I was beginning to wonder what happened to the cliche-dropping annoyance that is Jill Nelson. She just disappeared, drowned out of MSNBC.com by other, more compelling, opinion columnists. Well, she's back, and she's in her typical mope till you drop form. So, let's begin with the dissection.
As Congress commences hearings on the Bush administration's request for an additional $87 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans and the rest of the world's citizens should be very, very worried.
Yeah, I'm feeling just terrified. In case you aren't familiar with Jill Nelson, she's about as loony left as you can get without falling off the edge of the world. She thinks the war on terrorism should be fought using balloons and squeek toys and that the overall money to fund the "happy fun war" should come from old bed mattresses somewhere. She's as dillusional as a heroin addict gong through DTs, and about as coherent.
WE CAN ONLY HOPE that this time around, unlike in April when Congress approved $79 billion or a year ago when they were deafened by the drumbeats for war, members of Congress — particularly those running for president — will stand firm in challenging the latest round of funding for what from its inception has been an ill-conceived and executed "war on terrorism."
Ah, it only took her until the second paragraph to dig into her cliche bag and draw forth "drumbeats of war." It's all about the drumbeats with her. Stop beating those drums, George W!! What really bothers me about Nelson is that she constantly, CONSTANTLY, drops paragraphs like the one above, but she never, and I mean NEVER, offers up any alternatives for how the U.S. should fight the war on terrorism, although one suspects by reading her that she'd like to build a huge wall around American and hide under her bed waiting for the first airborne shipment of anthrax to blow under her door.
It's clear that in spite of the bodies and bombings, the administration is steadfast in its refusal to recognize the debacle of its own making. George W. Bush's speech yesterday to the U.N. General Assembly was like déjà vu all over again (with apologies to Yogi Berra, who, unlike Bush, was on a winning team).
See what I mean? Bodies and bombings. . . alliteration at its finest, summing up how she perceives the war in Iraq. It's like the rumenations of a three-year old. Okay, Timmy, what is war all about? Bodies and bomings. And a quick cliche check: deja vu all over again. And she even threw in a barb about Bush not winning the last presidential election, because Jill is perpetually stuck in 2001. I sometimes wonder if she's personally hand counting the Florida ballots, chad and all, to vindicate her delusions. Listen. I didn't vote for Bush. I won't vote for him in '04. And, although I'm still amazed that the Supreme Court stepped in to stop the recount (an overstepping of Court power the likes of which has never been seen), it should be obvious, to anyone with half a functioning brain, that Gore lost Florida. He lost Florida. Gore did not win Florida, and because of that, he lost the electoral college. I don't care that he won the popular vote. It's totally irrelevant. In true Constitutional form, Bush won the election. The hypocrisy of folks like Jill Nelson is this: they decry, rightly so, that homeland security infringes on our Constitutional rights, and yet they yelp and scream that Bush lost the election, forgetting completely that he won as per the requirements set forth by the Constitution. Which is it folks? Constitution: burn it or embrace it?
There was no acknowledgement from the president that the war in Iraq has plunged the United States and the world into a quagmire with no end in sight. Or that to unilaterally wage a war that was opposed by most of the nations of the world undermines democracy and the possibility of world peace. Or that, having done so to disastrous effect, the United States now desperately needs the help of the United Nations to stabilize and rebuild of Iraq and provide a patina of legitimacy. Instead, Bush was the wolf in sheep's clothing, mouthing words of democracy, humanitarian concern and peace, while not budging on crucial issues such as the relinquishing control over that devastated nation.
Ah, Jill's favorite word: quagmire. And for those of you who like cliches, she offers up "wolf in sheep's clothing." And yet, despite her lamentations, she doesn't offer up even a semblance of an alternative. It's just, "Bush sucks," and that's about it. She also clings to her love of the United Nations, as if handing control of Iraq over to that odd conglomeration of "hug everyone" and corruption could do anything in Iraq but pass 20 resolutions, resolving to resolve to think about maybe, perhaps, you know, in the future, providing clean water in Baghdad. Thank you, no, I'll take the coalition of the willing and their engineers any day over the hobbled institution that is the U.N.
In spite of the pundits' strenuous efforts to spin the Bush speech as something new and important, the truth is that it was the same old, same old. Bush's passing mention of the need for AIDS relief, aggressive action against the international sex trade, and an end international slavery was overshadowed by the ominous cloud of Iraq and his self-declared "war on terrorism."
Did you know that the war on terrorism was "self-declared" by Bush? News to me. I could have sworn, in the days following 9/11, that most nations of the world vowed to fight terrorism. Cliche check: "same old, same old," and "ominous cloud."
In the end, what the president wants from American taxpayers, Congress and the members of the United Nations is not critical discussion and united action, but money and bodies for Iraq. With an election in 2004, Americans are already saddled with a failing economy; the prospect of having to ante up another $87 billion to rebuild post-war Iraq — that's just the latest installment. With our sons and daughters being shot and blown up by insurgents there, we might not be so eager to pull the lever and give Bush four more years without someone else to help us pay the monetary and human price.
Yep, because, in Jill's mind, dead American soldiers, those sons and daughters, are being shot up with such frequency they're being stacked up like firewood. One would almost think, by reading Jill, that she sort of WANTS American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to fail. Anything to ensure Bush loses in '04. She sees war. She sees $87 billion dollars. She refuses to see a world without Saddam. She rufuses to admit that the U.N. cozies up to dictators like a newborn pup suckling a nipple. Does the U.S. have clean hands when it comes to dealing with the political pukes of the world? Hell no, but in Jill's mind, the U.S. is the worst the world has to offer, and the U.N. is the guiding light that will save us all. Meanwhile, the U.N. is voting on a resolution that will decide, once and for all, whether to think about possibly, maybe, passing another resolution to stock the New York U.N. office with either Coke or Pepsi.
No matter that the invasion of Iraq is a debacle by any standards: more American soldiers killed since the war ended than during it. Daily sniper attacks. Political chaos and religious fervor growing. The bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad on Aug. 19. The murder of Saddam Hussein's sons and the public display of photographs of their bodies. And still the question remains, where are Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction used by the Bush administration to justify this war?
Yep, should have left Uday and Qusay alone. They're just KIDS, after all. Plus, we MURDERED them. Those poor little boys. Political chaos? You mean the fact that more areas of Iraq, every day, come under ELECTED self rule? I wonder, sometimes, what the war critics imagined post-war Iraq to be like. Well, first off, the war critics were envisioning a coalition defeat, but nevermind. Did they think that, once the war was declared over, everyone would just lay down their AK-47s and go back to eating corn flakes? Furthermore, do the Jill Nelsons of the world honestly think that, if the U.N. oversees Iraq, the violence will suddenly stop? Alternatives, Jill, I'd like to hear your take on alternatives. I know you hate Bush, and I know you like to whine. But, some alternatives, woman!
Instead, America's president stood before the world and made no concessions, contradicted the obvious fact that the world is now a far more dangerous place than it was two years ago, and called upon the United Nations to help pay for and support our disastrous venture with bodies and bucks. Bush's message boiled down to simply this: America has made the world's bed; now we've all got to both lie in it and pay for it. Is it any wonder that the response of the majority of this august body might politely be described as tepid at best?
That "august" body. Sheesh. The U.N. is about as august as a homeless crack addict peeing on the street. The world is a far more dangerous place? Let me ask you this. Where, besides Iraq (and I think a recent incident in Saudi Arabia), in the past month, have terrorist attack occurred? If this world is suddenly so much more dangerous, I'd like to see evidence to support that. *waiting* *tapping foot*
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, most of the vaunted American free press declined to broadcast the speeches of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan before Bush or French President Jacques Chirac afterward. Both of these world leaders spoke eloquently of the pitfalls of any nation of the world acting unilaterally, of the dangerous precedents such actions set, and of the threat to world stability that America's actions have exacerbated.
You'll have to excuse me for not giving a royal fuck for what Jacques Chirac has to say. His nation was so in bed with Saddam and Co., there are still used condoms with Hussein DNA laying near Chirac's nightstand. And, again, in Jill's mind, we acted UNILATERALLY. Forget about the British. Forget Spain. Forget Italy. Forget Poland. Forget Romania. Forget Hungary. Forget Turkey. Forget. . . well, you get the idea. And yeah, world stability is, like, TOTALLY in jeopardy. Jeez, Jill, overstate much?
Is anyone surprised that Bush himself didn't even deign to stay for Chirac's speech? Instead, the media went to its usual stable of paid political pundits, whose job it is to convince Americans that Bush is either "presidential," "strong," "clear" or all of the above and then some.
Is she living in some alternative universe of which I'm not aware? Last I checked, except for Fox News of course, practically every major news organization in America is critical of our Bumbler in Chief. But, the problem with ultra-leftists like Jill, is that they automatically lump everything Bush does into a general category of "wrong." For the most part, Bush is repeatedly, and unabashedly wrong. But to let blind hatred of Bush cloud your judgement to the point you can't see the very real danger of international terrorism, and the immediate need to fight it, is far more dangerous than any weapon of mass destruction. Hate Bush all you want. I do. But also admit that, in the one realm of fighting terrorism and cleaning up the shit that is the Middle East, Bush and Co. are following the right course.
Yet try as they might, you don't need glasses to see that the president has no clothes. That with the exception of a very few allies, the United States is hanging out there alone, naked for the world to see. The question is, when will the American people recognize what a sham and disaster this administration is, both abroad and at home, and refuse to continue funding such madness? The world can only hope it's before November, 2004.
Leave it to Jill to wrap up yet another pathetic tirade by invoking the "emporer has no clothes" cliche. She uses that analogy so much, you wonder whether the fable is under her pillow. Very few allies? Try over 20, Jill.
And, I'm sure you noticed, except for calling for a new president in '04, Jill never, not once, offered up solutions to all the problems she perceives. Just one long, drawn out whine. If she's what passes as a pundit nowadays, I'll take vanilla, thank you.
Posted by Ryan at September 25, 2003 10:51 AM
Stumble It!
