*A-hem*

Hi there.

Are you mad at me?

Well if you're not gonna talk to me, at least hear me out:



I kinda blew it yesterday.

It's been my objective to keep this blog firmly down the middle wherever possible. When I express a preference, I feel that I am obligated to explain why.

I posted a link in yesterday's blog which might be thought to describe the Bush Cabinet as both criminals and corrupt (As opposed to criminals who are incorruptible? I guess so).

That was contrary to the spirit of this blog. While I certainly have the right to express that opinion, it is surely to my own detriment and to that of this medium not to explain the reasoning behind such a conclusion.

Briefly, I've tried--I really have--to find articles supporting the notion that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with "weapons of mass destruction" (as opposed to nukes, chemical and biological weapons--the US has those).

No luck. Whenever I find one, it's inevitably connected either to a gun nut, a conspiracy theorist, the Bush league or a neo-conservative Web page. Most of these pages preclude intelligent, logical, argument.

On the other hand, articles from reliable sources are sometimes equally hard to find. I tend to favour Michael Moore's views because he was out the gate first--well before many of the people who are seriously sour on Bush got started. I also get a lot of my news from the Economist.

Note: It seems as though one criteria for determining the status of a Web site is its organization, or lack thereof. "God Hates Fags"* is a particularly virulent example.

But in sum, I am unable to find anywhere a current, accurate, and reliably-sourced article in favour of the war that still claims that A) Saddam had "WMD" or B) doesn't try advancing the specious argument that it doesn't matter whether he did or didn't.

I think the overall result of the invasion is that Iraq is slightly better off, with a reasonable chance of becoming much better off.

But good results achieved under false pretences can't be wholly good. And lies in the service of some "greater truth" are still lies.

This, plus the Web site dedicated to PNAC, I find worrying. If you wonder what that last citation has to do with GWB, scroll to the bottom of the "Statement of Principles" page.

All in all, I think the sooner the US has an elected President, the better.

Here's to regime change in November.





*I won't link to this particular site--not in censorship, but in the belief that anybody who's actually bothered reading my blog thus far is actually interested in something approaching intelligent debate (okay, okay--just plain debate), which said site is dedicated to avoiding.

That said--I do find it offensive. Instead, here's a better site, designed to mimic that one.

Cute