Friday, June 11, 2004
It Just Keeps Coming
Even mild-mannered Kofi Annan can't stop himself from criticizing Bush.
In a commencement speech at Harvard, Annan criticized the U.S. policy of pre-emption.
This unnecessary war in Iraq has hurt our credibility world-wide. We have alienated our allies and empowered our enemies. And despite the fact that the neocons will say statements like this hurt our troops, I believe differently. Our troops should know the truth. Our sons and daughters and fathers and husbands should know what they are up against and what they are fighting for.
They are fighting for power; not liberation, as the current administration would have you believe; not to protect our freedom, we were already free and under no threat from Iraq; and not to bring democracy to the Middle East. We are fighting to gain a foothold in an oil-rich, Muslim controlled region of the world so that we can wield our power over the non-Christians and get our hand into the cookie jar of their wealth.
If you need proof, ask yourself why did we go to war in Iraq? Was it because of the threat of WMDs? That was the first reason our government gave us and it turned out to be untrue. Was it because of Saddam's links to al Qaida and Osama bin Laden? The president himself admitted that there was never any proof of that. Was it because of Iraq's role in the 9/11 attacks? Please! Was it to free the Iraqi's from a tyrannical and torturous regime? Apparently not because we just took his place as the torturers. So why? I'll tell you why: Power.
Was Saddam a bad guy? Absolutely. Was it our place to remove him? Absolutely not. If we're going to play the role of big brother protector for all the innocent victims in the world, we will be at this for a long time. Not only are there other more despicable leaders in the world, but some of them actually are a threat to our national security.
So that leaves one more question. If this is about WMDs/liberation/democracy, why did we choose an oil rich nation who's leader had a past history with our country and a grudge with our president's father? POWER
In a commencement speech at Harvard, Annan criticized the U.S. policy of pre-emption.
- Speaking at Harvard's graduation ceremonies, Annan did not mention Bush by name but took clear jabs at the administration's policy of preemptive self-defense. "What kind of world would it be, and who would want to live in it, if every country was allowed to use force without collective agreement, simply because it thought there might be a threat?" he said.
.....
"All great American leaders have understood this," he said, as the 15,000 gathered in a damp Harvard Yard erupted in cheers and laughter.
This unnecessary war in Iraq has hurt our credibility world-wide. We have alienated our allies and empowered our enemies. And despite the fact that the neocons will say statements like this hurt our troops, I believe differently. Our troops should know the truth. Our sons and daughters and fathers and husbands should know what they are up against and what they are fighting for.
They are fighting for power; not liberation, as the current administration would have you believe; not to protect our freedom, we were already free and under no threat from Iraq; and not to bring democracy to the Middle East. We are fighting to gain a foothold in an oil-rich, Muslim controlled region of the world so that we can wield our power over the non-Christians and get our hand into the cookie jar of their wealth.
If you need proof, ask yourself why did we go to war in Iraq? Was it because of the threat of WMDs? That was the first reason our government gave us and it turned out to be untrue. Was it because of Saddam's links to al Qaida and Osama bin Laden? The president himself admitted that there was never any proof of that. Was it because of Iraq's role in the 9/11 attacks? Please! Was it to free the Iraqi's from a tyrannical and torturous regime? Apparently not because we just took his place as the torturers. So why? I'll tell you why: Power.
Was Saddam a bad guy? Absolutely. Was it our place to remove him? Absolutely not. If we're going to play the role of big brother protector for all the innocent victims in the world, we will be at this for a long time. Not only are there other more despicable leaders in the world, but some of them actually are a threat to our national security.
So that leaves one more question. If this is about WMDs/liberation/democracy, why did we choose an oil rich nation who's leader had a past history with our country and a grudge with our president's father? POWER
