Playing with fire...
Oct. 9th, 2002 12:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpI find it ironic that Bush, who just a few short weeks ago was all but accused of not doing enough to stop the September 11 attack ("what did he know and when did he know it?") is now the subject of criticism - from basically the same people, no less - for intending to do something about preempting Iraq's ability to develop (and one would presume, to subsequently employ) a nuclear capability.
We've been told that the incoming President had been provided with information from the outgoing Clinton administration regarding a possible al Qaeda attack in the United States, the implication being that, despite such knowledge, nothing was done. One wonders if this was the only such information passed along by the previous administration, or whether it was one of perhaps hundreds (thousands?) of possible threats the new administration was made aware of. Common sense says the latter is more likely, but I digress...
There would appear to be, if one believes the news media, significant doubts as to the wisdom of the current administration's plans for Iraq. We should leave the issue to the UN, say some, pointing to the fact that Iraq has made noises to the effect of allowing UN inspections to resume, while conveniently ignoring the past record of having such inspection attempts repeatedly thwarted. There are other arguments, too, having to do with our so-called "unilateral" actions (conveniently ignoring the fact that countries such as Spain, Italy and (even) Romania are offering to back us), and no doubt other objections, too.
Opposing the US plan seems to me to be a risky position, especially as the stakes are very high. Should an enemy power succeed in detonating a nuclear device in a city such as New York or San Francisco (and I cannot believe that an enemy from the Middle East who comes into possession of such a device would not use it), the aftermath would be very unpleasant, to say the least.
If there are some who imagine that dissent in this country is, today, ruthlessly suppressed by The Powers That Be, well... I don't think they can imagine the sea change in the political climate that would occur if we were to lose, say, New York to a nuke. The media might find itself under an "emergency" order controlling what it says and when. Any political party that is seen as having opposed taking action against the country's enemies might find itself in the position of the Republican party in the South in the century following the Civil War. Too, having proved its inability to prevent such acts, the United Nations might find itself rubbing shoulders with the League of Nations in the dustbin of history.
Then again, I may be wrong. Once we recover from the intial shock of seeing a glowing crater where Rockefeller Center used to be, it might be back to business as usual. The media would scream bloody murder, blaming the Bush administration for not having had the sense to nip the plan in the bud. Every politician who today is opposed to action against Iraq will insist that they had a solid plan to pull Iraq's teeth, but that they couldn't muster the necessary support to implement it. Instead of concluding that the UN process had failed miserably, there would be renewed calls for relying on the UN even more than ever before. And so on...
These are perilous times.
Cheers...
We've been told that the incoming President had been provided with information from the outgoing Clinton administration regarding a possible al Qaeda attack in the United States, the implication being that, despite such knowledge, nothing was done. One wonders if this was the only such information passed along by the previous administration, or whether it was one of perhaps hundreds (thousands?) of possible threats the new administration was made aware of. Common sense says the latter is more likely, but I digress...
There would appear to be, if one believes the news media, significant doubts as to the wisdom of the current administration's plans for Iraq. We should leave the issue to the UN, say some, pointing to the fact that Iraq has made noises to the effect of allowing UN inspections to resume, while conveniently ignoring the past record of having such inspection attempts repeatedly thwarted. There are other arguments, too, having to do with our so-called "unilateral" actions (conveniently ignoring the fact that countries such as Spain, Italy and (even) Romania are offering to back us), and no doubt other objections, too.
Opposing the US plan seems to me to be a risky position, especially as the stakes are very high. Should an enemy power succeed in detonating a nuclear device in a city such as New York or San Francisco (and I cannot believe that an enemy from the Middle East who comes into possession of such a device would not use it), the aftermath would be very unpleasant, to say the least.
If there are some who imagine that dissent in this country is, today, ruthlessly suppressed by The Powers That Be, well... I don't think they can imagine the sea change in the political climate that would occur if we were to lose, say, New York to a nuke. The media might find itself under an "emergency" order controlling what it says and when. Any political party that is seen as having opposed taking action against the country's enemies might find itself in the position of the Republican party in the South in the century following the Civil War. Too, having proved its inability to prevent such acts, the United Nations might find itself rubbing shoulders with the League of Nations in the dustbin of history.
Then again, I may be wrong. Once we recover from the intial shock of seeing a glowing crater where Rockefeller Center used to be, it might be back to business as usual. The media would scream bloody murder, blaming the Bush administration for not having had the sense to nip the plan in the bud. Every politician who today is opposed to action against Iraq will insist that they had a solid plan to pull Iraq's teeth, but that they couldn't muster the necessary support to implement it. Instead of concluding that the UN process had failed miserably, there would be renewed calls for relying on the UN even more than ever before. And so on...
These are perilous times.
Cheers...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-10-09 12:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-10-09 12:46 pm (UTC)Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2002-10-09 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-10-09 02:33 pm (UTC)Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2002-10-09 02:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-10-09 07:25 pm (UTC)I would predict that, if the Congress does derail the President's plans and then the Iraqis level, say, Atlanta two weeks later under a mushroom cloud, the leaders of the "antiwar" faction would say we were attacked because of the Administration's previous rhetoric favoring a preemptive strike. We had it coming to us, they'd say.
And the media, no doubt, would echo that position to the exclusion of any others. We'd be treated to talking heads who'd gleefully tell us the whole situation was our own damn fault, with arguments reaching back as far as our use of the A-bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Before you know it, there would be a "public" outcry for Bush's resignation for allowing this to happen, notwithstanding any facts that happen to get in the way.
Cheers...