Before, After and the Questions

Articles

Scott Jones

Before, After and the Questions
June 6, 2003

I guess that I am confused, so please help me out. I have been following the news like the rest of us. I have even been reading a lot of the columns here and elsewhere that have been voicing the opinions of both sides of the Iraq War issue as well as the US’s role and standing in international relations, and really, I thought that I had a handle on where everyone stood, but now I think I may have it wrong after all.

Let me recap the facts. In the months leading up to the liberation of Iraq, the Bush administration stated that we (the US and the Free World) couldn’t tolerate a dangerous and brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein having access to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Further, we (the US and our Coalition allies) refused to wait for the designated UN inspectors to see if they could locate evidence of the WMDs because that could take too long. The Bush administration made a detailed and strident case that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Quieda and the same kind of international terrorism that spawned the September 11th attacks. The message was clear, we have to attack now and remove this dangerous and brutal dictator.

Of course, coincident with our administration’s build-up to the liberation of Iraq, many people here in the US and around the world, protested this same buildup. They questioned the motives of the administration that was so heavily infiltrated with individuals who had powerful ties to Big Oil and Industry. The slogan ‘No war for oil” in fact was used extensively. They also demanded that we adhere to the UN efforts to inspect Iraq as well as try and form an international consensus for moving toward any kind of concerted military action against Iraq.

Also during this time a very heated debate began to rise in the opinion columns that essentially highlighted the vociferous views of the extreme Right and Left. Those on the Right claimed that the anti-war protesters were anti-American and somehow sympathetic to the terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers because they did not support the impending war. The columnists on the Right were quick to point out the Bush Administration’s party-line that the war was about fighting terrorism, had nothing to do with oil and that the protesters really need to wise up to that fact.

Now lets jump ahead to the past few days. Iraq has been liberated, though we have no actual proof that Saddam Hussein is dead, it seems to be a pretty safe bet that one of the many thousands of bombs we dropped on Baghdad did manage to kill him. Since the US has occupied Iraq we have begun a concerted effort to locate those pesky WMDs and after searching nearly 100 prime locations, we have found …what’s the word? Oh yeah, Bupkis.

When the leading Democratic Presidential candidates point out this fact, the Administration and the columnists on the Right fire back that “Iraq is a very big country, about the size of California, and that it is going to take some time to find where Saddam hid them.”

Hmmm, the first little spot of confusion is revealed. Before the war, the Right was screaming that the UN was taking too much time to find WMDs and that we had to act now! After the war, those same folks are whining “We need more time to find them.” Doesn’t that seem like a funny little irony?

OK, now lets take a look at that whole “No war for Oil” thing that the Ant-war protesters were always harping on. In the past couple of days, President Bush’s own #3 advisor, Paul Wolfowitz said "Let's look at it simply… we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." This is the same Paul Wolfowitz who was the chief architect and advocate of both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions (oops, sorry, I mean Liberations) as well as the prime developer of the Project For A New American Century that clearly laid out the blueprints for both of these attacks back in 1996. Mr. Wolfowitz went on to state that the idea of going after Saddam to eliminate the Weapons of Mass Destruction was actually a “bureaucratic decision” essentially made to ‘sell’ the idea of invading another country that had never actually attacked us, palatable to Congress and the American Public.

Essentially, the upshot of Mr. Wolfowitz’s statements seems to be, ‘We (the Bush Administration) were going to get our hands on the Iraqi oil reserves as well as establish some permanent military bases right in the heart of the Middle East no matter what. We just had to come up with a plan that we could tell the American people…OK so it was kind of a lie, but so what? We know what’s best for you (the American People) so shut up, bend over and smile.’

All of this has raised many questions in my mind. These questions then are ones that I pose to those hard Right supporters of the current administration, those same supporters who point fingers and questions the patriotism of anyone who dares to challenge what our current administration is doing in our name. My questions are these :

Are you really comfortable knowing that your government’s leaders have no problem admitting that they will lie and deceive you in order to achieve their goals?

Do you really feel comfortable shutting down your own rational mind in order to let these leaders think and act for you?

Do you agree that sending our young soldiers in to a conflict that essentially was profit driven is a proud and honorable way for these fine young men and women to sacrifice their lives?

Then ask yourself, is the message that Paul Wolfowitz and the leaders of this country are sending out, that obfuscation, profit motive and outright lying in order to achieve the goals of a select few global corporations (that have direct ties to the current Bush Cabinet) the kind of message that you believe America should be projecting? Is this really the America that you thought you were proud of?

Is this the kind of America that you WANT to be proud of?

------------

Email Scott Jones: scott.jones@medem.com

Comment on this column in the forum.
------------