James Higdon

James Higdon: 'Bush in a box'
Posted on Friday, June 27 @ 10:09:45 EDT
This article has been read 1693 times.

By James Higdon

A tactic that Republicans, and their corporate media supporters have perfected is to quickly change the argument once their clocks start getting cleaned on another. For instance, once Bush's lies were beginning to be exposed about WMD in Iraq, I saw Sean Hannity make the argument that we've found mass graves in Iraq. Democrats didn't attack Clinton when he went to war in Eastern Europe to stop genocide, but they are quick to criticize Bush now. Obviously Democrats are hypocritical, and will find any excuse to attack a war hero.

That argument is ridiculous on its face. Clinton told us that we needed to move on Eastern Europe to stop genocide. That was his argument for getting us involved. Clinton didn't tell us that Milosevic was developing WMD, and then, once engaged, find genocide as a "happy" accident. But when appropriate, and reasonable, Democrats should not hesitate to adopt the same tactic that Hannity so proudly displays.

George W. Bush is in a box from which he cannot extricate himself. To any aggressive opponent, capable of thinking on his/her feet, Bush can be attacked without recourse from the lunatic fringe on the right (now called mainstream America in newspeak). The only question is, who has the courage to fire the first salvo? A logical selection would be John Kerry, who voted in favor of giving Bush unprecedented war powers.

It is speculated that Democrats, such as Kerry, are reluctant to accuse Bush of being a liar regarding his assurance that we needed to invade Iraq because of Saddam's cache of WMD. They are said to fear that once they commit themselves, WMD will be uncovered in Iraq, marginalizing both their argument and their political stature. Most of us have no doubt that WMD will one day be "discovered" in Iraq, just as soon as the place has cooled down sufficiently enough to plant them. My argument is that at this late date, even if WMD are found, Bush has exposed himself to be either a bald faced liar, or woefully incompetent. It simply must be one or the other, and there is no middle ground. Yes, Bush has placed himself in a box and someone merely needs to close the lid. I'll explain.

The chief arguments put forward by Bush and his administration for going to war were that Saddam definitely had WMD, and we have proof. In fact, Rumsfeld went so far as to claim that we even knew exactly where they were. Further, Saddam is such an evil threat that there can be no doubt he is working with terrorist organizations, looking for the opportunity to arm them with WMD for further attacks on American soil. After all, Saddam did try to kill Bush's daddy. Therefore we had no choice but to invade Iraq, to arrest or kill Saddam, and to secure the WMD.

Suppose that we grant the administration all of that. We will stipulate that Saddam had unknown quantities of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. We can go even further and say that he even possessed photon torpedoes, fasers, Green Goblin suits with gliders, and formulas for turning the dead into zombie combatants, all of which could be readied for combat on 45 minutes notice. And we certainly have no choice but to keep those weapons out of the hands of those who would willingly attack us and who "hate our freedoms."

We will even stipulate that following the war, Bush flew in his personal jet fighter, fresh from a solo sortie over Iraq, to land aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and proclaimed that the major fighting was over, when he declared another victory in the war on terror.

But wait a minute! Where is Saddam? Where are the WMD? Have they been smuggled out of the country? Are they still in the country? No matter what WMD that Bush is able to "find," there is no way that he can assure this nation that they have all been found. What damage can be done to the New York skyline if one single Green Goblin uniform has been smuggled out of Iraq. And don't forget Colin Powell's threats that a single vile of biological weapons can kill every person east of the Mississippi. Did Saddam disguise himself in a burka, with a vile or two tucked underneath, and cross the boarder into Syria?

Bush assured us that we had to go to war for our own safety sake. But are we more safe, or less? If we had waited to invade Iraq, if we had allowed the weapons inspectors to take their time over the next several years, we would have had constant knowledge of where Saddam was, and we could assure ourselves through our satellites and our on-the-ground intelligence units that, while Saddam may have WMD, he couldn't move them without our knowledge. Now we have no idea where they are, where Saddam is and, possibly worse, where Osama is.

This is what I'm getting at. Imagine the following exchange on "Meet the Press."

RUSSERT: "Sen. Kerry, many Democrats are accusing the President of the United States of lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction in order to rush this nation into war. But the polls seem to indicate that the American people aren't buying that argument because they give the President as high as 70% approval ratings regarding his actions thus far. My question is, will you now join those who claim that the President is a liar, even though you voted with the President to give him the necessary power to disarm Saddam Hussein."

KERRY: "Not at all, Tim. George W. Bush is the President, and as such deserves the benefit of the doubt. I will continue to give him the benefit of doubt up until it is proven or disproved that Saddam had the capabilities that the President attributed to him. I voted to give the President unprecedented powers to root out that potential terror, and I'd do so again. However, what have we gained from the trust we've placed in the President. Our economy has been decimated, the Bill of Rights has been compromised, we are looking at a national debt that will tear at the fabric of our nation for several generations to come. And where are we in our war against terrorism? President Bush promised us that he would bring Osama into custody "dead or alive." He promised the same in regard to Saddam. He promised us that he would end the threat posed by the WMD. Barring bin Laden and Hussein being dead, or in custody, and the WMD dismantled, the next best thing would be to know where Saddam, Osama, and the WMD are so that we can keep them contained. Even with more power ever given to a President of the United States, Saddam is nowhere to be found, the same can be said of Osama bin Laden, and we have no idea where a major cache of lethal weapons can be found. I suggest that this situation places us in far greater danger than we were before we invaded Iraq. At least then, we knew exactly where Saddam was, and we could watch for the movement of potential weapons and alert weapons inspectors. In addition, we have well over 200,000 troops, needed for the defense of this country and to be on the ready for wherever the war on terror might take them, that are reduced to attempting to bring peace to the war torn nations of Afghanistan and Iraq."

There is no doubt that Russert would quickly change the subject. But it would give every Democrat an either/or approach to answer Russert whenever he overtly attempts to prop up Bush, and it would require the corporate media to attempt to wage a war on two fronts. It would also wake up Americans to one of two conclusions. Bush is either a liar, or he is completely incompetent.