| It was Tuesday, February 22, 2005, and as we all recall, "if it is Tuesday, we must be in Belgium," or Brussels and we were. We the people of the United States represented by our man, the man that believes that he has a mandate, was there in Brussels. He was speaking on our be-half, or at least on the behalf of those that voted for him. For President Bush rarely if ever speaks on my behalf.
Mr. Bush was asked of his intentions towards Iran now that Iran has announced that they are engaged in nuclear proliferation. Did he trust that Iran was only securing nuclear energy, or did he believe that they were building bombs, bombs that might be used against the United Sates and countries within the European Union? Did he have evidence to support the suspected belief that Iran now holds Weapons of Mass Destruction and if he did, would he authorize military action against Iran? Would he invade a country that he deems an enemy? Would he choose diplomacy instead?
President Bush discussed the concerns for possible United States military action against Iran. He stated that the idea "is simply ridiculous." However, he quickly added, "All options are on the table." [The Washington Post] |
| We know from the eloquent statements he voiced in his inaugural address that Mr. Bush believes that democracy is the best form of government and that we, the people of the United States are destined to form a more perfect union everywhere, throughout the world. The President stated, "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." He voiced his intent "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation, the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right."
However, he did remind us, as he would later reiterate in his State of the Union, that we would not impose our form of government on others. Yet, he, we, as a nation [?] did decide to unilaterally invade Iraq. The President felt a strong need to change the regime within Iraq and he persuaded the people to believe as he did, and as he does.
His intent was and is to promote democracy, worldwide, beginning with Iraq. Though other countries did not support this decision and said so, loudly the President persisted. He would pursue democracy at all cost. Diplomacy was an idea that the President was reluctant to practice. He was impatient; he wanted to attack Iraq. For him, it was "just that simple!" Saddam was among the evil emperors and he needed to be eliminated.
Then Secretary of State Colin Powell convinced Mr. Bush to speak to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, to ask other nations for their assistance. The President did this and we, the United Sates received a modicum of support. Smaller nations, with little strength, offered to help. However, Britain was our only strong ally. This did not matter to the President for he had the support he truly needed, he had God on his side and the Project for the New American Century. He had Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel] and that was all he needed, or so he thought.
Thus, George W. Bush went to war. In recent months even conservatives reluctantly admit, that though they support the war, support the President in his decision to attack Iraq, they too "find fault with Rumsfeld,"The Weekly Standard wrote of this only a month ago. In respect to the Iraqi war, some conservatives did and are still concluding that there is reason to disagree [The American Conservative] with the decisions made by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, and even the dear President. Many are saying that the war was poorly planned and executed; they complain for there is no exit strategy. American soldiers continue to be wounded, maimed, and are even murdered. The death toll has taken its toll on recruitment. Policies that allow the armed services to retain troops beyond their contracted service do not escape notice by the people, even conservative people. The possibility of a draft is a question that lingers. Thus, we have the ridiculous.
The reason that progressives and conservatives alike believe that Bush states that the idea of invading Iran is ridiculous is because, financially and physically, we do not have the forces to do so! Therefore, I thank you Misters Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Cheney. You have made it possible. Now the President cannot do as he proposes or prefers and I am grateful!!!!
I thought that you might enjoy perusing the thoughts of others. Please travel to . . .
INCITE, A pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be successful.
The Periscope, Bush in Europe, February 2005, Companion weblog to Euro-correspondent.com journalist network.
The American Street, Iranians can't wait for Jan. 30th.
Recent Edition of Alternet, All Options on the Table, March 2, 2005 |
Subscribe to Site [RSS]
