Advertise on the Tentacle


| Guest Columnist | Harry M. Covert | Hayden Duke | Jason Miller | Ken Kellar | Patricia A. Kelly | Edward Lulie III | Cindy A. Rose | Richard B. Weldon Jr. | Brooke Winn |


Advertise on the Tentacle

October 3, 2002

Why, President Bush, Why?

David 'Kip' Koontz

As President Bush tries to bully the public and the world into supporting immediate action being taken against Iraq, one simply has to ask: Why?

The reason there seems to be reticence on many peopleís part about supporting an immediate action against Iraq is simple enough - though they are not unwilling to accept that he may be, they are not yet convinced Saddam Hussein is the immediate threat Mr. Bush claims.

Why, you might ask?

Because in his rush to push toward an attack on Iraq, President Bush has not shown the public any clear and demonstrable proof that Hussein is indeed the threat Mr. Bush wants us to think he is.

No one has seen evidence of his supposed weapons of mass destruction.

While many of our allies wish to take the time to investigate their existence, Mr. Bush seems content to call into question the patriotism and loyalty of those who oppose an immediate attack.

Further, while it is not out of the question that Hussein may help fund terrorist organizations and we know what he has been capable of in the past, no clear link to Hussein and anything related to al Qaida has yet been shown either.

Again, there are those in the U.S. and among our allies who simply want proof before we take on another war effort.

Why thumb our noses at our allies?

Are we that much smarter than they are?

Are we that much more advanced in our intelligence operations then they are?

That can be questioned in light of our failing to anticipate the attacks of 9-11 and on the USS Cole, for instance.

Letís face it, President Bush II has something to prove when it comes to Iraq.

His father failed to get the job done the first time we went after Hussein and he had public support for the effort to oust him.

One great benefit of a victorious effort over Hussein this time would be to vindicate his fatherís name, which would, at least, make the days and nights spent at Kennebunkport much happier ones.

Also, critics of the "immediate attack" plan think that President Bush is trying to divert peopleís attention during the election season.

From what, you might ask?

A stock market whose performance stinks.

The corporate greed and corruption that has been recently uncovered at so many companies.

The fact that both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have something to be a bit nervous about there as well.

The facts that we have not yet defeated the al Qaida, nor have we caught Osama Bin Laden.

Maybe, if we had, the public may be a bit more excited about opening another front at this time than many appear to be.

But, is diversion reason enough to go to war?

Further, if, as Mr. Bush wants to do, the U.S. goes it alone against Iraq, can we afford it?

Do we have the military person-power to sustain a multi-fronted war in several countries at once?

There are those in the military who have said that without ally support we, the U.S., would be spread horribly thin if we go it alone.

Do we, if we undertake such an endeavor, want to fail at the mission or succeed?

If we do not know if we are winning the "War of Terrorism," as it stands now, how can a public get motivated to support an effort that lacks ally support, will put only our troops in jeopardy and we are not quite sure what it is we are fighting about?

Additionally, it has been said, and it is a reasonable point, that if we attack Iraq, and especially if we are going it alone, and if Hussein does indeed have the military capabilities Mr. Bush says Hussein has, our attack would most likely provoke his use of those weapons and they would be aimed solely and squarely at us and our troops.

Of what benefit is that?

Why is it the U.S.ís mission to rid the world of Hussein?

Why must GW prove his point to the degree that he wants us to suffer the losses alone?

Why not take the time to build consensus, if only for the fact that if we have ally support we will not take on the role of bully?

Saddam Hussein, if nothing else, is a problem.

Saddam Hussein may indeed support terrorism and may indeed have weapons of mass destruction.

Prove it to us, build consensus, and then make the moves needed once the facts are out there.

President Bush needs to hang up his newly found John Wayne persona and act presidential.

For the sake of the world, letís not allow him to get trigger-happy and make a bigger mess than the one we already have.

Yellow Cab
The Morning News Express with Bob Miller
The Covert Letter

Advertisers here do not necessarily agree or disagree with the opinions expressed by the individual columnist appearing on The Tentacle.

Each Article contained on this website is COPYRIGHTED by The Octopussm LLC. All rights reserved. No Part of this website and/or its contents may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems, without the expressed written permission of The Tentaclesm, and the individual authors. Pages may be printed for personal use, but may not be reproduced in any publication - electronic or printed - without the express written permission of The Tentaclesm; and the individual authors.

Site Developed & Hosted by The JaBITCo Group, Inc. For questions on site navigation or links please contact Webmaster.

The JaBITCo Group, Inc. is not responsible for any written articles or letters on this site.