|
Signposts
on the Road to Hell
August 22, 2002
By punpirate
Once again, let's review. George Herbert Walker Bush did
not take over Iraq (though he tried mightily, through the
military, to kill Saddam Hussein) because he had no mandate
to do so, from either Congress or the UN. Nevertheless, there
are a great many people in this country who believe George
H.W. wimped out, and that his son, George W., is going to
rectify that oversight. There are also some suggestions that
George W. so loves his dad that he's going to kill Saddam
(personally, as some right-wing fruitcakes believe) because
Saddam dared mount a half-assed assassination attempt on revered
pere Bush in 1993, even though the public evidence for such
was slim.
Signpost one reads: Revenge—>Iraq
Next, ask yourself - if there's no definitive independent
study of what went wrong on September 11, 2001, how do the
proposed Homeys make us safer? Seems much more logical to
find out what the problem is before trying to create a solution,
especially one which greatly increases the power of the executive
branch. And, on that similar line, why is it that we already
had intelligence services which were supposed to warn us of
impending disaster, and yet, those intelligence agencies -
the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency
- didn't warn us (or even each other) of potential dangers?
Why is it that their warnings went unheeded by Bush and his
administration, even when they were aware of those warnings?
And, further, why is it that those intelligence agencies have
evaded any oversight by this new super agency, meant to secure
our safety, when they are the intelligence systems in the
government, and advance intelligence is the means by which
terrorist attacks are thwarted, and no one in government,
but no one, will publicly explain exactly how these various
intelligence agencies dropped the ball?
Signpost two reads: <—Truth
—>Lies—>Red
Tape—>Iraq
There's also that problem with Afghanistan, our our war against
it. No Mullar Omar, no Osama bin Laden, Human Rights Watch
reports of torture done by factions of the Northern Alliance
while Americans looked the other way. Two political assassinations
in the new Karzai government in nine months. U.S. "smart"
bombs crashing wedding parties. The small matter of a pipeline,
and Karzai's relationship to those folks interested in it.
Those occasional reports in the international press of American
soldiers hiding or destroying evidence of war crimes.
Signpost three reads: War fever—>Failure
in Afghanistan—>Iraq
Most lately, those of us in the U.S. are still trying to
get our bearings after being attacked by the Muslim equivalent
of our own right-wing. All sorts of horrible foolishness has
issued from our own president and our own congress as a result
of that attack. John Ashcroft, as right-wing as Osama bin
Laden, has seen fit to do everything possible to undo our
own Constitution, for specious reasons. To attack terrorism?
Nope. To instill yet more fear in our own people. Truth is,
absolutely nothing the Bush administration has done to date
has protected us from terrorism. Intelligence coordination
is non-existent, and neither the administration nor the Congress'
version of the Homeland Security Agency will do anything but
terrorize us further.
There's also that little matter of Ashcroft recommending
internment camps, and effectively shutting down the FOIA process
in government, denying U.S. citizens due process, and those
interesting phrases relating to terrorism in the USAPA, such
as "appears to be engaged in" and "reasonable cause" and "beyond
review of any court." No one has yet thrown Ashcroft in the
brig for an indeterminate amount of time as a terrorist, but,
under the USAPA, I think a good case can be made that he is
a terrorist, himself. Fortunately for Ashcroft, he's not yet
created any arbitrary rules incarcerating prudes and prigs.
Signpost four reads: Attack—>War
Fever—>Domestic
Terror and Fear—>Threat
of Future Attack—>Fascism
as Security—>Iraq
Then, there's George W. himself. A classic case of can't
see the forest in flames for the trees. Wants to start a war
in the middle of one of the hottest spots on the globe, and
is busy cheerleading for an attack on Iraq. "Sis-boom-bah,
who's yer pa? Git Saddam fer Poppy!" What W. doesn't seem
to understand is that his motives are as transparent as the
supermarket wrapping on a rib roast. He's given us many motives
already, and none of them good, nor legal, nor moral. "Possibility"
of weapons of mass destruction? Bomb first. Desire to install
democracy in Iraq? How about good works start at home? Pre-emptive
nuclear strikes on our avowed enemies? How about that love
thy neighbor as thyself stuff? Guess that only counts for
the U.S. religious right. And for George's friends with campaign
money to spend on him.
Or, perhaps, just perhaps, the Supreme Court elected a sociopath,
who has no concern or regard for others. Let's just bear down
on this last issue a bit. What if George W. Bush is absolutely,
stark-raving-bonkers insane? What if he's a pathological liar;
what if he's as crazy as a loon in the noon sun, what if he's
projecting every single slight in his sheltered life on the
innocent people of the United States and of the Middle East?
What if he destroys the basis of the country, the Constitution,
for his own venal aims? What if he winds up being the first
President to use nuclear weapons without provocation? What
happens if the Middle East goes up in flames because he has
absolutely no sense of restraint or diplomacy? What if, even
more horribly, all this is just a payback to his moneyed corporate
friends?
Signpost five reads: Bush—>Money—>Politics—>Insanity—>War—>Iraq
punpirate is a writer in New Mexico who's getting a bit nervous
about the land of the free's direction.
| This
week is our Third Quarter Fund Drive. Please consider
making a DONATION
to help keep our website online. We'll even send
you some bumper stickers! |
|
|
