Sunday, November 23, 2003

U.S. General Says Bin Laden 'Out of the Picture'


After the "sideshow" of iraq (Wesley Clark's words), diverting our time, ability, and emphasis away from the Afganistan-based terror organization that attacked our country--we get this.

It seems a Senior US General has stated that finding bin laden is not a top priority anymore. It fills me with a great anger to think that we are searching for Saddam with such zeal, and we are dropping the one terrorist that actually attacked us and promised to do it again. Is this what we are to expect from a Bush Administration? Before we started the job in Afganistan (let alone finish it), we find a deversionary war in Iraq. All the while, our President plays a shell game with our soldiers and the good will this nation has built over generations in order to put aside two facts--This administration has hardly completed its task in either country and had not the planning to properly succeed in the first place.

We can only be told to look elsewhere, or told that things are better than the reality bares out, for so long. We are clearly no safer now than before invading Iraq. The risk Iraq was made of as much fabrication and truth stretching as it was weapons of mass destruction. Never in the last century has this nation been held in lower regard. I am curious to know when, in the history of our nation, has a president and an administration been held so low in world opinion.

This contempt is no mystery. it is born out of our own actions, which have over and over been shown to be the product of medacity. There were no credible ties between the Taliban and Iraq. There was no imminent threat of attack from WMD's in Iraq. And, finally, we have this article here. Richard Perle, has served as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon. Here he puts it in simple words. when the Bush administration (the administration he advised to go to war) said that we had the Authorization of the UN to attack Iraq, he was lying. it was widely claimed by Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and a host of my republican friends that we had all the authorization we needed in previously passed UN Resolutions. he states, "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone."


Partly due to the paranoia of Dick Cheney. our VP that has spent the bulk of his time in office (since 9/11) in hiding. He hides from public view and scrutiny, consumed by 2 issues--his fear that the twin towers attack was a preamble and the need to 'complete' the job of the first gulf war. Our own President has the conviction to do what is right--stay the course--but not the mental compass to set the course himself. Enter our cabal of Hacks. men culled from the GOP administrations past. hand picked unilateralists that need no assistance from anyone on earth...that would mean that decisions and spotlights and victories would have to be shared.

Shared victories are not savored by a party that courts the isolationist. War profiteering is not as lucrative if there are other nations in on the action. In every instance the president has wanted as little oversight or input as possible at every juncture. To his suprise, the presidential will did not find acquiescence, and this clearly seemed to shock him. it was as if the mode and tone of international relations, as developed over the last 50 years, was lost on him. It has always been the case that you can act without approval, but there is a cost. Bush's minders did not care because they held these institutions in contempt. Bush was left wondering, clearly wondering why there was no rush to agreement.

"Why did the world not see Iraq in such clear black and white?" "Do we need proof in the form of a mushroom cloud?"

The evidence was not convincing because it did not exist. the exaggerations place before the world were believable to leaders that wore blinders, or sought American aid or acceptance into NATO. Bush called them the "Coalition of the Willing". None of this mattered much because most every party involved needed Iraq. One needed the massaging eyes that military power provides the ego (Rumsfeld). One needed to sooth his paranoia over this terrorism blunder (Cheney, see previous writing on this matter). Finally, one needed to be a leader in action, not just talk. He needed to strap on his holster and show he wasn't just in the fight, like he said at ground zero, but prove he'd WON the fight. He needed the military fortitude he did not himself have in Vietnam when he used his father's strings for safety--stateside. The problem is that he hasn't truly won a war that we did not have to fight in the first place. we have not been made safer. our very nation is held in contempt by former allies. Our President needed to stand tall, but he could only do that on the backs of our dead soldiers, fighting not for truth, but rather his mendacity. Our soldiers swore to fight for our nation and our freedom. they did not pledge themselves to our president's mendacity. I am tired of watching our president spit on our soldiers and tell me i am not patriotic for agreeing with it.

My nation needs protecting, Iraq needs direction, and my president is sorely unqualified for the job.

No comments: