Planet Swank banner
Planet Swank
us flag courtesy south knox bubba
about me
my résumé (pdf)
email me
wish list


Favorite posts
halloween 2003 roundup (coming soon)
halloween 2002 roundup
the future of online gaming
star wars cereal review
japanese culture link of the day (12/6/2002)
japanese culture link of the day (12/23/2002)
reviews: hentai games sux0rz
anime term of the day (fan service, 02/17/2003)
retro gaming link of the day (battletech)
20 favorite movies since 1980
second japanese culture link of the day (11/20/2003)

Recent posts at Destroy All Monsters
Check out today's news posts at Destroy All Monsters

destroy all monsters
8-bit theatre
the onion
mac hall
penny arcade
twisted kaiju theater
this modern world
giant robot
8bit joystick
teleport city
stomp tokyo
cold fusion video reviews
kung fu cinema
anime web turnpike
random abstract
radio paradise
neil gaiman
william gibson
greg costikyan
xeni jardin
nasa's astronomy picture of the day
u.s. constitution
the democratic party's blog
indiana democratic party
center for american progress
donkey rising
boing boing
the hoosier review
the daily howler
this modern world
the joe bob report
quake 2

nextblog (random)
the truth laid bear
the lefty directory
indiana blogs

alas, a blog
andrew hagen
angry bear
asymmetrical information
bertrand russel
blog left
blog of the moderate left
blue streak
body and soul
busy, busy, busy
byzantium's shores
charles murtaugh
chris c. mooney
confessions of a g33k
cooped up
counterspin central
critiques of editorials
crooked timber
cut on the bias
daily kos
daniel drezner
democratic veteran
destroy all blogs
die puny humans
d-squared digest
etched in stone
fester's place
founding issues
geisha asobi blog
how appealing
intel dump
interesting times
ipse dixit
it's still the economy, stupid
jack o'toole
juan cole
kieran healy
late night thoughts
legal fiction
long story, short pier
making light
mark byron
mark a. r. kleiman
matt welch
matthew yglesias
meryl yourish
min jung kim
nathan newman
never trust a monkey
no more mister nice blog
notes on the atrocities
not geniuses
off the kuff
oliver willis
oni blogger
onye's livejournal
open source politics
pacific views
political aims
political animal
political wire
quaker in a basement
reachm high
roger ailes
royal blue
ruminate this
sadly, no!
scoobie davis
seeing the forest
self made pundit
semi-daily journal (brad delong)
shadow of the hegemon
sisyphus shrugged
skeptical notion
skippy the bush kangaroo
south knox bubba
swanky conservative
talking points memo
the 18 minute gap
the adventures of accordionguy in the 21st century
the agonist
the american street
the avocado couch
the blog of chloë and pete
the campaign desk
the gadflyer
the gamer's nook
the left coaster
the light of reason
the peking duck
the people's republic of seabrook
the poor man
the power pill
the right christians
the rittenhouse review
the road to surfdom
the sideshow
the talking dog
the volokh conspiracy
thinking it through
through the looking glass
to the barricades!
to the point
unqualified offerings
very big blog
very very happy
whiskey bar
wiley wiggins
wil wheaton


-- HOME --

L337 lexicon
...speak l337?
(image courtesy megatokyo)
L33t/l33+: elite
b33r: beer
h4x0r: hacker
j00: you
L4m3: lame
L33t: elite
ph33r: fear
sux0rz: sucks
sw33t: sweet
w00t: woo hoo!
download a l33+ 5p34k generator here

Site Feed

link to me
link to me

background image courtesy pixeldecor

random quote javascript provided by
javascript kit

indianapolis weather:
The WeatherPixie
This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
  xSunday, September 08, 2002

now this is what i'm talking about

The Indianapolis Star is hardly a liberal paper...but today's editorial on the Iraqi situation is closely aligned indeed with my own opinions. Here it is in its entirety:

The four-point test before going to war

September 08, 2002

Our position is: The president must begin to prove his case that another war against Iraq is necessary.

President Bush must flesh out four key points in order to prove that another war against Iraq is warranted.

The first point centers on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's flagrant violations of international agreements reached at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

On this matter, there's little room for serious debate. In fact, the president will press the point hard Thursday when he addresses the United Nations.

Hussein long ago forced weapons inspectors out of Iraq. There's substantial evidence he has at least pursued development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. And his military routinely violates U.N.-established "no fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq.

But establishing that Hussein is an international outlaw isn't sufficient by itself to prompt a U.S.-led attack.

A small dissent here: I'd say it isn't enough to establish a unilateral US attack, but I think it's high time the UN asserted itself, with the US playing a leadership role. Iraq unquestionably is in violation of its agreements at the conclusion of the Gulf War, but that's a matter that the Security Council should and must deal with. The problems are that Hussein being an international outlaw is hardly new, which is why sanctions remain in place. It doesn't support this sudden claim that the weakened and contained Saddam is suddenly a threat, especially when such a claim can reasonably be viewed as the product of the personal agendas of a bunch of neocon hawks. The power of the Executive as commander in Chief should not--I say again should not--be abused to settle a personal score. The other problem is, of course, that the Administrations' unilateralist attitude is engenderin all kinds of ill will even among our allies, let alone crucial Security Council rivals like Russia and China.
The second point involves demonstrating that Iraq has obtained or is close to obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hinted last week that the United States has evidence that Iraq is close to developing nuclear weapons. Such evidence needs to be spelled out to the House and Senate Intelligence committees and to other key congressional leaders.

Reports from international sources that Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons also should be confirmed.

If equipped with weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is more than just an outlaw, he's a menace to the world, but especially the United States.

Yet it might be possible to keep the menace in a box, negating the necessity of war. The current policy of containment is undeniably flawed, but it is by no means a complete failure. Hussein is weaker and more isolated than he was before the Gulf War. Continuing to isolate the Iraqi dictator while blocking his ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction might allow internal forces more time to foster a revolution.

I can't stress enough that any WMD capability Iraq posesses is little threat to the US if Iraq can't deliver the weapon to the target. Thus the Amdinistration paints an ominous picture that Saddam might provide such weapons to terrorists, a point the Star editorial board goes on to address:
That strategy, however, would be dangerous if Hussein is conspiring with international terrorists to strike against the United States or other countries. A link to terrorism is the third point Bush must establish.

If it can be shown that Iraq is helping to train or fund terrorists or assisting in the planning of attacks, then the removal of Hussein from power would be justified. So far, however, the Bush administration hasn't established a definitive link between him and terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida.

The fourth point involves the standard of clear and present danger.

Hussein is obviously a rogue. He also may be armed with weapons that could kill millions. In addition, he may be assisting terrorists who already have murdered thousands in this country and elsewhere. If the first three points can be proven, then the justification for war is clear.

But the final questions involve strategy: Is it better to wait for international support to develop and a postwar Iraqi government to be identified? Or is a quick attack necessary to save lives in the United States, Iraq and elsewhere?

If it can be demonstrated that Hussein is an immediate threat to the United States, then waiting is an option that's too dangerous to accept. So far, however, the question of an immediate danger remains unanswered.

The standards for engaging in war must be high. The president must thoroughly prove his case to Congress and the American people or call off plans for an invasion.

Make no mistake about it...insisting that the Administration make its case to the American public in specifics, beyond mere assertions that a threat exists, is not a "liberal," "pacifist," or "dovish"'s the reasonable, small-d democratic, patriotic, and, I might add, Constitutional one.