Bush Threatens More Pre-emptive Strikes
By James Donahue
A New York Times story on Aug. 26 quoted President Bush as telling members of the American Legion
in St. Louis that he not only felt justified about ordering a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, he would be willing to attack
other countries.
That he did it once and got away with it should make most thinking Americans queasy. That he is
threatening to do it again, at least for me, is terrifying.
Bush argued for the Iraq attack with a lie . . . that he had definitive proof that dictator Saddam
Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction and therefore was a threat against the United States. After an attack that cost
the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis and an estimated 130 American soldiers, we learn that Hussein had no weapons of
mass destruction. He was no threat at all.
That Bush used that lie to destroy a nation's economy, wreck its infrastructure and drive our own
country half a trillion dollars in debt seems to be of no concern to him. Nor the fact that the Iraq conflict continues without
end, or that he has inadvertently created a terrorist regime that previously did not exist, but one which now attacks and
kills daily and threatens civil war.
Indeed, Mr. Bush seems to boast about his accomplishments in Iraq, and his also failed efforts in
Afghanistan. Is he too ignorant to understand what he has done?
``We've adopted a new strategy for a new kind of war,'' Mr. Bush told the legionaries. ``We will
not wait for known enemies to strike us again. We will strike them in their camps or caves or wherever they hide, before they
hit more of our cities and kill more of our citizens.'' Sadly, the old soldiers applauded these words and seemed to think
they were just fine.
``We will do everything in our power to deny terrorists weapons of mass destruction before they
can commit murder on an unimaginable scale,'' Mr. Bush said. ``The security of this nation, and our friends, requires decisive
action, and with a broad coalition, we're taking that action around the globe. We are on the offensive against terror, and
we will stay on the offensive against terror.''
And just who, Mr. Bush, is going to pay for your whimsical military adventures against this unseen
and sometimes imaginary foe? The Iraq conflict is presently costing us an estimated $4 billion a month with no end in sight.
With debt like this hanging over our heads, can we now afford to wage a legitimate war against a real enemy if such a threat
occurs within our lifetime?
The question in many Iraqi minds must be . . . just who is the terrorist? If it was not Saddam Hussein,
then it more likely is Mr. Bush. Before the American aggression the Iraqis lived a relatively good life style even if it was
under the iron fist of Hussein. As long as they ignored the government, and never spoke out against it, they had jobs, medicine,
food and good roads and homes. Now they live in anarchy and have nothing. What is worse?
From that perspective, I can understand why the people in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries
are plotting against America. As long as Mr. Bush, an American fundamentalist christian leader, vows to continue his
"crusade" against the Moslems in his "war on terrorism," we are their enemy.
The recent deadly bomb attacks against the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and a Shite
shrine in Najaf are signs of just how organized, how determined and how deadly this new terrorist regime is going to
be.
And if Americans don't see what is happening, and make some serious changes when they go to the
polls in 2004, they could be in for some serious consequences.
Because of the way Mr. Bush has agitated the Moslem world since he took office, I believe that
we will be very lucky if we don't suffer an even worse attack on the homeland than we took on 9-11.
Tom Ridge and his Homeland Security organization may make people in the US feel good, but it will
never stave off the kind of assault that can be fabricated from the minds of desperate people.
