War on Terrorism
It's time--it has been time for years--for George W. Bush to 'fess up--or, because he's incapable of that, for Americans to smarten up--about this "War on Terrorism." It's not a war that he wants to win. It's just a phrase that he likes to say and one that makes people think that he's doing something that they think is important. Can we handle the truth?
The first truth is that Bushie and his minions do not want to win a war against terrorism. As stupid as they are, they realize that they won the 2002 and 2004 elections because of their so-called war on terrorism. For them to give it up would be a lot like Burger King giving up the Whopper or Coca Cola giving up Coke Classic. (Remember what happened when they did that?) Then, after 2004, they declared it "The Long War." While it's one thing to express commitment to winning a war no matter how long it takes, it's quite another to give it a name that is clearly accepting of protracted conflict and its associated costs. Did FDR call for a long war? Did Wilson? Did Lincoln? None of them did.
If that doesn't raise doubts, what about the fact that in five years, none of the al Quaeda leaders who have been on ice in Girmo or the secret prisons has been brought to trial. An administration that wanted to win a war against terror would capture terrorists and then try them as quickly as possible. The captured suspects would be treated at the highest standards so that no question every arose about their imprisonment or interrogation; courts overturn convictions on such issues. And the suspects would be tried in courts that afforded them every right granted citizens so that there could never be any question about the validity of the convictions--or acquittals. All of this would take place quickly because quickness would put the world on notice that we would deal quickly and firmly with those who had acted against us.
So what have we gotten? We have gotten one somewhat moth-eaten prisoner who claimed to be al Quaeda and confessed and pleaded guilty. He got a jury trial to determine his sentence and the evidence was so shaky that he got life without parole instead of the death sentence. And it's significant, too, that after his sentencing, he declared that his faith in the American judicial system was so greatly restored that he would like to enter a new plea of not guilty. Bush has slowed the process by abrogating trial rights of the accused and claiming this was important because they were, after all, terrorists--even though the presumption of innocence must apply for the trial to have any legitimacy at all. He has held prisoners incommunicado and authorized their torture, even when members of his own party told him that this would not extract useful information.
If Bush wanted to win his so-called war against terror and if Afghanistan really was the seat of the Islamic terrorist movement, he would not have abandoned that effort until the job was done. He would have captured bin Laden. We were told repeatedly that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora and that Tora Bora was surrounded by Amierican troops. Bin Laden, as I write, is probably chuckling at the idiocy of his enemies from the safety of a cave somewhere. Meanwhile, the America effort in Afghanistan has been scaled back to accommodate Bush's vendetta against Iraq, and the Taliban is making a comeback.
Bush wants Americans to be afraid, because only fearful people and congenital cowards vote Republican. Conservativism is founded on a fear of losing something. It's time for Americans to understand that he seeks absolutely nothing but power for himself and members of his family. He wants a legislature that will not question him. We need to ask ourselves why any honest man who is convinced that he's right fears having his position questioned. I can only wonder--and, to some extent, fear--why a person who will be effectively out of office in twenty-six months would worry about it.
The first truth is that Bushie and his minions do not want to win a war against terrorism. As stupid as they are, they realize that they won the 2002 and 2004 elections because of their so-called war on terrorism. For them to give it up would be a lot like Burger King giving up the Whopper or Coca Cola giving up Coke Classic. (Remember what happened when they did that?) Then, after 2004, they declared it "The Long War." While it's one thing to express commitment to winning a war no matter how long it takes, it's quite another to give it a name that is clearly accepting of protracted conflict and its associated costs. Did FDR call for a long war? Did Wilson? Did Lincoln? None of them did.
If that doesn't raise doubts, what about the fact that in five years, none of the al Quaeda leaders who have been on ice in Girmo or the secret prisons has been brought to trial. An administration that wanted to win a war against terror would capture terrorists and then try them as quickly as possible. The captured suspects would be treated at the highest standards so that no question every arose about their imprisonment or interrogation; courts overturn convictions on such issues. And the suspects would be tried in courts that afforded them every right granted citizens so that there could never be any question about the validity of the convictions--or acquittals. All of this would take place quickly because quickness would put the world on notice that we would deal quickly and firmly with those who had acted against us.
So what have we gotten? We have gotten one somewhat moth-eaten prisoner who claimed to be al Quaeda and confessed and pleaded guilty. He got a jury trial to determine his sentence and the evidence was so shaky that he got life without parole instead of the death sentence. And it's significant, too, that after his sentencing, he declared that his faith in the American judicial system was so greatly restored that he would like to enter a new plea of not guilty. Bush has slowed the process by abrogating trial rights of the accused and claiming this was important because they were, after all, terrorists--even though the presumption of innocence must apply for the trial to have any legitimacy at all. He has held prisoners incommunicado and authorized their torture, even when members of his own party told him that this would not extract useful information.
If Bush wanted to win his so-called war against terror and if Afghanistan really was the seat of the Islamic terrorist movement, he would not have abandoned that effort until the job was done. He would have captured bin Laden. We were told repeatedly that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora and that Tora Bora was surrounded by Amierican troops. Bin Laden, as I write, is probably chuckling at the idiocy of his enemies from the safety of a cave somewhere. Meanwhile, the America effort in Afghanistan has been scaled back to accommodate Bush's vendetta against Iraq, and the Taliban is making a comeback.
Bush wants Americans to be afraid, because only fearful people and congenital cowards vote Republican. Conservativism is founded on a fear of losing something. It's time for Americans to understand that he seeks absolutely nothing but power for himself and members of his family. He wants a legislature that will not question him. We need to ask ourselves why any honest man who is convinced that he's right fears having his position questioned. I can only wonder--and, to some extent, fear--why a person who will be effectively out of office in twenty-six months would worry about it.
posted by amsterdr at 1:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home