Random Ramblings

1:21 AM

Having some problems

Somehow, all my a href tags got stripped of the URLs.
I hope to fix the problem by later on today.
Keep checking back.

Update: Fixed.

--Because I said so!

10:52 PM

NOW HE TELLS US

So let's get this straight. The US has a new policy of "pre-emptive strike". Saddam knows the arrows are pointed at Iraq at present. Call me dense, but doesn't this policy justify in every way Saddam trying to "pre-empt" the US? Or anyone else, for that matter?

We're the ones with the nukes, and we're the ones who have used them on civilians before. Any country we target as "evildoers" has the right to bomb us into the stone age, since we pose the biggest material and historical threat.

I mean, look at this load of bull. "US Plans Military Rule and Occupation of Iraq". Not that we couldn't have guessed that, but funny, how all of a sudden a "plan" emerges, the day after the House and Senate voted to give Bush the authorization for the use of force against Iraq.

Read that fine print in the header..."Saddam would be replaced by General Tommy Franks" Tommy Franks?

TOMMY FRANKS??

Iraq would have a president named Tommy???

Item: Thursday's LA Times (reg req'd) carried an article on then-undeclared senators Collins and Feinstein:

Constituent feedback to both offices is running heavily in the same direction--in Feinstein's office, the latest phone call tally is 597 in favor of a unilateral attack, 24,169 against. E-mails and faxes to Collins' office are far fewer in number but in about the same proportion: 40-1 against war.

Now, I'm no analytical genuis, but I think 40:1 is not an accurate statistic, given those hard numbers. Stats aside, though, Feinstein was one of the Dems who voted pro-war.

What kind of democracy is that?

Am I indeed being too dense, too much of a literalist, in thinking that the representatives are supposed to vote according to the constituency?

Really? Wow. Ok.

--Because I said so!