Why I Still Oppose Our Invasion
 and Occupation of Iraq

 

www.iraqbodycount.org www.iraqbodycount.org
 

 

The Rational Radical's Weblog

Home | Contact |
Archive

Saturday, October 12, 2002

Somehow I got on Sen. Joe Lieberman's mailing list and got a solicitation today in the mail to help him. Sure, and next I'll be contributing to the Bush in '04 campaign! I inserted the word "not" in the reply card before the word "support", and then wrote on the card that "I would vote for a real Republican, Bush, over a Republican-in-Democratic-clothing like Lieberman. Parachute Joe into Baghdad in the first wave." Lieberman did courageous civil rights work in his younger days, but now he's just no good at all.

Jack Clark 9:02 PM [+]  
Post #82907989


Isn't it great what Harry Belafonte said about Colin Powell:
"In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and there were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."
Of course, if you read my Colin Powell article, Colin Powell, 21st Century Slave Driver, you'd know Belafonte didnt' go nearly far enough in his comments. But it's a start!


Jack Clark 8:58 PM [+]  
Post #82907849


Thursday, October 10, 2002
U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report
They truly are completely out of their minds! As the article points out, even Henry Kissinger, who felt fine carpet-bombing civilians in Vietnam and violently overthrowing a democratically-elected government in Chile, is opposed to this Bushian insanity: "I am viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country."


Jack Clark 11:00 PM [+]  
Post #82829251


If the CIA thinks the chances of Saddam attacking us in the foreseeable future are low, unless we attack him first, then who on earth is Bush relying on to come to the opposite conclusion? Certainly not the four-star generals who testified before Congress. So if the CIA and military experts don't think the danger from Iraq is imminent, who does? Who is Bush relying on to propel us headlong into an unnecessary war? Oh, I know who! The Chickenhawk Brigade! That great military mastermind, Karl Rove. That expert in combat calculations, Paul Wolfowitz! They and all the rest of the ideologically-driven chickenhawks have overridden the CIA and the military generals. And who said that George Bush had no brains!

Jack Clark 1:53 PM [+]  
Post #82808319


Wednesday, October 09, 2002
The CIA agrees with what I wrote three weeks ago, that attacking Saddam the way Bush wants to will make it more, not less likely that Saddam will either attack the U.S. directly with weapons of mass destruction, or give such weapons to terrorists:
"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States."Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action," [the CIA letter] continued. It noted that Mr. Hussein could use either conventional terrorism or a weapon of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

The letter dated Oct. 7 also declassified an exchange from a closed Congressional hearing on Oct. 2 in which a senior intelligence official judged the likelihood of Mr. Hussein's initiating an attack in the foreseeable future as "low." C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror
The letter itself also says:
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him. C.I.A. Letter to Senate on Baghdad's Intentions
So who is Bush listening to instead of the CIA?


Jack Clark 3:28 PM [+]  
Post #82761031


Consider this not-so-unlikely scenario which could flow from attacking Iraq: under U.S. attack and no longer having anything to lose, Saddam uses chemical/biological weapons against Israel with hundreds or even thousands of Israeli deaths; Sharon retaliates by nuking Iraq; Islamic world explodes and Musharraf falls to radical Islamicists, who use Pakistan's nukes to attack Israel; India fears they will be attacked next and launches a "pre-emptive" nuke attack on Pakistan; Pakistan is now in trouble, so its ally China jumps in to help Pakistan and figures why not go for Taiwan while they're at it, thereby involving the U.S... a lot of ifs, but very scary, no?

Jack Clark 3:08 PM [+]  
Post #82760186


Tuesday, October 08, 2002
Aw, isn't that cute, similar backgrounds. Here's one of the most credulous things I've ever read from a mainstream reporter:

"A generation ago, the prospect of a Socialist admirer of Fidel Castro coming to power here would have provoked American support for a military coup. In fact, the Brazilian military overthrew President Jo´┐Żo Goulart in 1964, ushering in 21 years of dictatorship, only after assuring themselves that the United States that it would support such a move.

But the current American ambassador here, Donna Hrinak, the daughter of a Pittsburgh steelworker, has called [former metalworker] Mr. da Silva the personification of the American dream." New York Times: In Free-Market Slump, Brazil's Voters Look for Change

Yes, I'm sure the U.S. will be most supportive of Lula. U.S. policy is certainly determined by the personal background of the U.S. ambassador.

Let's see what happens the first time Lula does something the Bushites don't like! Unless Ms. Hrinak does a quick 180, she'll be removed quicker than you can say Bush Sucks. Indeed, as I noted the other day, those who ideologically drive the Republican Party are already calling for Lula's scalp! Lawmakers: Beware the Looming Threat From the South


Jack Clark 10:09 PM [+]  
Post #82726169


Monday, October 07, 2002
A Disastrous appearance by Nathan Britton of California Peace Action on Hannity & Colmes

Nathan never got past Sean Hannity's first question: What if you're wrong, and Saddam gets a nuke, and kills a lot of children with it? Nathan just wouldn't answer the question, trying to switch the subject again and again. He came across as weaselly. But if Nathan knew Hannity, he would have realized that unless he answered the question, Hannity would spend his entire questioning period repeating the same question over and over, which is just what Hannity did. [A simple reply: that would be terrible, but not as bad as what would happen if you're wrong, and our attack on Iraq starts off a nuclear war in the Middle East and beyond.]

To make matters worse, Alan Colmes then took over, and seemed to join in the attack. Colmes is pretty much anti-war, but he felt compelled for some reason [to ingratiate himself with his Fox News bosses?] to ask Nathan under what circumstances, if any, would he support military action against Iraq. Again, Nathan wouldn't answer directly, trying to change the subject or answer a different question. Colmes wouldn't let him off the hook, and kept repeating the same question. If Nathan is a pacifist and would never support war, he should have said so. Most viewers would disagree with him, but at least he'd come across as honest. If Nathan is not a pacifist, he should have come up with something that Saddam could do that would make Nathan support a U.S. attack. But Nathan did neither, and just came across as weaselly again.

I must admit that, untrue to form, with this guest, Hannity was not disrespectful, and did not interrupt very much. It's like he read my post earlier today and decided to mend his ways!


Jack Clark 7:43 PM [+]  
Post #82668691


I bet if you took a stopwatch and checked, Hannity speaks twice as many minutes as Colmes on their show, where they are supposedly co-hosts. When Hannity is questioning a non-conservative guest, I bet he speaks for more minutes than he allows the guest.

And, Hannity asks long multi-part questions of the form: Given Fact A, and given Fact B, and Given Fact C, isn't it true that Conclusion D? Since his Facts A, B and C are wrong, his conclusion doesn't follow. But as soon as the guest starts to explain, Hannity interrupts and says "I asked you a simple 'yes or no' question."

Further, Hannity constantly interrupts non-conservative guests even when it is Colmes doing the questioning, as we hear Hannity off-camera bleating "That's not true" or "That's a lie" over and over again.


Jack Clark 2:18 PM [+]  
Post #82654799


Bill O'Reilly always claims to speak for average, working class Americans, yet how many labor leaders -- the people that workers actually themselves choose to represent them -- has he ever had on the program ? (9/11-related firemen and policemen excepted). I can't remember one. How many rank-and-file workers as such, discussing issues of importance to them, as opposed to the hot button cultural issues that O'Reilly says they're concerned about? How many segments has he devoted to real labor issues, like the living wage (O'Reilly says he'd raise the minimum wage "a buck," not anywhere near a living wage) or corporate abuse of workers, such as the Walmart scandal, where management forced workers to work overtime off the clock? Sure, he hopped on the Enron bandwagon, but before that scandal broke, and afterwards, how many?

Jack Clark 2:16 PM [+]  
Post #82654717


Sunday, October 06, 2002
I was thinking: the best long-term strategy to derail Bush's serial war plans would be to reinstate the draft. Right now, with our "volunteer" army, only poor and working class families in America face death and injury to loved ones from Bush's empire-building. Unfortunately, the poor and working class have no political clout in this country (for reasons we won't get into here). If kids from middle-class and wealthy families started coming home in body bags, however, that would soon put a brake on U.S. aggression overseas.

So we should have a campaign entitled something like "A Draft Without Deferments for a War Without End. All Americans Should Share the Burden Equally." This would call for a universal draft of all men and women 18-24, selected by a birthday-based lottery. No student deferments, no alternative Bushian domestic National Guard escapes, no excuses at all. Anyone 4F but able to contribute in any way would still be drafted and sent to do non-combat work in the war zone.

It may sound pretty unusual for the Left to be calling for the draft, but unprecedented times call for unprecedented strategies.


Jack Clark 11:33 PM [+]  
Post #82625997


The votes aren't even all tallied in Brazil and Republicans have already started to establish the groundwork for the U.S. to destroy Lula! Lawmakers: Beware the Looming Threat From the South

Jack Clark 11:02 PM [+]  
Post #82625216


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

 

george bush
 
Latest Updates on my Blog!!

 

 

 

  

   

 

 

 

If you'd like to do some Flash animation 
for the site, please email me.  Thanks!


  

Comments

 

                             

   

 

 

Home

 Copyright 2001-04    All rights reserved