Friday, September 09, 2005

Are you serious? Are you absolutely serious? I mean, I was a little confused when you were defending him on his Iraqi war. Sound bites from previous justifications and pretexts were lost to your mind, buried under the new justifications put forward by the government like an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. You forgot about or dismissed the historic ties between the US and Saddam, the non-existent link between September 11 and Saddam Hussein, the weapons of mass destruction, the declaration of the war's end, the statements about the ease of implanting democracy, the scandalous Halliburton contracts, and, of course, the suspicious links between those in power with those in oil.

I admit it. I was confused. Nevertheless, I was willing to listen to your arguments and, I have to admit, I was not angry. No, I could not be angry because I knew that, despite the stability he gave Iraq, Saddam was a ruthless killer. Any man who admires Iosef Stalin, as Saddam does, cannot be a good leader. I wondered to myself if it was better to have a savage despot enforcing order or to have civil war. I don't know, because I cannot, unfortunately, see into the future. My hope was that, despite my initial opposition, the United States would successfully foster a peaceful and prosperous state out of the shambles of Iraq. My suspicion, however, was that a government that had to resort to lies and corruption to justify a war was not fighting in order to create a model democracy. If the purpose was so noble, why was it hidden beneath lies? I struggled not to fall into economic reductionism, but all I could see was the oil-hungry tycoons in the Bush administration. I wondered if, perhaps, an ignoble sowing could bring about a noble reaping. A war made my existence possible and a war gave me my wife. Could a war bring stability to Iraq? I hope so, I really hope so. War is such a terribly ugly abomination that it is tough to find the good in it. Tough, but possible.

So, yes, I was confused but not angry. I could understand how someone could be a follower of George W. Bush. I could never have followed myself, but I could understand.

Now, my friend, I am angry. I ask you again, are you completely serious? Do you actually consider him a good leader after this? Can you, without drinking copious amounts of alcohol, actually give a rational explanation to the reaction of the American federal government after this disaster? Can you explain why an unqualified man, a Bush supporter, could be put in charge of FEMA? Can you explain the federal cuts to the levees? Can you tell me why Florida was hit by several hurricanes and the federal response was immediate and even excessive and why the response in New Orleans was retarded and pathetically weak ? Can you please give logical explanation for Bush's departure in the opposite direction, to San Diego, upon learning about the hurricane? Can you tell me why he couldn't cut his vacation short for the thousands dying in New Orleans? Can you honestly tell me that you are not angry when those in the American federal government claim they don't want to play the blame game and then go on to blame the local officials?

They failed, don't you get it?


John den Boer said...

Oh, and just so you know. This isn't necessarily directed at you.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Who deh?