The Jedi Mind Trick

"We went to war to free the
oppressed Iraqi people, not to
remove the WMD threat.
Oh, and these are NOT the droids
you're looking for..."

I alluded to it in my post yesterday concerning the right-wing troll who stopped by... There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Let's face it, the Bush Administration has used the Jedi Mind Trick on us. Liberation of the oppressed Iraqi people emerged as a justification for war only after it became evident that no WMDs were likely to be found. That's still being used as the main justification for the war, even as polls show more than 90 percent of Iraqis view the American presence as an occupation rather than a liberation.

But there are those of us who are not so easily fooled, and remember when Bush took us to war, leveraging that wonderful culture of fear his administration is so good at cultivating. We remember Colin Powell showing satellite photos of alleged mobile chemical weapons factories. We remember the "disarm or else" rhetoric. We remember the skeptical among us who were shouted down when they merely suggested that perhaps Saddam Hussein had disarmed and was reasonably contained. And we remember the early insistence that WMDs would be found and Bush would be proven right.

Is this formal announcement that the WMDs were an illusion going to get the press coverage it deserves? I doubt it. As of a few minutes ago, when I did a Google News search for a cite, it took a bit more effort than I would have expected to find an American newspaper website with a story. The international press seems to be going off about it, and while the American press isn't exactly silent, it's not exactly giving the story its due.

Why? Because of the Jedi Mind Trick, that's why.

Yesterday, my troll friend accused me of being a drone. But who are the drones, people like me or the seemingly countless right-wing Bush fans who constantly parrot this line about liberating the Iraqi people as justification for the U.S. pre-emptive strike and subsequent occupation? Who is the one refusing to think here?

I still can't understand how people believe this war and occupation were justified, especially since the original justification has proven to be bullshit. Add to that the evidence we've seen that an attack on Iraq was pre-ordained as of 9/11, that there are many other oppressive regimes around the world that the Bush Administration tolerates or supports, and that the "revised" justification for the war also happens to be bullshit.

Take My Rock Guitar Test

So I created this test for rock guitar players on OKCupid. No one's taking the damned thing. If you play, and you think you're the goods, take it. WARNING: Taking a test someone created is how I got sucked into OKCupid in the first place. I didn't really see myself putting up a profile on an online dating site, but it's really easy to get sucked into when you've already answered questions and made that time investment. You have been warned.

Feeding the Trolls

Here's a gem from my comments:

What an amazing drone you are. Guess you don't mind if it's your plane. Guess it doesn't strike you that this seems to be happening all of a sudden, while laser pointers have been around for quite a while. Guess you voted for Kerry, and are looking for any way to strike out at those darn patriotic Americans who want to protect themselves from terrorists.

"Patriotic Americans" don't let the press get away with an overblown story, which is precisely what this laser pointer BS is. To have even a remote chance at bringing a plane down, one would have to fire a laser - and not just a laser pointer, but a commercial laser with extended range - through a cockpit, directly into the eyes of both the pilot and co-pilot. On top of that, in the highly unlikely event that both pilot and co-pilot are blinded by the laser, they'd have to be in the middle of a manual landing for serious problems to occur that might result in a crash.

My point? There are more reliable ways for terrorists to bring down an airplane. No terrorist is going to rely on this ineffective strategy to cause an airplane crash when they could buy weapons or explosives. Have we caught any members of Al Qaeda using this method to cause plane crashes? No. It's some idiot. In New Jersey. Playing with his daughter. Admittedly, he was doing something both illegal and stupid, but he's no terrorist. Yet, the press keeps hyping this thing as if there are terrorists all over the place trying to bring planes down with laser pointers.

Let's go back and see what you were saying in Nov, YUP, quoting that self-admitted source of lies and propaganda, the daily Kos, and oh, here is this gem titled 'to those who would not think': "John Kerry didn't send thousands of people to their deaths in Iraq to satisfy his personal bloodlust. Who would think that a comparison of the candidates' moral values would lead people to come to the conclusion that they prefer Bush's morals to Kerry's?

But that's exactly what happened. And ironically, many voters who chose to identify with the moral values of George Bush did so without an ounce of moral thought. What we've witnessed in the 2004 general election is the triumph of feelings over facts."

Great stuff, except that it was you and the other less-than half of America that forgot what morals were about. It IS about going into Iraq and saving those who are being exterminated by their islamo-fascist leader. It is not about lying and distorting the facts, over-and-over, it is not about accepting millions in donations from George 'offshore' Soros, who as I write today is financing Iran's propaganda effort. It is not about buying every lie that rolls out of Michael Moore's lips.

Forgot what morals were about? Nah. You're kidding yourself.

Today on the radio, I heard about how the Bush Administration abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq last month. And what have they found? Precisely squat. Yet, the presence of WMDs was what the Bush Administration used to justify the war. Remember when Colin Powell gave his wonderful speech about mobile weapons factories and other sites in Iraq that he was positive were storage facilities for WMDs? Well, that turned out to be bullshit. And this line about "saving those who are being exterminated by their islamo-fascist leader" is total crapola. The notion of liberating the Iraqi people didn't become a justification for the war until it became clear to the Bush Administration that the WMDs would never be found. What of oppressive regimes around the world that the Bush Administration routinely ignores or tolerates? Are those people worth less to us than the Iraqis?

Whose morality is really in question here?

And here you are still spouting Anti-Americanism, months later. Dude, I am embarrased to share NYC with you. Go to Canada, or France, and undermine their security efforts, why don't you.

In Disgust, X

Anti-Americanism? I love how you right-wing fascists use that broad brush to paint anyone who questions the moral direction of the current administration. We have a moral duty to question the decisions made by our leaders. I'd argue that anyone who refuses to think and immediately swallows whatever justifications the government offers up without question (much like yourself) is Anti-American.

So I'd urge you to think about how the adminstration, which led us into a pre-emptive strike under false pretenses, can justify its ethical direction.

And yes, I did vote for John Kerry.

Contrasting the Past Election with Clinton/Bush I

I'm more than halfway through Bill Clinton's biography. I was particularly intrigued by how Clinton described how Bush I's lowballing of the deficit tripped up his economic plan somewhat. But it occurred to me that Clinton was able to explain essentially what he wanted to do in a very simple fashion that even someone like me, with little experience beyond Econ 101, could understand. And then it occurred to me that this was one of the things that was missing from the discussion and debates in the last election. Kerry made plenty of stink about how we went from a huge budget surplus to a huge deficit, but I didn't hear specifics about how he wanted to address this if elected. I thought that perhaps, if Kerry was able to explain what he wanted to do with the economy in a way that was as simple as how Clinton explained his own economic plan, things may have turned out differently.

Instead, the Bush II administration was able to take potshots at Kerry by harping on the absence of a realistic plan. Clinton was able to get people to understand what was important about cutting the deficit and making investments at the time. Kerry wasn't nearly as effective. With America just starting to pull out of a recession, maybe the Dems could have pulled some additional votes by explaining their economic policy in real-world terms that highlighted just what the benefit would be to the middle and working classes.