Fun from the nonviolence.org message board:
Thanks for the post, Nahual. This incident (and the policies to which it is connected) speaks volumes about what I have been saying about this Iraq misadventure all along: it isn’t so much that you have to ask “does something need to be done?” In the case of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, that was never in doubt. The answer was a resounding “Yes!” However, the real questions, the ones which were the great subjects debate, were as follows: “What needs to be done?” “Who’s going to do it?” “What will be the true motivation of any action taken?” Unfortunately, as many wing-nuts here seem to display in their strident support of the Bushies’ Iraq misadventure, these questions still get ignored in favor of an absurdly simplistic, either/or interpretation of the initial question.
I’ve recently made a couple of posts here about the continuing policy of truth aversion being carried on by the Bush administration. Of course, this has led to the usual response: “Why are you making such a big deal out of that?” Well, lies are lies are lies, no matter what the size (sorry for the Jesse Jackson thing there). Any individual or organization that sees a need to adorn their path with so much false information must have something to hide. In the case of the Bush administration, they are hiding it (their lack of a legitimate agenda) in plain sight. Their lack of veracity has become so transparent that, by November 2004, there will be only three kinds of people who vote for Bush: 1) chickenshyts (those who are so afraid of the ‘Islamic menace’ that they will be cowed into voting for illusions of security conjured by the Bushies; 2) people who are thrilled at the thought of the U.S. flexing its massive military and economic muscle to get whatever it wants, democracy and the rest of the world be damned (in other words, arseholes); and 3) idiots (see 1 and 2).
Of course, maybe we should cut the Bush administration some slack. Our country has never before sent its overwhelming firepower to “preemptively” attack a sovereign state that didn’t (and couldn’t) have any intention of harming us, doing so under the auspices of “promoting democracy” and “protecting national security.” Never before has the U.S. military journeyed to some far-off country to try and pound a lightly armed, well-organized guerrilla force into the earth of its own homeland. So its not like there’s a cautionary precedent for the Bush administration to refer to. So if they have to tell a few lies to cover their asses while they carry out this great humanitarian adventure (that has nothing at all to do with strategic control of oil)…