ground when troops come upon him, they are told to kick him in the testicles, hard, so that they can evaluate whether he's conscious, [2nd Lt. Tim Faulkner] explained. "The first time you see it, it may seem a little over the top, but they're not getting hurt," said Faulkner, who commands an armored Humvee platoon in the 101st Division's second brigade.   No, I am not passing judgment on the actions deemed necessary for soldiers to do their jobs. It's not my place to judge (unless we're talking war crimes -- and then, I honestly have no idea if nut-busting is mentioned in the Geneva Convention). But I am a peace-loving human being. I abhor violence. I am deeply pained by such reminders as this of the brutish, primitive, warring mentality that makes a literally "consciousness-raising" kick in the nuts an apparent necessity. This is not a rant against soldiers. This is a cry of pain over what they are trained to do, and the reasons they are forced to do these things. And this, I know, is so very minor. I haven't even begun to dwell (at least, not for your perusal -- yet) the true atrocities of war. I haven't yet decided if I want to share some links that, when viewed, would drive home the concept of man's inhumanity to man, even to Mr. Bush himself. Oh, I want to share those links, because I'd like to shock the crap of out the warmongers who think this attack is just one jolly, bloodless video game (and to give my fellow peaceniks extra resources for doing the same). But I know there are more than a few families of Gulf War II soldiers reading this, and I don't want to cause them any greater stress than they're already under. No, I have no one close to me in combat. Not yet, anyway. I have a cousin, who at 30 years old, after a sudden life-altering upheaval (that began with the breakup of a longtime reationship), went out and enlisted post-911. It wasn't out of patriotism (although his patriotism is hardly in question), and he didn't need the money, like so many recruits. He's one of those who needed direction. I expect his "direction" will be into the thick of it at some point in the near future. I hope not. But I fear for him -- more, I know, than his own parents do. Oh, yes, they love him -- they adore all their children. But -- bless their little conservative, major-Bush-campaign-donating hearts -- they are among the sleepwalkers. I guess the lesson is that if you can be in such deep denial about the root cause of all the nation's problems, you must be skilled enough in self-hypnosis to believe that you and yours are invincible. That's the collective "you," of course. But I digress, as usual. The point is, I realize a kick in the cajones (even though I do not own a set myself) is nothing compared to, oh, say, the sort of carnage merely hinted at in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. Nevertheless, it is not something civilized people are meant to do. Again, I understand why our soldiers are trained to do such things. I simply bemoan the mentality that necessitates such up-close-and-personal violence. Human life is human life, and human dignity is human dignity. Your life is worth no more than mine, and mine is worth no more than an Iraqi's, and an Iraqi's is worth no more (or less) than the Pope's. Call me a softie (and I'd rather be a softie who still knows how to feel, rather than some hardass who's lost all touch with human emotion), but one fact is never lost on me: Whether a person is a wino or a Windsor, every human being was once somebody's child. Just like you. And, no, I've never been in combat. Yes, I've had to defend myself physically, on more than one occasion. And while I possess ovaries rather than cajones, I am well aware that a well-placed kick in a man's tender bits does indeed hurt; it is, in fact, debilitating. How do I know that? Because I've been trained to debilitate an attacker with a well-placed kick. Is it something I'm proud of? I'm proud only of my confidence in my own ability to do as much as I can, under most circumstances, to protect myself. And yet, I am as deeply pained by the state of modern society that necessitates my need to know this. I also know, from experience, that one's entire persona can undergo a radical, even shocking, metamorphosis at the first moment of conflict. I wouldn't call mano a mano combat "exhilarating" (although many do), but there is indeed a kind of out-of-body "high" -- the classic fight-or-flight adrenalin rush that allows (or perhaps compels) one to perform certain acts that under any other circumstances would repulse any civilized human being. That is why I cannot in good conscience judge the kick-in-the-nuts scenario. But I can be disturbed by it -- for the simple reason that I understand it. All too well. Now do you see why the above article disturbs me so much? It hits too close to home. It makes me think about how much violence one absorbs into one's own being as a quite-unconscious matter of fact. But I am a peaceful person, I say. I am nonviolent. I could never hurt another human being... Oh, yes, I could. Plato said it, but I didn't really understand it until recently: If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares back.     Comments     From redlove on 03/20/03   war is so over-rated...sorry, I just think that stuff like this could be avoided and I think Bush is corrupted.     From plato on 03/21/03   The Plato in the quote would be the original deep-thinking master who lived in pre-Common Era Greece, not me. He was right though.     From Bree on 03/21/03   wow, a peacenik that doesnt take it out on the soldier! * gives you a cookie*     From doublethink on 03/21/03   Ooo, with a green frosting in the shape of a peace sign! :) Nope, I can't blame the soldiers, most of whom hadn't the faintest idea of what they were getting into. My greatest hope for the grunts is that the rest of us have learned our lesson from the abominable way we treated returning Vietnam vets. Soldiers are unwitting pawns in a game of chess played -- badly -- by old men unable to get an erection by healthier means.   4:06:51 PM

What was it Dub said about hitting an empty tent? Originally Posted March 20, 2003   When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. -- George W. Bush, referring to Afghanistan Newsweek September 24, 2001   You know that "highly-targeted" first strike on Baghdad last night? The one that was supposed to take out Saddam in one hit? Well, we hit something all right: "empty buildings belonging to television and the radio stations and another empty building for Iraqi customs." Killed one Iraqi civilian and injured 14 others. Uh-huh. 4:02:25 PM

This is nothing -- wait until we hit Red Alert Originally Posted March 20, 2003 Americans Face Check Points As War Begins On interstates and at airports across the country, law officers scanned car trunks and truck beds for signs of anything suspicious. In Maryland, police stopped trucks weighing more than 5 tons along Interstate 95, creating a rush-hour backup for morning commuters. ... Hundreds of troopers and National Guard members were dispatched to patrol rail tunnels and ride subways in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. On Thursday, officers with bomb-sniffing dogs roved New York's Grand Central Terminal. ... Security concerns cast a shadow over many events where crowds were expected... More... 4:00:46 PM

The Sleeping Giant Has Awakened Originally Posted March 20, 2003   The Chinese have a saying: May you live in interesting times. It is not meant as a blessing, but as a curse. Let's fast-forward to March 20, 2003, and see what China is saying today: In a phone conversation late Thursday, Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan told U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that China "strongly urged an end to military actions against Iraq so as to avoid hurting innocent people," the official Xinhua News Agency reported. Tang also told Powell that China is "deeply worried about humanitarian disasters, regional turbulence" and other ramifications of the war, the report said. ... [Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan] didn't immediately say what, if anything, China's leaders might do in protest, but stressed that they would "take their own actions to reflect" the country's goals. ... China's response had a milder tone than it could have had, said Zhang Yebai, a government adviser on U.S. policy with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. Sounds pretty ominous, doesn't it? Read it all, if you dare. 3:59:10 PM

Do you know Granny D? Originally Posted March 20, 2003   You know those syrupy "inspirational" daybooks your mom, or aunt, or Christian-camp counselor is so taken with? Don't you wish there was some sort of truly inspirational reading matter for those of us who aren't sleepwalking through life? I'm much too cynical to write such a thing for you. And I'm afraid no one else has created such a thing -- at least not on a daily basis -- that will keep your hope alive in these darkening days. (I almost wrote "darkest of days," but I am realistic; these are not the darkest of days yet. Not by far.) I do have a little secret, however, for buoying my own sagging spirit as I watch my beloved country fall to the forces of aggression and fear. It's not a secret I wish to keep -- and if you find this offering as valuable and soul-lifting and life-affirming as I do, then I beg of you to pass the URL around. Allow me to introduce you to Granny D. Granny D (a.k.a. Doris Rollins Haddock) is 93 years old. She has been an activist for peace since long before you or I were born. On January 1, 1999, she took a walk. A long walk. At 89 years old, she left Pasadena, California, on a solo demonstration on the issue of campaign finance reform. She walked ten miles a day for the next 14 months, bearing down even through a blizzard in the Appalachian Range, until she reached Washington, D.C. Granny D has made more speeches, more eloquently, than you or I could ever aspire to. Listening to or reading Granny D's words is like sitting down with your grandmother (or great-grandmother) to be blessed by the keen knowledge and priceless wisdom gained only through nearly a century of living, straight from a heart whose matter is composed of nothing but pure love, peace, and respect for humanity. But make no mistake -- there's nothing flowery or idealistic about Granny D. At 93, she is sharper than I was at 20, and more insightful, realistic, and pragmatic than the entire Democratic Leadership Council. (On second thought, my cat is more insightful, realistic, and pragmatic than the entire Democratic Leadership Council -- but never mind, you get the point.) Read her words. Bookmark her site. Tell your peace-loving friends about her. Trust me: Granny D will breathe life into your flagging spirit, and inspire you to carry on the nonviolent quest for peace.* Granny D Home Page A few of my special favorites: Will We Represent Love in the World? Aren't we privileged to live in a time when everything is at stake, and when our efforts make a difference in the eternal contest between the forces of light and shadow, between togetherness and division? Between justice and exploitation? Oh, be joyful that you are a warrior in this great time! The Takeover Artists If we Americans are split into two meaningful camps, it is not conservative versus liberal. The two camps are these: the politically awake and the hypnotized --hypnotized by television and other mass media, whose overpaid Svengalis dangle the swinging medallions of packaged candidates and oft-told lies. Like a Tree Standing By the Water ...we must each in our own creative ways give testimony to who we are, that we have the courage of our Constitution to live free on our garden Earth as brothers and sisters --to live free or die; That we are members of the human community and that we stand for love; That for the dead we light candles, not fuses; That against death and exploitation and the lie of projected evil, we link our arms; That we shall not, we shall not be moved. Just like a tree that's standing by the water, we shall not be moved. The Monster at the Door (pre-911!) It is nothing for raw power to thumb its nose at the interests of world peace or the earth's environment for the sake of corporate expansion and political power. It is nothing for raw power to mistake the flowering of political ideas and dissent in democracy's garden as a dangerous tangle of garden plots and disloyalties. It can happen quickly. It can happen in America. Open your eyes. * Isn't it odd that I should feel compelled to qualify the phrase "quest for peace" with the word "nonviolent"? I suppose it is a safety mechanism so that there is no confusion between true peace, and the quest for psuedo-"peace" through the armed aggression we are witnessing on our televisions today.   3:52:30 PM

Your Tax Dollars at Work Originally Posted March 20, 2003   Last night, U.S. Navy warships fired the following at Iraq: 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a cost of $1 million* each Your cost: $40 million Let's think about $40 million for a moment. Instead of shooting a bunch of killer missiles into the desert, what else could you do with $40 million? You could build a five-star hotel in Riyadh, Libya. You could buy 28 "average" homes in Beverly Hills... ...or rent a typical apartment in New York City -- for 1,270 years. You could build nine research centers for the National Institute of General Medical Sciences to find and catalogue all the protein structures in nature. You could fund the education of 7,977 public-school students in Mississippi for an entire year... ...or 3,984 students in New York City. Or you could give $14.54 to every single homeless man, woman, and child in the United States. That's a lot of bread. Literally. * The Navy once estimated that the current crop of "next-generation" Tomahawks would be about $575,000 -- yet estimates of the actual cost of current Tomahawks varies wildly, from $600,000 to $1.3 million, depending on the source. If you'd like to use the lowest figure (of $575,000) for each missile, you still spent $23 million last night. Note that the U.S. Air Force's Tomahawks are considerably more powerful, which is reflected in their cost: $2 million each.     Comments     From LostDreamer on 03/20/03   Hey what do they care, Bush put away $70 billion for this war. whats $40 mil? Still thats a lot to spend on death.     From doublethink on 03/20/03   Well, I started thinking about the projected total (monetary) costs of this attack -- upwards of $1 trillion (that's trillion, with a T) -- which beyond anybody's comprehension, especially mine. I decided the only way to drive home the point of exactly how much money we're blowing (literally) in Iraq would be to grab small numbers when I can find them -- a measly $40 million here, a piddling $20 million there -- and calculate what each "small," more manageable chunk could do if it were spent sensibly (or at least elsewhere). As Sen. Everett Dirkson used to say, "A billion here, a billion there -- pretty soon it adds up to real money."     From onlyonegnome on 03/20/03   How convienient that the Michigan education board had to have drastic budget cuts only a month ago. We don't have heat, paper, or any school funded clubs anymore all because Bush is power hungry. Asshole..     From doublethink on 03/20/03   There you go. Unfortunately for those of us in states hardest-hit (here in sunny CA, we're facing a $36 billion deficit), it's going to take a long while for most of the U.S. to feel the true pain of combining tax cuts to the rich with the astronomical costs of an overseas invasion and occupation -- in the midst of soaring unemployment, as we stand on the brink of depression. Not, mind you, that I wish anyone "true pain" -- but I do know the only way to get a conservative's attention is to hit 'em in the pocketbook. Hang in there, friend. I wish it didn't have to get worse before it gets better, but I'm afraid that's exactly what's going to happen. And when it does, well, the only direction from there is up.     From plato on 03/21/03   "When a country is impoverished by military operations, it is due to distant transportation; carrying supplies for great distances renders the people destitute. Where troops are gathered, prices go up. When prices rise, the wealth of the people is drained away. When wealth is drained away, the people will be afflicted with urgent and heavy exactions. With this loss of wealth and exhaustion of strength, the households in the country will be extremely poor and seven-tenths of their wealth dissipated" - Sun Tzu, The Art of War Let's just hope the war is short. Otherwise a few of Sun Tzu's other warnings will come true.     From doublethink on 03/21/03   Brilliant citing, Plato -- apt, and no less than eerie, as only last night I bookmarked The Art of War for re-reading.   3:50:35 PM

When they call you un-patriotic... Originally Posted March 20, 2003   Here's a little spine-strengthener for those of us who were in "shock and we" long before the first bomb dropped: [W]e should be prepared now for what the pro-war camp will say... Gloatingly, they will tell us our "credibility is destroyed"... When the time comes, we will have to remind our accusers that we did not question this war because we believed Saddam was a cuddly grandpa: we knew the depths of his depravity. Our doubts resided elsewhere. For one thing, we never believed that Iraqi liberation was the real motive of this war... It will be hard to say all this once the killing begins in earnest: the drama of war will make opposition look pale and passe. But doubters should hold their nerve. Our reason for opposition was never that victory would not come easily: most predicted it would. We feared instead for what that victory would cost and what would happen afterwards -- and those fears still stand. Stand tall and read on... The Guardian is unquestionably one of my all-time favorite sources of news and commentary. It has a greater effect on me now more than ever; I never forget that the Brits are in the same boat as we Yanks -- dragged into a military action a vast number of citizens abhor, and ignored, dismissed, marginalized, and demonized by a leader who refuses to listen, and will not be dissuaded. Same goes for the Aussies -- save for the fact an even greater percentage of Australians are outraged by this attack in their name. It's easy to understand, especially if you know a little Aussie history: Save for the kangaroos (and an extraordinarily high ratio of gorgeous blondes rivaled only by Sweden), Australia is a country more similar to the United States than most Yanks realize. Our countries are about the same age, and share certain odd historical quirks -- we had cowboys, they had sheepherders; our West was buoyed by a gold strike in 1848-49, their East was buoyed by a gold strike around 1849-50 (in fact, an Australian who came to California looking for gold was struck by the similarity of the Antipodean landscape, and dashed home to find there really was gold right in his own backyard); they've been looked down upon by the Brits as somehow inferior (and still are), we've been looked down upon by the Brits as somehow inferior (and still are)... There are lots of similarities; the end result in each country is a people known as loud, casual, friendly, and obsessed with popular culture. None of which is necessarily a bad thing, mind you. The Aussies more than make up for their mass consumption of fun-fun-fun by their much more European view of the world; the most unschooled Australian is far more aware of lives and cultures far beyond its sun-soaked beaches than the average American. And far more respectful. But I digress. We were talking about the Aussie people and their reaction to having 2,000 of their youngest and finest sent to Iraq, against the general will of the people. Not being Australian myself, I can speak only as a friend to (and major fan of) Aussies. And what I glean is a terrible sense of confusion, shame and shock. With the sole exception of the early treatment of Aboriginals (which was little different from our treatment of Native Americans -- although Oz has made much greater strides than we in healing that ugly rift), Australia is not, and has never been, a warring nation. The U.S. has. The U.K. has. But not Australia. I think there must be a special, particularly stinging tinge to the Aussies' grief over the Iraq invasion that even the most peace-loving, 1960s-vintage, American hippie could not even begin to fathom. Incidentally, if you're not familiar with the macchinations of Down-Under politics (and have any interest in politics whatsoever), Australia is a fascinating study. They have a Prime Minister reviled by what appears to be the majority of Aussies (as one acquaintance put it, John Howard and his entire base of support could hold a meeting in a phone booth right now), a brilliant, eloquent, and charismatic opposition party leader (Simon Crean, almost certainly destined to be the next PM), and rousing, uninhibited sessions on the Parliament floor. (If you think the British MP's create a scene with their shouting and interruptions, you haven't seen anything until you've watched Aussie senators in action.) Curious, isn't it? While the warmongers feel a bond with the U.K. and Australia as the three nations' unite military forces, so we who desire peace feel a bond (a greater and more lasting bond, I sincerely believe) with the commoners across two oceans, who, just as impotently and helplessly, are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the history books as the unwilling pawns of aggressor nations. God, please do allow the history books to recognize us as unwilling pawns.   3:47:18 PM

THIS is the official reason for the invasion??? Originally Posted March 19, 2003   Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House March 18, 2003 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH ... Don't believe it? It's on the White House site -- which I won't link from here, but you can copy & paste the URL (minus the spaces) into your browser if you need proof: www . whitehouse . gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html Now... THIS is Mr. Bush's official reason for his invasion? Repeat after me, America: Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Got it? No? Then I'll let Ted Rall explain it: NEW YORK--Now it's official: most Americans are idiots. Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.... Read, read, please READ! Comments     From LostDreamer on 03/20/03   OMG i know i tell people Bin Laden started it so lets finish with him. Saddam is just a deploy to direct our attention elsewhere so that we dont see we failed to capture bin laden. UUrgggeness.     From woodjl25 on 03/20/03   Let's see. Iraq has weapons that can reach Hawaii & the West Coast of the United States. Do you trust Saddam with this type of firepower? True he disassembled them, but did not destroy them. That means they can be reassembled within months. If you could've stopped the 9-11 by going to war against Bin Laden before 9-11, would you have, and possibly saved all those lives on American soil? Would you let Saddam use these weapons to conquer the rest of the oil bearing countries in the Middle East? The law was laid down to Iraq to disassemble & destroy these chemical, biological & nuclear weapons & he didn't. So what then, send them flowers?     From doublethink on 03/20/03   Where in the world did you ever hear that Iraq "has weapons that can reach Hawaii & the West Coast of the United States"? That's North Korea -- the country that is trying desperately to get our attention -- and which, by twisted but cold logic, is now perfectly "justified" in following the lead of the Bush Doctrine in waging "pre-emptive" aggression against any nation it deems a threat (namely, us). Next: Saddam has presented no threat to the United States for the past 12 years. Containment was working. Inspections were working. Disarmament was happening. It is obvious that Mr. Bush was going to have his war, no matter what Iraq did. This was made clearer than ever just two days ago, when Ari Fleischer stated that even if Saddam were to leave Iraq, U.S. troops were going in, regardless. That we went in now is simply testament to Mr. Bush's self-admitted "impatience" -- and the fact that if he waited much longer, weather conditions would present an even greater obstacle than they already do. But you miss the larger point entirely: The text of Mr. Bush's letter specifically cites military action against "international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Neither Iraq nor Saddam himself has been shown to have any connection whatsoever to 9-11. My God, man, the CIA itself admits that much. And the "supporting" documents used by British intelligence have been proven to be the product of forgery and plagiarism. Let's get one thing straight: Saddam Hussein is as evil as world leaders come. A world without Saddam would indeed be a better place. However, our "reasons" for attacking Iraq are specious at best, and our methods are a clear breach of international law. (Rest assured that I'll be discussing Resolution 1441 in detail one of these days.) Keep reading, dear new debating partner. :) And please, tear yourself away from Fox, CNN, and Clearchannel talk radio once in a while. Try the BBC, CBC, or even PBS (Jim Lehrer is about as unbiased as you'll get on American TV).     From plato on 03/21/03   Yup the BBC has my vote. World service is clear, relatively impartial, truly international, and up to date. CNN sucks. I get it on cable in Holland and they just seem determined to make everything into some kind of mini-movie with explosions. Some of the online newspapers are good as well. Most have some sort of angle, but I find the UK Guardian pretty good (www.guardian.co.uk). They don't do a lot of 'filtering' and they do provide a lot of different ways to get your news. For example, the online diaries of all the corresepondents they have covering the war. Nice journal, I like the way you think and question. FYI, got here from a link at jadedgrrl who is running an advert for you.     From plato on 03/21/03   ...and I see from reading further that you already rate the Guardian!     From plato on 03/21/03   ...and I see from reading further that you already rate the Guardian!     From doublethink on 03/21/03   Love the Guardian -- even though I'm still waiting for a reply from Jonathan Freedland to reply to my latest message asking him not to become too much of an apologist. :D And thanks for the kudos! I saw jadedgrrl's link, took a look, and ended up enjoying myself so much, I'm going to return the favor. 3:41:48 PM

On a lighter note... Originally Posted March 19, 2003   First, take a gander at the photos of our fearless leaders in The Bush War Room. Keep that window open, then come back. Either someone at ABC News has a ripping sense of humor, or there simply are no photographs of the militants in charge of the Iraqi slaughter even remotely resembling homo sapiens. Dubya is cross-eyed and slack-jawed. 'Nuff said. Unka Dick "Dick" Cheney looks the same as always -- like a snarling bowling ball. Colin Powell looks like he's about to vomit. (Perhaps the gravity of his own sudden hard turn to the right has had the same effect as the last gut-wrenching curve on Disney World's Space Mountain.) Don Rumsfeld? There's never been a decent picture of Rummy. This is not the worst. Pass. Condi Rice: What unseen matter has caused her skull to succumb to such a severe gravitational pull? (I also like Condi's black-and-white background pic, behind Dubya in the uppermost image -- although it drives me mad not to know whether she's waving, saluting, or flipping somebody the bird.) George Tenet, you're looking more and more like J. Edgar Hoover every day. Here, take my copy of the latest Vicky's Secret catalogue -- there's a sale on fishnets. Andy Card appears constipated. Tom Ridge either just woke up, or has finally caught the parked car he's been chasing. Franks & Downing: Has anyone ever seen these two in the same picture together? I think they're either the same person, or were separated at birth. In any case, they both appear to be dozing off. Finally, the photo of Howie Schmidt -- director of the Office of Cyber Security -- is broken. How appropriate!   3:40:04 PM

Scariest thing I've read in the past 24 hours Originally Posted March 19, 2003   "The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." Scalia, one of the court's most conservative judges, was responding to a question about the Justice Department's pursuit of terrorism suspects and whether their rights are being violated. More...   3:38:33 PM

Not feeling guilty yet? Originally Posted March 19, 2003   We love American people, so why do you want to kill us?   3:37:09 PM

Minutes Away From War Originally Posted March 19, 2003   So, what are you going to do when we go to "Red Alert"? We've been ignoring the color-coded alert like so much gibberish out of the mouth of the Boy Who Cried Wolf -- and (pardon me while I don my tinfoil hat) perhaps that was just the purpose of issuing so many false alarms in the first place. After all, you're comfortable with it all now, aren't you? No doubt you've heard or passed around a joke or two about Tom Ridge's color-coded alert system, because it either scares you, or embarrasses you. (While still stalled at Code Orange, I remain in the latter category.) You pay about as much attention to the alert system as you do an annoying mosquito bite; it's there, it's bothersome, but it's not about to distract you from browing through the new Victoria's Secret catalogue, is it? Trouble is, you may have finally been bitten by that one mosquito carrying malaria -- or West Nile Virus, or whatever the disease of the day -- and not know it. Yet. Honestly, I'm more afraid of being killed by some idiot paying more attention to his cell-phone conversation than to his driving than I am of some suicide bomber blowing me to kingdom come. However, I am indeed concerned about the escalation to Red Alert -- not because of what it might mean (run! hide! terrorists in the streets!), but because of its threat to us as a once-free people. Oh, now, stop rolling your eyes like that. I don't care if you're sick and tired of hearing how your civil liberties have been gutted, or whether you believe that anyone who worries about such things must be a hysterical reactionary. After all, all that handwringing over the USA PATRIOT Act was for nothing, wasn't it? None of it has affected you personally, has it? Well, my dear anonymous reader, it's time to wake up out of that CNN-induced coma. You see, when (and I say not if, but when) the U.S. goes on Red Alert, it will affect you. Quite personally. Or maybe you're the sort who won't mind be confined to the inside of your own home for the duration: If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home, the state's anti-terror czar says... Now do I have your attention?   3:20:28 PM

© Copyright 2003 doublethink. Last update: 12/10/03; 11:41:59 PM.