![]() |
A discussion of how
this century has gotten off to such a bad start. In other words: A discussion of The Bush Administration |
- Saturday, March 22, 2003 -
Today we bombed Iran. They said it was an accident. Amm hmmm.- Friday, March 21, 2003 - Remember when conservatives were just people who wanted state power, small government, more freedom, business should be left alone, etc. Well those relatively harmless folks are called paleo-conservatives now, while neo-cons are the scary folks running the show. You know, these power mad, freedom is for christian's only, business isn't to be left alone by government its to be given big fat checks, kind of people. I'm not sure what kind of conservative Paul Craig Roberts is, but after this editorial in the Washtington Times, I have a feeling the neo-cons aren't going to send him Christmas cards this year.- Thursday, March 20, 2003 - Cellphone engineer and would-be intelligent blogger Steven Den Beste has this to say about our "support":I don't know about that. He's got 35 other nations standing with him, at last report. Didn't I hear something about the British being involved in this? I was sure I had. And wasn't there support from the rest of the "Gang of 8"? And the Vilnius group? Qatar? Bahrain? Kuwait? Australia? Japan?Um, screw you, and don't speak for me. As if all Americans are for this abomination. It might be your war, and George's war, but it sure as hell isn't mine. Humanitarian outcry about women and children (never mind the men) dying in war. This is one way of saying that we're all at war, that this is a battle of civilizations, and that the battlefields are modern cities. This has been obvious from the beginning. I can testify to it, I saw it with my eyes, and got sick from breathing the dust, for about six months. And no biological agents were used on the towers, although two fully loaded jumbo jets provided more than enough chemical warfare. If a hot agent were on board it would all be over by now, I'd be dead. I never even considered it when I went down there. Of course I would never again go near a disaster like that, not if I can help it. The calling card to the rest of the world saying Come bomb us, please, was all part of the strategy, to maximize domestic fear. The papers are full of how vulnerable we are. Why don't they just publish blueprints of Indian Point with a big red arrow pointing to the nuclear core, ringed in 100-mile crescents of lethal radioactivity spreading outward and upward? I feel like every bridge and tunnel and central station in every city in the country has a huge Kick Me sign on it. And Bush has turned around and farted at the governors, so forget protecting infrastructure, it's too expensive. Let 'em blow up.- Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - Well, now that the bombing has begun, it is fasinating to learn how long this is been in the works, oh you didn't think this was because of 9/11 did you? Well in a way it is, because 9/11 sure helped push up the time table. As The Project for the New American Century had predicted, changing American policy towards Iraq might not take long if there was "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." Now is the time that the supporters of Bush talk of protesters using terms like “sedition” and “un-American.” Please, I urge support for our troops. They didn’t make Bush’s blunders, they are fighting for our nation and I wish the well, and the hope that they ALL come home safely. But noting Bush’s errors, and noting his continued arrogance: that is an American right, an American duty. While playing with my daughter this morning I randomly started reading a book she handed me that she had taken from the bookcase (she’s 14 months old), and this quote came out at me: “The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the Nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us.” From John F. Kennedy in a speech in honor of the poet Robert Frost. It isn’t completely applicable, but it was just weird that I came across it this morning. For those of you who are interested, thanks to the internet, I found the full speech here. Isn't it Ironic? In honor of Brady Kiesling’s resignation letter being our first post on TCS (don’t bother looking for it in our archives, presently the archive section is missing the first two days of postings… I’ll work on that – some day), here is an interview with him; it gives more detail of his feelings. In the vein of violence begets violence, here is how he wraps up the interview: “I just feel we're entering a new sort of ugly phase where America attempts to be a unilateral power. But we do not realize that the United States was the chief beneficiary of an international system that found alternatives to violence -- the idea that the United Nations provided hope for peaceful resolution. We have just told [the world] that that's not longer operative, and that violence is the last, best resort. And I'm afraid we'll be victims of that violence far more than we are the beneficiaries of that violence.”- Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - Ah yes, the torture question. America would never torture anyone, would they? Bush lies. Here is a nice summary from last night. Hey, you want to know what a real statesman sounds like? (Real Media required) Its not just the accent, what is different here is that it is a well thought out intelligent statement, voicing both positive and negative opinions of Blair. We have a President announcing war using short sentences and simple words, and even worse, simple thoughts, He stares at the camera like it is the headlights of an oncoming car. Lets hope not. Hope. I keep hearing this word, as in "Lets just hope it goes as smoothly and quickly as the worst of them hope," and "I just hope the UN gets its legs back too," and "I hope for a quick and painless battle." Hope is a strange word to use at the beginning of a war. Especially this one. A lot of people are hoping. I'm not. I don't hope anything about this. Hope was sacrificed a long time ago. The gates of hell are wide open, and today we march through them, abandoning all hope. The only hell I believe is this one right here, the one we usher into existence so lovingly. The parallels with Vietnam only go so far; the big difference is that ending that war was merely a matter of leaving their country (which took 15 years), and even that took three U.S. presidents and a constitutional crisis. How are we supposed to get out of this war, when the battlefield promises to be U.S. cities and infrastructure with no end in sight? Bush has tried to make us the United States of Texas but it feels more like one giant Israel -- a militant, paranoid society with a bullseye on it, where "domestic security" means being a soldier in your own home and living behind a gas mask. If peddling fear and keeping the nation divided -- make that permanently riven -- wins elections, it's also a death sentence, because it's the opposite of how to fight a war. You might as well leave a calling card saying, Blow us up, please. The War on Terror is the war on you and me, prosecuted and perpetuated by an unscrupulous regime that is willing to sacrifice all of us for its own sake, to further its goals, which is not American hegemony or a Pax Americana but corporate hegemony, plain and simple, and if we all get blown up, so be it. Look what they did to their own companies! Ran them into the ground and stole all the money. Why should they run our country any differently? They don't care about us. That's why I said "Americans applaud" -- they applaud with crazed fear, because to do otherwise is to admit the truth, that our governement does not have our national interest at heart, that it lies continuously, and that they are more than willing to sacrifice us, which is much too frightening to apprehend. So we can either pretend this is Vietnam and protest "an end to the war" or work ourselves into a patriotic furor with the belief that invading the Mideast is a way of protecting ourselves, but it's already too late for those false distinctions. That is not why this war is being waged. The national myth has been served up, along with the spectacle of troops on borders, but the battlefield is right here. In Vietnam it was soldiers who were sent to their deaths by these exact same people. Today it is us. Dropped on Iraqis or on anti-war protesters?- Monday, March 17, 2003 - So it's official. We're days away from the first war of the 21st Century. It is interesting how many in the press think pushing our troops into an ill-conceived war is a way of showing support? I support the American troops. I don’t want them to risk their lives for a war that seems as reckless as this one. But if we do go to war, I wish them well, and hope for a quick and painless battle (at least as possible). But what about the Bush administration, do they support our troops? Do they support our troops by making sure they have the best equipment? Don’t you think that spending defense money on poorly designed outdate weapons like the Crusader (a 42-ton, self-propelled howitzer), which the defense department doesn’t even want, means there is less money for effective munitions? Doesn’t less effective munitions mean the potential loss of American soldiers? Oh, you don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that the Crusader is made by a company that is part of the Carlyle Group, do you? While you are busy worrying about the war, the United States government is going to be dismantled piece by piece until the only governmental program left over is the Corporate Welfare Department. So Rove’s genius is seen again: We are at war – don’t read that NYT editorial behind the curtain. I know that today it is hard not to think of anything but the war. But see, Bush isn’t a one trick pony; no, he’s messing up America in many ways. The war is his shield. It protects him from a blinding light pointed at his massive American Garage Sale. America is for sale, with down payments made in donations during the 2000 election.
Bush is right about one thing - this whole UN bickering is useless as long as Saddam continues to hide his weapons . . . from an American army led by a jingoistic President itching to fire his weapons into Iraq. Faced with the prospect of an enemy shouting "Disarm! And we'll let you go!" who tells the rest of the world regime change is definite, it makes a good amount of sense that Saddam doesn't want to give up his weapons. Ah, it's nice to have a fun Monday Tradition. Andrew Sullivan loves to quote polling data like this to show support for the war, such as the fact that 64% of Americans are in favor of sending ground troops to take Saddam out. Oh, but he conveniently forgets to cite that if the UN Security Council votes against it, support drops to 54%. And if we don't even take it to a Security Council vote, only 47% of Americans support an invasion. |
TCS Now offers a News Reader Feed Subscribe to the TCS Feed
Archive
What is this?
This is a "team" blog. We are a bunch of
Americans, whose rising distress
in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.
As Bush said, he's a "uniter." Many of us have never even met. Buy our cool stuff. We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.
Sites we often like:
Contribute to America's Future It is now more important then ever. Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee
Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Some More Site Mottos "To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American people." "All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain
degree." More Sites we often
like:
more coming... |
