Inhaling, sex and terrorism - the three big lies
President Bush is aggressively defending his recently uncovered, possibly illegal, domestic spying program by arguing that the program is limited, legal and necessary to protect Americans in a time of war. The ugly rhetoric of protectionism has been used as a body bag to zip up many ugly problems, shielding them from public view. But for this argument to be effective, there must be an ending.
When is a war not a war? How about defining some criteria for an end to the war on terrorism? I have a nasty suspicion that as long as a single human being on the planet hates the US badly enough to harm its people or things, that this war will continue.
There's only two ways to fix that situation: the first would be by making friends everywhere. I don't think that I need to spend any time talking about why that hasn't or will not happen. The second choice is uglier--genocide. I believe that the only way to satisfy the President's criteria will be the extermination or at least disenfrachisement of all dissidents, a situation that I for one, find unacceptable.
How about some public debate on what the exit conditions are for the war on terrorism? Hell, the war on Polio is still being fought by the March of Dimes even thought the disease was eliminated in America in 1979.
Posted on January 02, 2006
