unmitigated disatser of success

The Bush Administration has continued their development of doublespeak to help explain our glorious military campaign in Iraq. Apparently the only real problem with the invasion was our "catastrophic success" which lead to the overly rapid fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. Apparently there was supposed to be a longer orderly war (now that would have been fun). Naturally this would have prevented the current anarchy.

I think it might be time to declare the Bush presidency an unmitigated disaster of success and move onto a new non-cataclysmic leader.
Nic

generic letter to the editors, brush off and re-send every time the us invades another country

Dear Editors:

Re: Operation “Fill in the Blank”

I would like to suggest that people (and the press in particular) refrain from using whatever name the Pentagon comes up with for the impending military strikes (against Afghanistan and/or who knows where). I think that the latest incarnation is “Enduring Freedom” after “Infinite Justice” and “Just Eagle” (or something like that) were scrapped. During the US war with Iraq the military honed the art of naming modern wars and carefully managing the press so that we only see (and as much as possible think) only what the military wants. These operation names are the first propaganda strike and serve to curtail critical reporting and thought about what we as a nation are doing. As we have no real information about what the actions will entail (and Donald Rumsfeld made it clear on Tuesday that we will be given a very restricted diet of military propaganda) I would suggest that we each devise our own names for the “Operation”. Right now I favor “Infinite Jingoism”, “Enduring Breast-beating” or “Violent Vengeance”. The US has a long history of engaging in military actions that wreak a terrible toll on mostly poor civilians of other nations. I would hope that all of us have learned from September 11th that civilian deaths are an abomination and should never be written off as “collateral damage” in the quest for a greater purpose.

Sincerely,Nic

quoting someone always worth listening to

....At the end of the talk someone from the audience asked the Dalai Lama, "Why didn't you fight back against the Chinese?"
The Dalai Lama looked down, swung his feet just a bit, then looked back up at us and said with a gentle smile, "Well, war is obsolete, you know." Then, after a few moments, his face grave, he said, "Of course the mind can rationalize fighting back... but the heart, the heart would never understand. Then you would be divided in yourself, the heart and the mind, and the war would be inside you."

another note to senator cantwell before the invasion

September 16, 2002

Senator Maria Cantwell
717 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Fax: (206) 2206-404

Dear Senator Cantwell:

Re: War on Iraq

I am writing to urge you to resist the 'proposed' war on Iraq. I find it laughable that Mr. Bush has asked for UN support for a war against Iraq. Does he think that the world has not noticed that the US has been continually at war with Iraq since the end of the 'Gulf War'? 12 years of US led economic sanctions has lead to the death of well over a half million Iraqi children and the devastation of a once prosperous society. We bomb their military installations on an almost daily basis (it is so normal that the press only bothers to mention it if some hapless Iraqi takes a pot shot at one of the US planes (and is usually blown to smithereens). Resorting to military intervention (what a lovely misnomer for mass murder) when the US has made no attempt at diplomacy is wrong. This type of unilateral global bullying is the exact reason why "they hate us". Mr. Bush is describing this as a necessary step in the "War on Terrorism". Well if one pays any attention to cause and effect, this should create a whole new legion of terrorists. Yes Saddam Hussein is a bad guy (a fact that apparently escaped the Reagan/ Bush people when we supported his killing of 1 million Iranians and the gassing of his Kurdish population in the 1980s). However, this does not justify heaping even more misery on the Iraqi people by bombing what little infrastructure they have in place now. In Afghanistan we were targeting Osama bin Laden who is/was living in the most remote and rural area and we still managed to kill over 4,000 civilians [1] (more than died in New York and DC on 9/11/01) and apparently still did not "get our man". How many citizens in Baghdad will become collateral damage before we bag Saddam? How many would you consider reasonable (10 or 15 thousand? It's a big city 30,000 would still be less than 1% of the population. Smart bombs that are right 99% of the time sounds like a good sound bite). Realistically Iraq does not pose a global threat at this point. If they did wouldn't Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria all support Mr. Bush's plan? I have not heard a word of support from any of them, even Kuwait.

As an elected representative you are supposed to represent your constituents. I would like you to hear very clearly from me, one of your constituents (I have never missed primary or general election or caucus since gaining citizenship in 1988):
stop waging war. In plain and simple terms, I am vehemently opposed to mass murder as a supposed means of conflict resolution. Every time one of our guided missiles or smart bombs kills people I am complicit in their murder. I pay taxes for the betterment of society, not to support the slaughter of foreign citizens. If we want to contain the "threat of Iraq": send in weapons inspectors, send in food and medicine. Give the Iraqi people the fortitude to get rid of Hussein. The US engaging in a "preemptive" invasion Iraq will look pretty much like any other hostile military action in the history books.

Please, speak out for what is right. The US clearly has an overwhelming military advantage against any other country (amazing what trillions of dollars will do, just imagine the world we could live in if we diverted 1/3 or even 1/10 of that on promoting democracy, human rights and health care in the third world?). This does not justify obliterating countries and societies on a regular basis. We need elected officials to speak out clearly, loudly, often and continue on even when pollsters say that 80% (or whatever the number is) of the US people want war. High polling numbers do not make immoral actions right.

Sincerely,

Nic

an old note to one of my senators about the military budget

March 12, 2002

Senator Maria Cantwell
464 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-0001

Dear Senator Cantwell:

Re: George W. Bush’s Military Budget

I am writing to express my interest in having you vote for a complete de-funding of the US military. President Bush has proposed a budget that focuses on massive military spending increases, tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. Furthermore he seems intent on the rape of our environment though an Energy (Abuse) Plan. The “War on Terrorism” appears to be a criminally misguided and a cynical attempt to take advantage of the September 11th tragedy to conduct the BushCheney agenda without the interference of Congress or the US public. In recent days it has come to light that The BushCheney administration has developed detailed plans for targeting nuclear weapons on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, Libya, Syria and Russia. Apparently we are supposed to take comfort from the fact that this plan is only intended to intimidate those countries and peoples. As we are engaged in a “War on Terrorism” and our great leader has never defined the word terrorist, I went to the Oxford English Dictionary to find a definition. This is what I found: “One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or coercing government or community”.

Well by that definition I would say that George W. Bush’s actions with regards to nuclear weapons targeting can only be described as those of a terrorist. I cannot think of anything much more terror-inspiring than knowing that large numbers of nuclear missiles are targeted at your country, and now at least 1,562 Million people on the planet are in that situation thanks to Mr. Bush.

So, as Mr. Bush is clearly acting as a terrorist and it is illegal in this country to financially support terrorists I think the time has come to cut military appropriations to a morally appropriate level of $0 for the next year (biennium, or decade for that matter). Perhaps our armed forces will complain, but I think it is clear that no other action is legal. Mr. Bush is a great proponent of volunteerism, and he can have all the volunteers he wants to carry out his illegal actions, so long as they are willing to defend their actions in court.

I can no longer support the insanity that poses as a national security policy, and I hope that you will be able to take the only sane position of de-funding the military. If you intend to support the proposed military budget could you please send me a succinct summary of your logic behind your choice? I like to explain these things to my 9-year-old son so that he is fully educated on matters of politics and morality.

Thanks for your help. Sincerely,

Nic

although gwb, cheney and ashcroft are my heros, I just cannot resist tom ridge for his intellectual and spiritual brilliance

March 27, 2003

Tom Ridge
Department of Homeland Insecurity
Washington DC 20528

Dear Secretary Ridge:

I would like to congratulate you and Our Great Leader, Mr. Bush on the creation of the Department of Homeland Insecurity. This has been one of the truly inspired moments of genius of His administration. After 9/11 Mr. Bush was quoted on at least two occasions bemoaning the fact that "It would be so much easier if I were a dictator." Lesser leaders would have let their dream die because of the presence of the pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights (why it is not titled the Bill of Lefties, I will never know). However you, or He (or was it Dick Cheney at his undisclosed location?) came up with the idea of a Department of Homeland Security.

This was a truly bold move to make Americans safer at home. I can scarcely find enough paper to write down all the ways that the Department has already made us safer (as in: inspired a raised level of fear amongst the populace to assure that they become more compliant with the President's plans). The name of the Department itself is inspired: "Homeland Security" invokes the spirit of the Third Reich along with all its associated imagery. Clearly that reference will only bring disquiet to the elderly and those who paid attention during History, so you needed a more visceral and immediate plan for all the people. The color-coded Terror Alert ® system is a startling simple and effective system. You can now warn the population as to how scared they should be on any given day. Of course the information upon which the alert is based is always classified, so there is no way that any citizen can analyze the information and draw his or her own conclusions. The red and orange alerts require the States, but more importantly the cities, to increase policing and security measures. Naturally this is an un-funded mandate, so the local jurisdictions are left paying for these crises out of budgets that are already in trouble because the economy has been stimulated into a persistent recession by the Bush tax cuts. People in the cities see armed guards all over and become a little more fearful. Moreover city dwellers (who overwhelmingly voted against Bush/ Cheney in 2000 and for the most part remain opposed to the Invasion of Iraq) will be facing crippling policing costs.

I recently read a document on “Homeland Security” that was supposed to help elementary schools prepare for terrorist attacks. It included such inflammatory statements as “Do you know who stocks the vending machines in your school? Who is touching the cans that will touch the children’s lips?” I don’t know if your Department put out this piece, but is seems in keeping with your style. Just to keep score: meter readers and mail people will be spying on the populace, and vending machine workers are suspected terrorists? Too bad, the vending machine people could do some good spying with the open access they have. I wonder if you have any openings in your propaganda and paranoia division? I would love to generate scenarios to scare the people. Better yet, you should contact Steven King and see if he can whip out a few outlines upon which you can formulate policy.

Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

Nic

somewhat newer note to the mugwump at 1600 pennsylvania ave

March 24, 2004

George W. BushThe White House1600 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington DC 20500

Mr. Bush:

Re: The WAR ON TERROR Inc.:

I know that you are a busy man, being a proud war president and having to go to all those fundraisers and photo ops, but if you would take a moment I think that there is one aspect of the WAR ON TERROR Inc. that is not getting enough attention. History has shown that ignoring terrorists only makes them bolder and allows them to act more audaciously. I know that you admire Israel and their effective approach in dealing with terrorism, so in that light I am proposing a WAR ON TERROR Inc. campaign for 2004 that focuses on the Fatherland.

Domestic Terrorist Groups Currently Ignored:
Your administration has identified two domestic terrorist groups that so far seem to have been ignored in your WAR ON TERROR Inc.
Teachers' Unions: Your Secretary of Education Rod Paige has said that teachers unions are terrorist organizations.
Anti Bush/Cheney Protestors: The secret service has determined that any citizen who protests against you or your policies is a potential terrorist and cannot stand within view of your motorcade or any location where you will be/ speak / fundraise. In a policy that I can only interpret as weak on terrorism; these protestors are allowed to express their dissent in fenced off areas located miles from where you will be.
Strategies for Dealing with Teachers' Unions:
Targeted assassination of union leaders. You know where they live and work. Helicopter gunship strikes could take out the top rung of leadership in a matter of hours.
Missile strikes against activist teachers. The problem is that leadership does not exist in a vacuum and there would likely be candidates to replace the current union leaders by the time your forces had returned to their bases. A few missile attacks against known activist teachers in their classrooms would not only eliminate them but also send an unambiguous message to other potential radicals. Sure there could be some collateral damage, but has any Israeli leader ever lost an election over a few dead children? This would demonstrate to the electorate that you are a strong leader who takes all forms of terrorism seriously.
Strategies for dealing with Anti-Bush/Cheney Protestors:
Cluster bombing of protests. This seems like the most surgical way to eliminate a huge terrorist threat. Dissenters chose to join together in large identifiable groups. BAM!! You take them all out at once. No collateral damage to speak of. Even if a few bystanders get in the way or a few munitions go astray; we are talking about people living in cities like San Francisco and Seattle. Let's face it the big cities are incubators of anti-Bush/Cheney thought.
Targeted assassinations of the spiritual leaders of the protest movement. I think that a quick web search will identify the key spiritual leaders of the protest movement in the US. You could even start with the speakers on Alternative Radio and Democracy Now. Not all of the spiritual leaders are part of the liberal churches; some are part of the secular humanist movement that has taken over the universities in this country. These leaders foment the lais'ez faire attitude that pervades much of the urban Northeast and West Coast. The notion that dissent is acceptable is now widespread in many cities. You need to clamp down before it is too late. Potential terrorists roam our cities at will.
I think that this matter deserves your immediate attention. Swift and decisive action will help cement your reputation as a war president who is not afraid to take whatever action is needed to stamp out the scourge of terrorism. Of course, if the teachers' unions and anti-Bush/Cheney protestors were not terrorist groups this type of action would constitute the most horrendous form of a crime against humanity. But I am confident that your administration would not make charges as serious as this without solid intelligence backing, or for mere political gain.

Sincerely,

Nic

an even older note to the great one

January 28, 2002

Mr. George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500-0001

Dear Mr. Bush:

Re: The BushCheney Energy Plan

Last week I heard a brief clip of you talking about the BushCheney Energy Plan in which you stated that you would not release the minutes of the meetings that Mr. Cheney held in developing your administration’s energy plan. In addition you stated that no one had accused you of any wrongdoing in the development of the energy plan. The implication in your statement was that you would release the minutes if you were accused of wrongdoing. So here is the accusation that you requested (from me, a mere citizen of the United States of America):

1. It appears that Enron and several other large oil and energy company bought special access to your administration with their large donations to your election campaign and to the Republican Party. The proposed plan heavily favors certain corporations.
2. It appears that the energy plan was not developed with any concern for the public good. If it were, conservation, renewable and alternative non-polluting energy sources would have been included in the plan. The proposed plan appears to focus almost entirely on a fossil fuel based energy future. It is inconceivable that anyone taking an objective look at all the available options could have derived such a lopsided plan.
3. As the President you are (at least should be) in charge of the preservation of our natural resources and protection of our environment. As such your proposed plan appears to be criminally negligent in its lack of concern for the environment. The release of meeting minutes should prove whether Mr. Cheney followed the minimum standards of a federal environmental impact statement. These studies are required for small projects (roads, buildings, developments) that could at most impact microenvironments. Surely something with such an overreaching effect on our global environment as a national energy plan would have to undergo a rigorous environmental impact statement?

Based on the administration’s reaction to the GAO’s request for documents and the fact that I am a citizen (not a corporation with a big wallet), I fully expect my request to go straight to the trash. For what it is worth I intend to pursue all possible avenues under the Freedom of Information Act, with my congressional delegation and environmental groups. I have a passing interest in the degree to which your administration has been willing to sell favor to big corporations. However that the influence peddling is so self-evident in this case and it is such a widespread and ingrained problem within the two-party system that it is almost irrelevant. I have a bigger interest in the gross negligence and malfeasance involved in developing an energy plan that seems designed to maximize air and water pollution and environmental destruction. I find it utterly absurd and embarrassing that this country is charting a course for unabated energy waste and environmental destruction for the rest of my lifetime and probably that of my nine-year old son.

Furthermore your administration’s penchant for secrecy suggests a basic hostility to democracy and the freedom of the citizens of this country. Perhaps I am misjudging your administration’s actions in developing an energy plan, I would love to be proved wrong. However with your secrecy and stonewalling it is unlikely you will convince any critics.

Sincerely,



Nic

an old letter to Heinrich Ashcroft

March 25, 2003

John AshcroftAttorney General of the United StatesU.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

Re: Domestic Terrorists Commit Acts of International Terrorism

I am appealing to you as the top law enforcement officer in the United States to please take action as quickly as possible to put a stop to a massive terrorist campaign that is being undertaken by a group of US based militants. They are currently reported to be roaming through vast portions of Iraq and appear to have killed thousands of Iraqis as well as destroying hundreds of buildings.

The same group is involved in a protracted campaign of terror in Afghanistan. They are reported to have killed at least 20,000 armed Afghanis as well as 3,500 unarmed civilians. The purported reason for their campaign in Afghanistan was to revenge the September 11th attacks in New York and Washington DC. I am sure that no legal scholar would accept the spurious legal argument that "two rights make a wrong" which appears to be the underpinning of that particular campaign. The leader of the group, the Washington DC based George W. Bush, has argued that the Afghan campaign had no terrorist basis and that the civilian deaths were purely accidental. I would doubt that Osama bin Laden could use this defense if he were to stand trial for his ghastly acts of terror, so I assume you will not allow the Washington DC based group to escape justice on this premise.

The apparent legal basis for the current campaign of large scale mass murder, assault and property damage in Iraq is that the Iraqis might pose a threat to the US at an unspecified date in the future. Perhaps you are aware of a legal precedence for "pre-emptive self defense murder" within the US judicial system. I have never heard of it. The leaders of the terrorist cell announced that they were going to conduct a campaign of "shock and awe" bombing in Baghdad. This phrase is clearly synonymous with terror, so they can no longer hide behind the "we did not mean to terrorize anyone" defense that they employed in Afghanistan. News reports of the recent spate of bombings throughout Iraq make it clear that they are achieving their goal of widespread terror. As you prosecute these crimes, I think you should focus on the fact that the militants have access to a seemingly endless cache of weapons of mass destruction. Just within the last week they have apparently successfully deployed long range missiles, huge "bunker-busting" bombs, cluster bombs, tanks, armored "fighting vehicles", attack helicopters, as well as shoulder launched missiles and machine guns and the list goes on. Apparently many of their bombs contain "depleted" uranium and thus fall into the category of dirty bombs that the US public has been warned against.

As though their weaponry were not bad enough, they have engaged in fighting tactics that will lead to mass scale illness and death amongst the Iraqi population. I have just heard reports that bombing in the city of Basra has cut off electricity and clean water supplies. Over 1.5 million people there are being forced to survive on river water polluted with sewage. I don't think I need to spell out any more of their crimes, I know this will be enough for you to have them arrested and prosecuted. You should also be aware that this group has access to thousands of nuclear weapons, and admits to regularly targeting other counties with them (even countries that have no nuclear arsenal). Fortunately they have not yet pulled the trigger on these weapons. I think that you can find out a more complete list of those responsible for the mass murders when you raid their Washington DC offices. I believe that the lead terror cell based at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC includes George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

If you have trouble catching the group I think it should be quite simple to shut down their funding network. It is based on a system of forced donations from citizens in the US [however by some strange quirk the leaders are trying to exempt their closest friends from participation]. The money is all funneled through the IRS offices (you can check your phone book for local listings). The list of contributors to the terror group runs into the millions. I assume that you will have all of them arrested? I am humiliated to admit that I have donated thousands of dollars to this terror group. I have continued to donate to their terrorist network because I have been told that refusal to do so will result in jail time. Is that really correct? It seems hard to believe that could be the case in a democratic country. My admittedly weak defense for providing them with financial support (other than the threat of jail time) is that the leaders lied to me when they argued that they would uphold the constitution of the United States and be supporters of law and order. Clearly a second campaign of mass murder within two years has nothing to do with law and order. Where should I go to turn myself in for funding a terrorist group?

I assume that this matter will be your top priority as the scale of the crimes involved is almost unprecedented. Please contact me if I can in any way help in tracking down these terrorists.

Sincerely,

Nic

another old letter to GWB (Gypsum Wallboard?)

February 17, 2003

Mr. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500


Mr. Bush: I am an extremely concerned citizen. With the Terror Threat set at Orange I see that you and other important administration officials are still bravely appearing in public to explain to the brainless populace why we should be scared all the time, every day, every night and why the only route to Homeland Security is through carpet bombing Baghdad. With the imminent threat of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ready to strike anywhere in the US at any moment, I would assume that you and your important henchpeople could be wiped out at any moment. I was heartened to see that Mr. Ridge has used his cabinet level position to come up with an ingenious defense of the homeland using plastic and duct tape [how dare those skeptics suggest that American ingenuity is on the wane]. This spurred my invention (for which I am considering applying for a patent). I think there is an immediate need for an effective form of protection for all top people in the administration. I also recognize that with all the important cuts in taxes for the affluent and critical increases in the military budget, there is probably only about $3.50 to spend on new government programs in the next decade. So I have come up with the:

The Affordable Portable Chemical and Biological Warfare Shield
All important Whitehouse personnel shall be issued with a clear plastic bag. In the event of an orange or red alert, they shall cover their head with the bag and seal it (with duct tape or a rubber band). They can then go about their business with the assurance that they are protected from the Iraqi Menace. When the alert level is lowered to less than orange they can undo their personal Chemical and Biological Warfare Shield. I am sure that when your supporters see you and your aides successfully deploying this technology, they will follow suit.

Sincerely,


Nic

old letter to the fearless leader

March 11, 2003

Mr. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500

Mr. Bush:
I am writing to congratulate you on the consistently wise choices you have made as President. I think that the wisdom of your choices has clarified what you mean by the phrase “compassionate conservative”. Sadly your namesake George Orwell did not live to see the creative way you have redefined those two words. It is heartening to finally have a leader who has such complete self assurance and is never constrained by such mortal concerns as logic, facts, world opinion, history, science and economics. It is no wonder that France, the home of existentialism hates you so much, you epitomize the antithesis of existentialism. I have read in some detail about your deep Christian faith and have heard you consistently invoking the name of God, repeatedly seen you praying in public and right after September 11th invoking the Holy Crusades as your inspiration for the War on Terrorism. Clearly as a sincere and committed man of god you would never distort facts to argue your case or put the interests of capital above those of peace and the well being of people and society. Only an unrepentant skeptic, anarchist, socialist, atheist or hedonist could possibly question your sincerity or honesty on such matters.

Here are just five of your choices that I think need to be highlighted as epitomizing your compassionate conservatism (how could anyone hate that heartwarming phrase, it has something for everyone?):
You have chosen absolute thinking over fuzzy liberal thought. After September 11th you critically analyzed the underlying causes: “They hate us”; “they are Evil, we are Good”. Then and ever since you completely dismissed the laughable arguments that any aspect of US foreign policy could ever contribute to the worldwide widespread dislike that fuels and breeds that level of hatred. The absolute correctness of your position was reinforced when noted intellectual lightweight Noam Chomsky made the absurd argument that decades US government support for dictators and the oppression of he poor could have created some resentment towards us.
You have chosen to put public money where it really belongs. Your tax cut program is taking money out of the bloated federal budget and putting it back where it belongs, the pockets of the hardworking affluent. The shocking condition of balanced federal budgets that sprung up in the 1990s has been corrected for the foreseeable future. Once you reinforce the Republican majorities in congress you should be able to cut the fat out of all those educational, health care, welfare and environmental programs and further reduce the burdensome taxes on multi-national corporations and wealthy individuals. I think that you can confidently point to the streets of any great American City for proof that we don’t need all those liberal programs: all our citizens are housed, all our citizens have complete health care, all our mentally ill taken care of, all of our children are well fed and in classrooms in the world’s best schools (taught by vastly overpaid teachers), all of our citizens breathe clean air, drink clean water and eat healthy food, the infrastructure is in impeccable condition, our streets are free of crime, since Bill Frist took office there is no longer even the tiniest vestige of racism in the US and all hard working citizens are guaranteed lifelong pensions and healthcare.
You have chosen a visionary energy policy that will sustain our country and the world indefinitely. Once we have complete control of the Middle East and are able to explore every acre of Alaska, we will be able to power as many cars as we want forever (well beyond the 2004 election). It is heartening to see you lavish tens of dollars on the development of alternative renewable energy sources. We all know that those solar and wind power folks are a bunch of socialist hippies; they don’t need a lot to live on. If they complain, point out to them that Tom Ridge was able to protect the entire country from hordes of terrorists armed with Anthrax, Smallpox, nerve gas and nuclear bombs with nothing more than rolls of plastic and duct tape. If Tom can do that, the hippies should be able to fashion a working hydrogen fuel cell car with components found at any Home Depot ® store.
You have chosen a foreign policy that will eventually lead to the complete elimination of all Evil for all time. Why has no US President before you not seen the light in the way that you have? With our overwhelming military power and your “Defense Policy” where we can strike anywhere at any time to eliminate evildoers, it is only a matter of time until we can all sleep safely again (and spend happy vacations at timeshare condos in Third World countries). I have complete confidence that you and Mr. Ashcroft will be able to lift those pesky limitations on our civil liberties contained in the USA Patriot Act within a decade or two.
You have chosen military force as the only means of international negotiation. This is so much simpler and easier to understand than the messy types of diplomacy that have typified negotiations in the past. Now we can tell our opponents that we will bomb them into oblivion if they do not concede to our demands. This will bring an unprecedented clarity and simplicity to the world order (and the beauty of it is that we happen to be Good). I am sure that as a Man of God you have carefully considered all the Pentagon analysis of your past and proposed military actions to see that thy are consistent with your compassionate position. It appears that the war on Afghanistan killed at least 3,500 civilians and 20,000 enemy combatants. Although the Pentagon will not release casualty estimates for your proposed Iraqi war it is obvious from their estimate of 3,000 bombs in the first 48 hours of fighting that the casualties in Iraq will be much higher. Obviously your means of conflict resolution is entirely consistent with those of people in history that are known for their compassion. Wasn’t it Jesus who said “Smote thy neighbor lest he pose a threat to you in the future”? And didn’t Gandhi advocate firebombing the homes of all the British settlers after Indian protesters were shot by British soldiers? I am almost certain that it was Martin Luther King who said, “I have a dream that one day the families of the KKK will have napalm dropped on them as they run through the streets of Mississippi”. Just the other day the Dalai Lama said something like “ True enlightenment can only be reached through a campaign of suicide bombing to rid Tibet of the Chinese invaders”. Is it to soon to get tickets for your acceptance banquet for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize?

I hope that a description of your wise choices will be included on a plaque next to your visage when it is added to Mt. Rushmore.

Sincerely,

Nic

nicrozzo

Random thoughts on life in the upper left hand corner of the center of the empire. Politics, urban design and ........