...I admire you. Seriously, I do. I think there's no other being on this little tiny ball of mud who was blessed with less intelligence and political skill, yet with more influence than you. Or maybe you're just an idiot with tons of luck. Who is to tell? Not me.
Sources
I frequently read through the politics sections of the following newspapers and refer to or quote from:
...it's been a while, how are you? But why do I even bother to ask, with things being what they are?
You 'won' the war in Iraq, you 'won' the elections, your dear friend and Secretary of State, Mr Powell, is doing his fact-magic again (this time on Iran, for change's sake) -- you have to be in a total state of excitement.
While you were busy fighting the evil-doers in Iraq - well, not you personally, but war's such an effort, right, and even you can't be everywhere at the same time! - and freeing the free and civilized world of another threateningly powerful dictator with access to weapons of mass destruction - well, no, actually there's still no findings of those along Mr Hussein's possessions, but who cares, right? - I first was too stunned and then too busy with my own political education to post much.
While you were busy fighting Mr Kerry in the past months, I was too busy with my Chinese vocabulary to bother commenting. I never had any doubts that you would prevail anyways, you had 4 years to prepare a less obvious variation of 'Operation: Presidency' after all.
But now you're doing it again. Or, technically speaking, Mr Powell is; same difference to me, though. I am, of course, referring to him 'accidentally' bad-mouthing other countries by stating they'd be manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, or at least parts for that. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times had articles about Mr Powell claiming oh-so-great information, while your own intelligence agencies seem to tell everyone and their cat that the source is a first-timer and the info not verified. But I guess I shouldn't be complaining; after all, at least your agencies seem to have learned something from what happened down in Iraq...
...you seem to be having that attitude problem again! I'm sorry I was silent for such a long time, but I was kinda busy following other things. However, today this here caught my eye when checking my online NYTimes.
It goes like this:
"The Bush administration, which had barred concessions to North Korea before it dismantled its nuclear weapons program, is now considering some conciliatory steps. In return, North Korea would have to either fully disclose its weapons or allow international inspectors into the country, administration officials said today."
Maybe it's just a bad way of words on account of the Times, but I daresay they've been in that business too long to let such a faux-pas happen.
What I'm talking about is that arrogance spread all over that simple paragraph. You feel like "granting" something to Korea, a sovereign state, but in return they'll have to allow international inspectors or "fully disclose" their weapons? I mean, who are you to command a sovereign country to do anything at all? Did it even ever occur to you that being sovereign could mean they're out of your chain of commands?
I mean, just imagine if they're like: "Uhm, no, we're not going to do either, go fuck off!" Then what? Are you going to try and threaten them? With invasion? With bombs?? I daresay that they've made it rather clear what would happen if you try the bully-tactics that you're usually applying ... and they do have the bomb y'know...
So why don't you just go outside, play hide and go ... well ... no, you're doing that already every other day I guess...
...and the crowd goes wild! So it's Iran, hum?
The New York Times noted today, that the U.S. was "concerned that Iran has stepped up its covert nuclear program(...)" and was now "(...)pressing nations that sit on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees peaceful nuclear programs, to declare that Iran has violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty(...)"
So they might be building nukes.
I think I can't stress the possibility factor hard enough on an online board such as this, even more so after what happened - and still happens - in Iraq.
"Such a finding could lead to punitive action by the United Nations, adding pressure on Iran, which is already nervous about American troops in Iraq, the officials said." No shit Sherlock. As a country which doesn't exactly match the "100%-Bush-friendly-and-admiring-him-completely" party, I'd have the living shit scared outta me if your warhounds were at the ready right on the other side of my door - and my door's that wide open. In fact, even if it was the standard vault door taken from a bank and if it was sealed shut, I'd still wet my pants...
I so hope I'm wrong, but it seems that my guesses in my post on 3/19/2003 were not that bad after all. Maybe I should send notes of condolensces to the Iranian people already ... and while I'm at it, why not set some up for the Syrians and the people of Libya?!
Damnit, George, c'mon, are you that daft a prick or have you just lost the entire rest of your anyways-tiny spine and finally follow Daddy's buddies' orders without any thought or criticism?
NYT also states that "while the North Korea situation has received more public attention recently, in part because it has acknowledged its nuclear ambitions, administration officials said that Iran was an equally urgent problem because its program is further along than previously thought."
Let me re-phrase that for the public: You're scared shitless and burnt your fingers when your North Korean buddy told you piss off or he'd let some nukes on the fly.
Isn't that it?
*sigh*
So, how long will it take to move your troops into a position from which you can win over Iran "within days" (as you already did in Iraq, heh) and "with only little to no losses" (as you already did in Iraq, heh)? Four weeks? Six, or maybe even eight? I mean, after all, your soldier's need a bit of rest, right?
...shame on you and yours! It shouldn't have come as a surprise to me, but this article on Mr Moore's website made me realise again how much your unrightful regime is based on lies and fear.
I hope that the day you get the bill for your deeds will be the day you end up facing a load of Americans telling you where to shove your oh-so-morally-right causes.
Or in more blunt and honest words: you're a daft prick!
...did you sent your guys? I clearly remember addressing you with some news about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction some days ago; yet here I am and the post is gone.
Don't make me an evil world domination conspiracy theoretic...
...war is upon you. And I mean it: it's not upon Iraq, not upon the Iraqi Republican Guard, not upon the Iraqi people; it's upon you.
Oh, of course I'm not talking about the war you're waging in the gulf region; you're all about winning there, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had the country purged of any threat to your goals by the end of April.
But what am I talking about then, if not about your new Gulf War?
Well, there'd be the "Clash of Cultures", the "War of East VS West" and other phrases that jump to my mind.
Osama bin Laden - let's assume for the time being that he actually was behind the 9-11 bombings, even though I generally doubt it - and the people behind Al Quaeda finally got what they wanted: The western world is split, the UN and its ideals have been turned into a farce by your bully attitude and finally there's yet another reason for the sceptics and dislikers of the American people and the attitude of your government to hate you even more: you've brought war to one of their countries.
Without proof, based on a patchwork of guesses and poor excuses you've invaded a country, because you deemed it necessary, because if fitted your interests.
By attacking Iraq, you've entered a spiral of violence, hatred and war that is in the best case hard to slow down - in the worst you're guilty of having started the prelude to a new World War, one that will be fueled by religious differences, religious intolerance, hatred - and all this just because you didn't have yourself and the greedy excuse of government advisors and staff under control. All this just because the idea of "bringing freedom and peace to the Iraqi people" matched so perfectly with your interests in the country's resources, with your military's interests in testing all those nifty new tools they've been creating for the past 12 years, with your definate need to "stabilize" your country's ruined economy - war's always good for the purse, even though it's only a short-time up, but hey, there is money for a time at least, right!? - and with your need of retaliating on all those who dare to oppose, criticize and work against your mission to democratize the world, regardless of the respective traditions, cultures and history.
All in all I have come to think that you're no better than Adolf Hitler was - only that he was a true psychopath (no mentally sane person could have done what he planned), an insane fucker. Do me the favor and show me that you're only a stupid fucker and not of the same (pretty questionable) class as Hitler.
There is yet time and possibility to save a lot, both regarding your country's future and the world's peace - "all you need" is showing some integrity and backbone...
...so what are you aiming at next? Since it seems that any decisions concerning Iraq are already made, what's your next aim, your next target, the next step on the stairway to a "world without evils"?
My personal route would look like this:
Iran - you're almost there anyway and they don't exactly like you a lot, so why not make this a cost-saving trip?
Syria - they're close to being the country that is said to hate you most, so obviously, that would be your next target, as you've proven that anyone who dislikes you is enough of a threat to "U.S. security" that he deserves to be bombed to Hell and back.
Libya - just for tradition's sake and because you still got to do that final shoot-out with Mr. Gaddafi (even though he's not exactly what people would call "a threat" anymore)
North Korea - even though they are said to have "the bomb" you can't possibly let them out, after all, they're part of that favourite axis of yours; plus, they already gave you a kick to the shins when they "escorted" your spy-plane out of their air space...
So, am I right? I'm sure about all those countries and I'm just wondering if I placed them in the correct order. Let me know...
...I was wrong judging you that quickly! In fact, you're even more arrogant, stupid and daft than I had originally thought.
"Although Mr. Bush has given Mr. Hussein until 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday to leave Iraq or face war, Pentagon officials said the wording of the president's warning on Monday was intended to leave open the option of military action before then in the event that Mr. Hussein rejected the deadline."
I guess I shouldn't be too surprised with you telling a sovereign leader of another country to cower in fear and play run-and-hide, not after you already had "the balls" (if there's a "better" way to castrate a saying, let me know please) to issue that ultimatum to the UN, but you stun me over and over again with your Texan attitude.
Sorry to all the Texans who're not like Bush, I know there're quite a few, but the way of your fine Mr. President is exactly what most people outside of the U.S. would think of a Texan cowboy: guns ablaze and never mind the risks or consequences. Shoot first, there's enough time for questions later...
"Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, would not rule out military action before the deadline.
"Saddam Hussein has to figure out what this means," he said."
You know, Ari, I think ... not!
Politics is not about figuring out what this or that means and it has not been for quite a lot of years. Actually, politics is all about telling things so there is no space for misunderstandings; no guess-work, but facts. That's an important thing in general; but it's even more important if we're talking stuff like "war" and "death threats", "hostile invasion of a foreign country" and "orders of assassination".
No idea where you went to school, but this is not like in those Hollywood movies, y'know.
I have to say I'm a lot more confident and a lot more content with how the other side, the "evil enemy of all times", issues their political statements. Let me show you an example of a well-formulated political statement, maybe you'll understand then:
"Iraq doesn't choose its path through foreigners and doesn't choose its leaders by decree from Washington, London or Tel Aviv."
Now, that is a clear statement, I daresay. Leaves no room for interpretations, does it? To me it reads like "fuck off, this is our country and you're not its legitimate, sovereign leader". If it reads like that to you, there's still hope left.
Next time I shall introduce you to the fine art of knowing what you're allowed to do according to UN Charta - and what you're not allowed to do. I think I'll concentrate on the last part, though, you seem to need serious help there...
