The joy of politics

I log into Yahoo and take a glance at the news tab. I am bombarded with this:

  • Bush Shows Impatience With Iraq but Optimism on Korea (The New York Times)
  • Bush Offers Prospect of Deal with N. Korea (Reuters)
  • Bush job approval lowest since 9/11 (USA TODAY)
  • Bush: N. Korea May Get Aid if It Disarms (AP)
  • 'Sick and Tired' Bush Warns Iraq Time Running Out

    That's just not cool. >_< Of course, my Bush-loving friends would just write my disgust off as being hasty and biased. So, against my better instincts, I decided to peruse through a few of the articles. Interesting bits were to be found in all, nothing that served to allay my fears of certain impending doom at the hands of the government, but interesting nonetheless.

    One article in particular entitled "The New American Empire?" was so intent on walking a tightrope between liberals and conservatives that it was almost comic to watch it's teettering back and forth. I suppose the author either truly has no opinion of their own, or they keep it to to their damn self lest they be attacked by those who hold differing views. Tsk.

    "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own." These words were apparently spoken by John Quincy Adams in 1821. Very pretty words they are, and very idealistic.

    Of course, the actions of present day America tend to go more by George Washington's mantra: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world . . . ," adding that the nation could prudently enter "temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." A convenient little number, which pretty much insinuates that if we need you, we'll be more than happy to be your buddy. Of course, when your men are dead right along with ours, and the fight is over, go the hell on about your way, and don't even think about calling us for anything. It's still a bit too harsh and politically incorrect for us now, though.

    '"We clearly have it within our means . . . to lift billions and billions of people around the world into the global middle class," Clinton declared in 1998.' Also a very nice sentiment. Too bad the majority of Americans don't give two whoops in Hell about the rest of the world, particularly the impoverished. We tend to avoid them like the plague. How many people do you know who take vacations to 3rd world countries without running water? Especially if the country isn't at least a tropical paradise, but I digress...

    Just to add a little more flavor to the mix, a bit of speech from the Bush Doctrine: 'What must be done, says the doctrine, is to "adapt the concept of imminent threat" to the capabilities of today's most likely adversaries: not other great powers but rogue states and terrorists, who conceal their weapons, deliver them covertly, and target civilian noncombatants. "The reason for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just," the doctrine asserts.'

    I feel that the best summation of the sentiments of the hour can be found by combining the four. You'll get something like this: "We clearly have it within our means to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. We are the champion only of our own, and it is our true policy, to steer clear of any permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, only exception being extraordinary emergencies. What must be done, will be done- mostly by our labeling anything that bothers us as an imminent threat and whomping the living hell out of the source of said threat. The reason for our actions will be clear (because we can), the force measured (just enough nukes so not to obliterate any neighboring uninvolved territory), and the cause just (to us, of course). And if you don't like it, billions and billions of people around the world can kiss our collective red, white, and blue ass."

    That sounds about right to me. Oh, and one other thing: '"The United States does not have territorial ambitions, or ambitions to control other people," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told U.S. News.' That's pretty rich, considering it is human nature to dominate and control. What will happen if we actually do go to war with Iraq and North Korea, and win? Will we leave them defeated, go back to minding our own business and not bother to assert any of our influence in "re-building" the areas? I highly doubt it. I don't think we'll end up adding two more stars to the flag, but I don't think we'll leave the second comings of those two countries untouched by our desire to "touch" the world, either.

    Don't get me wrong. I do love my country. Primarily because in most other places, I'd be in front of a firing squad tomorrow at sun-up for posting this. I just don't care much for the schoolyard bully behavior of those currently in power.

    And what the hell ever happened to Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden? Did they go out of style or something?

    <--- Back to Writings