|
March
19, 2003 - When do I get to exercise my free speech?
 On
national television on March 17, President George W. Bush told the
American people why we should go to war. In his State of the Union
Address, he showed his evidence, his views, and above all his zealous
patriotism. Since September 11th, war against Iraq has seemed imminent.
Most Americans could have guessed that a War on Terrorism would
come around to Saddam sooner or later. A combination of propaganda,
family history, and oil made this guess a logical one. Now that
the time for a war against Iraq is here, I wouldn’t be able
to live with myself if I didn’t speak out against it in a
public forum. There aren’t millions of people who will tune
in to watch me on national television if I counter each of President
Bush’s points, if I warn them of the bias of the media, if
I urge them to think for themselves. I only hope that after reading
this, that someone stops and exercises their right to free thought
and comes to a conclusion for themselves; not something I tell them
to think nor something the government wants them to believe. This
article is slanted against the war because I feel that the information
it poses isn't as readily available to the public as pro-war sentiments.
The
election that put our current President in his current position
is one of the roots of my opinion. Coming out of a morally scandalous
Clinton administration, whose forte was international policy and
diplomacy (largely unappreciated and eclipsed by his personal life),
America searched for an honest, straight-forward, down to earth
person. George W. Bush appeared to be the man for the job. His opponent,
Al Gore, seemed to be an amorphous blob of a human being. He had
no defining characteristics. Despite rumors of corrupt voting incidents
in Florida that ended up in favor of President Bush, Al Gore stepped
down and the American people took in George W. Bush as our representative
to the world. “Then, a month later, the media did Bush and
Cheney an enormous favor, by killing the important news that Gore
had won the vote in Florida, and so, according to the Constitution,
ought to be our president. This inconvenient finding was played
way, way down, as, by and large, the newsfolk either sat on it (ABC
World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News) or brazenly distorted it,
highlighting Bush’s slender victory just in those four counties
where Gore had sued for hand counts” (Miller).
President
Bush was consistently mocked for his lack of intelligence at the
beginning of his presidency. Just watch an episode of Saturday Night
Live, or look up a few old newspaper articles in your local library
from the beginning of his term, and you’ll see the veracity
of America’s discontent with Mr. President’s abilities.
He choked on a pretzel and the media had a field day with it.
Then,
something irrational, unbelievable, and unsuspected depressed the
nation. On September 11th we grieved as a whole, and were united
under the banner of nationalism and revenge. Nine-eleven is the
best thing to ever happen to President Bush. Since then he’s
been reported on only in a favorable light. The media seems to back
him in all that he does, and overlook any blunders he makes. "Not
only were his famous foibles magically erased, but Bush’s
entire political pre-history also slipped right down the memory
hole--the fraud and thuggery in Florida, the Supreme Court’s
complicity, the appointment of John Ashcroft, the budget-busting
tax cuts, the moves against Social Security, the screw-you foreign
policy, the slash-and-burn environmental policy, the lame prescription
drug plan, the Jeffords controversy, California’s power black-outs,
Dick Cheney’s Enron black-out and the many other signs of
Big Oil’s toxic spread, and on and on" (Miller).
We
jumped into a war with Afghanistan that America never even pretended
was anything other than that. We named it the War on Terror. Our
goal was to kill an abstract plan. Bin Laden, the focus of our hatred,
escaped unscathed. Some speculated that he died, but if he died
he would have already obtained martyr status. His followers would
have tipped us of his death regardless of their attempts to keep
information secret. If our intelligence community knows the terrorist
movements so thoroughly that they can tell us when to panic and
duct tape our windows (via our color coded warning system), then
I’m sure something as minor as a death proclamation would
be easily uncovered. How could the supporters of the Al-Quaida hide
something like that from anyone? Even if he is dead, I, along with
many other Americans, would like to see his body. He is the true
threat to American peace, not Saddam. Even Korea poses a more immediate
threat than Mr. Hussein. The Iraqi President hasn't done anything
to endanger the lives of American civilians, yet Osama Bin Laden
killed thousands. Has he just slipped out the back door unnoticed?
Osama should still be our number one priority. I have heard rumors
that we are getting closer to Bin Laden every day, and that soon
he will be taken care of. I also remember being told rumors that
he was dead in Afghanistan. What do I believe? How do I know to
believe in it?
As
a general rule no one should EVER let the enemy escape and give
them a chance to attack again another day. No military general in
the history of mankind would recommend making this mistake, yet
the American government is content to assume his death or that since
nine-eleven he has become complacent? A common question people ask
is why not just go after both of them at once? Pursuing two enemies
at once (in this case Bin Laden and Hussein) is ridiculously unfeasible.
Just read about why Napoleon or Hitler was defeated and you’ll
most likely agree. Fighting a two front war is severely taxing.
In this case it wouldn't be America's armed forces that are taxed,
rather the intelligence community. The United States has spies placed
in every country in the world. They constantly monitor China, Africa,
South America, Russia, and the Middle East. Now there are two new
countries that require extremely advanced information: North Korea
and Iraq. Our spy network cannot do its job of finding Bin Laden
if it is stretched thin on other tasks. Saddam poses us no threat,
so why not take care of Bin Laden? Not even China, who is one of
the closest countries to the U.S (in terms of weapons technology)
posses weapons of mass destruction that could reach us yet. Why
are we led to believe that Iraq has these weapons then? Since logically
they don't have these means of destruction, then why should we so
maniacally fear Saddam? If we protect our Canadian and Mexican borders
and monitor what comes into the country via plane and boat, we have
nothing to worry about.
The
final reason to not pursue Saddam and Bin Laden at once is because
they are not the same person. Somehow the American people have been
fooled into believing that they are the same person and they sit
around and have tea parties and plot world terrorism. This is far
from the truth. In fact Bin Laden even called Saddam an infidel,
which places him in the same boat as George W. Bush. Osama Bin Laden
doesn’t like Saddam any more than he likes President Bush.
Now,
seemingly out of the blue, America has decided that Iraq needs to
be attacked. American citizens are told that Iraq has been withholding
weapons information from us and that Saddam Hussein is a human being
who is filled to the brim with evil. We have been told that he gassed
his own people. Research though, shows the unlikelihood of this
claim, “To begin with there were never any victims produced.
International relief organizations who examined the Kurds --in Turkey
where they had gone for asylum--failed to discover any. Nor were
there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony
of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they
were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee"
( Wanniski ). The Kurds were supported by the Americans in a revolt
against the government but once we saw that it wouldn't go as planned
we left them out to dry. The Kurds that died, died because the U.S.
Government misled them. So, in essence, Iraq’s crimes are
perjury (lying about the possession of weapons) and general unkindness
(controlling his own people). What is the punishment for perjury
as deigned just by the American legal system for public officials?
Bill Clinton committed perjury. Where is he today? He certainly
isn’t in a prison. Even after he was convicted he finished
out his term in office. Should we treat Saddam any rougher than
we treated our own? Or is the difference in the fact that the United
States and its citizens can do no wrong?
George
W. Bush in his State of the Union Address made the following claims
“The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein
had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters
of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people... The
United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient
to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin--enough to
subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.... Our
intelligence
officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce
as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.... U.S.
intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently
turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying
their existence” (US Embassy). My first question about this
evidence is why it is so outdated. Why isn't there more recent information
than 1999? Since then has some of this anthrax been destroyed? How
reliable are the sources that supplied these numbers?
“The
[weapons] inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis,
who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United
States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated
or just plain wrong” (CBSNews). The Americans may pretend
to know exactly what the Iraqi's have, but in all truth, our information
isn’t reliable. The statistics Bush stated are either outdated
or only preposterous guesses. If Saddam really is in possession
of 30,000 munitions, why couldn't the weapons inspectors find more
than 16 of them? George Bush never tells us what this evidence is
based on. How do we know that these numbers were not just made up
by the government. If these numbers really are that accurate then
why don't we have the backing of other countries? It is important
to remember that “Democracy doesn’t work if the public
does not have access to full and accurate information about its
government” (Propaganda Plan). The government claims to have
information that is too sensitive for public eyes. That does not
sit well with the ideals our country was founded on. The government
doesn't hesitate to spin the nation into a frenzy over terrorism
alerts, yet they can't tell us the very things we most need to know
that supposedly make this war justifiable.
“Mohamed
ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), said inspectors have found no proof Iraq lied in the declaration
on weapons of mass destruction it presented to the United Nations”
(CNN). Is George W. Bush going against a policy that has been instilled
in America's legal system since our forefathers organized our country?
Is Iraq now guilty until proven innocent? Even in the OJ Simpson
case years ago where there appeared to be ample evidence for a conviction,
the jury decided that there was a shadow of doubt to his guilt,
yet Iraq has an accusation thrown at them, denies its veracity,
and is soon to be lynched. Where is the justice in that?
“Last
year, the Bush administration denied international inspectors access
to U.S. chemical and biological weapons-related facilities -- the
most likely source of the anthrax that has killed five people in
the United States--because it could violate 'proprietary commercial
interests’”(Arnove). It seems that we are holding a
double standard. You show us yours and we won't show you ours. If
it is logical for us to see the inspection of our own weapons as
compromising, then why can't Iraq view it in the same light? Who
are we to say what they should do?
Another
example of a grave oversight is when President Bush was calling
our revenge a crusade after September 11th. To the Muslims a crusade
represents the original Crusades in the Holy Land: Christians killing
Muslims. The Crusades were a very bitter time that most Christians
seem to have forgotten. Lack of understanding is one of the main
reasons the United States of America is a terrorist target. It is
a good thing that the local propaganda blinds the eyes of the people
though so they can’t see the injustices.
One
example of our current propaganda is the belief that Iraq possesses
weapon's of mass destruction which are found and disposed of regularly,
but the truth is that “there were no UNSCOM records showing
WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] found without the help of Baghdad,
and none destroyed since November 1991”(Wanniski). The American
people are being led to believe otherwise. Are we supposed to trust
whatever our government says? When information that contradicts
that which they have helped us believe as true arises how should
we feel and react? Should we let Big Brother take care of us or
instead remember the old proverb: “Two heads are better than
one?” Should the people and government work together to make
intelligent choices? Or are the higher-ups really qualified to make
decisions that will affect the lives of citizens worldwide on their
own? Has it become un-American to speak our mind on trivial issues?
I think that the advice of the people should be listened to and
heeded.
Some
media organizations have attempted to make Bush out to be the next
Franklin Delano Roosevelt; fearlessly leading us out of a depression
and to greater things. Actually, FDR was opposed to almost everything
that Bush has done. This quote by FDR sums up one reason why: “The
liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth
of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their
democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership
of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private
power." To me, the private power is the oil industry. The oil
industry wins either way. When they invade Iraq, if Saddam burns
his oil, then the oil they already possess becomes more valuable,
whereas if he doesn't burn Iraq's only source of wealth they can
take the newly obtained quantities and make more money in the long
run. It is a win/win situation for Bush and his oil ilk, but a lose/lose
situation for the Iraqi people.
The
shadowy roles of the greedy seem to be dusted under a rug by the
media. The media now is more powerful than ever in our nation. They
feed us propaganda reminiscent of what the German Nazis received.
Journalists are here to make money, so they write what sells. National
opinion sells. Hatred sells. Perpetuating events to make their own
news-- that sells. In essence, propaganda sells. But isn't it their
job to inform and entertain? Where is the line between doing what
they are paid to do and harming others? The United States Government
is becoming more and more like Big Brother every day. “The
New York Times reported today [February 19, 2002] that the Pentagon’s
Office of Strategic Influence is 'developing plans to provide news
items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations'
in an effort 'to influence public sentiment and policy makers in
both friendly and unfriendly countries'” (Propaganda Plan).
Who is to say the government has not and will not use the same tactics
on its own people? Isn't this one of the very things we are accusing
Saddam of doing? Manipulating his people with propaganda and one
sided news stories?
The
final point I would like to make is that we are buying friends and
dropping bombs at the cost of our police and fire fighters funding.
This funding is the very thing that allowed them to be heroes after
September 11th by doing their jobs efficiently. Budget cuts have
left them understaffed and unable to react well to a national disaster.
If ever the United States is prompting terrorism now is the time,
and we aren't even prepared for the results.
The
worst part about this war is the inevitability of it. It seems that
no matter how much protesting there is or how many countries oppose
us or how many concessions Saddam makes, we will invade. I heard
a shocking statistic the other day. The majority of the casualties
in any war are civilians, and of these civilians 90% are women and
children. Is it really worth it?
In
closing, I would like to address a point that I hope many of you
noticed. Many of my sources were from the media; the very people
that I claimed are perpetuating this injustice. Just because the
media slants the evidence in one direction does not mean that nothing
is published in favor of the other. I had to do a lot of digging
to find many of the statistics I used, but they are out there. Some
publications still maintain a fair, balanced view of the world.
To them I would like to say thank you for exercising free speech
and true liberty.
Basically,
my argument is that the Bush Administration has no argument. If
the American people would think for themselves they would notice
all of the manipulation. If free thinking isn't practiced, then
the age of Big Brother is upon us, and humanity and freedom as we
know them will cease to exist.
-Lucas
Walker
Bibliography:
Arnove, Anthony "Iraq: Movement Pitfalls." Znet Daily
Commentaries. Oct. 21,
2002. <http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-10/21arnove.cfm>.
"Inspectors
Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'." CBS News. Feb. 20, 2003.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/printable537096.shtml>.
“Iraq
Inspectors Fly To Suspect Mine.” CNN. Jan. 7, 2002.
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/07/sproject.irq.inspections/>.
Jude Wanniski.
Memo. “Did Saddam Hussein Gas his Own People?” November
18th, 1998. <http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/04-13-99.html>.
Miller, Mark
Crispin. “From Bozo To Churchill: George W.'s Post-September
11 Reinvention.” Fair. May/June 2002. <http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/bush-book.html>.
“Pentagon
Propaganda Plan Is Undemocratic, Possibly Illegal.” Fair Media
Advisory. Feb. 19, 2002. <http://www.fair.org/activism/osi-propaganda.html>.
“TRANSCRIPT:
PRESIDENT BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.” US Embassy.
Jan. 29,
2003. <http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh03012904.html>.
|
