Thursday, September 29, 2005
Koch's reasons for the Iraq war
This from an item in the Jewish World Review, linked to Drudge today:
I supported and still support the war in Iraq, because our Congress and President had every right to rely on the advice of the CIA that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
On Sunday, September 25, 2005, Tim Russert of Meet The Press, summed up the situation prevailing before the war, saying, "…post September 11th, there was a fear of terrorism, an inability to know whether there were weapons of mass destruction by the public or by the media. George W. Bush said there were. Bill and Hillary Clinton said there were. The Russians, French and Germans, who opposed the war, said there were. Hans Blix of the UN said there were."
Iraq had fought an eight-year war against Iran resulting in a million casualties, using poison gas against the Kurds, who were citizens of Iraq, and against the Iranian army. Yes, since the 2003 invasion, we have not found any present supplies of WMD. Nevertheless, based on advice from CIA counterparts advising every member nation of the United Nations Security Council, the Security Council, including Syria, adopted Resolution 1441 unanimously, finding Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for which it had not accounted and advising Iraq that failure to account was cause for war.
Iraq refused to account for them to the U.N. We and our allies were right to invade, notwithstanding that other countries, terrified by the prospect of terrorism against them and tempted by corruption at the UN masterminded by Saddam Hussein through the Oil-For-Food program and lucrative vendor contracts with Hussein's regime, did not join us.
As I have often stated, we have accomplished our original goal to prevent Iraq from threatening us or its regional neighbors. ...
Monday, September 19, 2005
Date symbolism
On September 11, 2005 came a reminder of the powerful symbolism of dates.
This came not from the ugly video-taped threats - about "blessed bombs" - from a former Californian goat farmer.
Nor was said reminder inferred from the apparent ambiguity of commemorative Muslim conferences that took place on September 11. Notable, for the writer, amongst these was the publicised meeting of Australian Muslims on that date that seemed to draw muted ire from Prime Minister John Howard.
Salafists and their like of course either enjoyed or planned for overtones associated with September 11 fear-mongering.
One can easily imagine the conspiracy theories and deranged prayers of thanks aroused regarding the then-ongoing ravages of Hurricane Katrina.
However, no-one could or would have planned the timing of reports in the press that day regarding the first successful splitting of a human female embryo without semen. The creation of a baby, that is and in case you missed it, completely by a female. Without any input from a male.
This largely unheralded event took place, apparently, at the same UK premises where Dolly the sheep was cloned. Whether it happened on the same day that the report hit the presses is unlikely, and whether the report is completely accurate, I have no real idea.
Nevertheless, assumptions in the affirmative on both counts were easy to consider. They conjured a poignant showcasing of both the lie and power of date symbolism.
There we were, or may well have been, on the very day in history that men were or could have been rendered scientifically obsolete. Yet we were transfixed with the 9/11 pseudo-science of atavistic male supremacists.
Ladies in philosophy classes 100 years hence may laugh or marvel at the paradox, the blindsiding by emotional elements that contributed so heavily to the male's downfall.
Alternatively, the mullahs dominating the 22nd century may nostalgically reconstruct, every 9/11, their triumph over "evil".
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Truth is a harsh mistress
Near the climax of his 1966 novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, sci-fi legend Robert Heinlein details an attack on earth by a rebelling colony of humans exiled to the moon.
The moon rebels hurl bombs with pin-point accuracy at strategic targets on earth. They want to cause structural damage and frighten rather than kill human beings. So, in the case of St. Louis, Kansas City and New Orleans they aim for the nearby rivers.
Such action, as Heinlein's narrator mentions: "will probably flood New Orleans" . No excessive risk is mentioned in the case of the other two cities.
Heinlein is reputed as a visionary, but not for identifying the susceptibility of New Orleans to flood damage.
It is by now well-known in France that Jacques Chirac said in his 1951-4 university economics thesis ,The Development of the Port of New Orleans, inter alia:
"(T)he site of New-Orleans, if it were appropriate for the establishment of a port, was unfavorable to that of a city ... From the very start, indeed, it had to be protected from the floods"
Everybody now knows that New Orelans is/was a city below sea level. It was sinking further below sea level every year.
Pre-Katrina FEMA warnings about the susceptibility of New Orleans seemed jaw-droppingly prescient when they were flash-highlighted after the flood, but less so now that the floodgates of truth have opened.
Why was nothing done? Well, the usual array of tendentious Bush-bashing windbags have been quick, of course, to deliver their own verdicts.
The truth is more complicated and involves much failure over many decades.
Of human parrots and simian puppets
American actress Gwyneth Paltrow made a stunning, if belated entry into our Team America: World Police file with this clanger (linked to Drudge today):
"I've always been drawn to Europe. America is such a young country, with an adolescent swagger about it. But I feel that I have a more European sensibility, a greater respect for the multicultural nature of the globe."
You can almost feel writer Rick Groen's eyes rolling as he endeavours to cut off the lithe starlet's yammerings about Bush's "anti-environmental, pro-War policies" without offending her.
Nice job, Rick
Monday, September 12, 2005
Hastert was misquoted
The damage is done. The quote is already out there, and the rage has already collectively risen against Dennis Hastert. But the House Speaker was significantly misinterpreted, as Clarence Page points out:
(Hastert) also said, "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed." He was roundly rebuked by Louisiana politicians, among others, although it is important to note Mr. Hastert never said he thought the place should be bulldozed.
In fact, read in context, Mr. Hastert's remarks were far more sympathetic and supportive than they sounded in most news accounts.
He was trying to be compassionate but also realistic, particularly about Congress' need to examine an important question: Precisely how do you "rebuild" a city that is 10 feet below sea level and still sinking?
"Of course, the folks from New Orleans will have their own opinion on it," Mr. Hastert said. He also declared "we are going to rebuild this city," though it is no less risky a proposition than rebuilding Los Angeles, San Francisco or other cities built "on top of earthquake fissures."
Friday, September 09, 2005
Hello, Brian!
spinbad wrote:
Thanks for your interest, Brian. You may or may not be aware that I have only recently added the comments facility to the blog. Once added, it attaches to all posts, even though it was impossible to actually make any comments from the time of posting right up until a short time ago.
The blog may prove to be popular or unpopular - time will tell. My own interest is to relay thoughts conceived as best I can and honestly held. If you have some contra opinion or legitimate criticism, I'd be happy to hear you out.
Sounds like you have a lot of anger.
brian murphy
At first I thought about responding to some of your warmed over bits
that seem lifted from the usual suspects from the frothing mouth right,
then I noticed that none, not one of your little posts have generated
any comments, and that's the best comment of all, isin't it?
Brian Murphy
Oak Park , Ill.
