 |
| What's New / Latest Issues |
|
Goodbye Sunday Morning
January 1, 2007(Forgive me Mr. Safire, but I can just picture the "nattering nabobs of negativity" chuckling around the mock-up of a magazine cover showing Bush as "all hat - no cattle.")
You may not believe this one. But, believe it or don't, Time, Newsweek and the Bi-Coastal Times Twins are still showing up on Sundays saying Bush acted "unilaterally" in Iraq. (Is it OK to say "bi-coastal" in front of children?). Honest. I just heard it again a few days ago. I have to stop and think on that one. Maybe my memory is playing dirty nonpolitical tricks. I seem to recall a couple of UN resolutions and congressional votes about this. Maybe I am just losing my mind, but I remember worrying that we were spending too much time talking at the UN. I was afraid that some of the shine of surprise about the attack might rub off the old apple. Like, mabe eight or ten months might be just a little too much notice before dropping the hammer. Geez. A guy could hide all his WMD in the sand or send it to Syria in that kind of time! Of course, Saddam didn't do that. Tim says there just wasn't ever any of that stuff in Iraq.
What about all that Iraqi protective gear stored by the Iraqi military, you ask? That was just part of the plot. (One thing has always puzzled me. If Bush and Cheney were brilliant enough to make up the plot, and they knew there was no WMD left in Iraq, why the heck wouldn't they have planted some goodies in the weeds around Baghdad? Maybe that comes later.)
Truth is, after 9 months of discussion, we all knew that in March of 2003 there was no WMD in Iraq. Not after the parade of aircraft from Moscow to Baghdad, and back - and after the caravans of trucks making roundtrips to Syria.
So, all the war supporters immediately concluded, on the day following the attack on Iraq, that Bush lied. Mind you, he wasn't wrong, and wasn't told funny stuff by the CIA. He actually lied. And that one was really a whopper. I wonder how he got all the intelligence agencies in the world, and all their leaders, (even Saddam) to tell the same lie, all at the same time? He must really have the gift of gab to convince all those other countries that Iraq had chemical and biological WMD and was trying to develop an atom bomb. And it really took some doing to get all those U.S. Senators to agree at the same time. What a good story teller he must be. He really fooled them. And the speeches in congress in November 2002 had me more convinced than even what Bush was saying. Remind me never to play poker with him. In fact, my mother probably won't let me play with him at all.
Last time this kind of thing happened, a guy named George Romney ruined his whole political career because Lyndon "brainwashed" him about Vietnam. We're a lot better about that sort of thing these days. It's OK to claim you are stupid, you fell for a bunch of crap, but it was someone else's fault and you are still running for president. Gore and Kerry are both very good at that. We can learn a lot from them. (Just imagine. Three purple hearts in fourmonths. They say that's really hard to do without getting wounded.)
Boy, what a forgiving country we have become. Unless of course you are a Republican. Or a Klansman. Or both. Then you better watch it a little. But, if your name is Byrd, you can be a Klansman and a senator. Forever and ever. Isn't that nice? Only in America.
Back to the subject. Just when I became convinced that Bush had been too unilateral on Iraq, they threw me the sweeping curve ball. Now they tell me that Bush should be acting unilaterally with Iran and North Korea. I think I'll sit down on that one, before I fall down. Yeh, that one-on-one stuff really worked in the 90's with Iran and North Korea, didn't it? Albright and Carter did a real swell job getting them to accept all that money and nuclear equipment from us, in return for absolutely nothing. That's right. Zero. Zip. Nada. Great negotiating, eh? I bet they were real surprised when North Korea agreed. Oh well, who needs inspections anyway? Reagan was just a nut when he said "trust, but verify." He probably was wrong about a lot of things. All that voodoo economics and other drivel about shining cities on hills and "tearing down walls." What a wierdo. And that "Star Wars" gig. Who would ever need a missile defense?
As I think about it, the media is right. Or, is it left? Oh, whatever. Bush does use too much diplomacy. He has totally abandoned those exciting wild west tactics. Boy, I really miss that. There is something romantic about all that High Noon drama. I don't trust it when he lets people like Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, France, England and Germany get involved the way they are. You just can't trust those foreigners to do the right thing. Bush mumbled something about it being better because there are a lot more people that Kim and Achmawhatever have to lie to. (I'll think of the other fellow's name in a minute. It has a lot of letters in it). But, no matter what Bush says, I still don't like it. Besides, I don't really believe Russia has any influence with Iran, or China with North Korea. Do you? Next you'll tell me that Iran has control over Hezbollah. Ha. You must think I'm really dumb.
You know, Tim, I'm becoming tired of pussy-footing around on these subjects. It isn't really funny anymore. In fact, it's giving me a headache. Please make up your mind. Do you and your media pals want Bush to act unilaterally, or do you want a coalition against Iran? Do you want a continued failed policy of direct negotiations with North Korea, or does Bush have your permission to get the cooperation of the other countries in the area? Do you have any recollection of Wendy, Madeleine, Jimmy and Bill, and the mess they left in North Korea? (That Clinton. He's something. When he was a kid he really learned how to "kick the can" didn't he? Anyone who can kick a can down the road to be found 12 years later should captain his own soccer team.)
The truth is, the press favors neither plan. All they want is to be able to say Bush is acting unilaterally when he should be forming coalitions, and forming coalitions when he should be acting unilaterally; to say he didn't spend enough time before invading Iraq, and then wasting time when he should be invading North Korea and Iran. In 2001 he didn't connect the dots, now he is seeing dots behind every phone booth. First, see what Bush is doing, then demand the opposite.
Anyone with a minimum knowledge of some of the facts knows that Bush 41 and Clinton accomplished nothing in direct negotiations with North Korea. Their current little, pot-bellied dictator walked into the 21st century with nuclear bombs and rock and roll records under his jump suit. The only chance for peaceful results now is with the help of Japan, Russia and China. Just for a while, let's forget Putin's jokes about Cheney. I forgive him, unconditionally. Let's ask for his help in avoiding a war.
I know that no one, so far, has been able to stop Iran on its way to the nuclear Wal-Mart. Maybe it's impossible. But let's give Bush a chance to see if it can be done with words. We can use the bombs and missiles later. But, I think Bush deserves a little slack on this one. You see, I don't really think those people developed all that nuclear stuff all of a sudden just because Bush got elected, or selected, or whatever Tim says. And I know they didn't suddenly do it after March of 2003 as a result of us attacking Iraq. I can't swear to it, but I think it takes a whole lot more time to work on such things.
There is one fact I am pretty sure about. There is a former world threat (whether imminent or not), who will never develop any nuclear, chemical or biological WMD. That Bush fellow made sure of that. But, you're right. That is only one out of three. (Four, if you count the Bin Ladenus Pithecantus Hermitus living in a rabbit hole in Pakistan). Whether he had WMD and moved them out in 2002, or never had any stockpiles, makes no difference. He would have, by now developed the weapons. Just competing with Iran would have guaranteed it. Those who believe he was "contained" also believe in tooth fairies. France, Germany and Russia were close to getting rid of the "sanctions", which, incidentally were fraudulent in the first place. (Just look at the Oil for Food nonsense.)
Meanwhile, this Iran and North Korea stuff really has me puzzled. I was told by Tim that Clinton solved all these proliferation problems. That was during the same time Clinton brought permanent peace to the Mideast and put a stop to global warming. (Sort of a political "hat trick"). Now I find that those lousy foreigners have fudged. They have been lying to me, and to the rest of you as well, since 1994. They have been lying, in general, since about 842 B.C. (Excuse me, I should have said "B.C.E." You see, we still date from the Birth of Christ, but we're not allowed to talk about it. That's why I'm whispering).
I also found out the other day that the global is still warming. I don't know who to believe anymore.
Well. I've got to go now. My plane tickets to Gitmo run out tomorrow. And I could use a free hot meal and a nice nap on a prayer rug.
^
|
| The Archives |
|
|