All right, I have to say something.
I have already made up my mind re: this war. Nothing you say will change MY mind. I have all the information I need. Anyone who comes to these pages could figure that out. If you are looking for a debate, kindly check the link on the left that says "all the blogs," and click on it. (If you are using IE, it will open a side window; other browsers will have a second window open.) There are approximately 400 blogs for you to choose from where you may be able to find someone who is willing to argue over the finer points of Bush vs. Hitler or Bush vs. Saddam or Bush vs. Clinton, or whatever bee you have in your bonnet. I have no interest in getting into it. I do not support this war because of some sycophantic attachment to Bush: I didn't vote for him, so far he has my tentative approval in some but not all of his actions, about the same as Clinton had from me back in the day, and I did vote for him. Wow, that's some partisanship, eh? I'm sorry that my support for the war against Saddam Hussein and the rest of the Islamoloonies out there can't be fit into the slot of "oh, it's just because Bush is president and she has an altar to him in her apartment." You know what? I was all for the Clinton-overseen military actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and what-have-you. I was supportive of the first Gulf War effort, and one reason I did not vote for Bush Sr. for a second term is because he crapped out on the Iraqis and gave in to the UN, leaving our Current Problem in power.
So trolls, and I mean "Horatio," who think you can fit me into the same sort of tiny little ideological box you live in, give up now. Go away, find some other sandbox to play in. This is my website where I record my thoughts and opinions. If you think they are lacking in "depth," "nuance," or some other deep philosophical bullshit, tough. You aren't paying for my server space or internet connection.
Update: oh yeah, and Horatio? Jacitelli wasn't praising Bush blindly, he was pointing out how the antiwar position the bulk of the "left" has taken is based mainly on partisan Bush-hatred, unlike the position I and others have taken that Saddam Hussein is a menace to our country and the rest of the world whose removal from power is long overdue, it doesn't matter what political party the president belongs to. If you are too dense to get that, then you are probably too stupid to understand anything else I have written; not a surprise.
Posted by Andrea Harris at February 25, 2003 01:12 PMI notice you didn't respond to JACITELLI who basically blamed the anitwar movement on the left's blind hatred of Bush. I simply made an observation and got a childish response in return. Guess I was ALL WRONG about you! Since NOTHING anyone can say could change your mind, you must be one open minded gal!
Posted by: Horatio at February 25, 2003 at 07:51 PMWell, since I live and die by your opinion, I guess I'll go slit my wrists now.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 25, 2003 at 08:08 PMYou must, based on your response to my previous comment! It's interesting that you took the comment (which was a response to JACITELLI's absurd comment) personally and responded with such vitriol, yet let JACITELLI slide with his comment painting all the antiwar people as the left with blind hatred for Bush. My feeling is that you agree with that remark, but are sensitive to any remark about prowar folk composed MAINLY (meaning not ALL) of Bush supporters loathe to admit they made a mistake with that guy! You projected your own upsetness with much of the prowar movement on to me because I voiced what you know to be true. Because of this, you're reduced to ad hominems and snotty retorts, even though you have all the time in the world to compose a witty, devastating retort designed to reduce me to tears!
Posted by: Horatio at February 25, 2003 at 08:44 PMHoratio - Anyone who uses phrases like "projected your own upsetness" deserves to be kicked off a website. Psychobabble and head games, a waste of time. Bye.
Posted by: mary at February 25, 2003 at 10:41 PMPsychobabble, head games, PLUS inelegant phrasing.
Posted by: steevil (Dr Weevil's bro Steve) at February 25, 2003 at 10:49 PMI like my Ad Hominems with a little butter and pepper.
I agree with what you said about Bush Sr., Andrea. I remember being a little ashamed of him at the time, especially since he'd been a WWII hero and should have considered the future impact of leaving a guy like Hussein in power.
Posted by: Kevin Parrott at February 25, 2003 at 11:27 PMYeah. I think the conventional wisdom on Bush 41's demise (it was because he went back on his word and raised taxes) is not entirely correct. There were a substantial number of people even then who were disgusted that he caved to Colin Powell and the UN.
Posted by: Ian S. at February 26, 2003 at 09:44 AMWow! I never knew I was so damn popular.
Hordick-io,
I am not a straight-line Bush supporter. I've watched both sides of the Iraq debate, and I must say, most, not all, anti-war types seem to be protesting Bush. I'm sure most who visit this site could point to examples, Andrea herself, has pointed to many examples of this. So I won't waste my time.
The trouble I have with folk of your persuasion, is your deliberate obtuseness. You'll say anything, spin everything to make a point. If you have to fib and use frivolous comparisons (Bush=Hitler, Bush=Terrorist) to make a point, then I guess your point wasn't very conscientious to begin with.
Thanks Andrea for the space and the defense. Back to work.
Posted by: Jacitelli at February 26, 2003 at 09:55 AMThe slur-du-jour: "Chickenhawks" - and the hypocrisy of the anti-war left . . .
. . . are plain to see in this all-too-typical mean-spirtied smear/post on Eschaton. Atrios, like the rest of the anti-war left, denigrates all advocates of actual disarmament of Iraq via military action - which advocates are not present or former members of the military - as "chickenhawks."
So, Atrios: to advocate military action as part of foreign policy, a person must be a present or former member of the military? Otherwise they're a "chickenhawk"?
Wow. Great idea. Good thing we didn't apply that standard to - oh, say - Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or Bill Clinton. (You might recall that there was a wee bit of miltary action advocated and carried out by these Democrat Presidents - none of whom served in the military).
Are you saying that Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Bill Clinton were all "chickenhawks"?
Oh, right - you guys are just Bush-haters. I was taking one of your arguments seriously for a minute . . .
(Although, you didn't really present an "argument." As usual, you just tossed out a mean-spirited slur, totally lacking any substance . . .)
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 26, 2003 at 11:55 AMOnly a fool quibbles about the color of the fire extinguisher he must use to put out a fire that threatens him.
An utter fool will go "Fire? What fire? I don't see a fire" and will try to stop those who want to put it out.
The anti-war folk strike me as utter fools. The fire is there, they refuse to see it - and it will burn the world unless contained and put out.
J.
Posted by: JLawson at February 26, 2003 at 12:13 PMHordick-io? Wow, I had no idea of the level of intellect of the prowar faction! Gee, JLawson, why stop at a fire extinguisher? Next time you get a grease fire on top of the stove, get a firehose and soak the whole house down. That way you're sure to get the fire out, so what about the water damage? That's the proper metaphor for what the prowar faction wants. A firehouse (war) when an extingusher (inspections) will do. Get it?
Posted by: Horatio at February 26, 2003 at 12:30 PMWhy yes, if it looks like a dick, walks and responds like a dick, then I guess its a dick.
Posted by: Jacitelli at February 26, 2003 at 02:21 PMAs a constant reader of this blog and rare commentator, I give a resounding ovation to Andrea. This "Announcement" directed to "Horatio" brought a smile to my face. It is nice to know there is a place on the internet that the viruses of mindless pacificm and self-loathing, anti-Americanism cannot find a welcome host.
Posted by: Matthew at February 26, 2003 at 02:27 PMIt has recently come to my attention that a stockpile of JACITELLI quotes favoring colonialism could fill a junkyard. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. Because of JACITELLI's obsession with immoralism, it wants all of us to believe that it is a model organization. That's why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. I overheard one of JACITELLI's deputies say, "You and I are morally inferior to diabolic creeps." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to point out the glaring contradiction between JACITELLI's idealized view of masochism and reality. If truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then it has been brought to my attention that you can see exactly where this is going. While this is truly true, JACITELLI's ballyhoos reflect several layers of moral concern for many religions. That conclusion is not based on some sort of treasonous philosophy or on JACITELLI-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that if we are to instill a sense a responsibility and maturity in those who undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the contentious and hideous ideologies that JACITELLI promotes. Let me leave you with one last thought: I have a score to settle with JACITELLI.
Brought to you courtesy of Scott Pakin
Posted by: Hornblower at February 27, 2003 at 05:24 AMThat's okay -- Santize takes care of messy tags. (Of course, that isn't a license to screw up your tags, people!)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 27, 2003 at 11:06 AMWar is good, War is great, TIme to send SADAM back to HELL"S Gate.
Anti War with Iraq...fine it is your right to have that opiion, but, do not come crying to us about how your childs lungs came boiling out of his/her mouth while attending 4th grade, in sunny California. yes oh yes what about Ccali's large very large oil refineries creating a huge natural disaster when they are blown up by a rag.
SOme people in this country amaze me and just take take take, you speak about peace and what is right....well what about us stoping the flow of food and fresh water to countries that are starving....it seems the only natural thing to do...they starve because thier population is beyond the carring capacity of thier recources...therfore they should starve and not have drop of water for thier thirst, that is what is right. Go ahead and turn your back on our flag durring the national anthem it is your right, it is also my right not to defend you, let me see you getting muged or your child abducted to be raped, burned and killed see if I lend a helping hand for it is what is right, the law enfocement agencies will do their jobs and "find " the bad the people. Oh wait ...they are not UN inspectors the bad people who peritrate crims in this country just step forward to be arrested, i forgot. I guess that when you surender and agree to said terms, when you violate them a state of war need to be again voted on.....so much is wrong with that one I cant even begin.... " stop i will do what you want.....time passes..get out of my country.....I dont have time to for this Monica get me antoher cigar...The world trade centers have been attacjked for a second what a tragedy....how could this happen....
The silent majority ( the fighters for freedom and liberity) will defend the nation.
last note:
Did you also know that elected officals who voted for pay increases VIOLATED the Constitution of the US....Taxation with out representation,,, and by seeking reelection violate the spirit in which it was created "by the people for the people" think how much better we would be if more people served in office.....There are minimue age requirements to serve in public office, there should be a 65 maximum, so that all ages a equally represented.
Oh, I get it, but you've got your terminolgy mixed up.
The inspectors are smoke alarms, not fire extinguishers. They're not there to put out the fire, just alert you there's a problem.
They're saying "You know, there's a REAL PROBLEM HERE. Iraq is NOT COOPERATING FULLY. There's a LOT OF STUFF MISSING." But people are deliberately misinterpreting the message - or trying to drown it out with a call for more inspectors. The inspectors are there to verify Iraq's compliance with the resolutions, not to force them to comply in the first place.
Saddam was supposed to comply with 1441. The inspectors are there to verify compliance. Of course, he's ignored 17 previous resolutions so I figure there's not much chance he'll go for #18...
The smoke alarm tells you there's smoke, and likely danger. Sure, it can be spoofed by a pot on the stove, but if someone isn't cooking and it goes off at midnight, you ignore it at your own risk.
J.
Posted by: JLawson at February 28, 2003 at 10:31 AMYES, the "inspectors" are to inspect, Iraq needs to bring forth items to be inspected. Items to be inspected are not items sought after by inspectors.
Furhter more to those who believe this is about OIL....if we realy wanted it we would have taken it a long time ago.
What is the diffence between France defending Paris , the Argentina defending the Faulklands, and Iraq defending Bagdad?
France laid down with leg spread wide open and said come on in.
The Argentins lasted 6 weeks
Iraq has been beating the WORLD, but will last 36 hrs sad but true.
Ginger, BJ, and Martin sheen walk in to a bar,
Ginger is acused of looking like a man, even though she once was HOT, BJ looks on in dismay and attempts to organize aged actors against haressment and Martin says " I realy should be president you know.
Posted by: Robin at February 28, 2003 at 11:03 AM