The Question for our Time

Margaret and I went to see the movie "Lions for Lambs" yesterday. It was pretty intense.

During one scene, Tom Cruise's character, a young Republican senator who is promoting a new strategy in Afghanistan, asks Meryl Streep's character the only question he thinks is worth asking: "Do you want to win the war on terror? Yes or no? Yes or no?"

I wish we could ask another question: why are we having a "war on terror"?

Or how about, how can we possibly win a "war on terror"? What would victory look like? What will victory cost? Who will pay?

Or how about, why has George Bush, arguably the stupidest, greediest, least competent president in a long long time, gotten away with declaring a war whose necessity no one seems to question? Why are we accepting his vision of the world? Has he given anyone any reason to believe he is clear-sighted?

International Cooperation

I just read that the Thai police arrested suspected Canadian pedophile, Christopher Paul Neil. What's unusual about this case is the high degree of international cooperation among police.

Suppose that in the wake of 9/11, George Bush had taken such an approach to apprehending Osama Bin Laden? Might he be in custody today? Might we have avoided the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

At the back of my mind is Michael Moore's insinuation that Bush let Bin Laden get away. And this returns me to the question that we should be pursuing: why exactly are we at war in Afghanistan and Iraq? What were Bush's motives?

My opinion? He wants to preside over WW3. And so far, no one seems willing or able to stop him.

Doesn't that just piss you off?

Republican Logic

So I heard that most of the Republican candidates for President say that A) we've got to get federal spending under control and B) they will sustain a military presence in Iraq.

Gee, that sounds real logical.

It's kind of like being Pro-life and Pro-capital punishment.

Everyone who wants another eight years of this, go and put a yellow ribbon where the sun don't shine.

Peace.