President Bush is off the mark on Iraq
President Bush is hellbent on engaging Iraq in a war. He said as much in a speech Thursday to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
It was nearly 40 years ago that President John F. Kennedy spoke to the American people about engaging Cuba in a war. History books call it the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was on Oct. 22, 1962, that he spoke to our country.
Parallels can be drawn between the two events. It would mean the United States going to war against a sovereign nation. Both presidents believed our country should fear the the aggressors because of their weapons arsenal. Both presidents were dealing with dictatorial governments. Both adversaries were in defiance of United Nations policies.
One reason it was easier to feel the threat of Fidel Castro than it is Saddam Hussein is simple geography. Figuratively, Cuba is a stones throw from Florida, while Iraq is on the other side of the world.
Castro had no problem allowing the Soviet Union to aim its missiles at our shores, not to mention toward the Panama Canal, Mexico City and Central America. Kennedy went in front of the television cameras to outline what proof he had of these missile sites. He talked about two distinct types of missile installations. He had evidence the American people could see — surveillance photos.
Iraq’s potential use of weapons of mass destruction is no less scary. Bush would be able to make a more compelling case to his constituents and the rest of the world if he would show some proof. What comes out of his mouth seems to be the same rhetoric we heard a decade ago when his father was in office. It’s not that we want to tempt Hussein, but for a man who verbally threatens us on a daily basis he has no bite to his bark.
Hussein is a weak man who talks a good game. We have no business engaging him in war. If the Iraqi people were to ask for our assistance, that would be an entirely different situation. For now we have no business in Iraq.
We know that U.N. weapons inspectors have not been in Iraq for four years. Bush proclaimed on Thursday that had it not been for the Gulf War, where his father the first President Bush flexed his might, Hussein would now be flush with nuclear weapons.
The father-son duo are out to get Hussein. We are not about to say anything positive about a man who a year ago and then again this week on the one-year mark of the terrorist attacks celebrated the loss of life and destruction of buildings. We revile Hussein and anyone who could treat the citizens of his country with such contempt, who starves them, who keeps them hostage for oil.
It has been the policy of the United States that we do not go to war against someone unless they have threatened us and our national interests are at stake. Burning flags, calling us names — how have those things hurt us? Yes, the weapons can hurt. So can ours. Are other countries then going to be encouraged to attack us because we have weapons of mass destruction and they feel threatened by us?
Bush has become a warmonger. He comes across as a child who wants to right the wrongs of his father. George I let Hussein live. George II is not about to do the same.
One has to wonder if the name Bush is really just an acronym for: Bumbling Ultraconservative Scary Houstonite.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around the Lake Tahoe Basin and beyond make the Tahoe Tribune's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User