Lots o' reading to do...

This disappearing computer act can really be taxing... but it's back, so a new missive might be due.

The reading refers to a number of books I really want to pore through, including the now-infamous Richard Clarke hardcover, as well as a new one. While I'm not the biggest proponent of anonymous writers, I'll be making an exception here.

Reading this MSNBC interview with the author, a CIA vet with 22 years on the job, provides a late and chilling validation to some of my pre-existing thoughts/fears.

Allow me to jump back 15 months, to March of '03. In my previous pseudo-blog (no longer online), I described a fear that I developed from listening to the latest al-Qaeda audio tape. In it, Osama bin Laden vomited up his usual rhetoric, but with a few alarming differences. Despite the "socialist infidels" who ran the country, he expressed support for the Iraqi people, who were about to come under attack.

My first reaction was... "This man is both sadistic and brilliant. We're in trouble." Why? Because he gave the impression that he (and al-Qaeda) were in league with Saddam, though the two have never been on the same page. Despite potshots against Saddam, here was a tape that the Bush administration and the American media could point to as a definitive link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

It seemed to me as though bin Laden wanted us to invade Iraq. By doing so, we get rid of an infidel despot (Saddam), we occupy the fertile crescent (providing a rallying cause for al-Qaeda), and bin Laden comes off as someone who sympathizes with the plight of the Iraqi people. (Even though, again, it almost seemed as though our invasion played right into his plans.)

But those were just my thoughts and opinions, and all I have to go on is news and strategical considerations. Apparently, however, my fears weren't unfounded:

"Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaida and other of America's enemies in the Islamic world certainly saw the invasion of Iraq as a, if you would, a Christmas gift they always wanted and never expected to get."

That's a quote from the aforementioned interview. Here's someone, with a lot more access to information than me, putting forth a similar theory. By invading Iraq, which he describes as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," we occupied an Islamic holy place and "validated what [al-Qaeda] said about American aggressiveness against Islam."

While I thought Afghanistan was a necessary evil, Iraq always struck me as very unnecessary. The advice the author would have given, "whatever the danger posed by Saddam, whatever weapons he had, is almost irrelevant in that the boost it would give to al-Qaida was easily seen," echoes my worries from 15 months ago. And it doesn't take some kind of tactical genius to see that two simultaneous wars is never good. And the war in Iraq is that much worse, simply because "the major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism."

Now, I've yet to agree with all the points brought up by the anonymous author, but any assertions he made in the interview didn't go unsupported.

Anyhow, I'm off to more mundane tasks... Just thought I'd add yet another piece of evidence stating that the war in Iraq was just a really bad idea.

Ah, yes, free time

Once upon a time, I updated this blog. Hopefully, I shall return to that habit.

Nominally, I'd have crafted something for this post... at least, that's the goal for this blog. Unfortunately, the current state of burnout means I'll merely update it so it doesn't look as though it's vacant.

The state of things:

• A Midsummer Night's Dream went well. Now that it's done I have some extra time


• Speaking of Shakespeare (in the park), I'm directing next year's feature, Macbeth. The only question is, how dark is too dark?


• This block of Rancid videos on Fuse does my heart good. "Salvation" indeed.


• Corporate rental/retail... not doing my heart (or my body, or mind) any good.


• As everyone has probably heard, Fahrenheit 9/11 has found a distributor. I love how the same people who label Michael Moore a propagandist tend to believe Bill O'Reilly is an unbiased dispenser of facts.

Let's face reality here, kids. Michael Moore is just the left's version of Rush Limbaugh or Joe Scarborogh. A lot of facts, construed through a certain (biased) critical lens. Anyone who's actually read Dude, Where's My Country (which first raised a lot of the points found in Fahrenheit) will notice two things: 1) Half the book is taken up by Moore sniping the right-wing, 2) The other half is a set of solid conclusions based upon reams of research.

For every loudmouth and wannabe "clever" documentarian who claims that Moore hates America, and demonstrates just how great this country is, allow me to provide a tip. A class in logic/debate would do you well. These arguments combine elements of ad hominem and distraction fallacies. "You can't believe Moore's work because he hates America" is a fallacy. It attacks the author (Moore is biased, don't listen), and it distracts us (America is great) from the original assertions.

What're these assertions? First: 9/11 put the Bush administration in a sticky situation because of his ties to Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family. Second: the administration utilized 9/11 to further a pre-existing agenda. "Love of America" does not enter into this argument.

I could go on, but nobody wants another page of rhetorical analysis. SO I leave with this thought: During the Ashcroft Q&A session yesterday, I saw a Congressman re-affirm the Geneva convention. We don't want our soldiers (siblings, children, friends) tortured. Therefore, we do not engage in torture. Rather, we shouldn't.

When an American was captured and beheaded by Iraqi insurgents, I heard more than one person ask "And that country is still standing, why?" Conversely, when an Iraqi finds out that a fellow citizen had voltage shot through his penis, why do we expect them to think any differently?