Put Saddam on Hold
We are sowing the seeds of our destruction with our obscene, unAmerican war-mongering and I only hope that the retaliation, karmic and otherwise, is selective. First, let them take out the Bushies and the lily-livered politicians on Capitol Hill who voted to back the IraqAttaq. It was immoral as well as unreasonable, and doesn't everyone agree that Tom Daschle really looks like a limp member?
The shame of these people, who regrettably lack the character to know opprobrium, has been fully underscored by the near-unanimous lack of international support, not to mention the United Nations. And on the day that Jimmy Carter was duly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the committee thrashed Bush for his disgraceful bellicosity.
A government of principles and integrity would never have gotten to this point, but we don't have that kind. We've elected morally bankrupt, narrow-minded, greedy, dangerous cretins. We, who trumpet democracy around the world, are deaf to our own principles when it comes to our own voting -- we don't. That may be good news next month if the loudest flag-wavers stay home and only the thoughtful and frightened go to the polls, where many will find the evil choice of two lessers.
Is anyone paying attention? What happened to John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, two veterans who knows what war is about but who voted to support the war policy? Or Dianne Feinstein who reported calls to her office were running 20+-to-1 against war, and yet she voted yes. Only 23 Senators had the scruples and courage to just say no. And it's difficult to share the enthusiasm of the mindless optimists who were celebrating the fact that instead of only 50 House members voting no, almost of third of the lower chamber stood against the White House.
It's kind of mind-boggling that any of them endorsed the Bush position only days after the CIA chief testified on The Hill. Here's how Maureen Dowd put it: "Mr. Tenet says Saddam is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against us unless we attack him, and Mr. Bush says Saddam
is likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack so we must attack him. The C.I.A. says Saddam will use his nasty weapons against us only if he thinks he has nothing to lose. So the White House leaks its plans about the occupation of Iraq, leaving Saddam nothing to lose. The president says Iraq is linked to Islamic terrorists so we must attack, while the C.I.A. says that Iraq will link up with Islamic terrorists only if we attack. that Iraq would not attack us unless we attacked them, and then they would come after us with weapons of mass destruction."
Not that I think the CIA has a good handle on what's going on -- their track record is deplorable -- but as long as the federal decision-makers are buying their story, how can anyone in their right mind and a position to do something about it ignore these point?
Anyone who thinks invading Iraq, if that's what we wind up doing, is going to benefit our country is either incredibly stupid or venal. At least in the short term. The violence and destruction will likely be of biblical proportions, and it won't be contained in the Middle East. Of course, it's possible that Saddam -- whom Bush-Lite ineptly refers to as Mr. Hussein -- will bend over far enough to make an attack impossible, and that would be more glorious than any War.
The bombings in Bali make it abundantly clear that Iraq is not the problem. We have the technology to track these killers, and we have the resources to bribe and coerce those who would look the other way than ours. We should go after the terrorists, wherever they are, stomping the governments that protect them. Iraq can wait. We cannot play games with Saddam when fanatical terrorists are striking around the world at will.
And that's SetonnoteS...I'm Tony Seton.
.