|
Received from a conservative
friend in Brevard County, Florida
Charley Reese is a well-known
conservative writer in central Florida, formerly a regularly appearing columnist
for the Orlando Sentinel newspaper. He is another conservative AGAINST the Bush
administration war plans.
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030224/index.php The "Don't Know" Crowd The Bush administration adamantly insists that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but despite 12 years of inspections, bombings and spying, it doesn't have a clue as to where they are. It frequently warns us of terror attacks, but always says it doesn't know where, when or how. Nor have there been any terror attacks in the United States in the past 18 months. Is it any wonder that millions of people around the world and in the United States don't support President George Bush's personal crusade to topple Saddam Hussein? Keep in mind that after the Sept. 11 attack, which Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with, virtually the entire world united in sympathy with us. Never has one president destroyed so much support by so many people in so short a time. The fact is, the people in the Bush administration who want to go to war with Iraq wanted to go to war with Iraq before Sept. 11. As a matter of fact, they wanted to go to war with Iraq before George Bush was even elected president. That's a matter of record. This war against Iraq has nothing to do with disarming Iraq and nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with the United States creating a situation in which it and Israel will dominate the Middle East and its oil resources. The thing to remember about these alleged weapons of mass destruction is that nobody in the Bush administration or with the United Nations has ever laid eyes on them. What exists is a discrepancy between two numbers in reports - both supplied by the Iraqi government. One report stated that so many chemical bombs were used; another report had a different number. And the Iraqis are certainly right in that nobody can prove a negative; you can't produce for inspection what you don't have. I personally don't know if these weapons exist in Iraq or not. I do know they exist in many other countries. I do know that in the Gulf War, Iraq did not use any chemical or biological weapons, even when it was being routed from Kuwait and "bombed back into the preindustrial age," to use an American phrase. I do know that in the 12 years since, Iraq has not used any chemical or biological weapons, even though it has been subjected to the harshest economic sanctions in modern history and to practically regular bombing. I do know that in the past 12 years, Iraq has not threatened, much less attacked, any of its neighbors, while during that the same period of time we have attacked Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia. I do know that every one of the "neighbors" George Bush claims Iraq is a threat to has said repeatedly that it does not feel threatened by Iraq. I do know that the only leader threatening the world with nuclear weapons and pre-emptive attack is George W. Bush. It gives me no pleasure to point that out. But it is not the role of an American citizen to be a sheep. It has become apparent that those of us who supported Bush made a mistake. I'm beginning to believe that a philanderer and a liar is less dangerous than an upright but ignorant man who thinks God has appointed him to rule the world. The best way to support our troops is to try to prevent the Bush administration from sacrificing their lives for the hidden agenda of the crazy neoconservatives in his administration. Young Americans should not die because a bunch of chicken hawks have a cockamamie idea that they can bring liberal democracy to the Middle East by making war. That's like trying to sell pork barbecue in Mecca. What the president is intent on doing is committing a crime against humanity. If he goes through with it, he'll have to change his ritualistic "God bless America" to "God forgive us." The Facts About Rebellion Which political leader made war on his own people, killing 262,000 of them, burning their cities, destroying their food supply and placing the survivors under military occupation? If your answer is Saddam Hussein, you're wrong. The answer is Abraham Lincoln. Accepting the Northern but incorrect view of the War Between the States, Lincoln did exactly the same thing Saddam Hussein did. When "his own people" rose up in armed rebellion, he crushed the rebellion, brutally and decisively. I'm making this point not to disillusion you about Lincoln but to point out how propaganda works. One effective way to propagandize people is to take a fact out of context. Much has been made of the fact that Saddam Hussein crushed the Kurdish rebellion. Any leader of Iraq would have crushed the Kurdish rebellion. If the Scots rose up in armed rebellion today, British Prime Minister Tony Blair would crush, or try to crush, the rebellion. What do you think the British have been doing in Ireland lo these many years? Any government will assert the right to self-defense. When our forefathers chose to secede from the British Empire, the British tried to crush what they considered a rebellion. And before you give up the delicious and high-quality products of France, you should remember that without French troops and the French fleet, the British would likely have succeeded. I know it's idealistic foolishness to expect the government to tell the truth rather than to resort to propaganda. For that reason, we, as citizens, have to learn to recognize propaganda. To sell the war, the Bush administration has demonized Saddam Hussein. The fact is, Saddam is a run-of-the-mill dictator, worse than some, better than some. In the war against Iran, a nation with three times the population of Iraq, the Iraqis used chemical weapons. So did the Iranians. In World War I, the United States, the British, the French and the Germans used chemical weapons. In World War II, we used nuclear weapons. In Waco, Texas, in 1993, the Federal Bureau of Investigation used chemical weapons against American civilians. It's quite true that, like any other dictator, Saddam treats his political opponents harshly, but it's also true that if you stay out of politics, you could live as freely in Baghdad as you can in New York City. Unlike a communist-style dictator, Saddam doesn't give a damn what Iraqis think or do unless it involves a threat to his hold on power. There are two categories of dictators: totalitarians who want to control every aspect of a person's life, and gangsters who just want to stay in power. Saddam is in the gangster category. Iraqi women, for example, are entitled to free education, just the same as men, and are free to choose any vocation they wish. Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had one of the largest middle classes in the Middle East, one of the best education systems and one of the best health care systems. We, not Saddam, have destroyed all three with the war and economic sanctions. Another propaganda technique is to focus on Saddam. To hear the Bush administration and to watch American television, you'd think Iraq was occupied by one individual, Saddam. He's only one of 25 million people, and the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are just like us, with the same dreams and hopes we have. I don't give a damn about Saddam Hussein. He's a tough guy and a killer. He's lived 66 years in a tough and dangerous world. I'm sure he's ready to die if it comes to that. But why should Iraqi children have to die or be maimed or orphaned just because our political leader doesn't like their political leader? It's too bad we can't give Bush and Saddam each a knife, put them both in a dark room and let them settle the matter between themselves. |
