Letter to a Bushmonger:
Why Bush War II Is Unjust
by Jack Kenny
following is an e-letter I sent to a "Bushmonger" (They’re
like warmongers, except they only support righteous Republican wars)
following a discussion we’d had on the phone on a weekday morning.
I think the topic is relevant enough to share with other "Bushmongers,"
as well as right-thinking Americans….
about this morning. I will try to avoid getting us into these discussions
during work hours. However, if your are reading this at home, now
is a good time to ask you...
you not support the Bush War II attack on Iraq, beginning with "shock
and awe" campaign, with the skyline of Baghdad lit up with all the
bombs we dropped on a city of 5 million men, women and children?
How many of them do you suppose died in that? Was that a military
action that was "forced upon us"? Can you possibly stretch the definition
of self-defense to cover that? Who is the aggressor here? Or did
Poland really attack Germany in 1939? (Sorry, but you brought up
the Neville Chamberlain analogy.)
can't have it both ways, my friend. You can't cheer (or even quietly
support) that campaign and then cry "foul!" when someone draws the
logical conclusion that you find permissible the killing of sleeping
Iraqi civilians for ill-defined goals, based on an imagined threat
coming from non-existent "weapons of mass destruction." (Marvelous,
magical phrase, that, isn't it?)
you assume that our CIA and other government agencies know more
than you and I as ordinary citizens do. Right. To quote Ronald Reagan,
their problem is not that they're ignorant, it's that they know
so much that isn't so. As I referenced in the article on the Rockwell
Web site, you read "The Best and the Brightest" by David Halberstam.
Have you forgotten the phoniness of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident"?
If you look hard enough for a cause for war, you can find one. Or
if you're clever enough, you can manufacture one. I know you lived
through Watergate. Yet you still think "I believe my government"
is a good enough reason to go to war. (By the way, should the Germans
in '39 have believed their government about the need to go to war?
Weren't they entitled to assume their government knew more about
what was going on than they did?)
for our exchange about believing Michael Moore in "Fahrenheit
911," you still don't get it. I'll explain it again. (Please
read slowly.) You agreed that the footage we saw of the opening
of the "Shock and Awe" campaign was the same footage that had been
on our TV screens, courtesy of the Pentagon. (If you've changed
your mind about that, please say so.) I have yet to see or hear
anyone claim that the footage had been doctored by Moore. You saw
the tremendous explosions in and over Baghdad, which is, I repeat,
a city of 5 million people. You also heard von Rumsfeld say the
targets had been chosen "with such meticulous care... So much humanity
went into the choosing of these targets."
then I asked you, "Who you gonna believe, Rumsfeld or your own eyes?"
Now do you see, counselor, why you're answer "I'll believe Rumsfeld
before I'll believe Michael Moore" is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT! Unless
you want to reverse yourself and claim that Moore doctored the footage
and we didn't drop tons of bombs all over Baghdad, then Moore's
credibility had nothing to do with what you saw with your own eyes!
can understand why Republicans want to focus on Moore's credibility
(or Dan Rather's), rather than whatever shreds of credibility still
remain with the Bush administration on this war. The challenge is
still out, my friend: Tell me what that lousy leftist Moore said
that is as patently untrue as Rumsfeld's statement about the weapons
of mass destruction: "We know where they are."
you said I made fun of you in my Rockwell article. Hell, I didn't
even mention that you were played "Fahrenheit 911" by Britney Spears.
("I just think we should support the President in whatever decision
Manchester, NH, resident Jack Kenny (send
him mail) is a freelance writer.
© 2004 by LewRockwell.com