Gservo
29th January 2003, 07:03 PM
I dont know how many people saw the US state of the union address, but it hurt me, I cant beleive... wait i will keep that thought to myself, all i have to say is, we do live in intresting times...
By Steve Grants
The Hand Puppet’s State Of The Union Address isn’t up for nine hours, so I’ve got no idea whether we’re at war with Iraq this morning or not. His minions have been out full force for the last week reiterating the equation over and over that "War on Terrorism = War on Iraq" (I thought it equaled "War on Drugs," or was that last year? Maybe we should just factor out all the dissonant elements and simply it to "War = War = War," which I’m sure everyone can agree on) without actually offering up any proof except their word that they’ve got it. Well, tonight (my real time, not yours) we’ll see if he actually trots it out. No less than Gen. Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf, the hero of Kuwait, recently said in The Washington Post: "The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay? Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information." Considering a number of pundits have been echoing a rationale I’ve been hearing burbling out of Washington for weeks now _ stated with nice concision by ultra-rightist commentator Robert Novak on CNN’s THE CAPITAL GANG (Saturday 8PM Pacific): "They want a war as a manifestation of U.S. power in the world and as a sign that the United States is capable of changing the balance of power and the political map of the Middle East... [The handful of empty shells are] ...being used as a pretext for a decision that's already been made at high levels of the U.S. government to change the government in Iraq. It has nothing to do with, boy, we're -- we are really worried about these little chemical warheads that's going to cause a holocaust in the Middle East." _ and taking into account the considerable documentation outlining a high-level push toward An American Empire that well predates the 9-11 attacks, taking our president at his word may not be the wisest course of action. But White House press secretary has indicated the administration feels to best way to deal with drastically declining public support for a war on Iraq is to start one, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the Hand Puppet uses the State Of The Union Address to start one, and damn the torpedoes.
I still can’t believe the president pissed away the incredible Q-rating the USA had on the world stage following 9-11. Virtually the entire world was backing us. A visionary could’ve used that sentiment to pursue some real international progress. Instead, if reports from abroad are any more believable than our president, even our allies are witnessing the highest peak of anti-American sentiment in living history. Don’t tell me Lex Luthor doesn’t make a better president...
By Steve Grants
The Hand Puppet’s State Of The Union Address isn’t up for nine hours, so I’ve got no idea whether we’re at war with Iraq this morning or not. His minions have been out full force for the last week reiterating the equation over and over that "War on Terrorism = War on Iraq" (I thought it equaled "War on Drugs," or was that last year? Maybe we should just factor out all the dissonant elements and simply it to "War = War = War," which I’m sure everyone can agree on) without actually offering up any proof except their word that they’ve got it. Well, tonight (my real time, not yours) we’ll see if he actually trots it out. No less than Gen. Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf, the hero of Kuwait, recently said in The Washington Post: "The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay? Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information." Considering a number of pundits have been echoing a rationale I’ve been hearing burbling out of Washington for weeks now _ stated with nice concision by ultra-rightist commentator Robert Novak on CNN’s THE CAPITAL GANG (Saturday 8PM Pacific): "They want a war as a manifestation of U.S. power in the world and as a sign that the United States is capable of changing the balance of power and the political map of the Middle East... [The handful of empty shells are] ...being used as a pretext for a decision that's already been made at high levels of the U.S. government to change the government in Iraq. It has nothing to do with, boy, we're -- we are really worried about these little chemical warheads that's going to cause a holocaust in the Middle East." _ and taking into account the considerable documentation outlining a high-level push toward An American Empire that well predates the 9-11 attacks, taking our president at his word may not be the wisest course of action. But White House press secretary has indicated the administration feels to best way to deal with drastically declining public support for a war on Iraq is to start one, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the Hand Puppet uses the State Of The Union Address to start one, and damn the torpedoes.
I still can’t believe the president pissed away the incredible Q-rating the USA had on the world stage following 9-11. Virtually the entire world was backing us. A visionary could’ve used that sentiment to pursue some real international progress. Instead, if reports from abroad are any more believable than our president, even our allies are witnessing the highest peak of anti-American sentiment in living history. Don’t tell me Lex Luthor doesn’t make a better president...