When we get to the big things, we get to the heart of the matter.
Bush's big thing: quite obviously 9/11. This was a catastrophic disaster. Words can't describe it. The trauma it caused is incalculable. How one reacts, what one does in light of such an event, clearly reveals a person's values. And it was here -- I'll be perfectly honest -- that not only Mr. Bush, but most of the world let me down. Don't get me wrong, I understand how revenge works; I understand what motivates one's thoughts about getting even; I understand rage, and anger, and grief and pain and suffering and all that goes along with it. But the reaction under Mr. Bush's leadership unfortunately said more about him than anything he did before or thereafter. It was his -- by virtue of his position in the world at that time and that place -- defining moment. And what did he do?
He lied.
It was, and is, known that Bin Laden, his terrorist group, and his blindest followers were Saudis, not Iraqis. For as much as an evil tyrant Saddam Hussein may have been, for as much as he may have sympathized with the attackers, it was known that he was not behind the attacks, but Mr. Bush insisted he was. It was at this juncture, for whatever reasons -- and here I'll be forthright as well: I don't believe a one of them a good one -- Mr. Bush and his team made Iraq the focal point of our attention. He fixed the blame, not the problem; he channeled America's anger for his own (or his administration's) purposes; and he did no dishonestly.
He lied. He misled. He mocked and bullied anyone he could to get his way. And, in the end, he got his way and unjustifiably attacked a sovereign nation which had no real issue with the US, one which was not guilty of much more than being a nuisance for American corporate, military, and political interests. His lies led directly to the deaths of over 4,000 American and over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers. His lies led to the deaths of close to a million people in the end, when you consider the consequences and civilian collateral damage of that war. And then, on top of it all, it was his administration that not only authorized, but condoned, the use of torture -- a practice until then allegedly abhorrent to the American psyche -- without the slightest hesitation or remorse. That particular war, a war of blatant aggression, the way it was waged, and the treatment of its victims are all in direct violation of agreed standards of human rights, the rules of military engagement, and international law. It's at this point that this man's honor escapes me.
He was at the top. He was the person responsible for everyone down the chain of command. He was the Commander-in-Chief. So, if you argue, it was those below him over whom he did not have enough control, then he was a failure as a leader, a manager, and a human being, for I never heard him speak out against these people or anything they did. It all happened on his watch. It was the Bush presidency, more than any other since the 50s, that (re-)cultivated the idea of the Ugly American.
So where is the honor? What makes this man so honorable? That he went jogging with a disabled vet? I just don't get it.
And that's why the picture bothered me so much. Apparently, I failed to get something important, again. Apparently I missed something. Apparently some people find him and what he is responsible for honorable, but for me, as always, actions speak louder than words.
No comments:
Post a Comment