I Still Oppose Our Invasion
and Occupation of Iraq
The Rational Radical's Weblog
|Home | Contact ||
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.
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!
Thursday, October 10, 2002
U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report
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!
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 itself also says:
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?
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�o Goulart in 1964, ushering in 21 years of dictatorship, only after assuring themselves that the United States that it would support such a move.
Monday, October 07, 2002
A Disastrous appearance by Nathan Britton of California Peace Action on Hannity & Colmes
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.
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?
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.
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
If you'd like to do some Flash animation
for the site, please email me. Thanks!
Copyright 2001-04 All rights reserved