Bush's World
...Where Truth is Dispensed With by Half-Truths
In a recent (11/05/05) issue of World Magazine, founder Joel Belz's weekly column took another shot at cheerleading for President Bush by suggesting that the truth were on Bush's side, and that he should speak up and say so.
Almost as if taking his cue from World, just a few days later (11/10/05) Bush forcefully attacked his critics, in an "effort to bolster the president's waning credibility and dwindling support for the war, in which more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died," according to World.
Perhaps most stunning among Bush's assertions concerning his critics was his suggestion that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began" (implying, of course, that the Bush-led federal government has not attempted to "rewrite history" in order to justify its meddlesome imperialist actions abroad, while willfully failing to enforce immigration laws at home.
Mr. Belz's column first seeks to clarify things by asking "whether Mr. Bush and his team were indeed wrong on the weapons [of mass destruction] issue" (they were, says the evidence). Then he asks, "if they were wrong, were they also dishonest[?]."
We're talking about mainstream American career politicians here, Joel. How exactly do you propose to discern whether -- or when -- they could actually be "dishonest" or not?
Belz writes, "It is widely assumed, of course, that the Bush team was dead wrong..." It need not merely be "assumed" ("widely" or otherwise), however.
As recently as 11/20/05, Germany's official intelligence sources went on record in a Los Angeles Times article to the effect that the case for Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was questionable from the outset -- the accusations having come from a lone Iraqi defector (of questionable character) in the first place -- and German intelligence advised prior to the U.S. invasion that his claims were unverifiable and highly questionable.
Mr. Belz seems to think that Mr. Bush would benefit from being honest, but I'm not sure he realizes what he's asking for. With every new revelation (of the honest truth, that is), both the WMD rationale and the credibility of the Bush administration have become less viable. And if that's not enough, the Hussein--al-Qaida rationale has likewise been revealed as a falsehood that the Bush administration was well aware of within weeks after the 09/11 World Trade Center catastrophe.
Likewise, a 11/22/05 [MSNBC article] further disposes of the notion that Hussein was a friend of al-Qaida, leaving Bush's top two rationales for invading Iraq where they belong: on the growing heap of bald-faced whoppers that should be a major embarrassment to Bush and his supporters.
"The main argument from the beginning was that Iraq and the surrounding region were being dominated by bullies, and that the people of that region deserved better," asserted Mr. Belz. So? There are people all over the globe who are "being dominated by bullies" and who may or may not "deserve better," but that doesn't ipso facto entitle anybody -- including George Bush -- to go abroad miring American resources in no-win wars to the tune of billions in debt and tens of thousands of lost and broken lives.
With their eye now on Iran, the Bush regime will surely appreciate more apologetics from the likes of Mr. Belz. If they aren't already, Americans are soon likely to become the most despised people of the present era in the eyes of every Muslim, if not in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. The hollow assurances offered by Bush's faithful in the media will play an important role in soothing the American public's distaste for having gained a world-wide a reputation as aggressive, meddlesome imperialists.
And when the bill finally comes due for the looming debt created by these overseas adventures to which Congress and The People have mindlessly acquiesced, and the dollar plummets to its inevitable death, the defenders of this agenda of aggression are sure to go curiously silent, their vacuous "defenses" having vaporized in the face of cold, hard reality: "whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."
In a recent (11/05/05) issue of World Magazine, founder Joel Belz's weekly column took another shot at cheerleading for President Bush by suggesting that the truth were on Bush's side, and that he should speak up and say so.
Almost as if taking his cue from World, just a few days later (11/10/05) Bush forcefully attacked his critics, in an "effort to bolster the president's waning credibility and dwindling support for the war, in which more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died," according to World.
Perhaps most stunning among Bush's assertions concerning his critics was his suggestion that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began" (implying, of course, that the Bush-led federal government has not attempted to "rewrite history" in order to justify its meddlesome imperialist actions abroad, while willfully failing to enforce immigration laws at home.
Mr. Belz's column first seeks to clarify things by asking "whether Mr. Bush and his team were indeed wrong on the weapons [of mass destruction] issue" (they were, says the evidence). Then he asks, "if they were wrong, were they also dishonest[?]."
We're talking about mainstream American career politicians here, Joel. How exactly do you propose to discern whether -- or when -- they could actually be "dishonest" or not?
Belz writes, "It is widely assumed, of course, that the Bush team was dead wrong..." It need not merely be "assumed" ("widely" or otherwise), however.
As recently as 11/20/05, Germany's official intelligence sources went on record in a Los Angeles Times article to the effect that the case for Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was questionable from the outset -- the accusations having come from a lone Iraqi defector (of questionable character) in the first place -- and German intelligence advised prior to the U.S. invasion that his claims were unverifiable and highly questionable.
Mr. Belz seems to think that Mr. Bush would benefit from being honest, but I'm not sure he realizes what he's asking for. With every new revelation (of the honest truth, that is), both the WMD rationale and the credibility of the Bush administration have become less viable. And if that's not enough, the Hussein--al-Qaida rationale has likewise been revealed as a falsehood that the Bush administration was well aware of within weeks after the 09/11 World Trade Center catastrophe.
Likewise, a 11/22/05 [MSNBC article] further disposes of the notion that Hussein was a friend of al-Qaida, leaving Bush's top two rationales for invading Iraq where they belong: on the growing heap of bald-faced whoppers that should be a major embarrassment to Bush and his supporters.
"The main argument from the beginning was that Iraq and the surrounding region were being dominated by bullies, and that the people of that region deserved better," asserted Mr. Belz. So? There are people all over the globe who are "being dominated by bullies" and who may or may not "deserve better," but that doesn't ipso facto entitle anybody -- including George Bush -- to go abroad miring American resources in no-win wars to the tune of billions in debt and tens of thousands of lost and broken lives.
With their eye now on Iran, the Bush regime will surely appreciate more apologetics from the likes of Mr. Belz. If they aren't already, Americans are soon likely to become the most despised people of the present era in the eyes of every Muslim, if not in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. The hollow assurances offered by Bush's faithful in the media will play an important role in soothing the American public's distaste for having gained a world-wide a reputation as aggressive, meddlesome imperialists.
And when the bill finally comes due for the looming debt created by these overseas adventures to which Congress and The People have mindlessly acquiesced, and the dollar plummets to its inevitable death, the defenders of this agenda of aggression are sure to go curiously silent, their vacuous "defenses" having vaporized in the face of cold, hard reality: "whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."
posted by Mudrostovich | 11:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home