Your link for the day.
Basically the link discusses why Persident Bush's speech at the UN yesterday was met with skepticism.
I thought there were a few good questions/points brought up in the article.
"Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the
Middle East are destabilizing the region," Bush noted. "This argument rests on a
false assumption, that the Middle East was stable to begin with. The reality is
that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage. For
decades, millions of men and women in the region have been trapped in oppression
and hopelessness. And these conditions left a generation disillusioned, and made
this region a breeding ground for extremism."
True, the Middle East has rarely been a peaceful place. It's been that way for as long as I can remember, ~20 years.
In short, much of the world remains to be convinced that Iran actually
harbors the "nuclear weapons ambitions" alleged by President Bush. And the fact
that these allegations are coming from the same man who started a war on the
basis of a series of claims against Iraq that later were proved false does not
help his case.
I suppose that that will be Bush's short-term legacy: He acted on incorrect information and started a pre-emptive war against someone who, while he was a bad, despicable person, wasn't the supporter of al-Qaeda or a hoarder of nukes or biological weapons.
It's difficult to be lenient to the President when the results of his actions are so immediately obvious, and when his hoped-for reactions are at least 20 years away.
2 comments:
Leah said: I have a feeling mine will be a speech as well. I can recall the first time I was legally able to vote, and it was a race between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Jill and I were talking, and she wanted to know who I would be voting for.I told her Gore. She wanted an explanation and I told her I had a feeling that if George W won, we'd be going to war in no time to finish what Georgie's dad couldn't. And look where we're at. I really feel like he would've found ANY reason to take our troops over there. At the same time (Being the Libra that I am :) )I try to see all sides, it really irks me that so many people, myself included, are happy to sit around and complain about Bush and the war and weapons of mass destruction and yet we do nothing about it. The beauty of a "Democracy" is that WE THE PEOPLE have some say about what this country is doing. But we're just happy to turn a blind eye and let the politicians handle it. Is it strange to anyone else that we've been at war since this guy took up office and we're so used to it now? When I read about the death toll over there, I don't even bat an eye. Its become a part of American life. The Syracuse Post Standard wrote an article in March 2006 about a poll givin to U.S troops IN Iraq and "Nearly 3 of every 4 American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S should withdraw ALL troops within a year." It also stated- " 42% of troops said they are unclear of the U.S role in Iraq. 85% listed ' To retaliate for Saddam's role in 9'11 attacks'. However the the 9/ll comission report in 2004 found 'no credible evidence' Iraq had aided Al-Quida in the attacks" "Support our troops"? BRING THEM HOME!
I think that you are right, sister dearest, though I think that George Sr. didn't follow after Saddam in order to avoid the very situation we are in right now: i.e. a religious civil war between people who don't want democracy. They only want to control others.
Post a Comment