licentious radio

Saturday, January 25, 2003
[10:56:23 PM]

The New York Times editorial board is *not* completely insane about Iraq. Thomas Friedman *is* completely insane about Iraq.

Friedman lays out the crucial post-war unknown: After "liberation" is Iraq a happy party country, or is more like Bosnia, except with more factions? Friedman pretends there is no evidence. In fact, there is some: look at the Kurdish area. Endless war. How can Friedman write an article on this subject without mentioning the constant fighting in northern Iraq? What has happened in other Arab/Islamic states when central authority broke down -- Lebanon and Afghanistan, for example? Ignoring direct evidence that relates to his question makes him seem unprofessional and/or a propagandist.

But the insanity lies in Friedman's suggestion that *if* Iraq became a model democracy, *that* would justify war, launched by the United States, today. Let's say 100,000 people are killed by US bombers in Friedman's war for model democracy. I do not argue against Iraqi democracy as a fine fantasy. I won't even speculate whether 100,000 dead Iraqis would be less bad than Saddam continuing in power. But I will state absolutely that it is not *our* place to murder Iraqis by the tens of thousands in order to have the chance of democracy there someday.

Thomas Friedman is not welcome in my presence. Thomas, are you going to be on the front line with an assault rifle, a gas mask, and a shovel to bury Iraqi teenagers? How many Iraqi teenagers are you ready to kill -- personally -- with your rifle and your bayonet? Then shut the fuck up.

The NYT editors are more practical than Friedman. Starting this war without international consensus -- without just about *every* country agreed to the clear necessity -- is tremendously stupid, for example. There's no exit strategy. Maybe it's worth it if 100 Americans die, but what if 1,000 Americans are dead, and the Iraqis are still fighting? Americans are against a unilateral war, even if there are *no* US casualties. If we see body counts of twenty Americans every day for a period of weeks, support for the war is likely to disappear. Bush has not made a case to support that kind of war.

The NYT editors think nothing of Iraqi casualties. They dance completely around the central issue, which is that the United States must go to war *only* as a last resort, in case of emminent, catastrophic danger. That Saddam might do something bad someday is justification for taking all kinds of actions, but not for full-scale military invasion, conquest, and political administration.

This, of course, is the opposite of Bush's new doctrine of war "any place, any time, with us or against us." We, the people of the United States, repudiate that doctrine, along with our friends and family around the world.

[4:16:43 PM]
Kerry is right to tell Bush not to rush to war. Democrats should *demand* this.

As the San Francisco Hearst paper's editorial put it: "It's imperative that war be only a last resort. This drastic step will require damning evidence of an imminent threat and a broad alliance of international support. So far, Washington has produced neither."

Bush's tantrums and diplomatic disasters prove he is unfit to lead the United States in a time of crisis. He no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. Democrats, American citizens, the US military, and our allies should all work together to stop Bush's sociopathic war-making.

[3:25:34 PM]
After yesterday's story about Iraq preparing to use chemical weapons, today's story is about the US preparing to use nuclear weapons. Coincidence?

[12:27:43 PM]
LaunchDaveWiner.org spokesperson Leonard Nimoy announced partial victory today: "There turned out to be some problems with sending Dave into orbit. The cost was one -- we raised a total of $83.68, somewhat short of the $40 million needed. But we *have* managed to send Dave to Harvard. It's still pretty far away, and he'll be there a lot longer, so we believe our four contributors will all be pleased."

[11:34:25 AM]
Figure Graham would stand a good chance of winning Florida, running for President. Sadly, he's going in for heart surgery. That's rough on the body. It could be more than six months before he's up to campaigning. Would Florida go for Democrats with Graham running for VP? (Assuming Jeb lets blacks vote, and votes are skewed less than 10% to Republicans....)

[11:12:01 AM]
At licentious radio, we're all *big-time* fans of Title IX. Young women in excellent physical condition who know how to use their bodies.... This is our idea of heaven.

Oh, yes, ueber-patriarchy may be easier -- keep women barefoot, slap them around if they get out of hand. But it's sick. And it's no fun.

Give us Title IX women, ~~any~~ every day -- ripping their shirts off after the game!

[11:03:04 AM]
I looked up that UN resolution on Iraq (search Google). After it goes through "you gotta let us look *everywhere*" it says or there'll be "serious consequences."

"Serious consequences." This is like when you're a teenager and your mother says to take out the trash or there'll be "serious consequences, young man." And you keep talking to your girl-friend on the phone, and suddenly the US military is laying waste to Iraq. And you're all, like, "Wo! Dude, I'm sorry! I didn't think she meant 'US military lays waste to Iraq' when she said I'd better take out the trash."

Nothing in that resolution says "lay waste to Iraq." The Republican Corporate Media has just sort of forgotten that Little George's "authority" to invade Iraq doesn't exist.

The whacko war-mongers pretend that since they were allowed to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, they are allowed to conquer Iraq any time they feel like it. Of course, now they have a slightly more refined message: "we can lay waste to anybody -- any place, any time."

You know, even *Hitler* felt like he had to phony up a direct attack by Poland on Germany before he could just lay waste to Poland. ...Not saying Bush *won't* phony up an attack by Iraq, mind you, but I'm saying he doesn't seem to think he needs an *actual* provocation before starting a war.

There's a way out. El Stupido's tiny group of ueber-war-mongers doesn't really represent all of the Republican Elite. Poppy, for example, went to great lengths to *build* coalitions, not destroy them. All it would take is for the Republican Corporate Media to stop propagandizing *for* W., and come out strongly against the war. The Democrats in Congress will almost all be against the war as soon as they think it won't ruin their re-election chances. Enough Republicans would come to their senses so that it would be clear that a total of *eight* people in the government are for the war.

Some dirt could turn up about Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Cheney would be an easy fall-guy. He "vetted" all the Republican would-be VPs -- then screwed them by giving the job to himself. "Vet" means they revealed their dirty secrets to Cheney. Lots of Republicans would be glad to see Cheney go.

W. would have to give up his war. He could pardon his crooked cronies and lose the primaries so he doesn't get impeached. The Democrats take over and put the economy back on track. Poppy's gang has already bought up all the companies killed in the Greenspan/Junior recession, so they stand to gain hundreds of billions of dollars from economic recovery.

Junior's unilateralist stupidity would be repudiated and replaced with cooperation and prosperity, and in 2012 they run another coup d'etat to do it all over again.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is what will happen. I'm sure they really, really want that oil. But this scenario would be a way out of the immediate situation. And Saddam isn't going to live forever. Whoever takes over Iraq after Saddam is going to need a lot of help.