Thread: Bush Administration faces the integrity of free thinkers

www.bestsyndication.com


The Bush Administration faces the integrity of independent free thinkers in red states
November 26th 2005

Red States By County

"Islamic nations have a proven inability to organize and develop technologies and machinery to defend themselves in a traditional war against Western powers. While we hear much of, 'weapons of mass destruction,' it is highly doubtful that Iraq can develop the capability to successfully deliver such through missile launch without the aid of another nuclear power--like China, our modern profitable trading partner, which has been known to support terrorist nations with munitions and training.

The inability of Muslim nations to defend themselves against the West in traditional combat has left them to use terrorism as a political tactic to win their independence from influences they do not desire. It can be assured that any defense that Islamic extremist execute will be taken in civilian venues intended to break the spirit of citizens who hear of easy battle field victories, but fear walking the streets." Comments written by this columnist on August 8, 2002, at the beginning of the Bush Administration's public call to make war against Iraq.

The sad fact about America's invasion of Iraq is that it was totally unnecessary. Iraq had no navy to carry an attack force across the Atlantic Ocean to invade America. It had no fighters or bombers that had the range to fly across the world to rain bombs down upon American's heads. Saddam Hussein was not at the center of a wicked coalition of imperialist nations.

Simply put, Iraq was an isolated backward nation with a broken and poorly equipped military. Its government was cruel, dysfunctional, and maintained control by killing opponents. It had no political infrastructure, so encouraging the populace to support an attack any of its neighbors, let alone the United States, was impossible.

The only way that Iraq could cause any trouble to the US was to sneak biologic or nuclear fissile material (which we now know it did not have) across the borders America shares with Canada or Mexico. Consequently, the best defense to protecting America against the mythical Iraqi WMD's was to seal the borders, stop illegal immigration, and place tight controls on travel to and from Iraq and its neighbors. These options have not been considered throughout the execution of America's War Against International Terrorism.

Gathering basic facts about Iraq, or any other country, was not difficult in 2002, nor is it difficult in 2005. This is the hard reality that faces the Bush Administration as it initiates a new PR campaign to discredit the detractors of the invasion of Iraq. Even though the Bush Administration shaped public opinion to support an Iraqi invasion through members of the mainstream media, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, The Wall Street Journal, and Judith Miller of The New York Times, there were large numbers of individuals who could find sufficient information to help them develop their own opinions regarding the wisdom (or lack thereof) regarding plans to invade Iraq.

Their views opposing those of the Bush Administration and the two party political system were bolstered by highly regarded writers and thinkers such as Paul Craig Roberts, William Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Joseph Sobran. Many of these notable detractors were, at various times, members of and advisors to Republican presidential administrations and congressional staffs since the 1960's and had earned battle scars in the culture wars pitting limited government conservatism against the liberal leviathan that had become the federal government. Therefore to assault some of the best-reasoned criticisms against a war in Iraq as partisan, liberal carping was a nonstarter.

While America is embroiled in debate over the future direction taken with the occupation of Iraq, any attempt to characterize various positions must be considered to be politically motivated. There is no way to suggest that any portrayal of events that led to the invasion are revisionist or devious because the history of the event will not be written for years to come. This is because the full extent of the consequences of the invasion are yet to be known.

The real problem facing the Bush Administration is not that it has treasonous political enemies seeking its destruction, but that there are many of us in the "red states" who made up our own minds regarding the War Against International Terrorism and stood against the tide of popular opinion to state our opposition. We are simple middle-class laborers that work to care for our families, and lead lives that are easily examined by friends, neighbors, and coworkers.

Those within our circles of influence are now seeing us not only as well-reasoned and prescient, but as more trustworthy and credible than the government that is seeking to send their children to faraway countries to fight wars that have been sold with shadows and myths.

All I can say is that I wonder why they didn't wake up to this fact BEFORE they reelected Bush???? It was obvious to me from the very beginning when Bush started ranting about Iraq back in August, 2002, out at the ranch. I KNEW he was going to invade and I KNEW they were not a threat to us. I still go back to the one reason that he wanted to do this--he was pushed by his neo-con cronies into doing it because Iraq was a threat to Israel. That's the only logical reason I can come up with other than letting ALL of his administration who served under his father get the revenge they weren't able to get in the first Gulf War.