Saturday, September 14, 2002

This is precisely why we have a second ammendment. (Courtesy of Hot Right-wing Chick)

Friday, September 13, 2002

It looks to me like The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler and James Lileks get it, while the New York Times editorial board remains serially clueless. President Bush's U.N. speech wasn't in any way a concession to the multilateralists. If you think about it the crux of his speech amounted to this: "Saddam Hussein has been mocking you multilateralist pansies for the last ten years. Because you haven't been been able to strap on a set of testies for the last ten years and do something about it, he's gotten to the point where he might eventually pose an actual threat. You can whine and bitch all you want about us actually making any move to resolve the situation but we're really going to give you two choices: strap on said testies and resolve the matter, or shut the f**k up while we do." This, of course, is viewed as a breakthrough for their position in Europe and the New York Times newsroom.
Well, today's Times has a really silly piece by Nicholas Kristof harping about how President Bush didn't offer any new evidence to indict Saddam to the U.N., yesterday. Specifically, he says

President Bush yesterday offered an eloquent, forceful and overdue call for the U.N. to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.

Just one problem: He cited no evidence of any immediate threat, no reason that invading Iraq is any more urgent today than it was in, say, 2000, when Mr. Bush as a candidate huffed and puffed about Saddam but never shared with voters any plans for an invasion.

For months there have been hints about intelligence that the administration supposedly has gathered about an imminent Iraqi threat and about links to terrorism. So it was deflating to hear again that Saddam is a monster whose regime tortures children in front of parents. All true — as it was a decade ago.

So, eh..., Nick, we know that, in addition to being a bad man, Saddam Hussein is trying to get nukes, and just doesn't have 'em yet. Let me guess, you're saying that we should hold off on doing anything against Iraq until after we find that he can drop a couple of megatons on New York, Riyahd, or Tel Aviv. I'm not an expert on military science, but it kinda seems to me we might be risking a little more blood and treasure in that case. I mean saying lets not war against Iraq is one thing, but saying wait until he has a chance to catch up is another.

Tuesday, September 10, 2002

As many of you may know, I'm a Churchill fan. I found a great site that provides a few WSC quotes that seem especially apt in light of the War on Terror:

"... the United States, united as never before, have drawn the sword for freedom and cast away the scabbard."
-Speech, 26th December, 1941

"Not so easily shall the lights of freedom die".
-Broadcast to the US, 16th June, 1941

"Silly people -- and there were many, not only in enemy countries -- might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before -- that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate". Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."
-"The Second World War", Volume 3, "The Grand Alliance"

"We shall have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst--and we will do our best. Perhaps it will be our turn soon. Perhaps it will be our turn now." Possibly my personal favorite
- Speech, 14th July 1941. See "The Unrelenting Struggle"

Stephen DenBeste has an interesting article up on his website. Its a reply to a question in asking why Israel isn't included on a list of the U.S.'s allies. His response boils down to arguing that they are a client state (no less a friend, but not enough of an equal) to be truly considered an ally. As DenBeste sees is the U.S.'s true allies are Canada, Australia, and the U.K. In general, I think he's right. After years of whinging leftism, I'd consider New Zealand as coming around, though. As has been noted thoughout the Blogosphere, these have been about the only "allies" that have really given us any consistent level of assistance in the wake of 9/11.

Sunday, September 08, 2002

Sorry to disagree with you Kim (Okay not really...), but this post from Cold Fury comes a little closer to capturing my particular emotional reaction to the 9/11 anniversary.
Bill and I have been talking about what we will do to commemorate 9/11.

Regardless of the rest of what we do, this is how I’m starting:

When the attack occurred I lived close enough to see the smoke from my apartment window, feel the dust for days if not weeks. To see the first of the emergency vehicles race down our avenue. Literally smell the wreckage. Watch the rescue workers trudge up the street covered in god knows what. Close enough to feel frustrated and guilty about how little help I could render –so close yet so nearly useless. I watched missing posters wallpaper the city. I saw people’s faces crumble as they recognized those they knew on those signs. I started keeping a diary so I would never forget the details.

Here’s a small fraction:

I remember helping a young man light candles when he was so grief stricken he couldn’t initially bring himself to do so. Then watching his face change as he went ahead and began lighting as many as he could find. Other people supporting his release – pulling candles and matches out of their pockets for him. A woman starting to sing a hymn, others joining in and afterwards a group of Krishna’s dancing and singing for us. Celebrating that we were all lovers of New York, human, grieving, confused and loving - together. Diverse in ideology – magical together.

I remember a handsome man, Bill, coming up and giving me a candle at a vigil. And, at that moment, as we mourned together in the dark, finally, after months of dating, letting myself open my heart completely to him.

I’ll always love Gregory, my beautiful cousin’s baby conceived because his parents were able to come home and comfort each other. These are some of the things I thought of when I held him in my arms the first time.

A friend of mine choreographed a dance piece for a fallen friend. Which moved and comforted the grieving parents so very much.

And so much more…

So much to mourn. And to celebrate. Just a few more examples of both.

I’ll honor the tragedy by remembering the miracles.