Cheny is Evil. The Taliban? Misunderstood.

I got to talking politics a little with the woman next to me at work. Somehow it came up where she repeated the oft-chanted, Democratic/Liberal-talking-point, “Cheney is evil”. Now this woman is older (50’s) and is pretty darned smart, so when I heard the talking point come out of her, verbatim, I was fascinated. I asked her if she was joking. “No”, she said she was serious, and kept repeating that “he is just evil”. I said, “well, what has he done that is evil? Can you give me some examples?”

 

She could not. No examples whatsoever. “He’s just evil”, she maintained, as if it should be so clear to me that no explanation should be required. I am not kidding when I say that this woman is very smart and educated. I was amazed. A smart person buying into the “Cheney is evil” deal. Finally, she told me that the hunting accident was just “icing on the cake” as she put it. The “Cheney-is-evil” cake, I presumed. I said, “do you think he ENJOYED shooting his friend in an accident? Do you honestly think he woke up that morning and said to himself, ‘I’m gonna shoot this old lawyer today’? I mean, HONESTLY? Do you really believe this?”

 

Silence. And then she said what I had been waiting for: “And you have this whole war thing.”

 

“What do you mean?”, I asked.

 

“Well”, she continued, “we are at war because of Halliburton. Halliburton is so evil.”

 

I said, “you really believe that”?

 

“Sure”, she replied.

 

I continued, “So let me get this straight. Dick Cheney’s personal investment strategy; his personal get-rich-quick scheme, has been to load up on oil infrastructure stocks. Then build a career in public service, eventually attaining the office of Vice President of the United States. Then, somehow, he foments a war with an oil-rich country so that the company he owns some stock in can get the contracts to repair the damage and presumably his stock goes up, is that it? Because that is some investment plan. In fact my broker suggested a similar scheme to me, recently. I told him I’d think about it.”

 

(NOTE: The daffiness of the “Cheney-invades-Iraq-to-pump-his-portfolio” idea is laid bare when you consider that Gore has amassed almost 100 million dollars from his post-Veep speaking tours and environmental-extremest movies. Why would anyone worry about this stock or that stock when as an ex-Veep, they can haul down that kind of coin after leaving office?)

 

The idea that Cheney is evil or a Halliburton/Cheney complex is running the country for personal profit is, to me, ludicrous. I am still flabbergasted when I hear people whom I respect, espouse these theories. I guess I just underestimate people’s personal anger when their guy loses an election. Some understand that the losing party’s platform and candidate just didn’t appeal to enough people while others transfer all sorts of anger and vitriol onto the “winners”. They say they are: “evil”, “stupid”, “greedy” etc. It doesn’t sound real sophisticated, does it? (and I never understood, why, if a guy beats you, you’d work so hard to paint him as “stupid”. After all, if you lose to the dumb guy, WHAT does that make YOU?)

 

I understand that any war is a very harsh thing and that this war is particularly easy to lose sight of origins and motivations and eventual conclusions. I’m not pro-war or anti-war. No two wars are alike. Some are easier to justify and “swallow” than others. And all wars come with the reality that people die–the majority of which are totally innocent. It’s a very hard thing to commit to and I wouldn’t for a second want to be in the big chair making these kinds of decisions.

 

Some wars will, I think most would agree, benefit many more people than those who are adversely affected. The American Revolution killed a lot of people but most will argue that the results were pretty good. Here’s another example: Suppose the Allies had of enforced the Treaty of Versailles in 1934 and invaded Germany when Hitler went into the Rhineland (his first illegal, bold step towards war–a step that, he admitted later he could have been easily stopped on)? Perhaps a hundred thousand people would have died in a war in western Germany in 1934. But what if that action prevented the subsequent 100 million deaths of WWII? What would you say about it then? Would you say it was good? How can anyone say that the deaths of 100,000 human beings is ever “GOOD”? When it prevents 100 million dead, that’s when. But tell that to the 100,000 dead men (and their mothers) who made the 100 million safe. Would the 100 million even realize what had been so narrowly averted? That’s Doubtful. How could anyone imagine the carnage of WWII only 6 years later?

 

Well, I can imagine carnage. A nuclear explosion in a densely populated area. It’s pretty easy to understand how horrendous that would be and that’s not considering the collateral damage to the world economy and the resulting backlash that the stricken power’s military would unleash. But on September 11, the idea of a nuclear device being hurled into Tel Aviv on a missile, or set off in Times Square, became a LOT more fathomable.

 

That’s why I think that no sooner had those twin towers fallen than the bigwigs were thinking, “how can we get into these areas and prevent these people from doing this stuff with nukes–from holding a key economic region hostage? And while we’re there, we might be in a good position to put some bad guys out of business, rebuild some infrastructure and possibly even get a true Democracy started in an area that knows no Democracy. 55 million people. The Taliban and Hussein. No Democracy. Worth a shot? Perhaps. In a region that the economies of all the developed nations depend heavily on, do we allow radicals to arm and destabilize it? Do we sit back and watch this unfold? Or do we get proactive? That’s the million dollar question.

 

ON 911, I think the leadership of the US made up its mind that their administration, like them or hate them, was going to be proactive. September 11th basically changed the stakes. It LOWERED the threshold of what we are willing to “ignore” in the world. Because September 11th showed us that weapons technology and willful ideology had changed the REACH of the bad guys. A badguy you could ignore in 1940 or 1980 even, could now kill you at home. A warhead and a missile means that they can come and get you pretty much anywhere. And on Sept 11th, they showed that they are willing to come and get you and kill you. Some folks said, “not if I can help it”. Agree or disagree, that is really what we’re watching unfold.

 

People say “Bush lied, kids died” and all that, but the pretense for going was just laying there for 20 years in the form of 16 completely spat-upon UN resolutions signed by ALL THE MAJOR POWERS OF EUROPE and the developed world. They signed the edicts but then balked at actually enforcing them. Our guy, our administration, did not balk. He said, “we’re going to use this and go in there and try and effect a change”. And yes, people are going to die. Innocent people. It’s sad but it is part and parcel of the nuclear world. Make no mistake about what this is about. It isn’t so much about chemical and biological weapons. It’s about the big enchilada; The current and future development of MUSLIM-HELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Read their rhetoric. They openly brag about wiping Israel off the map. They strap explosives to their kids. What do you think they would do with a nuclear weapon? Not all of them of course, but SOME of them are willing. And the ones that aren’t evil don’t have the reigns. They aren’t proactive. Inaction can be as powerful as any action.

 

Now there are a thousand little subplots. Freeing the Kurds, for example; something you will read precious little of in the mostly-anti-Bush/anti-USA media. They are experiencing some good economic news. Good for them. Now we have a responsibility, like it or not, because we are there, LIKE IT OR NOT, not to cut and run and leave 25 million people hung out to dry in a bloody civil war. Let me repeat: Even if you HATE that the USA (really a coalition) is in Iraq: We have a duty NOT to leave them to a years-long, bloody civil war. We must get them to a place where we can leave with a reasonable expectation of stability and peace. The region is too critical to just walk away and hope that it gets sorted out. We don’t have that “luxury”, if you can even begin to call, the safety of 25+ million human beings, that.

 

If you think this war is unjust. If you think it is wrong, then let me tell you it is NOTHING compared to walking away and hanging these millions of innocent people out to dry among the thugs.

 

As I read the news and hear Bush’s enemies, the ones who float the sophisticated “Cheney-is-evil” stuff out there. If you listen to them, you get the idea that their partisan hatred of losing to Bush, TRUMPS the well-being of millions of innocent people in the mid-East. I will never understand that. You can hate Bush. You can hate war. But to put your own domestic, short-term political agenda, AHEAD of the lives of millions of people? Unreal. Sad. Shocking. But that’s what I read every day.

 

In addition to that, Iran is there, fomenting destruction in Iraq and working hammer-and-tongs on developing a nuclear weapons program while their “government” is telling people the holocaust didn’t happen and that they want Israel eradicated. I sometimes think Iraq is the sideshow that Bush knew we could handle while the real main event is what to do with Iran. At least when we deal with them, we deal from the position of an engaged power who will back up their aims with force. Our credibility in that department is at least proven. Sure, the anti-Bush people are watering that down daily and emboldening new attacks and undermining our resolve to complete this monumental task, but we are still much more credible than 7 years ago. Now we have boots on the ground right next door. Make no mistake, there are many hands to be played in this game of nuclear poker. I don’t have any answers but I strive to understand—Understand the big picture—What’s at stake. I pray that it comes out as well as it can, because we know that it is no picnic. It may be 1934 for us. This may be the Rhineland for our generation. I do not know. Overall, simply, I hope for the future. –fog