I don't even know where to start with something that is so wild, yet posed as something... academic? Serious?
The first lie in this idiotic piece came from the second sentence. Webb writes:
Why did we invade Iraq, a country that had no connection to al-Qaida, that had no weapons of mass destruction and that posed no threat to our security?
In addressing the contention that Iraq and al Qaeda were not connected, which was found false by a political scientist by the name of Christopher Carney, read the below site for links between Saddam Hussein and his government to members of al Qaeda. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp) Please read the article to educate yourself. It debunks the first idea of the painfully repetitious drum beat of Bush-haters.
The second lie is also in the second sentence - that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that is to say biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. It is well known that Iraq had and used chemical weapons on numerous occasions. It is well known that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. All of the sudden, Saddam Hussein, an aggressive and wildly defiant leader just decided to give up all those weapons and even the nuclear program. But he was still defiant in letting inspectors in to any place they felt necessary to go. But hey, if you hate Bush, just give Hussein, or hell, even al Qaeda the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, many others on the opposite side of the political spectrum have repeated Bush's claims to WMD's in Iraq. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) Did they lie or was the intelligence bad? They have access to as much intelligence as Bush does. If thats the case, then all sides lied or the intelligence was flawed. Or maybe the intelligence wasn't flawed. There have been reports of some chemical weapons being found, albeit a very small amount. That does not mean that Hussein did not hide them or ship them out of the country. How about that for a conspiracy theory, since thats all we are talking about anyway.
Webb contends that Iraq was no threat to our national security. Iraq waged two wars on countries that supply oil to the United States - Kuwait, a friendly nation, and Iran, after a deterioration of relations the prior two years, not so friendly. Furthermore, Iraq attempted these invasions in order to place itself as the leading Arab nation and largest power base in the Gulf. In addition to this, Saddam used chemical warfare, a crime against humanity. Saddam routinely attacked his own people, mostly the Kurds. Iraq, at the very least, was developing nuclear technology. If you really think this Mr. Webb, then with what little respect you deserve, You're wrong. And not just wrong, dangerously short sighted. In fact, horse with blinders comes to mind.
"The real powers at Halliburton." Okay, with this short statement I immediately know that Mr. Webb does not like corporations, since they are the "real powers." Furthermore, he thinks Bush and Cheney are just puppets for the Halliburton Puppetmaster. Please. This is so painful to read, simply because of the idiocy dripping from each ill-concieved notion.
This is the next and probably the most incessantly ignorant phrase that Bush-haters just love to tout. "Cheney... was a lot smarter than Dubya." There are no stupid men or women who can make it to the White House. None. That means any president at all has to have at least a passing intelligence to make it. If you show the kind of ignorance that these people attribute to Bush, people will brow beat you out of the PRIMARIES. There is this equally ignorant idea that Bush has surrounded himself with smart people who can carry him and catch (most) of his idiotic moments or ideas. Again, use the mushy gray mass, it will serve you well even if it hasn't thus far. It can. I promise. Bush got to be the president because he surrounded himself with competent people who could take up much of the workload so that he could be free to deal with the issues. Yes, the man is inarticulate. Stupid? No.
Webb then goes on to spout yet another lie about Cheney. "It is generally agreed that Cheney is the most powerful and influential VP ever," he says. Maybe in the lunatic conspiracy theory circles he travels in. The Vice President's ONLY power is the ability to vote as a tie breaker in the Senate, if that ever even happens. And if he's there. Perhaps there is a second power. He inherits the presidency if something happens to Bush. Other than that, what power does he have? He goes around and makes speeches. So what? That sounds to me like "the most powerful and influential VP ever." This is pure insanity, and that it made it into the Newsleader says a lot about the paper. Webb is so factually inept its disgusting. And... there's more.
Webb thinks that it is reasonable to assume that Dick Cheney offered himself to the Vice Presidency because those in Haliburton had some interests and he wanted to fulfill those interests. Oh yeah, and Bush didn't actually choose Cheney. He just had to accept him. Cheney pushed and shoved his way against a presidential candidate and poor old Bush just didn't have the backbone to choose someone else. Garbage. And, I'm sorry Mr. Webb. It isn't quite as reasonable as you would think. Remember that old addage about assuming?
Cheney was given severence pay of 35 million for being a productive person. He ran his job effectively and was given that money. He grew the business, made himself valuable. It's not as if Haliburton knew that we would be in Iraq and they would make all that money back by their puppets Dick and George... or is it??? Hmmmmm.... Oh yeah, and we also never went to the moon. Bah.
"We were not greeted as liberators," says Webb. Thats why they keep asking for us to stay until the job is done? No, no one likes another country's people, much less military showing up and running the show. No one. Its obvious. Perhaps, and I'm only speculating, but if we continue and succeed in winning, we will be seen as liberators later on.
"We have lost the respect of most nations," proclaims Webb. Lets first start off thinking about how this world is organized. The international system is anarchic, which is to say that there are no real rules. That means that states or certain organizations are individualistic players seeking their own interests and their own survival. If there is resources enough for some allies (or other "individuals" who see things our way or us theirs), then they can help out. That means when some countries have differing goals or differing allies, then there is potential for conflict. That also means that we never had the respect of anyone accept our allies. And allies switch and change as often as interests and problems arise. Did France ever really like us? Insofar as we had the same interests. Come the Iraq War, did France respect us? No, they had interests in Iraq, namely the Oil for Food program. Same for Russia, same for Germany. So lets remember that 35 nations followed, yes followed, us into Iraq because it was in their best interests. That is all that the world works on, and we would be wise to remember that. The world is made up of people but not a united people and certainly not a whole people. The world is also made up of factions that have become "countries" or groups that try to fight for a better life. Just like individual people, some win, some lose. These countries still respect our military, or they would stop us, don't you think? That is all the respect we will ever gain from another country. Respect for our military.
"The National Debt is staggering," says Webb. I agree. Sometimes there are things more important than money, and we are certainly in very little danger of hurting ourselves.
"3,700 soldiers and Marines have been killed, tens of thousands have lost limbs or suffered other life-altering injuries and we cannot calculate the cost of the serious consequences resulting from the disruption in the lives of the spouse and children of every person serving in Iraq", states Webb. So the moral of the story is to just let other nations be aggressive and fight for what they need or what they believe in, but we shouldn't, because after all, the costs of war are incalculable. Again, sometimes sacrifices must be made and if we decide (like Republicans AND Democrats did) to go to war, then we must make those sacrifices as small as possible. And we have done that here. 3,700 lives lost in a war over 4 years? Its a minuscule amount of American sacrifices in comparison to any other war in our history.
Of course, typical of a conspiracy theorist, Mr. Webb has to reminisce about what could have been if those people down in Florida hadn't been so stupid that they couldn't figure out how a ballot worked. They ignored the arrows in favor of "the second candidate" on the left. I have a link to a diagram and explanation of what happened, though I will say that it is a biased explanation. The diagram shows all. (http://www.asktog.com/columns/042ButterflyBallot.html)
All in all, Mr. Webb has a serious problem with associating reality with dreams and conspiracies revolving around everything he hates most. It makes for a good thriller, but at the very least an unlikely reality. Try using some common sense, Mr. Webb. Try thinking these things out before writing into a supposedly respected newspaper. And last but not least, try to dissociate the world of secret, smoke-filled rooms, shadow government, and political pawns from the real world. Real conspiracy theories of the proportions you propose, are extremely unlikely and that you pose it as serious commentary says volumes about your politics and objectivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment