Sunday Update
Tonight, ABC will air part 1 of a two-part miniseries called "The Path to 9/11". I will not watch. I consider myself to be fairly informed and already know what was in the Kean Report, I don't need to see it dramatized. In the last few days, since the stories began to break about certain inaccuarcies in the teleplay, much hyperbole and vitriol has surfaced, usually taking the form of the standard right or left wing view. It makes me wonder if the "news" was nothing more than a cheap advertising ploy by the network, designed to increase viewers, (even if the viewers are looking for that one little lie...). It is nearly impossible today to have a dialogue about anything without having it quickly degenerate to name calling and a circling of the partisan wagons.
As hard as it is to admit, the Bush administration is not completely wrong about everything, though the way that they process and filter information, and then jump to conclusions seems a bit ludicrous, (and I am being generous here). Across the fence, the loyal opposition is not often anything to brag about either. It seems that they, (like the US as a whole on so many fronts), are always in a reactive or defensive mode, jumping on every perceived misstep or verbal gaffe as evidence of incompetence. They never even attempt to build a case for their arguments, proceeding as though the logic of their position is infallible and above such things. Both sides first take and defend the party line, then probe outward towards the issues at hand.
Moving on.
Vide president Cheney today defended the war in Iraq, attempting to nullify the arguments that the data that the case for invasion was faulty or (possibly) contrived. He noted that it did not matter whether Saddam had WMD's or not, he had a record of barbarism against his people and a demonstrated willingness to use chemical and biological weapons in the field.
So what?
I think Saddam is a low level scumbag, but he mistreated only his own people, (and, on some occasions, a few Iranians). As crass as it sounds, it is up to them to defend themselves and to overthrow the regime that oppresses them. The situation we have today is not a lot better for the Iraqi people, and a lot worse for us. Saddam kept Iran in check, (so we don't have to); the best we can hope for now is the imposition of a new militarist regime in Iraq that is opposed to Iran's dominance. Fat chance.
These arguments fail to differentiate between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Many see them as being the same thing, but they are not. Were the war in Iraq to end today, with an outcome favorable to the administration, I fear that the legitimate war on terrorism would suddenly become a null issue, much to our detriment.
On an different, but slightly related front, Ynet, a Jewish daily published this report. The gist of the article is that the PM of Israel as well as the Palestinian leader are in a position now of mutual dependence, and that the opportunities to advance the peace process between Israel and Palestine are now as ripe as thay have been.
A peace between the Palestinians and Israeli's would go a long way towards defusing much of the tension and motivation to violence in the Islamic world. I wonder if the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and the other interested economic/political entities in the world would actively support such a peace were it to be agreed upon. This situation will not end with a treaty, it will require support and nurture for a long time, (if for no other reason than to negate the efforts of those opposed to Israel at all costs to undermine such an arrangement).
OK, would one of either of you reading this comment some time? Its lonely typing all this stuff and watching it disappear into the black hole of cyberspace.
update: As I type this, the President & Mrs. Bush are laying a wreath at 'Ground Zero', in commemoration of the anniversary of the attacks. They are accompanied by all manner of dignitaries. I cannot help but notice that all are Republican.
Nothing is sacred. There is nothing that will not be exploited for partisan advantage, (by all sides). I have no confidence in our leaders, or the system that produces them.
Through that, I will try to:
stay focused.
As hard as it is to admit, the Bush administration is not completely wrong about everything, though the way that they process and filter information, and then jump to conclusions seems a bit ludicrous, (and I am being generous here). Across the fence, the loyal opposition is not often anything to brag about either. It seems that they, (like the US as a whole on so many fronts), are always in a reactive or defensive mode, jumping on every perceived misstep or verbal gaffe as evidence of incompetence. They never even attempt to build a case for their arguments, proceeding as though the logic of their position is infallible and above such things. Both sides first take and defend the party line, then probe outward towards the issues at hand.
Moving on.
Vide president Cheney today defended the war in Iraq, attempting to nullify the arguments that the data that the case for invasion was faulty or (possibly) contrived. He noted that it did not matter whether Saddam had WMD's or not, he had a record of barbarism against his people and a demonstrated willingness to use chemical and biological weapons in the field.
So what?
I think Saddam is a low level scumbag, but he mistreated only his own people, (and, on some occasions, a few Iranians). As crass as it sounds, it is up to them to defend themselves and to overthrow the regime that oppresses them. The situation we have today is not a lot better for the Iraqi people, and a lot worse for us. Saddam kept Iran in check, (so we don't have to); the best we can hope for now is the imposition of a new militarist regime in Iraq that is opposed to Iran's dominance. Fat chance.
These arguments fail to differentiate between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Many see them as being the same thing, but they are not. Were the war in Iraq to end today, with an outcome favorable to the administration, I fear that the legitimate war on terrorism would suddenly become a null issue, much to our detriment.
On an different, but slightly related front, Ynet, a Jewish daily published this report. The gist of the article is that the PM of Israel as well as the Palestinian leader are in a position now of mutual dependence, and that the opportunities to advance the peace process between Israel and Palestine are now as ripe as thay have been.
A peace between the Palestinians and Israeli's would go a long way towards defusing much of the tension and motivation to violence in the Islamic world. I wonder if the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and the other interested economic/political entities in the world would actively support such a peace were it to be agreed upon. This situation will not end with a treaty, it will require support and nurture for a long time, (if for no other reason than to negate the efforts of those opposed to Israel at all costs to undermine such an arrangement).
OK, would one of either of you reading this comment some time? Its lonely typing all this stuff and watching it disappear into the black hole of cyberspace.
update: As I type this, the President & Mrs. Bush are laying a wreath at 'Ground Zero', in commemoration of the anniversary of the attacks. They are accompanied by all manner of dignitaries. I cannot help but notice that all are Republican.
Nothing is sacred. There is nothing that will not be exploited for partisan advantage, (by all sides). I have no confidence in our leaders, or the system that produces them.
Through that, I will try to:
stay focused.
posted by eccentric recluse at 9:55 AM
2 Comments:
I think the Onion puts it best: "NYC Unveils 9/11 Memorial Hole".
There is probably more truth there than many would admit. I cannot help but think that after five years we would see more of the new construction than we have. I don't know, perhaps financing is a problem, what with the economy and all...
Post a Comment
<< Home