31 July 2005

The lies don't mellow with age

Riverbend talks about listening to a recent Bush speech on Iraqi TV:

E., a younger cousin, and I were sitting around in the living room, sprawled on the relatively cool tiled floor. . . . 9/11 and the dubious connection with Iraq came up within less than a minute of the beginning of the speech. The cousin wondered whether anyone in America still believed Iraq had anything to do with September 11.

Bush said: “The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001.”

Do people really still believe this? In spite of that fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, in spite of the fact that prior to the war, no American was ever killed in Iraq and now almost 2000 are dead on Iraqi soil? It’s difficult to comprehend that rational people, after all of this, still actually accept the claims of a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Or that they could actually believe Iraq is less of a threat today than it was in 2003.

We did not have Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. We didn’t know that sort of extremism. We didn’t have beheadings or the abduction of foreigners or religious intolerance. We actually pitied America and Americans when the Twin Towers went down and when news began leaking out about it being Muslim fundamentalists- possibly Arabs- we were outraged.

Now 9/11 is getting old. Now, 100,000+ Iraqi lives and 1700+ American lives later, it’s becoming difficult to summon up the same sort of sympathy as before. How does the death of 3,000 Americans and the fall of two towers somehow justify the horrors in Iraq when not one of the people involved with the attack was Iraqi?


The same speech is discussed on Informed Comment.

1 comment:

geekgirl2 said...

Check out the ideas of Martin van Creveld on wars by 'big' nations against 'small' enemies. It is really food for thought. Link to the transcript from here: http://geekgirl2.com/musingsandephemera/2005/07/palestinian-question-interesting.html