Subject: Aggressive Neal Returns
I'm a Bart addict, so don't take my ranting the
I enjoy a good tangle.
I'm stuck on the Iraq Attack vote because I called
Hilary's office the day before it to tell
my Senator not to vote for it. I talked
to a staffer about how 1) Bush clearly would invade
unless stopped, 2) that the Use of Force vote
was the Congress' one chance to stop him and
3) if not stopped, the unjustified attack would
be a crime of the first order.
Did the staffer tell me that the Senator had a
different opinion? Did he tell me that the Senator
believed that Bush would not invade? Did
he tell me that the Senator believed that the vote
would be merely "defensive" in nature and would
not actually authorize the use of force?
He told me she was still undecided but that calls
from constituents were running "1000 to 1" against.
I hung up figuring that Hil wouldn't dare buck
the instructions of all those New York voters.
I was wrong.
Wait, do you credit Hillary for ignoring the polls or condemn her for
But haven't you changed your position again?
According to you now, Congress had nothing to do with
authorizing the attack. They're
just a powerless advisory body under our post-911 constitution anyway,
I suppose. So it hardly matters whether
or not any of them were fooled by a scary CIA briefing about
robot planes into believing that an invasion
was justified. They never acted in any culpable way.
They therefore can't share any guilt for aggressive
war, regardless of whether they were fooled or not.
Only Bush, their superior, is to blame.
You're trying to trick me, aren't you?
Not sure what that underlined part means, but wouldn't we both agree
that Bush was going to invade,
with or without congress, with or without the UN, with or without the
support of regular Americans.
The little bastard had a hardon for war and he wasn't going to stop
until he got what he wanted.
If you want me to say the Dems are too eager to please Bush, I might
but the life and death thing looks like they made a mistake, not a
(Diane Feinstein, call your office!)
But you and I knew that Bush was going in -- and
that the Iraq Attack vote was the last chance for
Congress to stop him. We knew they were
giving the Monkey a big green light to invade by approving
the Iraq Attack resolution. Can it be that
we had better sources of information than our Senators?
This isn't on the main page because - it's long and we're re-covering
the same ground.
Bush had the most info and the senate had more than we did.
By the way, to you "no one knew for sure that
Saddam didn't still have a little degraded Sarin"
is equivalent to "everyone knew for sure that
Saddam did still have a little degraded Sarin"?
Certainty from uncertainty, eh? Maybe we
both need to type first, drink later.
When I get confused by a long-ass, run-on sentence, I take all pairs
of negatives out.
Works like a charm.
Anyway, the point is, a little degraded Sarin,
or a few robot planes, would not justify invasion.
By Koresh, I think we've made a breakthru.
Suddenly, we're actually debating the issue - 'scuse me while
I clutch my pearls.
OK, here we go: Let's say I agree with that statement in bold.
Would four drones with a 1/4 kilo of Sarin make us invade?
If not, would a dozen drones with 2 kilos each?
What about 250 drones with ten kilo warheads?
My friend, I believe it is you that has fallen into the trap.
may be forced to admit there are circumstances that even you,
might vote for a pre-emptive strike depending on how deadly you
perceived the threat to be.
And what if people who knew a lot less about the matter attacked you
calling you all kinds of vile names because you
knew more about the subject than they did?
I'm keeping the size 11 as a souvenir.
(Yes, I'll vote for Hillary if she's nominated.)
Dude, thanks for taking all that "in the spirit."