Disturbing Questions
By John Cory
t r u t h o u t correspondent in Saudi Arabia
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 19 February 2003
On a recent CNN International broadcast, I watched Tom Ridge being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer lobbed softball
questions, picked up the slack and explained the White House position when Ridge was at a loss for words, and then
framed several questions about partisan Democrats being at the root of security problems and war resistance.
Blitzer never asked: "Why did you guys run a focus group on your terrorism alert? Doesn't that smack of political
manipulation rather than true patriotic concern for America's safety? Did the White House really file a supporting
motion in court to block the peace rallies in NY? What scientific studies did Homeland Security use to determine duct
tape and plastic were effective against chemical and biological bombs? And how is it that neither the FBI nor CIA gave
the "informant" a lie detector test prior to issuing the Orange Alert? Doesn't that show incompetence of two agencies
charged with protecting America?"
Blitzer never asked one of those questions. Although, cutting to commercial he did say, "CNN the most trusted name in
news." Umm - Okay.
I would like to say that I was flabbergasted by this lackluster GOP-apologist performance, but the truth is, this is all
we can expect from the lickspittle smarmy microphone that passes for today's media. How many "journalists" does it take
to change a light bulb? None. They get well paid to work in the dark.
A couple of my Arab friends shared two small articles with me from Israeli newspapers. One story said that the US had
ignored Israeli intelligence reports that Iraq's WMD capabilities were pretty much ineffective these days and their
nuclear program was nil. The other story quoted US sources traveling with Mr. Bolton as assuring Israel that once Iraq
was under control, the US would take care of Iran and Syria next. (Guess North Korea will just have to wait its turn.)
Now I point this out because in the entire debate about war on Iraq, I am not hearing the questions that keep rattling
around inside my brain. I understand that I am just an average schmoe trying to make a living, and I am no cultured
journalist or educated Foreign Service kind-of-guy; but it seems to me that something is missing in all this "coverage."
What does Bush and company get from a war with Iraq? Don't say "oil" because you don't need a war to get Iraqi oil. Dick
Cheney and Haliburton proved that already. And the only winners from the first Gulf War were the oil companies. And
don't say they get their agenda because the neo-conservatives and theocratic fundamentalists were already succeeding,
thanks to milquetoast Democrats.
Everyone talks around the subject but no one makes the White House answer the question: Why, if Saddam has chemical and
biological weapons, are you willing to risk thousands of lives by invading Iraq? Don't you think they will use them in
defense of their country? Or is that what you are hoping for? Is that why the nuclear option is not only on the table
but also in the news?
And therein lies the chilling question. What is going on here?
This White House is obsessed with elections and the installation of the GOP as the ruling party of America. Why would
they be willing to risk a war that could run amok and generate thousands of horrible casualties of our military men and
women? Their own credibility and coming presidential election is on the line here. What would be the benefit for them?
And make no mistake; no calculation has gone unexamined by this cabal of conservative ideologists. So what exactly do
they know that the rest of us are not allowed to know?
Has this White House really ignored Israeli intelligence reports? Or have they worked their plan according to these
intelligence reports? What is the plan?
Somewhere deep in the bowels of the Potomac, someone has decided that war will be good for America. War will restore
America. A good war will erase the stain of Vietnam and with it, the stench of men who failed to serve their country
during Vietnam. Men who now step into the spotlight for the greater good of America. Other priorities, too many
minorities in combat positions, and other rectum afflictions, are all dissolved in the safety of armchair leadership.
Sometimes it is best to run away and fight another day - when you can get someone else's children to fight.
Does anyone really expect that when the troops plow through the desert, that the Iraqis will be there with little
American flags waving and smiling with cheers of liberation as tanks and APCs roll into Baghdad? A Movietone moment like
WWII? Really?
Will the defeat of an already decimated military and the mounds of "collateral damage" provide the catharsis America
needs for 9/11? Will vanquishing a starving population and rag-tag army bring the sweet taste of revenge to America? A
decisive and easy three-week war with few casualties will bring relief to America. Glad it is over. Grateful that not
many American soldiers were killed. Sorry about the Iraqi civilians but -that's war. Rove knows this will be a hollow
victory with little jubilation.
Does anyone remember, during the first Gulf War, the numerous reports of "chemical alarms" that triggered the military
to don protective gear? Remember how those alarms were described as too sensitive or typical battlefield activation with
all the sulfur and smoke etc.? And recall the government position on Gulf War syndrome, that it was not related to
chemical or biological agents because none were used?
Now the nuclear option is available - and exactly how and who will determine the authenticity of the same chemical
alarms? What improvements have been made since 1991? Are there "false positives" that could trigger a tactical response?
Remember the movie Failsafe?
Will the Bush cadre go quietly when Iraq is conquered and there are no weapons of mass destruction? Or will it march on
to Tehran? We have a grudge to settle with them, remember?
This cannot be a T.S. Eliot kind of war that ends in a whimper. This war needs a bang to undo the resistance of those
scruffy peaceniks. This war needs a big bang to launch Bush into a second term or cancel the election. This war needs a
big bang to bring the GOP glory to all of America. This war needs a big bang to show the old Europe how wrong they were
and warn the rest of the world about messing with America ever again.
Something evil this way comes - but no one wants to ask. No one wants to know.
***********
John Cory is t r u t h o u t.org’s correspondent in Saudi Arabia
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above
article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that
the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various
investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.