Copyright (c) 2002, 2004, 2010 Douglas Dunn / Word Wizards communications -- all rights reserved
Later Update -- The Bottom Line:
The initial article below was first uploaded prior to the invasion of Iraq, and immediately after the invasion was revised to reflect the fact that the invasion was no longer merely a proposal, but a sad reality. Subsequently, various updates were added later. But here is the bottom line:
Bush LIED to go to war for oil.
There were no weapons of mass destruction and the Bush administration knew it.
When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and later Secretary of State Colin Powell made official statements that we had specific knowledge of exactly where the WMD were, they were not telling the truth.
EVERYONE KNEW THERE WAS NO WMD.
The National Intelligence Estimate (compiled from 17 intelligence agencies within Bush's own administration) for that year said there were NO WMD.
Bush's own weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, said there were NO WMD.
The UN weapons inspectors (Hanx Blix and Mohammed El Baradei) said there were NO WMD.
Our allies the French supported us in the first Gulf War and after 9/11 and owe great reverence and respect to the U.S. for what we did in World War II. (Well so much for blowing that reservoir of good will.)
They did not sucker for the lies about WMD.
Our allies the Germans supported us in the first Gulf War and after 9/11.
They did not sucker for the lies about WMD.
All of the above were ridiculed by conservatives. (Remember "Freedom Fries"?)
All of the above WERE RIGHT.
In contrast with the virtually unanimous votes to authorize military action in Afghanistan, where the real terrorists who actually invaded were being harbored, there was far less unified support for diverting our troops away from the real war against the real terrorists: 23 U.S. Senators (22 Democrats and 1 Independent - James Jeffords) and 126 Democrats in the House, were not fooled -- the ones who actually read the National Intelligence Estimate as Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla) had urged them to do (Hillary didn't).
There was no connection between Al Qaeda and the real terrorists (who invaded from Afghanistan), and Iraq. Perhaps Bush was trying to get us to forget how he allowed the attacks to occur and then let Bin Laden escape:
Bush ignored repeated warnings on 9/11:
Bush ignored the files prepared by outgoing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
Bush ignored and fired terrorism expert Richard Clarke who had served since Reagan.
Bush GAVE $43 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE TALIBAN in May of 2001.
Bush ignored FBI agent Coleen Rowley's specific warnings about terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush ignored FBI informant Elie Assad pointing to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist.
Bush ignored the 8-6-01 PDB that inconveniently interrupted yet another vacation.
Bush let Osama Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora.
Bush diverted the military resources away from the real war against the real terrorists, to invade a county that had nothing at all to do with 9/11 and which was not a threat to the United States in any way.Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. But there are MANY dictators far worse and more dangerous, such as those in North Korea, China, SAUDI ARABIA (who Bush held hands with their crown prince, but not in a "gay" way), Burma, Sudan, Cambodia, Zimbabwe and many others who were far worse. Saddam wasn't even in the top twenty of cruel dictators! Oh, but Bush the oil man wanted his oil and couldn't make a hand-holding kissy-face deal with Saddam like he could with the Saudis.
May 2004 Update
The lies and compounding of lies on which the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation was based continue to multiply. An updated summary:
1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to invade the U.S. This lie is thoroughly addressed in the essay which follows. It is important to reiterate, however, the extent to which this lie was promulgated. Many people (including this writer) did suspect that Iraq was at least trying to develop WMD and possibly had some, but did not believe there was any remote likelihood that Saddam was an imminent threat even to his own neighbors (after his crushing humiliation in the 1990 Gulf War defeat). Dubya Bush's big LIE was much more nefarious than a simple, innocent mistake. His administration insisted not only that Saddam had such weapons, but that we knew exactly where they were and had identified specific sites that would be targeted in our invasion of "shock and awe." The specificity of these claims was a specific LIE. They were even specific about the source of raw materials (remember the Nigerian "yellowcake"?), even though their own intelligence experts had specfically informed them that such allegations were based on fraudulent documents.
2. Iraq had to be invaded because Saddam was directly supporting the terrorists who invaded us on September 11, 2001. Again, this lie is thoroughly discussed in the essay which follows, and now even the Bush administration has acknowledged that there was no such link, though they don't seem too eager to discuss the extent to which deploying vast resources in Iraq diverted those resources from the possibility of finding and capturing Osama bin forgotten in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
3. Once it was clear that the claims of WMD, imminent invasion, and links to terrorists were wrong, they tried to sell us on the idea that it was necessary to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny and dictatorship of Saddam Hussein (though no such effort has been made to free the victims of even worse regimes in North Korea, Cuba, and many smaller but more vicious tyrannies in sub-Saharan Africa). In his famous speech in his "flight-suit" dress-up day, under the banner of "Mission Accomplished," he said that the torture chambers, rape rooms and death squads of Saddam Hussein had been eliminated. What he forgot to mention, and what is made clear by the photos, videos and testimony flooding out from Abu Ghraib and other sites, is that the torture chambers, rape rooms and death squads weren't torn down, just taken over by Americans. Some people seek to dismiss these serious atrocities as "pranks" or "hazing" but they include severe sexual humiliation, rape of women, physical and mental torture, and a number of unjustified homicides. The apologists point to the decapitation of Berg or the mutilation of contractors' bodies, acts of terrorists, or the unrelated atrocities of Saddam as if somehow the fact that others are committing even more heinous crimes in some way exonerates our responsibility for those we sent to represent us. In any case, what are they saying? That the Bush administration's best defense now is, "Saddam was even worse"? Bush now says that the difference between himself and Saddam is that he is going to have a full and open investigation. But it has now been revealed that the Red Cross and other agencies brought this to his administration's attention in fall of 2003 and nothing was done until it was leaked to the media. The difference between Bush and Saddam is not that one allows open investigations and the other does not (no administration since Nixon is more secretive than Bush). The real difference is that we have a free and independent news media that shines the light of public awareness onto the cockroaches of torture, rape and murder who allow such atrocities. The only reason Bush feels "shame" is because he was exposed. Our brutal, inhumane torture, rape and murder of detainees will come back to haunt the brave service men and women who (unlike Bush) risk their lives on the field of battle. Next time our soldiers are caught and we demand they be treated humanely, what credibility will we have?
December 2003 Update
Congratulations to the courageous American military personnel for their valor in responding to the call of commanding officers in defeating Iraq and capturing Saddam Hussein. The valiant, courageous men and women of the greatest armed forces on earth have obeyed the commands of their higher-ups and shown the greatness of our military might and the Americans who make it possible. Our soldiers are the greatest anywhere, but unfortunately the leadership that put them in harm's way is less deserving of our praise. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. He was a ruthless dictator. He was a callous murderer. He was a threat to his neighbors and to the region, but he was no threat to the United States. Our country is NOT safer because of his capture. On the contrary, we are at greater risk. Remember 9/11? Saddam is not the one who invaded our country. We would be safer if "shock and awe" and $100+ billion dollars had been spent to capture Osama bin Laden (Osama bin Forgotten?) and the Saudi oil terrorists who fund Al Qaeda. We would be safer if $100+ billion were spent on our own health care and education, or on developing alternatives to Arab oil.
Original essay (including a few minor modifications and updates)
George Dubya Bush has now done what no other American president has ever done before: invade another nation without any direct provocation. He claims Iraq presents a specific and credible threat to our national security, but there is no evidence of this. On the contrary, all the evidence is that Iraq has no hostile intentions against the U.S. and that Bush has other reasons for this desired invasion. Such an unprecedented action, which undermines our role as exemplary moral leader of the world, demands an extraordinary basis for justification. Not only are the "justifications" offered for this invasion far beneath that standard, they don't hold water and even the most minimal standard of evaluation.
Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. He was a bad guy. He was a bully. He was a threat to his neighbors. He was a threat to his own people. He was not a threat to the United States, so the United States had no right to act alone in defiance of world opinion or international action under the auspices of the United Nations.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bully. Bullies strike out against foes who are weaker, not those who are stronger. Saddam had never exhibited the slightest inclination to initiate hostile actions against the United States. For many years Saddam was our ally. Under the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush (Senior), we built Saddam up and supported him because he was fighting against our enemies in Iran. We are the ones who supplied the military resources for his vaunted "Republican Guard" which was so highly feared until they proved to be so impotent in the Gulf War of 1991.
The last time Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam, during the Reagan/Bush years, he embraced him. Prior to his invasion of Kuwait, we had full diplomatic relations with Iraq. We were on friendly terms. Before invading Kuwait, Saddam was very concerned about how this action would affect his relations with his most powerful ally, the United States. He was so concerned that on July 25, 1990, just EIGHT DAYS before the invasion, he called U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie in for a conference to get a sense of the American position. Here are some excerpts from the transcripts of that meeting:
April Glaspie: I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. ...
Glaspie: We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Saddam Hussein interpreted this as a signal that the U.S. would take a hands-off approach. Little did he know that he would be stabbed in the back (he should have consulted with Manuel Noriega on the subject of Bush duplicity). April Glaspie had misinterpreted instructions and given wrong signals to Saddam, which of course would soon result in losing her diplomatic post and her reputation. But the fact remains that Hussein only gave the order to invade Kuwait after he had reassurances he believed to be credible from the U.S. that we would not object.
Saddam Hussein, Iraq or the Baath party had NEVER made any direct threat to U.S. interests. Saddam was no Al Qaeda/Taliban religious extremist. He was no suicide bomber. He enjoyed a nice quality of life and wanted to maintain (or expand) his power as long as he could. He knew that this time, testosterone-intoxicated Dubya wouldn't stop until he was gone (no matter how many American or Iraqi lives would have to be expended), trying to prove that Daddy wasn't really a wimp after all, as well as distracting us from his other domestic policy failures and the failure to apprehend Osama-been-forgotten.
After the Gulf War, when Papa Bush lost his bid for reelection and his administration, including Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, were thrown back into the private sector, Cheney became the head of Haliburton Energy, a leading oil company. In that role, even after the Gulf War, Cheney and his company sold millions of dollars of oil equipment to Iraq, which was one of their key international clients.
Despite all the claims of the Dubya presidency, the CIA has steadfastly maintained that there was absolutely no evidence of any direct threat to the U.S. from Saddam. He had never attacked U.S. targets except in response to U.S. attacks. He was trying desperately to avoid the invasion that he knew would remove him from power and bring his quality of life to an end. If he could have gone back to late July or early August of 1990, knowing then what he knows now about how the U.S. would really respond to his invasion of Kuwait, there is little doubt he would pursue a very different course. If there were any way he could reverse the current enmity and again be in the good graces of the U.S., he would do so in a flash. Saddam was a cruel and evil dictator, a bully who brought danger to his people and his neighbors, but he was no dummy, and no threat whatsoever to the United States.
The new Bush doctrine, that we have the right of "preemptive self defense," is not only ludicrous, but a dangerous precedent that will destabilize international tensions. Just imagine if I were walking along the street and saw someone who had a "tough" appearance. I see no actual manifestations of a threat to me, the guy just has a tough look to him. Maybe he is dressing in a "gang" chic style of clothing, even though he has no actual gang affiliation -- he just likes the look of gang culture. If I see him walking toward me, and with no actual or direct provocation I make a fist and slug him in the face, when the police arrive, who do you think is going to get taken to jail, me or him? Internationally, a "preemptive first strike" gives terrorists and bullies the perfect excuse to invade their neighbors. Who needs actual evidence of a direct threat? We thought they would attack us so we attacked them first.
The United States, with other nations and under the auspices of the United Nations, went to war against Iraq because they invaded Kuwait with no provocation. Now we are poised to do the same thing. This policy makes a rogue state of our once-noble nation. We must STOP MAD COWBOY DISEASE!
Some have compared the efforts of those who oppose a unilateral invasion of Iraq to the policy of appeasement that led to World War II. This absurd comparison reverses the facts. Prior to World War II, Hitler wanted to invade Czechoslovakia and take a portion of its land. The Allies, led by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of England, thought they could appease Hitler by letting him just take this land in return for a promise of no further aggression. He took the land and still continued his aggression that led to World War II. In contrast, Saddam Hussein wanted to invade Kuwait. A broad international coalition under the auspices of the U.N. did NOT appease him. They stood firm and forbade him to take any aggressive action. When he did so anyway, they did not let him have his way. They responded with INTERNATIONAL military force to undo the military aggression, decimate his military power, restore Kuwaiti independence, and impose harsh economic and military sanctions. There was no appeasement. Iraqi aggression was checked. The only failure was that the Allies did not remove this evil, dictatorial bully when they had their chance in a legitimate defensive action under broad international authority.
Bush complains that Saddam was in violation of U.N. resolutions, including 1441 and others. Maybe he was, maybe not. But that was a matter for the U.N. to enforce as an international body. The U.N., in its charter and many other resolutions, also forbids individual nations from initiating first strikes against other nations. If the U.S. disregards these provisions of the charter and other resolutions, we are in far more flagrant violation of U.N. authority than Iraq ever was. We are acting like an older sibling who goes to tell Mother or Father about a smaller sibling's misbehavior, and then if the older child doesn't agree with Mom or Dad's method of discipline, takes the matter into his own hands and whomps the smaller child. Our great nation must be better than that!
Now, at a time when Saddam posed no threat to the United States (though he was clearly a danger to weaker states and his own people, which was an international issue for the U.N., not a U.S. matter), the United States sought to invade Iraq. We threatened to invade another nation which bore us no direct threat. We threatened to do exactly the same thing to Iraq that Iraq did to Kuwait. If carrying out these threats, we became the rogue state, and we should expect the U.N. to take sanctions against us. Perhaps the U.N. will demand that WE remove our nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Will we let the inspectors have unfettered access to all sites, including the White House and Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas? Or is there a double standard?
If Saddam Hussein was no threat to the U.S., why was Bush in such a rush to invade? There are several reasons:
Despite so many other obvious reasons why Bush really feels the need to initiate first-strike aggressive hostilities, he always claims that he wants to "liberate" the Iraqi people and bring them freedom, even as his administrations curtails freedoms and civil liberties for our own people.
We have noted repeatedly our recognition that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator. It would be beneficial to see him removed from power. But to cite this as the reason for our invasion is fantasy or gullibility.
Yes, Saddam is evil. But he is not the most evil or ruthless dictator on our planet today, nor the one that is the greatest threat to the U.S. Let us examine some other regimes that are far more autocratic, ruthless and oppressive to his people than Saddam ever was.
North Korea: The dictator in North Korea, Kim Jong Il, is far worse than Saddam. And instead of wielding his power for a mere 25 years, like Saddam, or ignoring the "international community" for 12 years, this regime (including the continuous rule of both Kim Jong Il and his father Kim Il Sung) has ruled with an iron fist for more than 50 years, and has disregarded international law the whole time. Saddam may not have been enthusiastically cooperative with U.N. inspectors, but it was Kim Jong Il who actually threw them out of his country. Saddam may wish to have nuclear weapons, but North Korea actually has them, and has the delivery systems to get them to the American west coast. Yet despite this history, Bush feels he can "negotiate" with Kim Jong Il (translation: "appeasement"), while Iraq is an urgent threat that won't wait despite the calls for restraint from the international community.
Iran: The religious tyranny is an ally of Al Qaeda and a sponsor of militant Islamic terrorists, unlike Saddam whose religious secularism alienates him from the followers of Osama bin Laden. This is a regime which supported, encouraged and harbored the terrorists who kidnapped our embassy hostages in 1979 and held them more than a year. This is a regime that has already taken direct actions against the United States and continues to sponsor those who invaded us on September 11.
Al Qaeda: This is the terrorist organization that actually invaded the United States on September 11, 2001 (a "shock and awe" attack just as unprovoked but not nearly as severe as the one we hit Iraq with). Yes, the administration continues to give lip service to fighting this enemy, and occasionally even makes a token bit of progress, but resources to seriously fight our real enemy are being diverted to fight a weakened, impotent Saddam Hussein who has never been an actual threat to the United States.
Saudi Arabia: This is the religious tyranny that spawned 15 of the 19 terrorists who invaded our country, which allows no democracy, which represses its women, and whose schools indoctrinate small children with anti-American hatred. But because our oil company president needs them as business partners, he foists them off as friends, continues to do business with them, and takes not the slightest step toward bringing freedom, democracy or "liberation" to the Saudis.
If the administration were really so concerned about Saddam's threat to democratic freedom, they would have been going after regimes far more ruthless, far more oppressive, and far more threatening to the United States. When we see the same effort applied toward the "liberation" of North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, not to mention many other repressive authoritarian dictatorships in all parts of the world, then the claim of wanting to "liberate" Iraq might have a little more credibility. But even if they did that, what kind of road would that put us on? Sure, it would be great if all the evil dictatorships of the world could magically be replaced by thriving, successful democracies. But we don't have the magic wand to do that. We do not have the military resources and certainly not the financial means right now to spread ourselves so thin throughout the entire world that we end up being unable to mount even the slightest credible defense of our own borders from strategies and tactics truly aimed at real national defense.
If the administration were really so concerned about Saddam's ruthlessness, then they would have done something about it back when Bush's father was president (many of the same people in Junior's administration served in Senior's administration that was busy providing Saddam his weapons because we were happy about his decision to invade our enemy in Iran).
It is sad that the House and Senate would join together to grant a "blank check" authorization of force against a nation that bears no threat to U.S. interests, to placate a president who is seeking such authority under false pretenses, and for other motives which are far less honorable. Many years after the Tonkin Gulf resolution was passed in 1966, which gave then-President Lyndon Johnson authorization for military action in Vietnam, it was found that the reasons offered to justify it were based on falsehoods. Many in congress who voted for it lived to regret their decision. But at least that decision could be based on supporting an ally under a treaty agreement (SEATO) when that ally was already engaged in war. There is no doubt that many who voted to give an unelected president a blank check to initiate a unilateral invasion of another nation, apart from (and in violation of) our international commitments, will also live to regret the day they placed their names in support of this tragic, evil decision.
After 9/11 Bush insisted that if we change our way of life, "The Taliban have won." Based on his administration's response, Bush has surrendered, and is now looking for someone else to invade, hoping we'll forget his failure.
We must demand that our nation comply with International standards of law, morality and decency. We cannot take the law into our own hands or bully smaller nations in defiance of International authority. We must SAY NO TO WAR!
Moore, Michael. "Dude, Where's My Country." Warner
Books, 2003. Methodically documents the long-time relationship
of the Bush and Bin Laden families (going back more than 25 years)
and provides carefully-researched references to expose many of
the frauds of the Iraqi invasion.
Scheer, Christopher; Scheer, Robert; Chaudhri, Laksmi. "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq." Akashic Books and Seven Stories Press, 2003. Point-by-point analysis, with extensive and careful documentation, of the key issues of the Iraq war and how the Bush administration deceived Americans and the media.
Q: Have you forgotten about 9/11?
A: No. It seems that YOU have forgotten about 9/11. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. They were Sunni Moslems from the Wahabi sect. The CIA has confirmed that they have no connection with Saddam Hussein whatsoever; in fact, Osama been forgotten, their leader, has denounced Saddam Hussein and tried to have him assassinated because, as a Moslem, he is too secular and thus an "infidel." The Bush administration has cleverly and deceptively parlayed a rightful response to the invasions of 9/11, when we were invaded, into a justification for invading another country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and has never posed a threat to the United States.
Q: How can you oppose the military who are fighting for your right to dissent?
A: I am not opposing the military. The strongest opponents of this war are MILITARY VETERANS who, unlike chicken hawks Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Limbaugh, DeLay and George Dubya, have actually seen combat and understand what it entails. Many of those who support this wore have never worn a military uniform in combat and, in fact, vote to cut benefits for veterans. I do not oppose the brave soldiers who are doing their best to obey orders and implement the decisions of others.
But please understand that even these noble representatives of "America's Best" are NOT fighting for my "right to dissent." Those who fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the World Wars fought for our freedoms. As I noted with extensive documentation in this web page, Saddam Hussein is a threat to his neighbors and his own people, but he is not (and never has been) a threat to the U.S. Because he is not threatening the U.S. or our freedoms, those who are invading Iraq are NOT defending the freedoms that aren't even being threatened. On the contrary, George Dubya Bush is using the war against Iraq as a pretext for being distracted from the real enemy, Osama bin Laden, and to curtail civil liberties and freedoms for Americans in the name of "national security" while claiming to fight for the very same freedoms for Iraqis. Why are Americans fighting for the rights for Iraqis at the same time trying to cut back on the same rights in our own country? Go figure.
Q: Won't the Iraqi people will be better off after we win the war and give them their freedom?
A: Please review my comments about the myth of Iraqi liberation. There is no doubt that some Iraqis will be better off after we win the war, though the poor who lose their husbands, wives, children, arms, legs, meager houses, etc., and who are more concerned with survival than with political issues, will not be better off and will only hate the United States more. Now we can go on to "liberate" citizens in all the other dictatorships of the world. I hope no Republican will ever again complain about taxes as we bring freedom at "ANY PRICE" to all oppressed peoples everywhere, and provide for them the improved schools and roads and health care that we should have been providing for our own people first. What puzzles me is that those who raise this argument also tend to be those most opposed to the rights of "illegal immigrants" who come here from poor countries, especially Mexico. Let's rephrase your question: "Won't the Mexican people will be better off after we grant them economic opportunity in America?" Sure, they will be better off. But if we just open the borders and let all the poor from throughout the world into America, our whole system would just be overwhelmed. There is a limit on how much we can afford to spend to save the rest of the world -- we should improve our own schools, reform our own elections, and establish medical care here in our own country before we go trying to do it in other countries that have never even asked for our help. Yes, some Iraqis will be better off after our invasion successfully defeats them. But what about those living in other dictatorships? Iraq is not the most oppressive dictatorship in the world. What about those in North Korea? Burma (excuse me, Myannmar)? Cuba? Somalia? Libya? What about those in Saudi Arabia, where Dubya Bush has all his oil company buddies? Do you really think the women in burquas there are free? Do you think the oil company oilagarchy there would like to see leaders chosen by a free, fair and open democratic election? Do you think they'll be better off if we install real and honest "democracy" and they use free and fair elections to install another extremist Islamic ayatollah? Do you remember how happy everyone was to see the evil Shah of Iran deposed? Do you remember when the Ayatollah Khomeini arrived and was greeted as a liberator? And do you remember how long that lasted? Yeah, Saddam is a bad guy. But he is nowhere near the worst on the list. How much are YOU willing to see your taxes go up to pay for invasions into every dictatorship that is as evil as Saddam's? And please remember that this country knew about Saddams' atrocities way back when Dubya's father was president (the use of chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds occurred during the war against Iran, when we knew all about this and supported Saddam because he opposed our enemies in Iran). Using this as an excuse now is extremely hypocritical ... and dishonest.
Q: What about the scenes of all those Iraqis "dancing in the streets" after they were liberated?
A: Why is everyone so overwhelmed and inspired by scenes of Iraqis dancing in the streets while heavily-armed U.S. soldiers stand nearby, but no one was impressed a month ago when the same throngs danced in the streets with pictures of Saddam while HIS heavily-amred soldiers stood nearby? Are the Iraqis really that happy to greet the conquering invaders, or have they been conditioned to dance for whoever's soldiers hold the guns? At least when East Germans celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were no foreign soldiers standing behind them with assault rifles.
Q: OK, I understand that you were opposed to the invasion. But, once the war began and American troops were in danger, shouldn't we refrain from criticizing the President or his decisions and all come together in unified support?
A: Let's rephrase the question: let's say you were a German liberal in the late 1930's. You sense the winds of war and actively oppose the obvious preparations to invade other nations. But in September of 1939 your leader invades Poland and starts World War II. You didn't like the war, but now that you have troops on the battlefield, should you now come together in unified support of your leader (Hitler)? I am not equating Bush with Hitler. I am just using an extreme example to demonstrate the fallacy of this logic. We were wrong to invade. Having troops in battle doesn't make us any less wrong.
Q: You say you support the troops, but not the war. But it is the troops who are fighting the war. How can you support the troops but oppose what they are doing?
A: Because the troops aren't the ones who make the decisions. They carry out their orders, as they should. I remember Vietnam and how valiant troops did their duty and came home to a lack of support. Many of those, based on their actual experiences, became the strongest opponents of the war. Those who support the troops want to bring them home alive, not use them for cheap, expendable cannon fodder. And we support them in more practical terms: while Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, who all avoided military service when they had the chance, are risking soldier's lives, they were simultaneously cutting Veteran's benefits to help stave off some of the deficit margins that result from their military spending and tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the middle class. In contrast, it was Democrats and liberals who were fighting to save the Veterans benefits for those who put their lives in harm's way. Please explain again how you think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are supporting our military people?
Q: Actors and entertainers should stick to acting and not spout off their opinions about politics. What qualifications do Michael Moore or Martin Sheen have to talk about politics?
A: Yeah, I agree. I've been saying the same thing since Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California (my state) back in 1966. He had just as much qualifications to talk about politics in 1966 as Martin Sheen or Michael Moore or the Dixie Chicks do today. And don't get me started on our latest unqualified actor-turned governor, the womanizing gropenfuhrer Arnold Schwarzenneger.... Funny how I don't hear any Republicans bringing up his name. Fair and balanced, anyone?
Copyright (c) 2002, 2004, 2010 Douglas Dunn / Word Wizards communications
We welcome FEEDBACK! Send e-mail feedback to: feedback
Please note, be sure to BEGIN the TITLE of your e-mail reply with the word "FEEDBACK" to avoid having your e-mail deleted unread with all the other junk e-mail that is mass deleted, and mention which commentary you are responding to, for example: "Feedback Iraq." PLEASE NOTE: WE DO NOT ACCEPT OR OPEN ANY E-MAILS WITH ATTACHED FILES. Please include all comments within the text area of the e-mail, not in an attached file. All messages that contain attached files will be deleted -- the e-mail text will not even be opened, much less the attached file -- it will be dragged straight into the "Delete" icon.
Check out additional articles by Douglas Dunn now available as FREE DOWNLOADS -- with additional articles being added regularly, each one an adaptation of those that have been published in mainstream newspapers and magazines [more articles].
Books by Douglas
Dunn (click on book titles for descriptions of books and ordering
Books written by Douglas Dunn may also be ordered online through Barnes and Noble, Borders.com and/or Amazon.com. Also available through other retail bookstores (if not in stock may be "special ordered").
Return to Word Wizards home page