All Things Reconsidered
March 19, 2003
by Alexander Washburn

Tonight We Drink, For Tomorrow We Might Die

Only a recovering alcoholic would choose St. Patrick's Day to announce that the time has come to get our war on. Thankfully, this time we were sparred "questions" from the White House Softball Team. However, after Vice President Dick Cheney (nice to see you again, Dick) gave the thumbs up to calling the President a "cowboy" on Meet the Press, it was a little disappointing that Bush didn't give Saddam & Sons until sundown to get out of Baghdad. What was even more shocking was that the White House, in a futile attempt to cause dissent, wants to give a free pass to the other murderous villains in Saddam's inner circle. So, Saddam gets 48-hours to skip out on a hefty bar tab leaving his loyal followers to pick up the tab. Sure, the guys left catch some heat for a while but eventually you get allowed back in the bar. Doesn't quite scream future stability.

To this date, the White House has yet to be open to the American people about what type of civilian causalities to expect. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch has repeatedly warned, "If there's a war in Iraq, civilians will bear the brunt of the suffering." A November report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War estimated that upwards to 260,000 people, on all sides of the conflict will lose their lives – a majority of which would be civilian. For all this talk of Saddam's lack of humanity, when Bush stands poised with the potential to cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people, what does he do? Unleashes an unprecedented large-scale military air campaign the likes of which the world has never seen – that's what he does. That and a message to not "burn the oil fields" because, well, that's "a source of wealth" for the people of Iraq. Sure.

Bush not only lapsed in morality department but his sense of history is in worse shape than Jason Sehorn's career. First Bush started off with a clever guessing game talking about a regime that "continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. This regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has aided, trained and harbored terrorist, including operatives of al Qaeda." What is the United States, Alex? OK, that's a technicality at best, but more disturbing was the President pleading "why us?" saying, "The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat."

Going to all these anti-war protests has given me a healthy phobia of the Socialist Party and I don't believe all the foreign press stories about stories "the American press" won't tell you about. However, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorists to question why the President omitted that huge portion of U.S - Middle East relations – also known as the 1980's. Certainly Bush 41 had to tell Junior that the U.S. had knowledge of Iraq using mustard gas against Iran and not only did nothing but provided intelligence to the Iraqi army. Does the current President not know that the Ronald Reagan White House was so pro-Saddam that they tampered with the Senate as they tried to penalize Iraq for violating the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons? Truth is, in the 1980's when Saddam was running buck wild over Iran using poison gas bombs, the Republican Party that controlled the White House did nothing. Now, relics of that same Reagan administration and the son of his Vice President have the balls to tell the American people we did "nothing" to deserve this.

It is this convenient omission of history that helps drives anti-American sentiment worldwide. The rest of the world knows our history with Iraq and they don't like the way we're now covering up our mistakes. Tony Blair will survive the defections and resignations that have sprung up in his own party largely because he wins elections and the Labour Party, despite its newfound anti-war shift, has flourished under Blair. As for America, we're losing friends by the handful people and that doesn't bode well because, well, I like to travel. It's gotten so bad that career U.S. diplomats have begun to resign in the face of this White House's disgraceful actions. John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat with the State Department had enough and told Secretary of State Colin Powell bluntly that "the policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."

Roughly 80 percent of European nations oppose war against Iraq and across the Arab world, the words "jihad" and "America" come up all too often. Despite raised threat levels and Presidential empty platitudes and false promises, this country stands as ill prepared against a major terrorist attack as it was before the Department of Homeland Security existed. Remember Colleen Rowley, the 9/11 whistleblower? She told the New York Times and FBI brass that the bureau would not be able to "stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack." Around the country, mayors and governors are still waiting for Homeland Security funds the White House promised. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg even had to lobby the Congress in order to stop the Department of Homeland Security from releasing funds on a per-capita basis, which gives states like Texas a bigger share of the pie. Unless you're counting Bush's time as Governor and the tenure of Dallas mayor Ron Kirk, Texas has never experienced a terrorist threat and though they deserve ample funds to secure borders, it defies logic that places like New York where the risk is higher don't get the most cash. E.J. McMahon of the conservative Manhattan Institute summed it up best to the New York Sun saying, "New York would be the number one screwee in a per-capita system."

(Alexander Washburn is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine.)