JOE WILSON & THE "AMERICAN EMPIRE"
Joe Wilson's self-serving roadshow to fan the Plame flames made a stop at Stanford this week. Wilson observed "the invasion [of Iraq] was instead part of a sweeping plan devised by neoconservative zealots to change America from a republic into an empire." See
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/october26/wilson-102605.html
Really?
If Wilson's grandiose "analysis" is correct, wouldn't we have invaded Mexico instead? After all, Mexico has oil. Almost to a man . . . I mean . . . "person," the anti-war left claims the liberation of Iraq was a "war for oil."
Several million Mexicans already live in the US illegally. Hundreds more cross the porous border every week. One recent poll reported that a vast majority of Mexicans would live in the U.S.A. if they could. Certainly these population trends couldn't have escaped notice in the Bush White House. These potential "subjects" of the "Empire" are arguably already voting for it with their feet!
Supply lines for the "occupation" would be much shorter if the "American Empire" began in the Yucatan, rather than halfway around the world.
While parts of Mexico are hot, dry and dusty (e.g. Baja California), others would make for a pleasant place to set up an "empire" (e.g. Acapulco, Cozumel, Cancun). Even Mexico's worst places are probably more hospitable that Iraq's most scenic venues.
And Mexico has no shortage of "evil doers" to hunt down -- such as the various drug smuggling cartels and a fair quantity of alleged local political corruption.
Sure, Mexico doesn't have any of the "exotic" justifications for invasion by the "empire." No mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands of murdered political opponents. No thugish dictator. No recent history of genocide. No scary military. No WMDs (but according to the omniscient left, "Bush lied"--that is he allegedly knew Iraq has empty WMD arsenals) But if we really take Wilson's "empire" claim seriously, what we wanted was an "EMPIRE," and not any incidental humanitarian side effects.
Obviously, Wilson's illogical analysis comes up a bit short (not all that unlike his oral report on his tea-sipping trip to Niger). Iraq isn't about building an "American Empire." It's about taking the fight to the Islamofascist terrorists in the heart of the oppressed area where it breeds. It's about fighting terror over there instead of over here. It's about creating a small window of opportunity for democracy to sprout in the Islamic world.
"Amercian Empire?" Try again, Joe! (Maybe you can ask Valerie to explain it to you between photo shoots)
Joe Wilson's self-serving roadshow to fan the Plame flames made a stop at Stanford this week. Wilson observed "the invasion [of Iraq] was instead part of a sweeping plan devised by neoconservative zealots to change America from a republic into an empire." See
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/october26/wilson-102605.html
Really?
If Wilson's grandiose "analysis" is correct, wouldn't we have invaded Mexico instead? After all, Mexico has oil. Almost to a man . . . I mean . . . "person," the anti-war left claims the liberation of Iraq was a "war for oil."
Several million Mexicans already live in the US illegally. Hundreds more cross the porous border every week. One recent poll reported that a vast majority of Mexicans would live in the U.S.A. if they could. Certainly these population trends couldn't have escaped notice in the Bush White House. These potential "subjects" of the "Empire" are arguably already voting for it with their feet!
Supply lines for the "occupation" would be much shorter if the "American Empire" began in the Yucatan, rather than halfway around the world.
While parts of Mexico are hot, dry and dusty (e.g. Baja California), others would make for a pleasant place to set up an "empire" (e.g. Acapulco, Cozumel, Cancun). Even Mexico's worst places are probably more hospitable that Iraq's most scenic venues.
And Mexico has no shortage of "evil doers" to hunt down -- such as the various drug smuggling cartels and a fair quantity of alleged local political corruption.
Sure, Mexico doesn't have any of the "exotic" justifications for invasion by the "empire." No mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands of murdered political opponents. No thugish dictator. No recent history of genocide. No scary military. No WMDs (but according to the omniscient left, "Bush lied"--that is he allegedly knew Iraq has empty WMD arsenals) But if we really take Wilson's "empire" claim seriously, what we wanted was an "EMPIRE," and not any incidental humanitarian side effects.
Obviously, Wilson's illogical analysis comes up a bit short (not all that unlike his oral report on his tea-sipping trip to Niger). Iraq isn't about building an "American Empire." It's about taking the fight to the Islamofascist terrorists in the heart of the oppressed area where it breeds. It's about fighting terror over there instead of over here. It's about creating a small window of opportunity for democracy to sprout in the Islamic world.
"Amercian Empire?" Try again, Joe! (Maybe you can ask Valerie to explain it to you between photo shoots)
posted by Editor at 13:13
2 Comments:
I do like how you think..........tying the "Bush lied" Joe Wilson affair to MY sinister plot to take over Mexico is a great idea.
A while back I came up with the idea of giving Texas back to Mexico. It would take about 5 minutes for Texans to take over the country and rename it Texico.....er.......well.....maybe Mexas would be better.
I even started a bumper sticker campaign plastering my car with "Take over Mexico" placards......my favorite was "Don't mess with Texas.....Give it back to Mexico"
OK....I didn't really plaster my car with them (I do live in San Diego), but I liked the idea
Lord bless you
Good points, but . . .
We don't have to "give" them Texas! According to some sources, Mexico is already INVADING IT! [Interesting background material on the "Reconquista":http://www.barnesreview.org/The__Reconquista_-Mexico_s_Dre/the__reconquista_-mexico_s_dre.html ]
IF YOU GIVE A MOUSE A COOKIE PRINCIPLE: And if you give them Texas, next they'll want Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Wyoming . . . .
I don't think the Texicans would go for the name TEXICO . . . out of fear some Eastern Congressman would confuse it with the oil company try to slap "Texico" with a windfall profits tax.
Maybe some American-style business and political reforms would make Mexico more attractive for Mexicans [Background on Mexican political corruption and growth-sapping regulatory policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincente_Fox]
Post a Comment
<< Home