9.19.2002

from your favorite president and mine:
"It's a chance for Congress to say, 'We support the administration's ability to keep the peace.' That's what this is all about."

ok, so let me get this straight:
if saddam decides to have bombs, he is not being peaceful, but if "our" government decides to go into a country that hasn't made any direct moves of aggression in an area already dealing with all sorts of unrest, then we are "keeping the peace." that makes perfect sense.

is our country really this stupid? i'm worried that it is. where are all the protests against these actions? first of all, why aren't people protesting against going into iraq at all? i mean, i've sent letters to my representatives, but i don't feel there's any outlet to do more. more importantly, however, why aren't we freaking out about shrub's obvious power-grab? and he calls saddam a dictator!

from the same article:
With a rift among members of the U.N. Security Council slowing action on a tough new resolution against Iraq, Bush laid down a clear marker and made clear his growing impatience.

"his growing impatience"? what? so, the un should move a) as quickly as shrub wants them to and b) in the direction that he wants them to? what is happening?

and more:
"The United Nations Security Council must work with the United States and Britain and other concerned parties to send a clear message that we expect Saddam to disarm, and if the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of its friends will," he said.

huh? why is he giving the un directions? plus, the whole "if you don't do it, them we will" thing is straight off a third-grade playground. why does this country, and shrub in particular, think it has the right to decide what is right for the world? i mean, i understand having input, but not absolute say.

but this is the best:
With the chief U.N. arms inspector, Hans Blix, expected to meet Iraqi officials on Sept. 30 in Vienna to discuss practical aspects of how inspections will work, Bush sounded a skeptical note.
"First of all, there are no negotiations to be held with Iraq. They have nothing to negotiate. They're the people who said that they would not have weapons of mass destruction. The negotiations are over. It is up to the U.N. Security Council to lay out resolutions that confirm what Iraq has already agreed to, see," he said.

iraq has nothing to negotiate? how do you know they have weapons of mass desctruction? how can he simply declare, "the negotiations are over?" this is beyond ridiculous.

if there's a march on washington to protest, believe me, i'll be on the first plane out there.

posted by Lynne 1:28:00 PM