BURNINGBIRD
a node at the edge  


October 03, 2002
PoliticsWhat's the weather in Iraq

Hurricane Lili sputtered to a category 1 when it rolled into the US -- enough to inflict damage, but not to the extent of first speculations, when Lili was a category 4 hurricane.

Unfortunately, as much as I wish that Congress would have stood strong, forcing President Bush's category 4 bluster down to category 1, or even tropical storm status, yesterday's news conference with Bush and several congressional leaders show this isn't going to happen. As the Boston Globe (and other publications) reported, all the little political ducks in congress -- including Senator Gephardt from Missouri I'm ashamed to say -- have lined up behind our little soldier.

There is really nothing, now, to stop Bush -- a man who's justification for war is suspect when one reads Saddam "tried to kill my dad" -- from invading Iraq.

Certainly not a Congress who would push through a resolution stating that Bush only need inform them of an attack within 48 hours after it's occurred. Hell, I can inform them within 24 hours of an attack and I don't have the CIA and the military in my pocket. And to give the President a blank check to invade Iraq if he, he mind you, determines that diplomatic efforts have failed, is nothing more than a washing of Congressional hands; absolving themselves from any responsibility of the actions while reaping whatever pale benefits they might be able to scavage from their acts of inaction.

Both the Congress and the Presidency of this country are fast becoming nothing more than characterizations of our worst fears: a paranoid, megalomaniacal president with delusions of grandeur, only held in check by a weak and ineffectual Congress.

Too bad Lili didn't hit Washington DC, instead -- that area could have used the fresh air.

Update Mark Fiore sums this whole thing up for me. (Thanks Michael)

Second Update:This also fits this occasion: Norm Jenson's Asshole of Evil. Norm also pointed out Flight of the Chickenhawks.



Posted by Bb at October 03, 2002 12:36 PM


Trackback Count (2)

Comments

Keep this up, Shelley, and some Republican congressman is going to make sure that you get a job that keeps you working 16 hours a day until after the election.

Funny stuff, much more effective than rants, in my opinion.

Posted by: Loren on October 3, 2002 03:10 PM

You and I are on the same page today--which I consider a compliment to myself.

Posted by: Tom Shugart on October 3, 2002 05:48 PM

And Loren, I'd take the job, even if it was from a Republican. Shows you the depths I'd stoop...

Mutual compliment, Tom. Mutual compliment.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on October 3, 2002 07:06 PM

Amen!

Posted by: Richard on October 3, 2002 11:47 PM

Not to nit-pick, but it's Representative Gephardt, not Senator. The pertinent Senator here would be Daschle. Gephardt doubtless calculates that he's gained a comparative advantage over Daschle in the 2004 Democratic nomination jockeying by appearing with the President, while Daschle is left behind to read a prepared statement to an empty Senate chamber.

Posted by: Pedant on October 4, 2002 10:52 AM

Oops. Thanks, Pedant, for correction.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on October 4, 2002 12:01 PM

It is easy to play the peace-loving liberal when it comes to war. It is easy to garner the popular Internet fringe vote onto your side. But frankly, I found today's bit far less educated that most of your other posts. First of all, I found nothing interesting or telling in the article about Bush's father - the link was completely irrelevant conspiracy theory. Secondly, peace comes from the tip of a bullet, if you don't understand that you had better stay in college for the rest of your life and leave the politics to those with heart.
Waiting for Saddam to develop a weapon of mass-destruction is not the time to decide to stop him. Saddam has a track record of erratic and paranoid behavior which far rivals President Bush. I have little doubt that after acquiring a nuclear weapon he would use it as a threat from a single man - this is reprehensible in a modern world. The answer? Shoot first.
Maybe you want something prettier than that, maybe you want Panda bears and holding hands, but that's the way it is in the real world. Spare us the blind liberalism - thanks.

Posted by: Dean on October 4, 2002 12:17 PM

"Peace comes from the tip of a bullet"

No, death comes from the tip of a bullet. Peace comes from people who grow tired of death.

As for support for peace on the Internet, I find that the drums of war garner far more support, as witness the popularity of weblogs such as Glenn Reynolds.

We, as a nation, have no right to enforce UN security regulations, and there is no clear evidence that Saddam is more of a threat to us than many other countries. Our president has shown us no proofs, only given us conjecture and blanket, blind statement such as "Saddam is an evil man". That's a hell of thing to base war on, don't you think?

But then, we won't feel the effects of those bullets for peace will we? Or should I say, we at home who are not the soldiers who will have to fight in the cities of Iraq, or the civilians who are 'necessary casualties of war', won't feel the bullets of peace. Will we?


Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on October 4, 2002 12:30 PM

The only blanketed statements I see are the ones flying from the liberal side of the argument. Peace has always, and will for the foreseeable future, always come at the hands of force. This is not always bad - revolutions, uprising, overthrows. Ghandi was a failure, his people became a fragmented wanna-be liberal shamble because neither he nor they had the backbone to firmly commit to anything, always trying to please everyone.

We have no right to enforce resolutions WHY? WHY? Where is that written? The Bible? The Liberal Code? We have the right to do whatever we feel like frankly, although hopefully it is controlled by morals. You are not shown intelligence data because to show data inevitably compromises it's source when reviewed by a seasoned intelligence veteran - of course I speak of the Iraqis. Do you really think that Bush makes this stuff up and the committees as well? Are you that seriously paranoid? They are humans just like you. I have never opposed the draft and would go if I was called, do not assume my stance on fighting the way I'm defending. I believe it is every American's responsibility to fight if so asked, because the security you feel while writing your weblog was payed for in someone's blood. My best friend is currently joining the Army and will likely see combat in an Iraqi conflict. Do not assume I do not know the cost of war. The cost of doing nothing is far greater. WWI, WWII, the defeat of the Romans are all examples of what happens when you assume that peace is the natural state. It is not the natural state of things.

Security comes from a gun. I repeat my previous remark, reworded. I know how that statement enflames the liberal senses, but it is no less true.

Posted by: Dean on October 4, 2002 12:39 PM

Shelley, sometimes I think that your words actually hurt your causes. This time I don't feel that way. I still disagree with your mainly liberal viewpoint on this but I respect your agruement and can't see anything that would tend to shut someone's ears to hearing it.

On the other hand, there's Dean. Wow. Sorry Dean, but even though I agree with where you are coming from - I regretfully think we should actively remove Saddam from power now - I need to distance myself from your words.

Peace comes at the tip of a bullet? No.... peace comes from a consideration of points of view that differs from yours. Usually a tip of a bullet impedes any kind of open discourse.

Peace always comes at the hands of force? No... only the enforcement of society's rules and laws do. We've been a nation more at less at peace within ourselves for almost 150 years now. Not because of and force but instead, again, open discourse.

How about this instead Dean:

As long as you keep slamming those 'liberals' using harsh and hurtful words that can be misunderstood to say you do not repsect their point of view, you will never achieve 'peace' with them.

Saddam takes that sort of rhetoric (calling us an 'Evil Empire') and escalates it. At what point in that escalation does he cross a line? At what point has he no longer the freedom to act because he has found the tip of my nose? Is it invading Kuwait? Or using scuds on Israel? Or sponsering terrorists to attack the WTC? Or working feverishly to build weapons of mass destruction? Or actually proving to everyone that has built them? Or does he actually have to use them?

Somewhere in here is that line. That is what this debate should focus on. Not Bush and his father. Not 9/11 and Usama. And not the UN. Where is that line and what is OUR reaction to his crossing it.

Now before anyone looks at my comment about Saddam and rhetoric - calling us an Evil Empire - replies with "Well, Bush is using that exact same word 'Evil' for Saddam" I'd like to say this: Saddam HAS acted in non-humane ways for his own personal power gains. Remember the Kurds? Remember Kuwait? Bush has not. So far, the only true actions he has done is free many Afghanis. Something that he would not have even done is the WTC had not been attacked by forces that Saddam has (at least) allied himself with in the past.

Posted by: DD on October 4, 2002 01:58 PM

When Chamberline, the liberal, wanted peace at all costs, he lost the war. He thought Hitler is like himself, but it wasn't the case, like now.
Like all dictators, Sadam wants to take over the world.
And they are not really people like you and me. They hate us, since when they live in poverty, have little rights and from childhood are educated to hate us, because of our good life.

But Sadam himself will use nuclear weapons.

Unless we stop him.

Posted by: Ilya on October 14, 2002 09:59 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?