.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Effortlessly Average

Sort of half-heartedly leading the charge into mediocrity since, oh, let's say around 1987 or so.

My Photo
Location: Roaming (additional charges may apply), Argentina

Proof that with internet access and a powerful laxative, even insipid people will blog; the place where your excellence and my mediocrity collide; where my Karma whips ass on your dogma.

Saturday, September 03, 2005

On Weekends We Play The Accordion

I'm a little perturbed. I'm sitting here watching coverage of Hurricane Katrina, one part of which is the White House stumping for how eager they are to help, when Bush suddenly makes a comment about the war and how we're going to "stay the course." Why is it that Bush seemingly cannot go a day without mentioning his resolve to "finish the job in Iraq?" No matter what the situation, he always squeezes in a comment that suggests we're crusaders for all that's good and just in the world and Iraq is the melting pot of world evil. And when exactly is he going to settle on the REAL reason we're even there. Let's recap the reasons we've been force fed so far.

In the beginning, there was 9/11. Saddam was an evil dictator (no argument there) who was actively aiding and sponsoring radical groups who would seek to do us harm, including the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Remember Bush and his staff standing at the podium brandishing so-called proof that the 9/11 attackers had been in contact with Saddam? Remember their insisting Iraq was funding them? Then do you remember the intense investigation that revealed no, in fact there was no proof he'd done either?

Next was the weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was a man bent on using chemical and biological weapons and, God forbid, had embarked Iraq on an active course to obtain nuclear weapons (and by the way, if Bush pronounces it "nuculer" one more time I'm going to scream). Another investigation ensued, but nope, no WMDs were located. Remember the White House insisting technology and documents had been found that proved Saddam was seeking to acquire or develop WMDs? Remember Bush and Rumsfeld claiming that investigators had found large aluminum tubing used in the WMD (read, nuclear) process? Remember the site they claim to have found that was being developed into a nuclear accelerator? Or the power plants that were supposedly being converted to process enriched uranium? After repeated pressure from the media and public to produce something concrete that showed the WMD program, the White House reverted to it's typical sanctimonious, pat-the-public-on-the-head, "we know what's best" approach but in the end had to admit WMDs may, in fact, have never existed.

Then we heard "he's a threat to security for the region" and the Administration started claiming we're in Iraq because Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region and we needed to deal with it. Except the only way you can claim that Saddam's unpredictability had to be addressed would be to insist that his removal would create stability. Has it? Is there anyone outside the administration who believes Iraq is safer or more stable now than it was when Saddam was in power? If anything the cowboyish, flip-the-bird-at-the-world approach Bush uses as his foreign relations policy has drawn terrorists to Iraq from all over the globe. Except they call themselves freedom fighters, opposing the occupation of the Muslim state from the infidel invaders. The longer we're there, the more it appears to the Arab world that we're planning to stay permanently. Have you heard it referred to by Arabs as a new "Crusade by the Christian invaders?" I have.

Now we have the latest incarnation of why we're fighting in Iraq. Not WMDs or Saddam's support for terrorists or said leaders destabilizing effect on the region (if that's justification for war, I guess we'll be heading off to North Korea, Iran, the Kashmir, and any number of African nations just as soon as we've "planted the seed of democracy" in Iraq). No, now we're told we're there because if we pull out it'll leave all those vast oil fields in the hands of terrorists. I gotta hand it to him, Bush has figured out a way to tie the war to the sudden, recent spike in gas prices. His plan, I can only surmise, is to insinuate that if the U.S. doesn't "finish the job" in Iraq, gas will remain this high-priced forever. Way to go, you elitist frat boy, claim that you're continuing this lunacy is a valiant effort to lower the price of gas (which, by the way is NOT due to an actual shortage, it's due to a shortage that's perceived to happen at some point in the future).

But enough of my ranting. On to the point of today's entry. I heard once that there are hundreds of groups classified as at risk by the State Department. Not all can be on the same level as Al Qaida though, can they? Some have got to fairly harmless, right? So here's my list of harmless terror groups:

* Abu Nidal Ladies Muffin Club
* Hamas and Garfunkel
* The Log Cabin Martyrs Brigade
* MujahaDianetics
* Gene Loves Hezbollah
* The Al Axsa Coffee Clutch
* Al Jarreau
* Basalmic Jihad

and my favorite,

* Weird Al Qaida

- The Number of People Stunned by My Mediocrity