Shlonkom Bakazay?

David Sanger writes in the NY Times,

Taken at face value, Mr. Bush appears to be saying that under his new standard, a country merely has to be thinking about developing illicit weapons at some time. "He's saying intent is enough," said Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor who under the Clinton administration headed the National Intelligence Council, the group that assesses for the president when countries have trespassed that hard-to-define line.

"The classical definition for pre-emption was 'imminent threat,' " Mr. Nye said. Then, with the development of the president's "National Security Policy of the United States," that moved to something less than imminent, because, as Mr. Bush argued, it is often hard to know when a country is about to attack. Now, said Mr. Nye, "the Duelfer report pushed him into a box where capability is not the standard, but merely intention."

And we have yet another confirmation that we're on the slide to an even more dangerous pre-emptive, rather preventive, war doctrine. You know, you got to ease the masses into performing atrocities in their name...just like romancing a female you fancy. It's just about loving yourself, really...I mean, It's just about loving somebody else. Because by killing them you liberate them. I mean, by invading them...I mean by liberating them through military means, you love them. You follow me, right?

So all it could take is this...

Karl Rove

...or this...

Kim Jong-Il

...or this...

Musharraf & Khan

...or this...

Khamenei

...or this...

Sharon

...to end up with this.


Hiroshima


Nagasaki

Of course a combination of the tensions that are newly creating themselves or existing under the surface between these players could do the trick. I'm sorry I don't explain myself in full. But yes, I'd have to include India's Vajpeey too when I put a picture of Khan and Musharraf. And Iran is hardly the threat that Bush Inc. makes it out to be. We couldn't continue this "war on terror" without another target, right? Not to mention the fly of a menace that Syria is to Israel. So absurd is the claim that Syria is a threat to America. And sure, I don't necessarily like the regime in Syria at all, but does that give America the right to invade it? And Palestine...well, Arafat is a corrupt fool. But does he really have any power? No...other than being a symbol that is actually useful for the Likud to place all their anger upon. No. He is still a holed up nothing. If he were to be killed by Israel they would have no image (as a signifier) to blame for suicide bombings. There would be a symbolic vacuum. And this would work to the disadvantage of the Likudniks in both Israel and America. So, Arafat is as safe as Disney World in France from being touched or appreciated in a positive manner.

Next thing you know they'll invade Lebanon for it's tastebuds of mass appeal.

Essentially who wouldn't want self-determination over these power-trippers that control populations with the thrusts of their egos, poverty, misplaced nationalism, and manipulated foreign policies that invoke fear in the hearts and minds of their respective peoples?

Shouldn't we, yes America, be addressing non-proliferation and setting a better example, instead of creating new nukes and weapon systems and selling our old ones to Israel? It's too bad this is so idealistic. Now, the American psyche seems to have an embedded fear that will not help create a better place for our children to live their lives. And who embedded or is trying to further embed this fear?

Do you want some more of that fear and extremism and less of the hope and creativity we'll need to correct the mistakes of the past? Vote for below.



Totally pertinent to this entry is Juan Cole's latest installment of insight.

The "war on terror" of Bush-Cheney is a smokescreen for naked American imperial aggression.

I've taken ill, so I might be blogging some more and trying to tie up some loose ends.

Peace out,
lim