Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Safer?
Dubya is still speechifying that he saved us from the horrible threat that Saddam Hussein posed. And it's still bullshit (or BUllSHit, as some bumperstickers have it). We could have made ourselves safer by really pursuing al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, but instead we're now swimming in more dangerous waters than at any time since 9/11. Juan Cole analyzes this nicely.
Dubya is still speechifying that he saved us from the horrible threat that Saddam Hussein posed. And it's still bullshit (or BUllSHit, as some bumperstickers have it). We could have made ourselves safer by really pursuing al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, but instead we're now swimming in more dangerous waters than at any time since 9/11. Juan Cole analyzes this nicely.
' The dictator in Iraq had the "capability of producing weapons of mass murder. And now, the dictator is a threat to nobody, and the American people are safer." '
Bush must think we are a nation of retards if he believes we will buy this language of Saddam having the "capability" to produce weapons of mass destruction. All countries have the "capability." The point is that Iraq had given up its WMD programs and destroyed the stockpiles. The US was not in any danger from Iraq, and so cannot be safer because it was invaded.
Worse, the American invasion of Iraq is a major recruitment poster for al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's message was that the Americans are coming to Muslim lands. 'They will invade your countries, expropriate your property, rape your women, and humiliate your men,' al-Qaeda screams. What does Bush do? He proves al-Qaeda right. More angry young Arab men are ready to fight the United States now than ever before. Bush is less popular than Bin Laden in most Muslim countries according to polls.
