The Choice Is Yours,...
“Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and Bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources?" Mr. Bush asked.
In order to answer Mr. Bush’s question one would have to be able to define “safe” with the same accuracy as Mr. Clinton sought to define “is”. The first part of such an endeavor might involve one’s determining “whose” “is” is being considered. You might answer, “the United States and other free nations”.
Well, let’s see about “the United States”. If we consider the service men and women of the United States, one could hardly say that they are more safe with George Bush as our commander-in-chief than they would have been allowing Sadaam Hussein or Bin Laden to control Iraq; on the other hand, they would probably be no less safe because as my father used to say when describing “normal” politicians, “They wouldn’t go to hell for a nickel, but they would stand on the edge with a long stick fishing for the nickel and fall in”. George wouldn’t invade Iraq for a nickel, but he would stand on the edge with his long sticks – his “pet media’, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity - fishing for an excuse to invade and “fall in,” much as he has already done. His fall would involve dragging (or would it have been pushing) 500,000 troops into Iraq, 2,000 of whom will never parent another child nor become president of the United States. 15,000 service people will carry mental and/or physical battle scars for life as George continues to work feverishly to establish a reason for their sacrifices. (This is a Pentagon number and subject to a high degree of error. Congress has been told that 103,000 service personnel have required hospitalization).
Let’s examine how much better off financially the United States is with George in power here instead of Sadaam remaining in power there. Thanks to incompetence, stupidity, negligence and blatant corruption, the cost of the war in Iraq is up to 6 billion dollars per month having risen from 1 billion dollars per week to 1½ billion dollars per week. (But, not to worry, this is only the play money we are borrowing from the Chinese and the rest of the world and which we cannot possibly repay. Repayment is being left to our children and grandchildren or, as is more likely, repayment will be made when the Chinese throttle our “economic engine” and extort repayment by threatening to foment the collapse of our national economic system. Who can imagine life without Wal-Mart? How else could we be reminded where American jobs are going)? But, this is for the future; what about the NOW?
George’s war to remove Sadaam has taken 2 million barrels per day of oil off the world market causing an almost 100 percent increase in oil prices. (At least that is one of the stories we are being told). The increase at the gas pumps for working Americans who have to commute is being severely felt, but whether or not one drives, the cost increase is being felt in every commodity everyone buys. Who does the average American pass this cost to? He can’t go borrow more play money from the Chinese on April 15; he has to borrow from a banker who definitely expects to be repaid in “real” money.
And safety? When was the last time you boarded a plane in the United States? The main difference in flying now and before George started his war is that there are now approximately 56,000 more fools on the government payroll who are charged with groping the young and well endowed and making life as miserable as possible for little old ladies with fingernail clippers.
And safety? Now, with George’s help, we have terrorists theoretically threatening to bomb the New York City subway system. We have had subway bombs in London’s subways and terribly destructive bombings in Spain. Sadaam in all his glory was never capable or stupid enough to threaten the US in any way. In fact, Sadaam made every concession that George asked of him to avoid war. Neither were there “Sadaam” bombings against our allies simply because they were our allies.
As for protecting his citizens, George presents a pitiful spectacle. While bombing the infrastructure of Iraq “back to the stone age”, George had to divert monies from domestic infrastructure maintenance such as levy repair into “smart bombs” for his war on terror – against a country that had never been a threat to the US. To add insult to the injury of New Orleans’ citizens, George had to make use of the FEMA branch of his 47.3 billion dollar per year Homeland Security boondoggle to thwart both domestic and foreign efforts for the relief of the people of New Orleans. Meanwhile back at the borders. Not even Hurricane Katrina slowed the illegal traffic into the United States. An estimated one million illegals cross our borders each year – any of which could be a terrorist with murder or an American Social Security number or an American driving license on his mind.
But, let’s get back to George’s original question. Is the world better off with George ruining the lives of Iraqis and stealing their oil or would we all be better off with Bin Laden ruining their lives and stealing their oil? Who knows? If Bin Laden had ever figured out how to depose Sadaam, Bin Laden would be living in Sadaam’s palaces instead of US Embassy and US military personnel. Other than that, there isn’t much apparent difference.
Would Bin Laden have killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians, incarcerated another 40,000, tortured and killed untold numbers, set up gulags around the world for captured and purchased prisoners, used extraordinary rendition on those the CIA deems useful but uncooperative? Would unemployment in Iraq under Bin Laden be over 50%? Who knows? Would Halliburton’s profits have jumped by 284% for the last year if Bin Laden controlled Iraq? Probably not.
On the other hand, if Bin Laden were in control of Iraq, he might have decreed that Iraq go into competition with Afghanistan for the honor (and profits) of being the world’s foremost producer of poppies and illegal heroin. Being an astute businessman he might have developed a deep jealousy toward Afghanistan’s control of 87% of the world’s heroin supply. (Of course he might have had to enlist the help of the US military to become the top heroin producer). After all, it was only after the US military had chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan that Afghanistan rose to its present number one heroin producing position.
So, you, Mr. and Mrs. America, decide for yourselves who represents the lesser of the evils – George or Bin Laden.
Nolan K. Anderson is a retired engineer and a veteran of Korea
who was once a “conservative” until he found there was nothing left to conserve.
(He may be reached at nkanders@tds.net ).
