HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 25, 2005 It’s incredible to me that someone who is striving so desperately to appear as if he knows what he’s talking about, someone like Dr. Brooks Mick, has quoted so inevitably biased a source as Peter Wehner on the subject of whether or not George W. Bush is to be blamed for the war in Iraq and its consequences. Peter Wehner is Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives to George W. Bush. You wouldn’t expect him to criticize George W. Bush in any way whatsoever, much less express vehement disapproval of some or all of his actions with respect to that war, would you? You may as well ask Laura Bush, Condoleezza Rice or Richard Cheney for a candid analysis of the president’s misdeeds. Even assuming that there had been no misdeeds, which is probably far from the truth, you would have to be very naïve to believe that someone in Wehner’s position could even begin to be impartial and objective. Furthermore, the article which Dr. Mick quotes appeared in the Opinion Journal of Wall Street Journal, an organ which I think has been in complete solidarity with the Bush administration on Iraq. How biased and one-sided can you get? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008415 One of the things that I noticed about the article is that there is no mention of Israel, and many people in the US and around the world believe that Israeli influence was a large factor in the decision to go to war. Even if you disagree with that opinion, which I know Dr. Mick does, you have to admit that the allegation is made generally enough that it should at least be mentioned and discussed. But Wehner is writing for the Wall Street Journal, definitely a pro-Israel publication, so naturally he doesn’t dare offend in that way. More and more bias! So does Wehner tell us anything we don’t already know? No, no, of course not. He repeats the lie that Bush did not know in advance of the war that intelligence was faulty. But he neglects to mention that Downing Street’s intelligence dossier, to which Bush alluded in his 2003 State of the Union address, had been shown by the beginning of February of 2003 to include a plagiarized college thesis, and by the beginning of March of 2003 to be based, in part, on forged documents. These revelations should have given Bush cause to pause and reconsider, at the very least. Nonetheless, Bush went right on, knowing that months later he’d have to rationalize his way out of his lies. Quoth Wehner, “In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded.” Where does Wehner get the gall to reason like that? It would be a mere sophistry to say that Bush didn’t know the dossier was false, he just had good reason to believe as much. Then Wehner, just one more time if you will believe it, unearths the argument that though Iraq had no WMD, it posed a threat to the US, because Saddam planned to embezzle money from the Oil for Food Program to finance the development of WMD in the future. That’s a long way from the 45 minutes that Tony Blair, one of George Bush’s accomplices in the invasion, said Saddam Hussein would need to put WMD in the air. One can almost laugh at Wehner’s simpering childishness in fabricating such implausible justifications. Then Wehner trots out a pre-war quotation or two to “prove” that the claim that the US presence in Iraq was a democratizing effort was sincere. But he proves nothing. So Bush gilded the lily by posing as a democratizer once or twice even before the war. So what? But the whole ímpetus during the run-up was the threat to the US that the WMD were said to present. After the war, when all the other pretexts had fallen to pieces, this pretext of democratization was rescued from the sherds and polished up a bit. But if spreading democracy was the goal, why didn’t the US intervene in the civil wars in Sudan and Congo instead? The answer is easy. Sudan and Congo don’t pose so great a threat to Israel. The US can deal with them later, if and when it decides to make such a move. None of the countries—Iraq, Iran, Congo, Sudan—posed a threat to the US, or at least none would have posed a threat to the US but for the intrusion of Israel in the Middle East. Perhaps, Dr. Brooks should write more articles on health, fitness and medicare. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
