|
American in Paris |
 |
|
to the Folks Back Home |
||||||||
|
Are we missing something
that the Bush folks know?
of TheColumnists.com
Maybe it’s because the newspapers and TV on this side of the Atlantic aren’t providing fair coverage of what’s happening back home in America. Maybe I’m just getting half the story. Whatever, there are three big things about the Bush Administration, the war on terrorism and Iraq that have left me befuddled.
The first thing I can’t understand is why you folks are not outraged at the ongoing betrayals of your trust by the President and his administration. From here, it looks as if you’re being led down the garden path by a patently dishonest, blithely manipulative and incredibly arrogant pack of politicians. What I think I’ve found out here in Paris about the Bush Administration is that:
They told you that Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons and that, in a few months time, he’d be threatening the entire Middle East. Saddam undoubtedly would have liked to have such weapons, but he didn’t have them. It was all made up and then substantiated to the public via a bunch of forged documents, which senior Administration people knew were bogus.
They told you that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, suggesting that these would be poured into water supplies from Cincinnati to Sacramento. They even said they knew where the stockpiles were hidden. But with American experts searching every nook and cranny in Iraq, it looks as if Saddam didn’t have these weapons either.
They told you that Saddam had amassed a mighty army, spearheaded by tens (or was it hundreds?) of thousands of armed-to-the-teeth members of an elite Republican guard. Whatever happened to them? More smoke and mirrors, it seems.
They told you that Saddam was pals with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, so that if Saddam weren’t eliminated quickly, bin Laden would have a powerful ally to stage further terrorist attacks on the U.S. It was common knowledge that Saddam’s breed of secular, ‘socialist’ dictatorship was anathema to bin Laden and his band of Koran-toting fundamentalists. Nobody has come up with a shred of credible evidence of ties between Saddam and bin Laden.
They told you that, once Saddam was out of the picture, the Iraqi people would welcome American troops with open arms; that once the war was over, Iraq’s infrastructure would be rebuilt in the wink of an eye; that grateful Iraqis would joyfully set up a new, pro-American, democratic government to run the country in peace and prosperity; that American troops would be home in no time; that the whole adventure wouldn’t cost much because oil from Iraqi wells would pay the costs.
The second big thing I
don’t understand is why so many Americans became so pissed
off at the French for refusing to go along with George W. Bush’s
obsessive compulsion over the need to invade Iraq. The French--and
most of the other governments in the world--objected to the idea
of pre-emptive self-defense. It seemed to sanction the ‘might
makes right’ brand of international relations, where any
nation could seize any pretext to win international approval
for its invasion of another nation.
 |
|
GREEN: Parts of Iraq where no weapons of mass destruction have been found. RED: Parts of Iraq where the CIA found 17 Daisy air rifles, circa 1951. |
As it turned out, it looks as if there was nothing but pretext behind the Bush Administration’s justifications to the American people. The French opposed the U.S. in the UN Security Council first, because Paris wanted UN inspectors to validate the Bush Administration charges of imminent danger to world peace by Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. With hindsight, their skepticism seems entirely appropriate. Secondly, Paris predicted that post war, post Saddam Iraq would be a cauldron for turmoil, so a viable plan for the post war period was a prerequisite for a successful transition. As it turns out, that wasn’t so far off the mark either.
Now, there’s one last
thing I don’t understand. It has to do with the violations
of some of the basic principles upon which America was founded,
such as due process and the right to a fair trial.
I could understand how some legal fine points might need to be
streamlined in certain circumstances, but I can’t understand
how, with virtually no explanations or justifications beyond
the catch-all phrase ‘national security,’ you folks
can accept that unidentified people who have been accused of
no crime, are being held incommunicado, with absolutely no legal
rights, indefinitely, in Cuba, Morocco, Pakistan and God knows
where else, undergoing God knows what kind of interrogations
and treatment. The only answer from the Bush Administration seems
to be, ‘trust us.’ As I said, I certainly can’t
understand, with all the manipulations and misleading statements
of recent months, how anybody in their right mind would trust
those people.
There must be more to this.
Some of the facts that you folks are getting must not be making
it over to this side of the Atlantic. So if anyone cares to take
the time and trouble to fill me in on the other side, to reassure
me that American democracy is not being seriously threatened
by a cynical, manipulative band of fast-talking, media-savvy
officials, I’m all ears.
©2003 by Kenneth Dreyfack. The illustration of Iraq, slightly
enhanced, is from IMSI's Master Clips Collection, 1895 Francisco
Blvd. E., San Rafael, CA, 94901-5506, USA. The photos of Pres.
Bush were posed for by professional models.
You
can comment on this column online. Please address your message
to either "The Editors" or Kenneth Dreyfack. To send
an email, click here: talkback@thecolumnists.com
| Home | About Us | Archives | Talkback | Shopping Mall |