| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"PagCal" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2005 04:49:41 AM |
| Object: |
No Mandate for Bush for His War in Iraq |
Pomp and Improper Circumstance
January 18, 2005 -- On Thursday, an estimated $40 million worth of
inaugural pomp and circumstance will only temporarily triumph over an
incalculable record of deceit and error.
Of course, some might say it's tacky to rain on the president's parade,
but two crucial news stories compel it.
First came the report, confirmed by the White House, that the fruitless
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had officially but
secretly ended shortly before Christmas without, of course, any sign of
the much discussed weapons that were such a critical justification for
the war in the first place. This was followed by the astounding claim by
the president that his narrow election victory in November absolved him
of accountability for both the false rationales and outright lies used
to justify the invasion, and the disastrous occupation that followed.
"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004
elections," Bush told the Washington Post in an interview published
Friday. "And the American people listened to different assessments made
about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two
candidates, and chose me."
Actually, the election provided no such moment of accountability because
both major-party candidates had supported the war. John Kerry had voted
to authorize the use of force against Iraq -- and then inexplicably said
on the campaign trail that he would have voted the same way even after
learning that Congress and the American public had been deceived on the
war's justification. The Democratic Party nominee even endorsed larger
troop commitments to occupy a country where every Western soldier on the
ground fuels nationalist and religious rage.
And although it is true that Bush secured a (very slim) majority of the
popular vote, it is a portent of how history will judge him that the
days ahead of his inauguration have been soured by a string of critical
statements about his Iraq policy from some of the biggest Iraq hands in
the Republican ranks.
Brent Scowcroft, the retired lieutenant general who was national
security advisor to the president's father during the first Iraq war,
warned ominously that the upcoming Iraqi national elections "won't be a
promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the
conflict. We may be seeing incipient civil war at this time."
Even the Bush family's consigliore is concerned enough to speak out
publicly. James A. Baker III, the former secretary of State who has been
working at Bush's behest to win international debt relief for conquered
Iraq, is talking publicly about the need for a phased withdrawal: "Any
appearance of a permanent occupation will both undermine domestic
support here in the United States and play directly into the hands of
those in the Middle East who -- however wrongly -- suspect us of
imperial design."
Undaunted by such pragmatism, President "Mission Accomplished" Bush
twice demurred in his interview with the Post from Colin Powell's
prediction that U.S. troops would begin leaving Iraq in the next year.
Despite what Bush may think, elections grant leaders temporary power,
but it is history that determines the rightness and wrongness of their
actions. As Abraham Lincoln noted, you can even fool all of the people
some of the time. That is why the nation's founders designed the
Constitution to check the unbridled rule of the majority lest, driven by
the passions of the moment, it embrace devastating error or even tyranny.
Consider that even without the debacle of Watergate, the reputation of
the man who soundly defeated war hero and antiwar candidate George
McGovern was ultimately doomed by his immoral and irrational decision to
carpet-bomb most of Southeast Asia for years in a vain attempt to secure
victory against a seemingly outmatched Third World country.
As we honor Medal of Freedom winner Martin Luther King Jr., a prophet of
peace, it is depressing to consider that our president has just bestowed
that same medal -- the highest civilian honor in the land -- on ex-CIA
Director George Tenet and ex-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer III.
After all, it was Tenet who kept Congress in the dark about the agency's
considerable intelligence that contradicted the White House lies about
Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program and ties to Al Qaeda. And it was
the bumbling Bremer who assured us throughout his stay in Iraq that
everything over there was just going swimmingly -- instead of admitting
that it was actually going to hell in a handbasket.
No matter his electoral victory, Bush will never be absolved of sending
young people to kill and be killed in a war without moral justification.
One does not have to be a Catholic to agree with the pope that the
invasion of Iraq fails to meet the Christian standard of a "just war."
Copyright © 2005 Robert Scheer
.
|
|
| User: "Payne N. Diaz" |
|
| Title: Re: No Mandate for Bush for His War in Iraq |
19 Jan 2005 07:42:26 AM |
|
|
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:7KudnSmNrIPYpnPcRVn-qg@giganews.com...
Pomp and Improper Circumstance
January 18, 2005 -- On Thursday, an estimated $40 million worth of
inaugural pomp and circumstance will only temporarily triumph over an
incalculable record of deceit and error.
Of course, some might say it's tacky to rain on the president's parade,
but two crucial news stories compel it.
First came the report, confirmed by the White House, that the fruitless
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had officially but secretly
ended shortly before Christmas without, of course, any sign of the much
discussed weapons that were such a critical justification for the war in
the first place. This was followed by the astounding claim by the
president that his narrow election victory in November absolved him of
accountability for both the false rationales and outright lies used to
justify the invasion, and the disastrous occupation that followed.
The "false claims" were largely from the Democratic side and not a few UN
members.
Had he ignored them and a WMD was used here or anywhere else, your song
would be different than now and we would be hearing, "Why didn't Bush do
something?", just like we have about him letting "911 happen".
"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004
elections," Bush told the Washington Post in an interview published
Friday. "And the American people listened to different assessments made
about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two
candidates, and chose me."
Yup. Excellent choice.
Actually, the election provided no such moment of accountability because
both major-party candidates had supported the war. John Kerry had voted to
authorize the use of force against Iraq -- and then inexplicably said on
the campaign trail that he would have voted the same way even after
learning that Congress and the American public had been deceived on the
war's justification. The Democratic Party nominee even endorsed larger
troop commitments to occupy a country where every Western soldier on the
ground fuels nationalist and religious rage.
"I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars, before I voted against
it." - John Kerry
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Kerry
<<<< Snip Sour Grapes>>>>
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: No Mandate for Bush for His War in Iraq |
19 Jan 2005 12:56:44 PM |
|
|
"Payne N. Diaz" <PayneN.Diaz@HomeAndEverywhere.Else> wrote in message
news:WqtHd.16626$SK6.15460@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:7KudnSmNrIPYpnPcRVn-qg@giganews.com...
Pomp and Improper Circumstance
January 18, 2005 -- On Thursday, an estimated $40 million worth of
inaugural pomp and circumstance will only temporarily triumph over an
incalculable record of deceit and error.
Of course, some might say it's tacky to rain on the president's parade,
but two crucial news stories compel it.
First came the report, confirmed by the White House, that the fruitless
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had officially but
secretly ended shortly before Christmas without, of course, any sign of
the much discussed weapons that were such a critical justification for
the war in the first place. This was followed by the astounding claim by
the president that his narrow election victory in November absolved him
of accountability for both the false rationales and outright lies used to
justify the invasion, and the disastrous occupation that followed.
The "false claims" were largely from the Democratic side
lie
and not a few UN
members.
lie
Had he ignored them and a WMD was used here or anywhere else,
impossible
your song
would be different than now and we would be hearing, "Why didn't Bush do
something?", just like we have about him letting "911 happen".
He did let it happen. In fact, he helped by pulling the military off OBL
6 months earlier.
"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004
elections," Bush told the Washington Post in an interview published
Friday. "And the American people listened to different assessments made
about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two
candidates, and chose me."
Yup. Excellent choice.
If you hate America.
Actually, the election provided no such moment of accountability because
both major-party candidates had supported the war. John Kerry had voted
to authorize the use of force against Iraq -- and then inexplicably said
on the campaign trail that he would have voted the same way even after
learning that Congress and the American public had been deceived on the
war's justification. The Democratic Party nominee even endorsed larger
troop commitments to occupy a country where every Western soldier on the
ground fuels nationalist and religious rage.
"I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars, before I voted against
it." - John Kerry
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Kerry
Why did the republicans change the $87 billion bill in mid-stream?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
