2:18 AM:

So far, every argument I've seen for going to war boils down to one of two statements:

1. The nation is really angry, and also impatient, and we must therefore strike ASAP, and never mind just whom we strike
   
2. Okay, so war is hell, and this one more so than most, but it's not as if anybody has any better ideas.

That the second carries any weight at all -- let alone seems to be a widespread sentiment -- disturbs me. War is never a default state. War is, like it or not, a decision to murder people. Now, one might feel that this is justified in certain circumstances; one might feel that, in certain cases, murdering a bunch of enemy soldiers will be the only way to prevent more people on one's own side from being murdered, and one might decide that the trade-off is morally justifiable. (I probably wouldn't, but one might.) But how can one defend making the decision to murder people knowing that it's unlikely to have any positive results, simply because one cannot think of anything else to do?

I should probably say at this point that I'm all for the country displaying unity in times of crisis. I just don't think that has anything to do with not having dissent in the country. I think it's patriotic to express one's opinions on national affairs, even if -- perhaps especially if -- those opinions run counter to those of the majority. It's the American Way; the marketplace of ideas is the single best thing this country has going for it.

And I understand that there are people who honestly believe that going to war is the best thing we can do under the circumstances, and that this can be a fair, well-thought-out position, just as I feel that Jerry Falwell's position is a fair one, despite being one of the liberals he doesn't approve of. (The unfairly distorted backlash against him I can attribute only to some people not understanding the context in which he spoke, and other people taking any opportunity they can get to bash the religious right.)

There are lots of strong opinions here, often (although, alas, not always) from people who've thought them through carefully. In many cases, I disagree with their premises, but unless all arguments are pesented as well as possible, an informed choice can hardly be made. Upholding that right of free expression, even for those with whom you disagree, is what "American unity" is all about, if you ask me. (Well, that, and donating gobs of cash to the Red Cross. Or so I'm told in every commercial break on TV...)

If I were currently using a journal format that included titles, the heading on this one would be "'Vengeance Is Mine,' Saith the Shrub."

Giving credit where it's due, the speech by the Leader of the Free World last Thursday night was pretty well written. Why, he occasionally went several paragraphs without my needing to yell at the television set. From all indications, it hardly took any time at all for the Prez to decide on his policy, but it took several days for his speechwriters to come up with a way of making it sound good. It's impressive how close they came to managing it.

I should probably say at this point that I utterly fail to understand the attitude that because times are tough, we all ought to be falling in line behind the President and supporting whatever the heck he wants to do. On the contrary, I've never felt it to be more vital that those of us who disagree with him speak up before he actually goes ahead and commits some collossially stupid actions. Not that the guy needs any encouragement to kill people of whom he doesn't approve -- his death penalty record in Texas proves that -- but maybe if he weren't basking in the glow of bipartisan support and a 90% approval rating he'd actually think twice--

Oh, whom am I kidding? I doubt he's even thought once. He just wants to go to war and kill all the bad guys, without any stupid moral quibbles over just whom that group might consist of. If they were really the good guys, after all, they'd have the decency to move to the United States, or at least give us the keys to their country and play dead upon command.

Do I sound upset? Hell, yes, I'm upset. We're about to get a whole lot of people killed so George W. can prove to the world that his phallus size isn't proportionate to his IQ. Way to go.

For a brief period last week, the United States military operation in progress was given the temporary code name of "Operation Infinite Justice."

Of course, "infinite justice" is a complete contradiction in terms. Justice is the force that enforces boundaries and restores balance. By definition, it's carefully measured to correspond exactly with the actions it repays-- that is, after all, the meaning of "meted out." And given that all human actions are finite, it necessarily follows that any justice meted out for such must be similarly finite.

Given that, the only plausible intended meaning I can think of for "Operation Infinite Justice" is that it is intended to go well beyond what is just, and as far as possible into the realm of unjust revenge. This is not likely to be a surprise to anybody following the news, but one would think the military folk would be a bit less blatant about it.