BuzzFlash
presents Southern Style
by Rebecca Knight
September 19, 2002
Blind Allegiance
Southern Style by Rebecca Knight
"What right has (U.S. President George W. Bush) to come and say that that offer is not genuine? We must condemn that very strongly. That is why I criticize most leaders, all over the world, for keeping quiet when one country wants to bully the whole world."
-- Nelson Mandela
This is serious stuff. This war talk, this take over the Middle East movement, this get Saddam rhetoric. There is profound hypocrisy in the wind, not to mention flagrant disregard for the value of human life. Yep, Marshall Bush, alias Barney Fife, is at it again. Only the bull's eye is now on the forehead of Saddam, instead of Osama.
How much more proof do you want America? Why can't you just shut up and listen to Bush when he tells you war is necessary, Saddam is evil, Saddam will never cooperate with the UN, and the U.S. must attack Iraq NOW?
Here's why! It is our patriotic duty to question the motives of our leaders and protect innocents, whether American or Iraqi, from dying unnecessarily! Those of you who regularly read this column understand the high value placed on patriotism and reason here. In this space the drumbeat of patriotism is loud and frequent. We have the right and the responsibility to express our thoughts, our concerns, and our reservations regarding Bush's threats of a "preemptive" strike against Iraq. Don't EVER forget that fact!
In the past week, Saddam gave the UN and Bush "yes" for an answer. How shocking! How dare he! It threw a monkey wrench into the mixture of the Bush administration's plans for a show of American military force. Just look at the response from the (1) White House:
Statement by the Deputy Press Secretary
As the President said, the UN Security Council needs to decide how to enforce its own resolutions, which the Iraqi regime has defied for more than a decade.
This will require a new, effective UN Security Council resolution that will actually deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to the world. That is the course the Security Council is on, and the United States is engaged in consultations with Council members and other partners in New York at this time.
This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions.
This is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong UN Security Council action. As such, it is a tactic that will fail.
It is time for the Security Council to act.
TRANSLATION: We are mad as hell that Saddam has given in to pressure to allow inspections because it may delay our desire to take military action prior to the November elections.
Something is missing. Where is the part about hoping that this agreement by Saddam will work? Where is the part about hoping that this will lead to avoiding war and the loss of innocent lives, both American and Iraqi? Lives apparently do not matter.
Oh, you think Mr. Bush and the GOP would never "wag the dog" to impact the results of the November elections? Try reading the article in the Washington Post entitled "GOP Nominees Hope To Make Iraq A Political Weapon."(2)
Here are two excerpts:
Across the country, GOP House and Senate candidates are emphasizing the possibility of war in Iraq, either touting their support for Bush or highlighting their opponents' reservations -- past or present -- about military strikes against the Baghdad regime, according to several candidates and party strategists.
These events mark a shift in the midterm elections toward a topic that Republicans generally favor -- the Bush administration's tough stand against Hussein -- at the expense of subjects that Democrats prefer -- domestic matters such as health care benefits and the fiscal health of the Social Security system.
Exactly! Bush and the GOP know that the administration has only one issue that apparently works for them. War! So, to hell with all the domestic issues where poll numbers show the absolute failures of the GOP. War, there's the ticket!
Oh, and there's another reason for war. What other aspect of the Middle East plays a part in the Bush and company maneuverings? Oil! That's right, oil! And who has a vital interest in oil? Bush and Cheney cronies, as witnessed by the fact that energy conglomerates were allowed unprecedented access to the development of the Bush administration energy policy. Cheney is being sued over this! Statements made by the Bush administration economic advisor, Larry Lindsay, confirmed this. Mr. Lindsay is quoted: "When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."(3) Yes, and it would be good for the oil industry, the bank accounts of the Bush/Cheney cronies.
And don't discount the oil factor from the behind the scenes maneuvering among countries holding back on support of the Bush war scenario.(4)
"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."
In the past few days, several countries began to alter their positions on Bushes push for war in Iraq. Don't fall for the line that they have suddenly agreed with Bush. Look for the movements behind the scenes. Look at what they are being promised in exchange for their position changes. Is Bush bribing his way into war at the expense of the American taxpayer? And what long-term ramifications will there be from such actions? The following editorial eloquently summarizes exactly what may be happening.(5)
Editorial: Bribing our way to war
When he addressed the United Nations, and in comments since, President Bush attempted to make the "moral" case for war with Iraq. At the same time, the Los Angeles Times reports that the president is preparing to bribe foreign governments in order to win support for this "moral" war.
In exchange for support of this "moral" war, diplomats say, Turkey is preparing to ask for weapons and debt relief, Qatar wants money to build air fields, Russian and France want access to Iraqi oil fields guaranteed by an ongoing U.S. military presence, and Jordan is interested in trade concessions.
The Bush administration's determination to use bribery to get the United States into an unnecessary war is even more disturbing than the administration's attempts to create false fears about the "threat" posed by Iraq to its neighbors and, even more remarkably, to the United States. Unlike the fear mongering, these bribes will cost an already depleted treasury more than U.S. taxpayers can or should waste on a fool's mission.
Has anyone within the Bush administration even considered that by waging war against Iraq it could lose focus on the war on terrorism? Perhaps that is precisely what Osama bin Laden would like the U.S. to do! It would give him a victory of sorts if an attack on Iraq enraged the militants who hate the U.S. We should not fall into that trap.
Where is the evidence to support the claims by the Bush administration that Saddam is connected to the attacks of 9/11 and that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? The evidence is ambiguous at best. Reports from the CIA contradict claims made by the Bush administration. They have a responsibility to support their demand for war with documented evidence. They must be required to lay out the case for Congress and the American people to support such action. But they have not done so. Are we to support this war plan simply because the Bush administration says that we should expect the worst? If so, we would be complicit.
We should not grant the Bush administration such blind allegiance. Those who do so call us anti-American or traitors. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We despise monsters like Saddam and Osama just as much as anyone. However, we seek to find rational actions of containment and destruction rather than a high-pitched and sometimes illogical fever for war.
Blind allegiance to any administration, much less one that obtained office under such questionable circumstances, is a mistake. We should always question. When Americans stop questioning, we will have shirked our responsibilities as citizens of our democracy and we will have acquiesced to the ramblings of men who would prefer to be dictators.
Those of us who understand this distinction will fight to speak our minds. Our only blind allegiance is to our freedoms granted through our Constitution and Bill of Rights, documents that have sustained this nation throughout its history!
* * *
(1)
Statement from the Deputy Press Secretary
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020916-6.html
(2)
GOP Nominees Hope To Make Iraq A Political Weapon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31448-2002Sep17
(3)
Ousting Saddam Would Be Good Business
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/17/wirq217.xml/
(4)
In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18841-2002Sep14?language=printer
(5)
Bribing Our Way To War
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/editorial/32340.php
* * *
Rebecca Knight is a native Tennessean, who grew up in Nashville, and currently resides in a small town near Nashville. Ms. Knight's political awareness evolved through the civil rights movement, the Vietnam era, the Watergate era, and the cold war. The debacle of the 2000 election increased her sense of responsibility for political activism. You may contact Rebecca Knight via e-mail at tennessee_gal655@yahoo.com.
© 2002 by Rebecca Knight
