Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

Here’s what I think is the simplest basis on which to decide one’s upcoming vote (or nonvote) for U.S. president.

---

Observed sequence of events:

1. Command given to invade Iraq for a stated reason ¹

2. As a direct result, so far

• 1,067 Americans dead
• 7,531 Americans wounded
• ~15,000 Iraqi men, women, and children dead
  100,000 Iraqi dead according to study published in British medical journal The Lancet (approximately zero of whom had anything to do with 9/11)
• Iraqis wounded “too high to count” in April 2003 (Red Cross).
  How many more 10,000s since then?
• $140B spent in Iraq, $200B committed
  (Note that given 280M Americans, $200B -> $700/person.)

3. Stated reason proves to be wrong ²

---

¹ Primary stated reason: “Iraq has WMD including nuclear and biological weapons, and intent to use them, and is therefore an imminent threat to the United States” (paraphrased) (more info).

² Actual outcome: Iraq had no weapons and posed no threat to the U.S. (Duelfer report, Oct. 7, 2004: WaPo summary, actual report).

---

Time’s up, game over, no do-overs.

No one in any field keeps their job after a mistake of this magnitude. It’s nothing personal; prudence and public safety demands leave, demotion, or outright firing of the person or persons involved in massively deadly mistakes like this. Always.

Further, just as in the corporate world, we the people who exercise oversight over the position of U.S. president will be held accountable if we don’t demote or fire the person or persons involved.

Every other voting consideration in this election, while many are important, factors out of this particular equation.

I think the bottom-line decision really is this simple.

Bonus upside:
The field of rehires looks really good. Great resumes, fine presentation.

---

NOTE: Making up alternative reasons for invading after the fact is not allowed. (For example, say your kid wrecks the car. If he keeps making up reasons why he did it, will he eventually hit on a reason you’ll buy? Of course not. Reasons aren’t retroactive.)

I really, really like William Rivers Pitt’s definition of a patriot’s duty:

The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say ‘No.’

Context: We have a patriotic duty to stand against the USA Patriot Act. (Citizens in hundreds of U.S. communities — who recognize unconstitutionality when they see it — are doing just that.)

On a related note, cartoonist Mark Fiore entertainingly blasts John Ashcroft’s Patriot Act Summer Tour.

More seriously, Walter Cronkite minces no words about the USA Patriot Act, saying, “In his 2 1/2 years in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft has earned himself a remarkable distinction as the Torquemada of American law.”

I really want to add my 2¢, but each time I try I have to keep striking out uncharitable words like stupid and clueless concerning anyone’s support for these thugs now that so much about them is out in the broad light of day. So I’d rather wait until I can be a bit more constructive than that.

2003-09-25 update: Meteor Blades articulates the constructive reframe I’m looking for: Bush supporters aren’t stupid and clueless; they’ve been betrayed.