Wednesday, March 19, 2003

My friend Les Dyer took me to the woodshed last week for a "loserman crybaby" among other things. There may be something to what he writes, but I doubt it. Putting aside his double abuse of slang, and literal translation of a historic homily, what I did detect was an inability to discount political prejudice and face the George Bush facts, a condition not uncommon in this town, county, and state.

Politics, it seems, is purely visceral. If we examine the recent letters to the editor and the opinions expressed around the country, we find a lot of people convinced that if we don't attack Saddam Hussein very soon, he will rain down upon us another catastrophe not unlike 9/11. In no small part is this general "feeling" due to the deliberate efforts of the Bush administration to link Iraq with the forces of al Qaeda. The "feeling" has gotten so strong that people no longer need evidence to that effect, and consequently to effect war on another nation. They obviously refuse to look at the facts which are:

1. No link has ever been proved (although some minor evidence was forged).

2. Iraq is a country with real territory that can really be attacked by a country possessing 6,000 real nuclear weapons. The USSR wasn't stupid enough to try it and neither would Saddam Hussein.

It is a shame because disarming Iraq is actually a very good idea, and one which would justify the use of force. President Bush's political tergiversation and international high-handedness have created opponents for us all over the world, and actually weakened the cause for which he strives. All he has left now is the naked use of military force.

Les calls the U.N. "emasculated and ineffective," inferring therefore its uselessness in settling international disputes. History shows otherwise. The U.N. acts decisively when it is led well. In this case the U.N. was treated as an afterthought by an American leader who had several times previously shown his disdain for both the institution and the idea of "common good" international treaties. Mr. Bush only went to the U.N. after several months of bellicose posturing had alienated the populations of most of our friends and all the neutrals in the world.

I suppose my "vitriol" was in response to the not uncommon belief that President Bush is some kind of hero. He has displayed poor judgment, poor international political skills, and ignorance of both history and world opinion. It's all well and good to believe we can prevail alone in the world, but the history of great empires and the reality of the world as it is dictate otherwise.

Les talks about checks and balances. Why did Mr. Bush need his resolution immediately before a very critical congressional election? His father refused to play politics with so critical a venture! There never really was a debate, and the passions feared by Madison in his explanation for the needs of a Senate were unleashed, and Mr. Bush got his resolution.

As far as my alleged naiveté: the word can mean simplistic, lacking sophistication, or it can mean ingenuousness which can also mean open, honest or frank. I'm neither ignorant nor childish so I guess, Les, you're asking me to lose my honesty, and you know what the answer to that would be.

Now this notion put forth by others that any protest against this action is unpatriotic poppycock. It is our duty as patriots to oppose those actions by our government that we determine will be harmful to the country as a whole. The present military does their duty to the Constitution and those lawfully appointed over them. To assume that any protest against the political actions taken by a governmental body (or executive) is also a condemnation of the U.S. military, provides patriotic cover for even the most outrageous acts that could be perpetrated in our name.

And all this rubbish about the military protecting your right to protest, therefore you shouldn't protest, doesn't take my breath away with its logic. Freedom may be purchased at the end of a gun, but it survives only in the hearts of those who continue to will their freedom.

I admit that most Americans support our going to war against Iraq at this time. Most Americans also watch reality TV and read very little anything of consequence. Normally the system of governmental push and pull (checks and balances if you will) can make up for voter ignorance. In this case that system was undermined at the outset, allowing our president a free ride to seeming national perdition.

Has anyone stopped to wonder why we can't seem to convince anybody besides the leaders of Spain and the U.K. of the righteousness of our cause, when in 1991 almost the whole world supported us? Could it be we've said the wrong thing, or said it in the wrong way? The government can keep up this keystone cops act for the amusement of the American public, but the rest of the world is not amused.

And Les, I assure you, I took nothing from President Nixon who resigned in my first year. I also assure you that few of the public would believe that this war has been fought exclusively with a military the Republicans claimed had been drained of capability by the previous administration. Ignorance is not only bliss, it seems to be Republican! I'd recount the votes in my time machine, because there is no other way out of this god-awful mess.

Tim Parker

Peachtree City