The pattern seems clear to me too. I am not particularly smart or politically savvy (voted for Clinton twice), yet every time I read about Saddam Hussein's empire-building ambitions, I know exactly what we have to prevent. If Hussein gets his way, we'll be facing a new Soviet Union-like entity, only one on the political equivalent of methamphetamines. I got to see one Evil Empire crumble in my lifetime; I don't really feel like living through the rise of another one. (Those of you passersby who think that Amerikkka is the new Evil Empire can just keep on going.)
As to the mystery of why the administration hasn't spelled this out? I am sure that the reasons are complex. Among them is probably the fact that the reaction of people to this current menace (namely, "What, me worry?") is so much like that of the reaction of people to the rise of You Know Who back in the thirties that Bush probably just doesn't want to deal with the flack. I can't say as I blame him; but sometimes you just gotta lay it on the line, and if people don't like it, tough. (See the comments of one "Just John" to E. Nough's post for a typical dunderheaded response to the question of what more proof do we need:
But I think that we're still missing a triggering event. Iraq would need to actually DO something (currently, not 10-15 years ago) before I would support any kind of invasion.
I am afraid I cut and pasted those words exactly as I found them. I can't really add anything more, except to say that if I had to hear this sort of thing from people day in and day out, I'd give up on ever trying to communicate the urgency of the situation to them too. "But why should we lock the barn door? I say we wait until something happens showing that it is necessary to keep the barn door locked before we lock it..." I certainly hope "Just John" does not treat his finances with the same finicky care.
Anyway, read the whole thing. Know what I think? I think that E. Nough's secret identity is... no, if I told you, I'd have to kill you. ;)
Posted by Andrea Harris at February 22, 2003 02:38 AMThanks for the link, Andrea! I'm afraid "my secret identity" isn't terribly interesting. I blog anonymously to keep it from interfering with my real life, and to keep from getting in trouble at work. :-þ
A couple of the more well-known bloggers know my real name, which keeps me from using my anonymity to misbehave.
Posted by: E. Nough at February 22, 2003 at 10:08 AMvoted for Clinton twice
Oh, Andrea. Vote for Clinton once, shame on him...vote for Clinton twice, shame on you!
Posted by: RMc at February 22, 2003 at 07:10 PMI too voed for Clinton twice. We needed relief from the constant budget deficits that the Republicans always run. We were 14 trillion in debt when W's Dad left office. Frankly, both parties suck.
Posted by: GreensBrother at April 2, 2003 at 06:33 AM