Monday, February 17, 2003


I didn't expect to be asked to answer the blog debate questions like some of my more famous and stuckup colleagues (who still haven't linked to my blog even though I told them I would link to theirs as soon as I figured out how to do links in Blogger). Nevertheless, as a public service (and a public servant of the The Truth which is so sorely needed these days!!!) I decided to answer them anyway, without peeking at anyone else's answers. Without further adoo:

1. If you were President of the United States, what would be your policy toward Iraq over the next year? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in your proposed policies versus the current path being pursued by the Bush administration?

If I were president instead of The Smirking Drunkard, I would just GET OVER MYSELF, okay? I hope I would have the brains (not destroyed by my years of being a frat boy drunkard) to realize that the only reason I'm there is because Daddy's lawyers bought it for me and hung the chads until they elected me. This would have the advantage of just getting the whole world to relax because, hello, they wouldn't be dealing with a smirking drunkard with his hand on the nukes, okay?

2. Is there any circumstance that you can conceive of where the United States would be justified in using military force without the support of the UN Security Council --- or does the UN always have a veto against US military action for whatever reason?

I spent a lot of time reading a Noam Chomsky book to be able to answer this question carefully and apparently there is never any time that the United States uses its power for anything other than advancing corporate interests. This is true whether it's Vietnam or Kosbodia or East Tivo. I haven't gotten all the way into the book so I don't know if it includes other uses of US power such as the space shuttle or rescuing that little girl from the well, but I can only assume that if it's US power it's bad, because that pretty much seems to be the way the whole book is going. So no, other countries which aren't dominated by evil corporate interests such as France and China should always be able to veto us in international affairs (I understand that there are certain purely local circumstances, like when kids fall down wells, that we may not need Social Security Council approval for. Still, it only takes a minute to ask and better safe than sorry!).

3. American and British military force has allowed Northern Iraq to develop a society which, while imperfect, is clearly a freer and more open society than existed under Saddam Hussein's direct rule. Do you agree that the no-fly zones have been beneficial to Northern Iraq --- and if so, why should this concept not be extended to remove Hussein's regime entirely and spread those freedoms to all Iraqis?

Okay, now look, this is what I find so slippery about you WartHoggers (that's what I call warbloggers :) You say the northern part of Iraq is free, and then you say nobody's allowed to fly. I don't call being forced to take the bus (and God knows what the bus service in a place like Iraq must be like-- after 12 years of sanctions!) exactly being free, do you?

4. Do you believe an inspection and sanctions regime is sufficient and capable of keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the Hussein regime --- and should this be a goal of U.S. policy? In what way is an inspection/containment/sanctions regime preferable to invasion? Civilian casualties? Expense? Geopolitical outcome?

Has he blown us up yet? Has he even invaded any of his neighbors in over ten years? At what point do we finally get over this negative habit of how we think about guys like Saddam and start rewarding him for the things he hasn't done?

This is what I find so disgusting about the Smirking Drunk and Dick Daisychainy and Donald Rumbottle and Henry Kissinger (couldn't think of a nickname) and all the other members of the administration-- they just refuse to see the good in people. It's like Iraq needs one of those signs that you see outside a factory-- "This country has operated 12 years without an invasion." (Wow, that almost sounds like something Tom Friedman would say, I'm getting good at this blogging stuff!)

5. What, in your opinion, is the source of national sovereignty? If you believe it to be the consent of the governed, should liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime be U.S. policy? If so, how do you propose to accomplish this goal absent military action? (And if in your view the sovereignty of a state does not derive from the consent of the governed, then what is the source of sovereignty?)

Now this is one of my big beefs. You have these guys in London or wherever saying that they want us to overthrow Iraq, but that's easy for them to say when they're not in Bagdad. When do we ever hear from the people of Iraq? Saddam won, I believe, 100.4% of the vote in a recent election. Now granting that we didn't have Jimmy Carter or somebody there making sure it was totally on the up and up, still, figure that five times as many people accidentally voted for Saddam when they meant to vote for Pat Buchanan as did in Florida and you still have what, 95% for Saddam? 90%? Call it 80% and it's still damn good. So what gives a bunch of guys living the high life in London, Britain the right to overthrow the will of the Iroquois people-- just the fact that they saw us do it in Florida?

Before any invasion of Iraq I think we need to see a clear sign from the Iroquois that this is what they want. I realize that with Saddam's total control of the media it may be difficult for them to coordinate a petition drive or a recall election or something like that.

But that's where the power of Blogger comes in. We can do the work of organizing for the people of Iraq! I propose that on February 20th at 6 pm Bagdad time, the Iroquois stage a nationwide public demonstration indicating whether they want an invasion or not. If enough of my fellow bloggers pick up this call for solidarity (especially if Instapundit tells that Iraqi blogger he posts stuff from), I'm sure we can get the word out and the people of Iraq can make their will known (we certainly know that Saddam's people will be counting the crowds carefully).

So stand up and be counted, people of Iraq! Rise up and be free! Remember, we bloggers are out here for you!


I have been informed that the name of my new blog, "Peace in our time" (a sentiment I'm sure no one could disagree with unless they're from an oil company or the right wing media), supposedly has a tarnished past.

Apparently it was a phrase used by the president of England (or as it's properly known, The United Kingdom of England), Wilt Chamberlain, when he came back from negotiating peace with Adolf Hitler (and I don't care what anybody says, even though I met some very nice skinheads at the march on Saturday, Hitler was a bad guy, even worse than Chimpboy Bush! Though he didn't have the nukes that Chimpboy Bush likes to play with when Cheney lets him out of his cage!)

But let's look at the historical record here, folks. Chamberlain said "peace in our time" in 1938. World War II didn't break out until December 11, 1941.

By any measure that's three full years of "peace in our time" before (as the movie Pearl Harbor proved) our embargo of oil supplies to Japan forced them to attack Hawaii.

Who wouldn't settle for three full years of peace right now instead of Chimpboy's crazy rush to war for oil? Besides the oil companies, that is?


Responding to the overwhelming show of support for peace demonstrated worldwide by peacefully nonviolent demonstrators declaring "Peace in our time," "No blood for oil," and "Cowboy Bush needs to yank Dick's Chain-y," a really important breakthrough has been made in the global quest for peace. Which is: Saddam Hussein has outlawed the creation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This is so important because as we all know the police in Iraq are very tough. They routinely torture, beat, and rape their prisoners (so what's the difference between them and the pigs who attacked the peaceful protesters in San Francisco, you ask? Good question!!!)

If there's anyone who knows just how unpleasant the police in Iraq can be, it must be Saddam Hussein himself, right? So now he has a REAL incentive not to go building WMD!

When will we teach Cowboy Bush the same lesson by outlawing our own WMD and even our WMD-40? You can bet that if Cowboy Bush had to face the Iraqi secret police, he wouldn't be in such a hurry to be developing anthrax bombs! I guess maybe there's a little lesson that America could learn from Iraq!