[CLUE-Talk] a new note in the usa/iraq tune

[Nate Duehr]

On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 11:16 America/Denver, Joe 'Zonker' 
Brockmeier wrote:

Very well written, Z.  I feel similarly to you, about the recent events 
and information coming out, although I think the lying is maybe even 
more immoral considering we supported Iraq's government (actually 
helped place Saddam in power) long ago and many of the people involved 
in doing that are part of the current Administration.  You mentioned 
Rumsfeld, but wasn't George Sr. involved also?  I'm fuzzy on that 
timeline.

In addition, it's pretty well documented that George Sr. never forgave 
Saddam and his regime for threatening his life, and blood is thicker 
than water.  I think family ties also influenced the decision to 
invade.  Son making dad "proud" and all that.  But there's never be any 
way to "prove" that gut feeling, and we'll never know what father-son 
issues are involved there...

I still have far more respect for George Sr. than George Jr. -- At 
least Sr. both was a WWII vet and statesman before heading CIA and then 
becoming President.  Jr. was a slacker student at Yale and Harvard on 
grandpa's money (C average, even though money issues were no problem), 
snorted cocaine in college with his rich buddies (and now panders to 
the "war on drugs" but not too often...), went AWOL from his service 
post, and ran at least one company into the ground (fully knowing that 
he had the family money to back him even if all his employees 
suffered), before becoming President.

It's truly frightening that the American public is so easily swayed 
that we'd ever elect such a person to run our country.  Truly 
disgusting, really.  I know full-well that the majority of the reason 
he's in the job is his family contacts, and quite frankly, am realistic 
about that -- who hasn't gotten a job because of "someone they know"?  
But I'm amazed that approximately half of our country could believe 
that someone so dishonorable should be in the highest political 
position in the land.

I do disagree with your analysis in one portion of your message:

> Put the pieces together Randy. The Bush administration has been the 
> most
> secretive and anti-rights administration since Nixon. They don't seem 
> to care
> much for the will of the people (Bush has said as much, when saying 
> that it
> didn't matter how many people protested the war with Iraq). The 
> administration
> is full of people who subscribe to the ideology that we have to 
> establish a
> presence in the middle east -- what better place, then, than Iraq? It 
> was the
> most logical country to pick a fight with.

We already have a presence in the Middle East.  We have military bases 
in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.  We are not "establishing" a presence, 
we're EXPANDING that presence.  From a historical standpoint, it will 
be seen as U.S. policy swinging back toward Imperialism during this 
Administration more than any time since the "annexation" of the Western 
U.S. from Mexico.

This type of Imperialistic maneuvering tells other world powers (China) 
that they can "get away with it" also, in some twisted fashion 
long-term.  They'll just point and say "they did it, and we're not 
allowed to?".

I tend to be a centrist, before someone jumps me for being partisan.  I 
wouldn't want someone who had the title "Democrat" in the job with the 
exact same background as Dubya either.  The man is a disgrace to the 
position.

Nate Duehr, nate at natetech.com