not that anyone cares...
Paul O'Neil, Dubya's first Treasury Secretary, has gone public with accounts that claim our president went into office looking for an excuse to go to war with Iraq. This doesn't surprise me, because that's what the overwhelming amounts of selective evidencing would seem to suggest, but this is just another piece in the puzzle (an edge even, one of those ones that forms the frame) for those that haven't come to realize this.
For some reason, I doubt that those that don't realize this will care. They'll say something along the lines of "yeah, Saddam was a bad man then and he had WMDs and blah blah blah..." without realizing the implications that this sort of thing means. George W. Bush came into office with a plan to radically change US foriegn policy -- that is, to pre-emptively attack another soveriegn nation for the first time in United States history -- and waited for a moment when something could be pinned on Iraq to justify such a move. Spetemeber 11, 2001 was just such an event and the president used the tragedy of that day to justify something that had nothing to do with it. So what? you may ask...
Say I wanted a new car. I hated the car that I was driving, but my wife who I loved dearly wouldn't let me sell it. I've tried and tried to sell it, to get something new, but I just can't convice her of the idea. Well, let's say one day she was driving to the store and was T-boned by a semi-truck. The car is mangled and she is killed instantly. Wouldn't it be wrong for me to find even the slightlest joy in the accident because the car was mangled? Wouldn't it be immoral for me to feel so because I am finally getting what I want at the expense of tragedy? Wouldn't others have a right to question my integrity and my honor if I were to use the insurance money from the car and the death of my wife to buy a new car, one that I had always wanted to replace the old one with, and find joy in it? Aren't my actions suspect?
I don't know, that's a quick analogy and there are probably holes the size of Iraq in it, but the point is, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that Bush has handled this whole Iraq thing. These new admissions only sharpen the focus. Why don't most people see this at least enough to question things? Why aren't more people skeptical? Why don't people realize anymore that ends don't on their own justify their own means? Because that's what this comes down to, that's the story that keeps developing day after day after day... Bush's means were anything but cool.
For some reason, I doubt that those that don't realize this will care. They'll say something along the lines of "yeah, Saddam was a bad man then and he had WMDs and blah blah blah..." without realizing the implications that this sort of thing means. George W. Bush came into office with a plan to radically change US foriegn policy -- that is, to pre-emptively attack another soveriegn nation for the first time in United States history -- and waited for a moment when something could be pinned on Iraq to justify such a move. Spetemeber 11, 2001 was just such an event and the president used the tragedy of that day to justify something that had nothing to do with it. So what? you may ask...
Say I wanted a new car. I hated the car that I was driving, but my wife who I loved dearly wouldn't let me sell it. I've tried and tried to sell it, to get something new, but I just can't convice her of the idea. Well, let's say one day she was driving to the store and was T-boned by a semi-truck. The car is mangled and she is killed instantly. Wouldn't it be wrong for me to find even the slightlest joy in the accident because the car was mangled? Wouldn't it be immoral for me to feel so because I am finally getting what I want at the expense of tragedy? Wouldn't others have a right to question my integrity and my honor if I were to use the insurance money from the car and the death of my wife to buy a new car, one that I had always wanted to replace the old one with, and find joy in it? Aren't my actions suspect?
I don't know, that's a quick analogy and there are probably holes the size of Iraq in it, but the point is, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that Bush has handled this whole Iraq thing. These new admissions only sharpen the focus. Why don't most people see this at least enough to question things? Why aren't more people skeptical? Why don't people realize anymore that ends don't on their own justify their own means? Because that's what this comes down to, that's the story that keeps developing day after day after day... Bush's means were anything but cool.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home