Bush's Middle East, part I

While watching a documentary this evening, I saw a clip of George W. Bush addressing the nation in the days before he authorized the invasion of Iraq. His comments included an ultimatum to Saddam: surrender in the next 48 hours, or the result will be military conflict. That statement underscores so much of what I find distrustful about Bush, and it also reminds me of how much of a weasel he is. First, he places the onus on Saddam to surrender (I won't get in to the absence of weapons of mass destruction). Second, the phrase 'military conflict' is a politically correct, or gentle, way of saying war. He did not plan a conflict; he planned an all out invasion and war. It says a lot about a man who has repeatedly referred to himself as a 'straight shooter' that, on the eve of wielding the ultimate power bestowed upon him by the American people, he would defer to the very language that he accuses to be the hallmark of his political opponents.

This is but one example of many that I could cite that has left me extremely skeptical about Bush’s underlying intentions in the Middle East. From a Bush perspective, events seem to be unfolding a little to neatly to be prescribed solely to the will of the people that actually reside in the region. An excellent column by David Fromkin in the March 24 edition of The New York Times compared political uprisings in Central Asia and elsewhere (all started from within) to the political upheaval in the Middle East (started from outsiders). As an example of democracy, Iraq has been an utter failure; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have left the country out of fear, while those who remain had to risk their lives if they wanted to vote. But no worries for Bush: a democratic election was held. It certainly makes a good headline.

More tomorrow . . .