Torn

A news junkie who is a caring citizen, like myself, often finds she is torn when waking up in the morning: Do I turn on the TV and see how bad it is today, or not?

It seems we might be on the brink of WWIII. I'm not sure what else to say about that.

It's strange to watch a war on TV that we're not in. I'm so used to the Pentagon briefings about planned strikes that it's very strange to watch the reporters scurry around and report where bombs fell and being genuinely surprised by each turn of the screw.

Stranger still to watch them cover anything else. I was flipping around last night and after wrapping up a panel discussion on this crisis, the cable news TV host (not trying to protect an identity, just can't remember!) went on to tease for the next story, which was that somebody saw TomKat's baby and said it was "funny-looking", which besides being COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT was also three-day-old news.

I haven't turned on the TV yet but in pulling up my browser I saw a bit of CNN.com.

Now, I must be wrong about this, but I thought the idea was to keep Syria in particular out of this conflict. It may well be, as many assert, that the nation of Syria (meaning, its government) is one of the two "parents" of Hezbollah-- Iran being its "father" I guess. So perhaps that's what you do when the kid starts acting out and, you know, bombing the neighbor's cat: you call his parents. But it was also my impression that Syria was saying if they had to get involved, Israeli would pay big time-- they're already pissed off after the recent fly-by of the Israeli air force over the Syrian President's house-- and we know that Israel would be ready for them.

I must have been wrong about all that though, because the headline on CNN.com was "Bush calls on Syria to act". Now, he's an idiot but surely not that big of an idiot, right? He'd never say "Bring it on"-- oh, wait.

Leaving aside that argument-- is he calling Hezbollah's mom, or inciting a bigger conflict-- I opened the article to see what it had to say, and this line caught my eye:

"The best way to stop violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said during a news conference ahead of the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. [CNN.com]

As Yosemite Sam would have said, "Oooooh, that varmit!" OK, here's why that pisses me off. (And wait until you hear the rest of it.)

After 9/11, the question on everyone's lips was "Why do they hate us?" Even Oprah did a show on it, bringing on the then-not-questionable Judith Miller to explain it. We were so surprised that the US could have done anything or be doing anything to make people want to inflict that kind of violence on us. Our first reaction was to find out why.

Of course, finding out why might have led to finger-pointing and/or a reassessment of US foreign policy, which was not the direction that the White House wanted to go right after 9/11. If there was a "post-9/11 mindset", then there is also a "post-Operation Iraqi Freedom mindset" where now we look at things a little more cautiously and analytically. But we were still in post-9/11 shock, and while thoughtful consideration might be the knee-jerk reaction for some of us, it wasn't for Karl Rove.

So before the conversation really got started, the White House shut it down by hitting us where it hurt-- accusing us of being pussies for wanting to talk about it.

The quote I was hunting for, to my surprise, was only from June 2005, to which fact I can only say, this is how he felt all along, and finally said it. And that he shifted the conversation using other political means, like putting up the Patriot Act for a vote which worked on the premise that there was nothing else to do but attack, attack, attack.

Regardless, here it is:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. [Washingtonpost.com]

Now, let me reprint that Bush remark so you can see them side-by-side:

"The best way to stop violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said. [CNN.com]

Oooh, that varmit!

Again, I'm torn! Does one get mad at them for being hypocrites, or happy that they've come around? Arianna Huffington recently found herself in a similar debate. (Sorry, can't find a link right now and I'm making pancakes so I just need to keep going.)

But even more mind-snapping than that was what he said next!

"And that is because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks out of Lebanon and into Israel because Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers." [CNN.com]

OK, WHAT? First of all, that sentence doesn't make any sense. Why would H attack I because H kidnapped I's soldiers? Now, Israel bombing Hezbollah because H stole their men I get, although it certainly leaves out more than half of the story. But this makes no sense at all.

Which might even be fine, except that he was just crowing about "understanding why violence occured" and he clearly doesn't understand much of anything, including what's happening on the ground right now.

The only thing worse than having Bush as Pres during and after 9/11, that is, our war, is having him President during someone else's war which is inextricably linked with ours.

So make some blueberry pancakes and watch the beginning of WWIII. Or a nice Sandler comedy like "50 First Dates". (Say whatever you want about me, but that movie is adorable.) Or if you're one of those studious types that feel the need to make good use of your time at all times, go shopping for a hybrid car. Word has it that gas is going to hit $4/gal, and if Iran gets into this, much, much higher.