From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 20:06:08 MDT
On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 05:14 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> --- spike66 <spike66@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> This morning's San Jose Mercury News ran a huge front
>> page article on a Guatemalan teenager in a local hospital
>> being treated for leukemia, and his parents struggles
>> to get a visa to come visit him. Next to that is a
>> huge 2 page article on Larry Ellison's attempt to
>> capture the America's Cup, and how evil he is for
>> pouring so much filthy lucre into that adventure.
>>
>> On page 17, near the bottom left, a 3 sentence
>> article reporting the seizure of the uranium.
>
> Of course, its no new thing. The biased media doesn't want the public
> getting the idea that there might be, in fact, a clear and present
> danger in the presence of Iraq. While one would think that this is news
> of stupendous importance, tipping the balance toward our going to war
> as much as the Zimmerman Note once did, those who are against us doing
> so would like to bury it as much as possible if they can't get away
> with not reporting it at all, as my local disinformation rag did.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
There are tens of thousands of people marching against war,
preemptively. There are fewer marching, back and forth from podiums,
for it.
Iraq didn't mean jack last year.
News flash: a country in the Middle East has nuclear weapons, and uses
tanks on its or others' unarmed civilians. Ppbblblbl.
Anyways, about the administration's dropping an Iraq bell over the media
and banging it with a hammer, it seems politically motivated, I'm going
to call it politically motivated. It's political maneuvering at
ugliness. It might be about oil, in which case it's also about
corruption.
I'm not an expert on Iraq, but I'm pretty sure that after the actual
Gulf War Hussein had no further plans to invade other countries in the
Middle East, nor to support violence against the American people. That
is to say, Iraq is not a threat comparable to economic failure. They're
interested in making a buck and having a decent life and not interested
in killing women at the World Trade Center.
Whoever was behind the World Trade Center attacks, regardless of them
and who they were, the administration has readily changed its course to
politically utilize the aftermath of those attacks to further its ends,
which are not the end-all, be-all of protecting the U.S.A. It was happy
to change that course because before the attacks the infidel-in-thief
(chimp-in-brief, mint-in-grief) was seen more easily as a corrupt
smoke-blowing silver-spooned Daddy's boy oil-grubbed flop-kicking
wanna-be West Texas hick, which he may well be. Their ratings simply
aren't that high, even now.
Don't get me wrong, Clin-ton sold out too much to the Chinese. At least
the economy was good on paper.
War is hell, buddy.
Anyways, humanity is better served by America being a good country than
a dune bully.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:20 MST