The issue of Yellow Cake in President Bush's State of the Union Speech
has stirred a firestorm of editorials attacking the credibility of the
Administration. Is this a diversion by the Beast of Terror to
keep our minds off the threats that exist, or a true use of critique
to purify the communication process. See if you think the
"clear and present danger" of Terrorism needs Yellow Cake to justify
America's role as the Sentinel of Vigilance.
13, 2003—Ground Zero Plus 669
What Happened To The "Clear &
Present Danger" Anti-Terrorism Danger
Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News
GROUND ZER0, New York, N.Y.--July 13,
2003-- At what point is a person responsible for acting against a
"clear and present danger" that threatens the safety and security of
the Children's Children's Children?
The war in Iraq is one such conundrum.
cake" piece of the puzzle
The riddle seems
more complex when you look for the "yellow cake" piece of the puzzle.
Yellow cake (uranium) is the ingredient Saddam Hussein was allegedly
buying from Nigeria to kickstart his building of nuclear weapons.
President Bush made a comment to that effect in his State of the Union
Speech, adding muscle to the argument for invading Iraq.
It turns out the information was false, and
the Administration slipped the information into the President's speech
even though its veracity was dubious. Now, the CIA
and Administration are under attack for endangering the credibility of
information to serve political agendas.
Critics of the Administration are chewing
on the Yellow Cake issue with glee.
They are attacking the moral fiber of the
Iraqi War as being launched with false information, and suggesting the
American public was purposefully duped, and therefore should look upon
the President and his staff with jaundiced eyes--even as "evil and
corrupt" power mongers who would twist and warp the truth to justify
their personal goals.
Of course, the sixteen lines in the
President's State of the Union Speech about Yellow Cake were not the
primary words that justified the attack on Iraq. Hundreds
of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens killed by two decades of despotic
leadership did far more to justify the war than the potential presence
of Yellow Cake, but the pundits of poison don't bring up that point.
They are doing a root canal on what
they call the "fatal flaw" of the Bush Administration--the Yellow Cake
New York Times editorial writer and Republican-hater,
Maureen Dowd, attacked like a
she-devil the issue by likening President Bush's administration to
that of Richard Nixon. She articulately threw about ten-dollar
words like "casuistry," which means on resolves cases conscience, duty
or conduct through interpretation of ethical principle or religious
doctrine. In other words, she was making Bush a god who
could make up what he wanted to justify the end.
If you study the picture the Times
displays of her closely, and blow it up, you can see the Mona Lisa
look in her eyes: the "I'm-gonna-getcha-wit-words" look of the
fishwife waiting for the husband in the kitchen with a butcher knife
in one hand and the book of matches from Motel Hell she found in his
coat pocket, laced with the spell of perfume that's not her brand.
You don't want a Maureen Dowd hunting
you down. She spits venom like the cobra, blinding the
reader with a web of words that turns any act of gallantry into a
rape, pillage and plunder horror story.
It makes me wonder what ever happened
to the "clear and present danger" principle--the principle that for
one to be justified to act to defend society or another, there must
need only be a "clear and present danger" to the safety and security
of those standing in the shadow of the Beast.
I assume the difference lays between
the word Vigilance and Complacency.
On the one hand, you keep your hand
on your sword at all times, ready to act rather than react.
On the other, you wait until the
beast has a child in his mouth and is chewing on the veal of
innocence, and then, you thrash about in a sea of pontification as to
the "rights of interference."
The later seems to be the take
Maureen Dowd and the United Nations offered regarding attacking Saddam
Hussein's Beast of Terror machinery and dismantling his reign of
others like her would turn back the clock and let Saddam Hussein
and Terrorism bully the world until finally reacting for their
and others like her, are still doing their best to foul the waters of
justification of the war, and, by appearances, if they could, turn the
clock back and let Saddam Hussein and the world of Terrorism go about
their business until they ate out the bellies of enough children that
reaction rather than action was not just necessary, but a matter of
This "clear and present danger"
issue is a sticky one.
Especially for gumshoe
journalistic barb throwers who like to rip and tear away the facades
of power they despise.
I personally don't think
"yellow cake" was any nail in Saddam's coffin, or the turning point in
American attitude toward a guy who put up a bounty of $25,000 for
every suicide bomber who killed innocent people in Israel, or gassed
thousands of his own people, or had his grandchildren's fathers'
bodies dragged through the city of Baghdad for giving Weapons of Mass
Destruction information over to the United Nations in the early 90's.
Saddam Hussein was a
clear and present danger to the idea of letting Terrorism run free in
Stopping him sent a
resounding signal to all the bullies about to kick sand in the face of
a Complacent world that was sitting around juggling justification to
act while the Terrorists went about with virtual impunity killing
people right and left.
Australia and Poland stood up and acted. Yellow cake was not the
issue or motivation behind the toppling of Terrorism's rulership in
Iraq. Smashing the Terrorism of Saddam Hussein was an "Act of
Vigilance" that sent a shivering chill through all the other
Terrorists in the world that their thirst to drink the blood of the
innocent would be met with a deeper thirst to protect the innocent.
Vigilance does not need
to eat Yellow Cake to taste the bitter venom of Terrorism.
But, if you were to
follow Maureen's logic, you would twist the moral character of not
just a President but a nation's brave and courageous stand against a
"clear and present danger." You would be swept up in the sewer
of muckraking a piece of "dubious data" that was jammed into a speech
at the last minute and turned into a political football for people who
not are as interested in the truth as they are in the lie; people who
seek to find the defects in the good to destroy its value in the eyes
of those they think are blind.
I liken what Maureen suggests
we see to a Terrorist holding a gun to a child's head while warning
the world he'll blow the child's brains out, and despite the history
of this Terrorist to blow off the heads of countless children in the
past, someone yells: "But look how well dressed he is. He
can't be a real Terrorist. He's too well dressed."
divert our attention from the "clear and present danger"
divert our attention from the "clear and present danger" to the man's
clothing. She would make the threads of the clothing, not the
cold, ruthless metal of the gun, our focus.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon
to figure out Saddam Hussein was, is, a clear and present danger to
the world, or, more importantly, his clones.
The world is full of Saddam
President Bush's recent visit to
Africa was a signal to Terrorists there that the United States and
other Vigilant nations are willing to act against them as we did
Kim Jong Il in North Korea got the
I am convinced that the war in Iraq
was nothing more than a action against a "clear and present danger."
But, you read little about that in
the alleged editorial seams of the New York Times, especially from the
tip of Maureen Dowd's pen.
It makes me wonder what a Sentinel of
Vigilance is supposed to do when he or she reads something as
Terroristic as what Maureen wrote? Do you sit back and scoff at
it? Or, do you expose it for its injustice, in the same manner
she so vaingloriously attempted to do to President Bush and the
actions of America against Terrorism?
The press is
responsible for a check and balance to government and to present
the Big Picture
The press is responsible for a check and balance to government, of
that, there is no question. But, there is a far greater duty of
the press above simply trying to crumble Administrations it disagrees
That duty is to present
the Big Picture. In this case, that includes the overall kudos
due to the Administration for sending the world of Terrorists a giant
signal that their actions will be met with deadly force.
Then, Maureen can rail on
the fact that we really didn't need a hint of Yellow Cake to make such
But, don't hold your
I think Maureen likes
carrying around a butcher knife and emasculating those whom she
considers "clear and present dangers," and, from the tone of her
words, she prefers to carve on America's testicles rather than
Body Count--Feeding Terrorism Statistically
- 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -