Mind Vomit by the ikss ~ a journal
Header
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004as promised...
Navigation
the archives
The last few dribbles...
- -
Wednesday, Jul. 06, 2005
good-bye diaryland -
Thursday, Jan. 13, 2005
Social Security -
Thursday, Jan. 13, 2005
save the arctic refuge -
Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2005
it's surreal -
Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2005
the latest entry
Contact the ikss
~ the ikss guestbook ~
email the ikss
notes to the ikss
New here? Start here
The Usual Suspects (Cast)
the ikss Mission Statement: Please Read
the ikss bio
the ikss profile, including favorite diaryland links
somebody out there loves me
�Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead�
-Lucille Ball
"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 public."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
REGISTER TO VOTE
"The time is always right to do what is right"
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The "seven social sins": Knowledge without character,
Science without humanity,
Wealth without work,
Commerce without morality,
Politics without principles,
Pleasure without conscience,
Worship without self-sacrifice."
--Gandhi
"We have not inherited the world from our forfathers -
We have borrowed it from our children."
--Kashmiri, proverb
1. Spalding Gray is fucking missing, people!
Well�um, yeah. He is, man! Spalding Gray has been missing at least since Sunday and the police are looking for him. So sad. He is a very talented, albeit troubled, man. I hope they find him well�perhaps on a sunny island in the Caribbean, hiding from humanity.
2. The �Duh� factor
I had an interesting email exchange yesterday�pandionna also just happened to write about the matter discussed in that email.
In essence, a friend of mine wrote to me about Paul O�Neill�s now famous �disclosures� that A) George Dubya is an idiot who is probably not so involved in the running of our country as the Commander in Chief oughta be and B) Bush and Company entered the White House with every intention of invading Iraq and proceeded to look for a reason. What my friend wrote was, in essence, ��Well, duh!� and reminded me about the Clinton-penned Iraq Liberation Act.
Since I have never really talked about Clinton in relation to Iraq on these pages, I thought I would today. I am just going to copy what I wrote in my reply to my friend�s email because�well, I like the way I put things. So here you go:
�On the face of things, I agree with your comment about O'Neill's �revelations� being no-brainers. They were no surprise to me, either. I just like it when people who presumably know what they�re talking about prove my positions.
�Nobody in his right mind thinks Saddam has been up to nothing but good over there in his part of the world for the last twenty-five years or so. And yes, Bill Clinton very obviously thought him as big a threat as any Republican did and showed so by dropping a few bombs his way, among other things. Everyone wanted his removal and I am not arguing that he should not have been dealt with.
�However, the Iraq Liberation Act does not give us cart blanche to invade Iraq with no hard evidence to give us reason. In essence, what the act does is give the U.S. permission to "assist" Iraqis (and/or others) in any attempts to claim their own freedom/liberation from Saddam. You know, should that have ever happened�
" �It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,� according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).
�The Congress urged the President "to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."
�We weren't, in initiating this act, giving ourselves permission to invade Iraq, set up sweetheart deals for Halliburton or some of our other friends in the oil business and dictate who will run the country and how it will be run in future. We also weren't saying that the next president has the right to lie to the American public and to the U.N. about just why we are doing all of this.
�We would have had ample reason to invade Iraq, if we'd given it time. I know this. He is an evil, evil man with more paranoia than your average coked-out Studio 54 patron. However, it is simply against not only International Law, but also the laws of morality, to invade a country which is not in any way a real threat to our nation. That is the bottom line. You can tell me horror stories all day long about Saddam and his penchant for torturing the innocent (hey, I watch the Discovery channel), but it does not justify our breaking those laws. You can't beat back evil by becoming evil - it just doesn't make sense.
�The key words in the Clinton-era Iraq Liberation Act, which differentiate it's intent from what the Bush Administration has actually done, are �support efforts to remove the regime� and/or �call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal...� Meaning we would essentially leave it up to others, but we'd have their back. I believe this is precisely not because Clinton didn't want to take the man down himself, but that he didn't have any legal right to do so. Plus, his intentions to take over the world were at least a tad more human rights-based than our present administration�s, aside from their claims to the contrary.
�However, O'Neill's �revelations� are not the full story, in my mind. While it was obvious to me and others that Bush knew from day one that he was going to eventually invade Iraq, it is nonetheless extremely frightening to me. It is as if he used Sept. 11 as an excuse - he tried to convince us all that our invading Iraq was directly tied to our being attacked on Sept. 11. Even now, people think that Iraq was responsible for those terrorist acts. That is, in part, why Bush's approval numbers soared after Saddam was captured. I said at the time he was talking war that it was as if he expected absolutely no resistance. He just assumed that because we were attacked on Sept. 11 and we were all scared out of our minds and essentially of anyone who even looked like they were from that part of the world, we would just let him bomb whoever the fuck he wanted without argument (hell, we gave up our Civil Liberties that easily, so why should he have thought otherwise?).
�Let's look at the full calendar of events, though. As you know, there is much evidence to point to the fact that Bush and Company knew about the Sept. 11 attacks ahead of time. Or they should have, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt. So Bush gets in to office, with the intent on invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam. He's looking for an opportunity.
�Do I really need to point out that Sept. 11 gave him all the reason he needed? Sure, it was really Al Qaeda who attacked us, but we can fudge the truth a little and make people think that the real threat is Saddam. Plus, in my mind, even our war in Afghanistan in suspect, due to the fact that oil deals (pipelines) for Chevron and others which had been stalled by the Taliban are now back in full swing and the money is flowing nicely to Americans, thank you very much (so is the Heroin, but that�s another conspiracy theory entirely, one I won�t bother you with today).
�Can you tell where I am going with this?�
And once again I just want to point everyone to the Project for the New American Century . I didn�t make this shit up, people. They did. They essentially want America to take over the world. And they wrote about it, as long ago as 1997. And they freakin� published their plans and goals on the web.
From the PNAC Statement of principles, written June 3, 1997 (bolds added by me, for emphasis on my points):
�As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
�We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
�We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. . .
�. . .The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
�Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
� we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
� we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
� we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
� we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
�Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.�
In theory, this ain�t so bad, right? I think we can all agree that America, relatively speaking, is a pretty cool place to live. Just the fact that (so far) I can write the stuff I write with only a little bit of fear of repercussion (so far) is truly a great thing and one for which I am daily grateful.
But read between the lines, folks.
Is it really our place to tell the rest of the world that the American Way is the Only Way? And isn�t that, in itself, against the American Way?
(Besides, if these guys are models of moral clarity, I need to throw away my bible because apparently it lies.)
And doesn�t knowing our present administration went in to office with these intentions make you question anything?
And yet they deny their own true motives. And of course, we the people believe them.
And who authored this lovely Mission Statement? Well, among others are such notable names as: Dick Cheney. Jeb Bush. Paul Wolfowitz. Donald Rumsfeld. William J. Bennett, Steve Forbes. And of course, that ever-respected intellectual Dan Quayle.
3. Staying cuddled up under an electric blanket seems a lot more enticing at 6:00am than getting up to do cardio work and crunches.
Well�yeah, it does.
4. The Gauntlet and all that entails
Next week is the finale of Real World/Road Rules Challenge, The Gauntlet. And what a wacky run it�s been, peeps. However, I don�t have the energy to write about it right now (except to say that Coral is Evil!), so later for this one...
last / next
~~~~~~~~~~~peace, love and smooches~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't know why you'd wanna, but on the off-chance you may feel tempted to steal any of my words and claim them as your own, please be advised:
All material
Copyright 2002-2005, Howl-at-the-Moon Words
***DISCLAIMER: These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. If you know me in my "real life" off the net and have come across this page purely by accident, please keep in mind that you were not invited here and I would suggest you leave this page now. However, should you choose not to do so, please be warned that reading my thoughts here is not an invitation to discuss them off-line. You may discover things you do not know about me and may not like very much. Such is life. Again, this is MY space and I will use it as I see fit. If you are offended by anything here, well that's pretty much your own fault at this point.
I say all of this with love, of course, but there it is.
