An Epiphany That Just Couldn't Wait
Posted: January 17th, 2005, 2:12 am
In 1956, we knew that The Soviet Union possessed weapons of mass destruction. We knew that these weapons could be used against the United States if the USSR wanted to use them.
In 1956, during a speech by then British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to The United Nations, Nikita Khrushchev, then the leader of The Soviet Union, removed his shoe and began banging it on the desk in front of him. He then turned to the American delegation to the UN and shouted, “We will bury you.”
It is no secret that citizens of the USSR were tortured by their own government.
It is also no secret that Russia, the center of what Russia called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, invaded a nation which considered itself sovereign. Moscow sent tanks into the streets of Czechoslovakia in 1954 because Czechoslovakia wished to think itself sovereign.
This all happened between 1917 and 1991.
Yet, we never carpet bombed the USSR. Why was this?
The reason we never engaged in military combat against the USSR was because they had weapons of mass destruction and because we knew that they could be used against us.
Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan never launched an attack against The Soviet Union.
Were we just fortunate that George W. Bush wasn’t president during the days of the Soviet Union? After all, let’s examine some of his “reasons” for attacking Iraq.
His first reason was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He said, in conjunction with Tony Blair, that Iraq could launch these weapons in 45 minutes.
Bush also said that, with the use of drones, Iraq could deliver these weapons to the United States.
As stated, we knew that the USSR had weapons of mass destruction and could deliver them to the US. We were also verbally threatened by the leader of the USSR.
We could stop right there and say that, if George W. Bush really believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be delivered to the US, he was willing to chance what the seven presidents mentioned above weren’t willing to chance. We had WMD and the USSR had WMD and every one of the presidents mentioned above did everything to avoid conflict with the USSR. Would Bush have caused mass death and destruction if he was president during the height of the USSR? If we look at his original reasoning for invading Iraq, the answer has to be an unqualified yes.
Of course, Bush has used other reasons for attacking Iraq.
Another reason was because Iraq had used force against its neighbors. The USSR used force to crush Czechoslovakia’s attempt at sovereignty. Is it safe to assume that, if George W. Bush had been president, this would have been enough to strike The Soviet Union? Would Bush have used the invasion of Czechoslovakia to create what may have amounted to global Armageddon? Since he speaks so often of Iraq’s activities against its neighbors, it’s quite possible that our world would look a lot different today if Bush had been president during the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Let’s look at another of Bush’s “reasons” for invading Iraq.
Bush has said that, even though weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, the invasion and subsequent carnage has been worth it because we are “bringing democracy” to Iraq.
We first forced a dictatorial government from power.
Now we’re overseeing “democratic elections”.
Would Bush have invaded the Soviet Union for the purpose of freeing its citizens from that nation’s dictatorial government? Would he have invaded the USSR to “bring democracy” to its land? Judging from his “reasoning” for invading Iraq, he would certainly have done that. If the Soviet government threatened to stop him, he may have said something akin to, “Bring ‘em on.”
George W. Bush would have done what seven presidents who preceded his father never even considered doing – or would he have?
My answer is no, he would never have used the same excuses to invade The Soviet Union, a nation known to possess weapons of mass destruction, torture its own citizens, invade its neighbors and, in fact, blatantly threatened The United States of America, that he used to invade Iraq.
Seven presidents knew that, if they invaded the USSR, the imminent peril would be unthinkable.
Bush is an irresponsible president, maybe the worse in our history, and telling the truth isn’t one of his strong points. However, just as the seven presidents mentioned didn’t invade the USSR because they possessed weapons of mass destruction, Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he really believed it possessed weapons of mass destruction.
If he did believe that Iraq possessed WMD that could be used against The United States and still invaded that nation, then we should assume that he would have invaded the USSR for the same reason and/or the other reasons mentioned. If this is the case, is he really fit to be president?
I see two choices here.
First, he would not have invaded the USSR and, consequently, wouldn’t have invaded Iraq if it possessed WMD.
In fact, he wouldn’t have invaded the USSR for any of the reasons he’s given for the Iraq invasion.
Consequently, he’s obviously lied when he’s presented any of his “reasons” for the March, 2003 invasion.
The other choice is that, since he invaded Iraq because it possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a “gathering threat” to the US, he would have invaded the Soviet Union because it had weapons of mass destruction and was a blatant threat to the US.
Either way, the answer is no, George W. Bush is not fit to be president.
In 1956, during a speech by then British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to The United Nations, Nikita Khrushchev, then the leader of The Soviet Union, removed his shoe and began banging it on the desk in front of him. He then turned to the American delegation to the UN and shouted, “We will bury you.”
It is no secret that citizens of the USSR were tortured by their own government.
It is also no secret that Russia, the center of what Russia called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, invaded a nation which considered itself sovereign. Moscow sent tanks into the streets of Czechoslovakia in 1954 because Czechoslovakia wished to think itself sovereign.
This all happened between 1917 and 1991.
Yet, we never carpet bombed the USSR. Why was this?
The reason we never engaged in military combat against the USSR was because they had weapons of mass destruction and because we knew that they could be used against us.
Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan never launched an attack against The Soviet Union.
Were we just fortunate that George W. Bush wasn’t president during the days of the Soviet Union? After all, let’s examine some of his “reasons” for attacking Iraq.
His first reason was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He said, in conjunction with Tony Blair, that Iraq could launch these weapons in 45 minutes.
Bush also said that, with the use of drones, Iraq could deliver these weapons to the United States.
As stated, we knew that the USSR had weapons of mass destruction and could deliver them to the US. We were also verbally threatened by the leader of the USSR.
We could stop right there and say that, if George W. Bush really believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be delivered to the US, he was willing to chance what the seven presidents mentioned above weren’t willing to chance. We had WMD and the USSR had WMD and every one of the presidents mentioned above did everything to avoid conflict with the USSR. Would Bush have caused mass death and destruction if he was president during the height of the USSR? If we look at his original reasoning for invading Iraq, the answer has to be an unqualified yes.
Of course, Bush has used other reasons for attacking Iraq.
Another reason was because Iraq had used force against its neighbors. The USSR used force to crush Czechoslovakia’s attempt at sovereignty. Is it safe to assume that, if George W. Bush had been president, this would have been enough to strike The Soviet Union? Would Bush have used the invasion of Czechoslovakia to create what may have amounted to global Armageddon? Since he speaks so often of Iraq’s activities against its neighbors, it’s quite possible that our world would look a lot different today if Bush had been president during the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Let’s look at another of Bush’s “reasons” for invading Iraq.
Bush has said that, even though weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, the invasion and subsequent carnage has been worth it because we are “bringing democracy” to Iraq.
We first forced a dictatorial government from power.
Now we’re overseeing “democratic elections”.
Would Bush have invaded the Soviet Union for the purpose of freeing its citizens from that nation’s dictatorial government? Would he have invaded the USSR to “bring democracy” to its land? Judging from his “reasoning” for invading Iraq, he would certainly have done that. If the Soviet government threatened to stop him, he may have said something akin to, “Bring ‘em on.”
George W. Bush would have done what seven presidents who preceded his father never even considered doing – or would he have?
My answer is no, he would never have used the same excuses to invade The Soviet Union, a nation known to possess weapons of mass destruction, torture its own citizens, invade its neighbors and, in fact, blatantly threatened The United States of America, that he used to invade Iraq.
Seven presidents knew that, if they invaded the USSR, the imminent peril would be unthinkable.
Bush is an irresponsible president, maybe the worse in our history, and telling the truth isn’t one of his strong points. However, just as the seven presidents mentioned didn’t invade the USSR because they possessed weapons of mass destruction, Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he really believed it possessed weapons of mass destruction.
If he did believe that Iraq possessed WMD that could be used against The United States and still invaded that nation, then we should assume that he would have invaded the USSR for the same reason and/or the other reasons mentioned. If this is the case, is he really fit to be president?
I see two choices here.
First, he would not have invaded the USSR and, consequently, wouldn’t have invaded Iraq if it possessed WMD.
In fact, he wouldn’t have invaded the USSR for any of the reasons he’s given for the Iraq invasion.
Consequently, he’s obviously lied when he’s presented any of his “reasons” for the March, 2003 invasion.
The other choice is that, since he invaded Iraq because it possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a “gathering threat” to the US, he would have invaded the Soviet Union because it had weapons of mass destruction and was a blatant threat to the US.
Either way, the answer is no, George W. Bush is not fit to be president.