I Feel A Bit Bad


Bubba! What are you doing here?

I do not feel like celebrating the Yankees loss to the Angels as it was so similar to the Red Sox loss to the Chisox earlier in the week. Aging starters, a key error by a younger player without playoff experience, veteran sluggers not making the big play when needed. Maybe paying too much attention to the rivalry this year distracted us from others surpassing the old American League guard.

Losing Baseball

It was sad but expected when the Sox lost and it was kinda sad and expected when the Yankees lost yesterday as well. Sad losing baseball from getting home after work to hitting the hay pushing midnight. I think I was saddest for Randy Johnson who got booed by his own fans after letting the game get away 5-0 in the early innings. How odd it is to be a fan of a team and have that much ill will to one of your best players, a guy that a few days ago got you the win that got you into the post-season. He didn’t look angry when he was pulled from the game, he didn’t curse back at the crowd – he looked sad. The photo above from The New York Times captures it perfectly – as so many of their sports photographs do. What other job is there that people give you such immediate punishment when you fail?

Don’t get me wrong. I still hope they lose this afternoon.

Later:

Just Dubya Being Dubya…

What is wrong with George saying such a thing as this? Nothing:

Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was “driven with a mission from God”.”President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq… And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I’m gonna do it.'” Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the meeting in June 2003 too, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: “I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.”

If that is what is in his brain, why can’t he put it that way. Consider that its pretty much accepted that he uses such language as a tool of communication and that he pretty much is convinced of its truth. So why can’t he say it – given he doesn’t get voted for again and even if he did the atheists were never lining up to back him in the first place? If we can accept Manny being Manny, can’t we now just accept George, too?

An Explanation From Dubya

I find this CNN quotation from George’s speech interesting and maybe even important:

“We’re facing a radical ideology with an unalterable objective, to enslave whole nations and intimidate the whole world,” he said. Bush indicated that the public is unaware of many anti-terrorism victories. He said the United States and its allies have disrupted 10 al Qaeda terrorism plots since September 11, 2001, including three inside the United States. Critics have charged that war in Iraq has become a breeding ground for terror and opinion polls have found U.S. public support for the war waning since spring. But Bush argued the war in Iraq did not cause hatred of the United States among radical Muslims or global terror attacks, but rather is an “excuse” to further the goal of creating an Islamic state across the Mideast. “The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia,” Bush said. “The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue,” Bush said. “And it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.” “No act of ours invited the rage of the killers, and no conscience, bribe or act of appeasement will change or limit their plans for murder.”

I find the presentation of the purpose of Al Qaeda in this holistic all encompassing way interesting as it is no longer a war against ideas triggering fanatical terrorism. It is a war against a group with a plan of empire and domination.

But there has to be a reality to it. Is it generally accepted that Al Qaeda could actually achieve this empire or anything like it? Could Al Qaeda even, for example, now take over an area of land, say, a hundred miles square and create a radical Islamic empire in that space. The answer is clearly no. They do not have the resources or support to do so. The Taliban could not control all of Afghanistan at its height of strength. Look at Iran. With all its power it could not do that if it wanted to…which it really doesn’t as it would face the culturally impossible task of Persians dominating Arabs regardless of the potential creation of similar religious fervour. Syrian and Libya tried in the 70s, didn’t they? It failed. Administratively and logistically the return of the empire is simply not going to occur…even without the West’s reasonable decision to fight against those few who dream of its return.

So while no one in their right minds cannot agree with pursuing the war on terror – being finding the stateless radicals in their cells where ever they are including in the Middle East and stopping them from killing innocents – do you buy this new characterization of the war on terror as a state-against-state empire building thing? If so (which is fine) please explain how a few hundred in a few cells becomes empire? Or is there another source of radical-islamo-wickedness outside of Iran and Al Qaeda that will trigger this empire?

Hey, I’m just asking – how does this dangerous future come into being?