| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2003 02:19:47 PM |
| Object: |
We got him, but what's the big deal? |
So what has really changed with Saddam's capture?
To paraphrase the eloquent words of my favourite bard, William
Shakespeare, Saddam's capture has created a lot of sound and fury but
has yet to signify something important in the War on Terrorism.
In other words, my country has not become one bit safer since 9-11.
From The Daily Star, 12/28/03:
http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/12/28/d31228150187.htm
We got him, but what's the big deal?
By Ron Chepesiuk
Ladies and gentlemen -- we got him.
When I first heard those words of Paul Bremer, the US chief
administrator Iraq, in the early hours of December 14 after awakening
from a good night's slumber, my initial reaction was: It's about time.
I never thought it would take 228 days after George Bush's May 1
declaration that Iraq War 1 was over to capture Saddam.
After all, didn't the coalition forces, as the tough-talking Texan and
his sidekick from London keep reminding us, have the hearts and minds
of the preponderance of Iraqis?
Besides, weren't the good guys trying to nab the Terrible Tyrant in
the Sunni Triangle, which in size and terrain didn't exactly seem to
pose the challenges that Bin Laden's pursuers faced in the wilds of
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Saddam should have been plucked out of a hole a long time ago, I
figured.
So what was the big deal?
But the mainstream US media jumped on the story as if it were akin in
significance to Adolph Hitler's suicide in that Berlin bunker in the
waning days of World War II.
To ensure that the American public would get the message, the media
kept reporting or showing those bizarre images of a dishevelled
Hussein being checked for lice, suicide capsules or whatever.
A few sage media commentators warned that continually repeating those
images of the former main spoke in the Axis of Evil wasn't going to
win us many friends in the Muslim world.
But the tabloid media didn't care.
They were the best images they had to sell their rags since Elvis was
spotted shopping in a Wal-Mart store in Topeka, Kansas.
Of course, the euphoria was understandable.
Things were not going well for the coalition forces in Iran.
Since my return from Bangladesh, it's been depressing to read and see
the media reports about the continuing carnage in the occupied
territory of Iraq.
But with the mainstream media trying to make profitable hay out the
event, one needed to turn to the alternative media to find sobering
assessments of Saddam's capture.
To its credit, the alternative media continues to assault the
propaganda wall the Bush administration has built around its misguided
adventure in Iraq.
The alternative media reports give us a reality check.
Coalition troops and Iraqis were still dying at an alarming rate.
No, the electricity was still not working in Iraq, and, yes, oil
pipelines were still getting blown up with unacceptable regularity.
The democracy that the coalition forces were struggling to build was
far from functioning, while the tensions between the Sunnis and
Shiites were still simmering towards a boiling point.
Meanwhile, lost in the euphoria was the assessment of General Richardo
Sanchez, the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, who repeatedly
cautioned that Iraqi insurgency would continue despite Saddam's
capture.
Neither the mainstream nor alternative media seemed to be interested
in the question that intrigued me.
From whence was coming the seemingly inexhaustible supply of suicidal
terrorists who are willing to check themselves out prematurely from
this existence in return for a safe and rewarding passage to the
afterlife?
Were they the followers of those 100 Bin Ladens Egyptian president
Hosni Mubarak warned us would be the product of a US invasion of Iraq?
As I pondered, many in the mainstream media were concluding that the
2004 US presidential election was all but over because with Saddam's
capture, their reasoning went, Iraq was now moving in the right
direction.
Some of the analysis was strange indeed.
One of the dimmest reports came from Knight Ridder, a major US news
agency, which concluded that Bush's chances of re-election was
heightened for three reasons.
To quote the report:
First it (Saddam's) capture reinforces his (Bush's) image as a
decisive leader, one of his core strengths.
Second, it helps Bush persuade Americans that there are benefits to
their sacrifice in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Third, it promises a future war crimes trial that will remind
Americans that Bush stood up to a murderous tyrant.
My reaction in reading such drivel was: first, my image of George,
Jr., like that of many other Americans, is one of leader who doesn't
really have a viable game-plan for either the War on Terrorism or the
economy.
Second, what benefits are there in eliminating a tyrant who was
already history anyway?
What guarantee is there that we will really see some light at the end
of Iraq tunnel?
By the way, where is elsewhere?
Iran?
North Korea?
Why not the tyrant in Zimbabwe?
And three, boy, are voyeurs going to have fun watching the spectacle
of Saddam Hussein versus Michael Jackson in the battle to be the first
trial of the century!
Interestingly, the American public doesn't seem dazzled by the glitz
of Saddam's capture.
A poll taken by the respected Harris Poll last December 22, conducted
before and after Saddam's capture, showed a slight improvement in
Bush's ratings.
Bush's appeal ratings still hover at their lowest level since he took
office in January 2001.
____________________________________________________________
"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Macbeth Act V Scene V
.
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: We got him, but what's the big deal? |
27 Dec 2003 06:45:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:19:47 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote or quoted :
So what has really changed with Saddam's capture?
It is a bit like playing PacMan. The game is silly, but once you get
hooked, you can't give up till you win.
Bush may have got hooked in a PacMan-like way on nailing Saddam, and
let the goal grow all out of proportion to its importance to the
country.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
But Clinton got a ***** so what's the big deal?
Trim or Eliminate Parts Of Social Security But Big Tax Breaks ForCash Strapped Big Oil
Republican Bush builds biggest U.S. embassy on earth in Baghdad. But not big enough.
Dead GI #1234 Enjoyed Long Walks on the Beach, Playing With Daughter, But Is Now Killed by Bush's Big Lie. Mission Accomplished!
Big Oil bemoans tough times, but record profits dull the pain...
Only One Problem But It Is A BIG BIG One.
George W. Napolean missed the real nukes, but,,,,
WMD? Nah, nah, we're there to build Iraq democracy, but...........................................
| Re: "It's The Economy, Stupid"--But Not For Coming 2004 Presidential Election
Bush went AWOL but extends tour of reserves in Iraq.
"This may not be Vietnam, but, boy, it sure smells like it."
rumsfeld appears cleared by report...but what is the balance of good?
The Reds are dead, but the spies are still around
Why is U.S. vote fraud OK but Ukrainian vote fraud not OK?
American troops die in Bush's stupid war but it's orgy time in Washington
|
|
|
