Wednesday, July 23, 2003
DEAD
OR, MORE SINCERELY DEAD
And Gone Forever
We learn today that Saddam Hussein’s two eldest sons, Husay and Qusay, have been killed.
They’re dead. Gone forever.
And much as I hate death in all its forms, that’s good news. Very good news. I am not ashamed to say that.
Yes, it’s good news for the Bush administration’s heretofore thoroughly bumbling post-“Mission Accomplished” military campaign. But it’s also good news for both the Iraqi populace and for American soldiers charged with the almost hopeless task of preserving “the peace” in Iraq.
And it’s good news for everyone, including me and everyone else who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and who continue to raise questions about our actions in that country.
I know the well paid dregs of our punditcracy, among them the likes of Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by trade, Mark Steyn, the theater critic, and William “The Wacky Necromancer” Safire, the Nixonian ass-kisser, among many others, together with the mindless Sharon-echoing segment of the blogosphere, think “leftists,” a group that I’m told, by way of the more psychotic of messages that land in my e-mail box each morning -- many induced by the ignorance of right-wing, rabidly bigoted “anti-Islamists,” Likudniks, and self-styled über-bloggers on the same subject, those whose priorities are sickeningly skewed away from our own national interest -- includes me, are allegedly saddened by this development.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Let me ungraciously interrupt the collective wet dreams of the demented right wing to say, without equivocation, that I’m pleased to learn these little cretins are dead, gone forever, and that I hope our otherwise admirable military forces will prove similarly successful with respect to Saddam and the altogether thoroughly forgotten, yet truth be told, more threatening menace to the U.S., Osama bin Laden.
That does not mean, however, that I’m signing on to the Bush administration’s unconscionably dangerous policy in Iraq, a “policy” that continues to result in the needless deaths of at least one American soldier a day, a “policy” that, based on the Bush administration’s own forward projections, will keep our supposedly supremely mobile military forces bogged down for years to come, a “policy” that, I have no doubt, serves primarily the interests not of the American people but of a small coterie of Americans who are all too eager to move on, without any provocation or justification whatsoever, to waging war upon such “threatening” -- to the U.S. -- states as Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Libya.
What a mess.
God help us, every one.
The Rittenhouse Review |
Copyright 2002-2006 | PERMALINK |
|
|
|
CONTACT |
|
Send E-Mail
JAMES MARTIN CAPOZZOLA
|
|
BIO & STUFF |
|
James Martin (Jim) Capozzola launched The Rittenhouse Review in April 2002, TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse, HorowitzWatch, and Smarter Andrew Sullivan in July 2002, and Bulldogs for Kerry-Edwards in October 2004. He is also a contributing member of President Boxer.
He received the 2002 Koufax Award for Best Post> for "Al Gore and the Alpha Girls" (published November 25, 2002). Capozzola's record in the Koufax Awards includes two additional nominations for 2002 (Best Blog and Best Writing), three nominations for 2003 (Best Blog, Best Series, and Best Writing), and two finalist nominations in 2004 (Best Blog and Best Writing).
Capozzola’s experience beyond the blogosphere includes a lengthy career in financial journalism, securities analysis, and investment research, and in freelance writing, editing, ghost-writing, and writing instruction.
He earned his bachelor's degree in political science from the University at Albany and a master's in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia.
Capozzola lives in Philadelphia with his bulldog, Mildred.
|
PUBLICATION NOTES |
|
Posts pertaining to site developments, news, and updates are subject to deletion and to withdrawal, and with respect thereto, without notice.
~~~~~
Access to linked articles may require registration or subscription.
~~~~~
Linked articles are subject to expiration at the sole discretion of the original publisher.
~~~~~
Letters received by The Rittenhouse Review are subject to publication in full and with complete citation and attribution, including the sender's mailing and/or e-mail address and/or addresses, unless otherwise specifically requested in writing and at the time of submission.
~~~~~
The publisher reserves the right to confirm the identity and/or identities of each, any, and all correspondents through and by whatever means legal and necessary.
~~~~~
Any and all correspondence received and published hereat is subject to editing by the publisher for content, particularly but with no limitations implied thereto, with respect to vulgarity and other offensive language, and length, at the complete, full, and unhindered discretion of same.
~~~~~
The decision to publish each or any correspondence, if at all, rests solely with the publisher of this site.
~~~~~
The publisher retains copyrights to all original material here published and any submissions here received, including correspondence directed hereto, whether or not published hereat, unless otherwise specified.
~~~~~
Obviously, no provision is here made for immediate comments from readers.
~~~~~
All rights reserved and all that.
|
|
|
LINKS |
|
|
|
|