Katie Doyle, Girl About Town

Friday, Mar. 21, 2003 - 1:15 a.m.

Okay, I know I promised the next time I came back to this hallowed spot, I'd hold forth with the pithy and amusing and all that stuff. That was before Idiotboy started bombing people. I don't think it appropriate to ignore that or to let it go by without comment. I was going to hold the comments for my other diary, but I don't think it's right not to acknowledge current events here, as well, so here we go. By the way, Lola's in the box. This is just me, trying to be as thoughtful as I can be, given the deceit and corruption wreaking havoc with my country right now. I would also like to preface my remarks with the fact that I am not a pacifist - I do not believe in turning the other cheek or standing quietly by while bad people do bad things. I believe in the concepts of good and evil, and that some people are inherently evil. I believe in God and Christ. But I also know that few things are black or white, and that the few things that are are still pretty damned complicated. That being said:

I grieve that so many Iraqis are going to die needlessly.

I am angry the instrument of their destruction repeatedly claims to be delivering salvation.

I am most angry the Shrub cries freedom even as he tells Iraqi soldiers not to set fire to oil wells, freezes every "non-diplomatic" Iraqi asset in this country, and designates a family - Saddam's family, but women and children civilians nonetheless - a military target. That the armed forces of these United States, currently waging an aggressive action against a man on the basis of his having chemical and biological weapons are themselves carrying those same weapons. Weapons which violate international conventions. Ask yourself this: as those weapons *do* violate international conventions, and we are using the theoretical ones Saddam is supposed to have as an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq, why in hell do we have them? Why are we carrying them?

Can you imagine the cry of outrage had Bush's family been designated a "military target" by Iraq (or anyone else)?

Why are the assets of Iraqis being frozen? Many of those funds belong to human rights organizations who have raised that money to help the poverty-stricken people of Iraq to feed themselves and get the proper medical attention they have been denied the last 12 years. None of the assets frozen belong to terrorists. None have been claimed to belong to terrorists. And Iraqi diplomats, the people I would think the Bush "administration" would have the most call to freeze the assets of, those people have their money. Not that I'm complaining; I consider it theft for any assets to be frozen without due and legal cause. And the reason given by this government? "For the good of the Iraqi people." Can you believe that? "For the good of the Iraqi people." Of course, this is the same government currently interviewing all Iraqis and Muslims in the country "for their own protection". Really, it drives me insane.

Natalie Maines and the other Dixie Chicks are being castigated because Ms. Maines said she was ashamed Bush is from Texas. That's all she said. She didn't bag on "the troops". She didn't say Saddam Hussein is a great guy. She didn't say "go, Iraq". She simply voiced her dislike of the president, something a lot of people had no problem doing when Clinton was in office (me among them), and still, none of them had their livelihoods quashed because they didn't like good ol' Bill. Yet she has been labelled unamerican and accused of badmouthing "the troops" and betraying America. Clear Channel, a company which monopolizes media outlets in this country (& owns over 1200 radio stations), has yanked the Dixie Chicks from its playlists in every market, because it says they're bad for the country. So I guess free speech is more dangerous than lies and deception, propaganda and manipulation. I can see that...if you're a government which carries its public meetings on behind closed doors, amends the Presidential Orders Act to hide what you've done during your term, practices payola in the worst way, and has behaved with less regard for the Constitution than any single president in history, including Nixon. Let me say this: if I must support this administration's invasion to support the troops, than I do NOT support the troops. If you will force me to choose between what is morally right and that which is morally bankrupt, I will choose what is right, no matter the cost. I do not want any innocent life lost to Bush's insane and oppressive agenda, be it American soldier or Iraqi. Both, it can be claimed, are just doing their jobs. Following orders. I choose to believe those in service to this country are not evil people, bear no malice in their hearts, and are worthy of my prayers and goodwill. But if "supporting" them means I have to keep silent and inactive against the evil and oppression of George Bush's regime, I can not do it. I will not. He violates every tenet I hold dear, and I can not keep silent.

By the way, if Bush insists that Iraqi soldiers will be tried for war crimes, that they will not be allowed to say they were following orders, then the same must hold for ours. I just about choked on that part of his speech. Pretty rich, coming from the one nation that steadfastly refuses to sign the War Crimes Act, or whatever it's called, the hypocrite. Do NOT misunderstand me: I do not want American soldiers tried for war crimes because they followed orders - as long as they have not violated human rights and the rules of warfare set forth by the Geneva Convention. But you can not hold the rest of the world's soldiers to one standard/rule and your own to another. That does not fly.

Also by the by, has anyone else stopped to realize that of all the nations on earth, *we* are the only one to ever have used "weapons of mass destruction"? Twice. Unless you count Vietnam. But then, I don't know if Agent Orange and Napalm qualify. Ironic, then, don't you think, that Bush claims to be carrying out his invasion because someone else has them? Not to mention the fact that he "won't rule out" using them himself. Really, it makes me just bitter.

BBC newscaster Katty Kay last night described Bush as "disciplined". She was impressed he went to bed at 11pm after ordering the bombing. 1.5 hours after, to be precise. What kind of a man does that? No matter who you are, no matter how justified you feel in your action, how in living fucking HELL do you order an attack on another country and then calmly go to bed? How do you sleep, let alone as well as the president is only too proud of claiming he does? Seriously, no matter how righteous your indignation, no matter how right or noble you may be in your aggression, I should think you would worry enough about the gravity of what you have just done as to have some problem sleeping. If that doesn't tell you what kind of a man our "president" is, nothing ever will. If that does not clue you in even a little to his calibre, you are beyond reason.

For me, the most transparent and defining moment of this whole mess has been during Bush's "My fellow Americans" speech. The one where he avoided actually declaring war while he informed us he had attacked another country. And the moment in question was when he address the Iraqi troops, and the first thing he said was for them not to set fire to the oil wells. If that doesn't tell you what this is truly about, nothing ever will.

Peace out,
Katie

0 comments so far

*HUGS* TOTAL! give katiedoyle more *HUGS*
Get hugs of your own

Yesterday's News - Next Stop

In which Katie shares sad news - Wednesday, Apr. 01, 2015
In which Katie returns after a very long absence - Monday, Jun. 25, 2012
In which Katie pokes her head in and brushes some of the cobwebs away - Thursday, May. 06, 2010
In which Katie asks you to write your congressman again. - Monday, Jun. 02, 2008
In which Katie asks you to please click the link and send the message to protect the rights of artists - Wednesday, May. 21, 2008