Helter Skelter
So Iran has become an emerging threat. Feeling very Dr. Frankenfurter, I'll say, "Well, how 'bout that?" Photos of Zarqawi have surfaced, as well as a video from Osama bin Laden. Rove is going down the pike. The Sec Def has been assailed by retired generals, raising the age-old question of loyalty and civilian control of the military. Now the president puts a military-type in charge of the CIA, while said General is neither a terrorism nor Middle East expert.
The Moussaoui trial has concluded, and Al-Arian has copped a deal. Bush says 200 acts of terrorism have been averted thanks to the Patriot Act (Show me the money.) During this same period, Condoleezza has finally figured out that dominatrix boots are not appropriate wear when dealing with Islamic clientele.
And I remain confused over the topic of Iran. Pakistan gets a sweetheart deal that facilitates production of nuclear weapons, but Iran can't have a bomb. Never mind that the U.S. has Iran boxed in on three sides, and has a tendency to invade and enforce regime change. Never mind that Iran cannot project a weapon nor does it possess offensive capabilities. Bush places Iran as a top-level threat.
I personally believe that oil and gas prices, the Chinese trade deficit, U.S. policy that alienates oil producers, such as Russia and Venezuela, and a runaway trillion plus dollar elective war are much greater strategic threats to U.S. national interests. If push comes to shove, we can always nuke them to keep them from getting a nuke, right?
As for the Osama tapes--why is he still here? Obviously, there is an alternative universe in which people are protecting him. Where are the U.S. priorities? If Al Quaida is the threat, then shouldn't they also be the main thrust of U.S. actions? U.S. policy must address the significant threats, and ignore non-essential elements. Does this war address the actual threat against U.S. interests? Even if Saddam had WMD, how was this a threat to the U.S.? Is America safer now that Saddam is effectively gone? Everything else is irrelevant.
The Moussaoui trial has concluded, and Al-Arian has copped a deal. Bush says 200 acts of terrorism have been averted thanks to the Patriot Act (Show me the money.) During this same period, Condoleezza has finally figured out that dominatrix boots are not appropriate wear when dealing with Islamic clientele.
And I remain confused over the topic of Iran. Pakistan gets a sweetheart deal that facilitates production of nuclear weapons, but Iran can't have a bomb. Never mind that the U.S. has Iran boxed in on three sides, and has a tendency to invade and enforce regime change. Never mind that Iran cannot project a weapon nor does it possess offensive capabilities. Bush places Iran as a top-level threat.
I personally believe that oil and gas prices, the Chinese trade deficit, U.S. policy that alienates oil producers, such as Russia and Venezuela, and a runaway trillion plus dollar elective war are much greater strategic threats to U.S. national interests. If push comes to shove, we can always nuke them to keep them from getting a nuke, right?
As for the Osama tapes--why is he still here? Obviously, there is an alternative universe in which people are protecting him. Where are the U.S. priorities? If Al Quaida is the threat, then shouldn't they also be the main thrust of U.S. actions? U.S. policy must address the significant threats, and ignore non-essential elements. Does this war address the actual threat against U.S. interests? Even if Saddam had WMD, how was this a threat to the U.S.? Is America safer now that Saddam is effectively gone? Everything else is irrelevant.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 1:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home