Why prolong this insidious war? Gouge the economy? Rape the environment? Only one retort left
It's somewhere around 1977 and I'm about 10 years old and I'm up past 10 pm watching juicy riveting prime-time "Magnum, P.I." (or whatever), and of course right at that moment I want nothing more from the universe than to stay up another hour and watch even more TV so as to feel, you know, older, and wiser, and somehow cooler.
And right about then my mother walks in and says hey kiddo, time for bed, and I plead and whine and protest and say no no no please please please why why why, and she says, slightly exasperated and motherly, well, because I said so.
She had her reasons, of course. After all, you gotta set some ground rules, gotta establish the boundaries and make the wee ones understand that the world ain't always full of clear explanations and justifiable details, and sometimes you, as the dumb oppressed plebe, you just gotta shut the hell up and do whatever the elders say because, well, they said so.
You loathed that line then, and you'll hate it even more now.
Yes, the line has returned with a nasty vengeance. Let us watch as this all-encompassing mantra of childhood, this absolutely invidious comeback line you simply are not allowed to question, let us watch how it mutates, in a twist of raging egomania, into the Bush administration's most bestest catchphrase du jour.
Let's watch, for example, as the bipartisan 9/11 commission -- the one that Bush finally, reluctantly, whiningly, after nearly three years, agreed to allow to exist at all -- let's watch as they emerge after months of investigation with a report that declares, once again and for the 500th time, that there was no collaboration whatsoever between Saddam and al Qaeda in the 9/11 attack. Duh.
Of course, when the 9/11 commission's report came out, BushCo was quick to reply: Um, well, we never actually claimed, you know, verbatim or whatever, that 9/11 was orchestrated by Saddam and al Qaeda, you know, together.
Except, of course, yes you did, Dubya. Repeatedly. Ad nauseam. In this very memo to Congress, outlining your reasons for leading America into this brutish hellpit. And also on just about every newscast and interview and mumbled speech, hint and gesture and Dick Cheney's pallid snicker, all resulting a huge majority of misguided and fear-pummeled Americans who honestly believed not only that Saddam had a role in 9/11 but also that he pretty much piloted those doomed planes himself, and that's why we needed to blast the living crap out of his piss-poor nation and earn ourselves huge gobs of global scorn while generating more anti-U.S. hatred among terrorists than Osama could have ever dreamed. Go, team!
Oh but here's Dubya, in an AA-grade bout of denial, summing up the entire point quite nicely: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
See? That's all you need to know. There was a connection because I say there was a connection. We stomped into war for justifiable reasons because I say there were justifiable reasons. Nearly 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died for my oily and ultraviolent petrochemical corporate cronies because I say they should die. End of story and off to bed now, you little punkass American suckers.
And lo, "Because I said so" spreads like an ugly rash through BushCo's increasingly teetering, imploding administration, as they desperately cling to any tattered shreds of whatever the hell it was that they claimed was the original reason that they shoved this nation into an economic tailspin and launched us into a brutal, violent, unwinnable war that, by most every measure, we've already lost.
Posted by P6 at June 23, 2004 12:39 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2409
Comments
Trackback Damn, this is good. Wish I had wrote it....
Posted by nitecrawler at Jun 23, 2004 3:15 PM
Damn you young pup. I thought you were older than me. You aint my Yoda no more. LOL! Good Post Bro.
Posted by David Scott Anderson at June 25, 2004 06:20 PMI am older than you. That link was wrong; the editorial is by Mark Morford of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Posted by P6 at June 25, 2004 06:46 PMTrackback And for all you chowder heads who keep spouting the same bullshit about Iraq, and how GW never said Iraq was part of 9/11, AND for those of you who have your head so buried in Conservative sand, that Bush could declare war on Mother Teresa and you wo...
Posted by In Search of Utopia at Jun 25, 2004 7:27 PM
Okay, you are back to being my Yoda, and you still dont have me on your Blogroll. :-(
Posted by David Scott Anderson at June 26, 2004 02:06 PMI'm getting crossed up between the RSS reader and the blogroll.
Okay, you're on there now.
Posted by P6 at June 26, 2004 02:52 PMI'm torn. Either you are unable to parse a sentence, or truthfulness is the furthest thing from your mind. I'm not sure which.
Why is the qualifier "in the 9/11 attack" required, when it wasn't three months ago? It is required because it is clear that there are verified links between Al Queda and Baathist Iraq and have been for some time.
When you point to the Presidential letter, either you are intentionally lying, or you are unable to parse a simple sentence. I'll take out the troubling "and" for you: "acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists".
There is a connection because Iraq offered refuge to terrorists. There is a connection because Hussain provided funding to terrorists. There is a connection because Bush said there was. There was a connection because Clinton said that there was. There was a connection because John Kerry said that there was. There was a connection because when the AP reported that the 9/11 commission claimed there was no link, John Lehman told them that the AP was wrong and there were definate links -- and probable links to Atta.
There's a concept in law called an "admission against interests." That means that if someone says something that actually works against them, you can take them at their word, because presumably, if they were going to lie, it would be the opposite that they would say. When Clinton, Kerry and Lehman were all saying that there was a connection between Al Queda and Iraq, I think it is safe to call that an admission against interests and take them at their word.
I guess this confirms my decision to stay away. You've devolved into sheer nutiness. I'll give you a few more months.
Posted by Phelps at June 27, 2004 01:53 AMSorry, dawg. I didn't write the editorial.