The 25 Fallacies of President Bush's State of the Union Address on Terrorism ( Part 2 )

Fallacy 11. "We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June.... The killers will fail, and the people of Iraq will live in freedom." There is no full sovereign country on this earth. Because the small powers—the minnows are perpetually living under the shadows of the big powers—the tritons. In the book, CHASING SHADOWS!: A Dream; I called them the Say powers and the Yes powers. And in these days of unipolarism and regime change, full sovereignty can go to ‘hell.'

Besides, there is no guarantee of self-government in Iraq by June 2004. The UN was recently dragged into the Iraqi ‘business.' And talking of freedom, did the Iraqis say that they want it? There is even talk of a civil war in that country sooner or later.

Fallacy 12. "Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better." Lie. And damned lie. Or was it because Libya's leader Colonel Qadhafi said the other day that he was dismantling all his dangerous weapons? Who doesn't know why?

This world has never been a better place to live. What with wars and more wars? Maybe we should be ‘spirited' to Mars and have the ‘opportunity' to live there in peace. According to Ivan L. Head, president of the international research centre, "Since 1945, there have been less than seven weeks when the world has been free of military activity." And as you read this, 12 wars are going on around the globe today. If the earth were a patient, her condition would be said to be hypercritical, not ‘better.'

Fallacy 13. "And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible—and no one can now doubt the word of America.... America and the international community are demanding that Iran meet its commitment and not develop nuclear weapons. America is committed to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes." Fine words. Now hear Nancy Pelosi again: "As a nation, we must show our greatness, not just our strength. America must be a light to the world, not just a missile." The nuclear weapons possessed by the United States alone can kill every man, woman and child living on the earth today 12 times over! And all the nuclear arsenals possessed by the superpowers have the destructive power of 6,000 Second World Wars. I mean 6,000 times 55 millions lives that perished in the madness. What's your answer?

Now, look at the double standard. Why must the U.S. and other superpowers possess weapons of mass destruction while other nations are not even allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Why? OK, all animals are equal but some are more equal than the others. (Apologies to George Orwell.) And why should other countries, which are not in the superpower category like Israel, India and Pakistan be allowed to possess these banned weapons? All right, they are not rogue states or members of the Axis of Evil.

If ‘words must be credible' why did the US abandon the Kyoto protocol on global warning—an agreement that she pledged to keep. America should lead by example. If you have weapons of mass destruction, what stops me from having them? After all, what is source for the goose is source for the gander.

Fallacy 14. "I gave to you and to all Americans my complete commitment to securing our country and defeating our enemies." The questions that we should be asking are, Why does the world hate America? I have published articles on this subject on the Internet. I think that the solution should start from asking the right questions. Who was it that said to know the disease is half the cure? He was probably right.

In regard to the assurance of securing and defeating enemies, King David of Israel wrote over 1,500 years ago: "Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground, in that day his thoughts do perish." That is the bottom line.

Fallacy 15. "And my Administration, and this Congress will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror." The President was referring to the American military men and women in Iraq. But exactly how much has been spent on this Iraqi war? Hear Nancy Pelosi: "A colossal $120 billion and rising" borne by American taxpayers. Just think of how far that sum of money can go to solving economic problems. Kofi Annan, the UN scribe recently said that the resources expended on war is exacting a toll on world development. And recently at the World Economic Summit at Davos Switzerland, the question on every body's lips was, Would the US economy recover quick enough to avert a world economic melt down? No thanks to the billions of money spent on senseless wars. Yet about $1.5 billion will be spent this minute on military expenditure! How much would have been burnt at the end of your reading this article? By today's end, 40,000 children would die of hunger alone!

Fallacy 16. "I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all." They are right. In a war, there must be clear enemies. The enemies must be in a defined territory. And there must be a bone of contention—a clear cause of the war.

But in the so-called war on terror, we don't know who the enemies are. Neither do we know where they live. Besides, those fighting against the terrorists do not know the cause of provocation. At Davos, Vice-President Dick Cheney was talking about the democratization of the Middle East as an antidote to terrorism. But does that solve the problem? Look at great democracies like Indonesia, Russia and the Philippines. What do we see there? Terrorism. Or it is separatism?

Fallacy 17. "Some in this chamber and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq ....But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power....We are seeking all the facts. The Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." That is not true. The U.S. weapons inspector, David Kay—who has since resigned—has gone to town to announce that Iraq did not have such weapons. He was sure that someone had cooked the facts, and he called for an investigation and an apology. Even Bush himself has turned an about face saying: "I want to know the facts." And he has set up an independent bi-partisan commission of inquiry—the 9/11 Commission—to find out what went wrong. Even at the other end in Britain a similar inquiry is on. (May we live in interesting times!)

So he did not know the facts? So intelligence can fail? There was negative or missed intelligence in the Japanese Imperial Navy attack on American army at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and on the terrorist attack in the World Trade Center on 9/11. If the most powerful man in the world is ignorant of another attack of immense proportions because of intelligence failure, can we be said to be safe? Your answer is as good as mine.

Fallacy 18. "Had we failed to act, Security Council resolution on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world. For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer world." The UN is already weakened by this one-man show and it will soon be scrapped like the League of Nations before it. "Instead of alienating our allies," said Nancy Pelosi, " let us work with them and international institutions so that together we can prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and keep them out of the hands of terrorists." Saddam Hussein is not the ‘black devil' that will singularly ‘vanish' the world.

The dictators are still defiant, and will continue to be defiant. North Korea is daring America and the world with her weapons of mass destruction, and is busy exporting it to other countries. And Nigeria, the ‘giant' of Africa, is suspected to be acquiring missiles from this reclusive country in order to take care of all the ‘failed states' surrounding her. (Did someone say that Nigeria is also a ‘failed state'?) Not right. It only has a ‘local' Taliban. But instead of re-enacting a regime change in North Korea as in Iraq, America is begging the country to play ball—two sides of the same coin. Or it is because there are no oil wells in the ‘renegade' country? And wait a moment: Is anyone thinking of Fidel Castro? No, perhaps because he doesn't have an Arab blood, and he lives in the Far West. ( Is it true that Bush wants to kill the old fishermen?)

Fallacy 19. "Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan... and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraqi." This list does not include all the permanent members of the Security Council. France, Russia and China are missing. Even Germany, is not in the list. OK, the reason is that it belongs to ‘Old Europe.' No, make it Axis of Weasels.

So, what can be said of the countries that made up the coalition of the willing? They must have had the Bush mantra at the back of their minds: ‘If you are not with us, then you are against us.' Which nation does not want to be a friend of America? Think of American favors and financial rewards—and lucrative contracts in Iraq.

Fallacy 20. "From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afganistan and Iraq." What is true of Afganistan can not be said of Iraq. A former Bush government official has revealed that from the inception of George Bush's regime, it has been his resolve to over run Iraq and over throw Saddam. He didn't need international support to do so. Who was that former German government official who called Bush a Nazi? (These Germans know how to fish for trouble.)

Fallacy 21. "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people." That's a contradiction. Let's put it better: America did not seek international support for its war on Iraq.

Fallacy 22. "I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again." That's very poetic. But the poets are lying now, for there is an irony in that line. Because the desire ‘to live in freedom' from those ‘crushed by tyranny for decades' is one of the things that cause terrorism. The Palestinians know better. There is so much injustice and oppression in this world. And as long as man continues to dominate man to his injury, (to paraphrase King Solomon) terrorism will never end.

Fallacy 23. "To cut through the barrier of hateful propaganda, the Voice of America and other broadcast services are expanding their programming in Arabic and Persian and soon a new television service will begin providing reliable news and information across the region." The Arabs prefer Arabic radio and TV stations to the Western media, which they view as sources of the U.S. government propaganda. Therefore it is not reliable.

Fallacy 24. "And above all, we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afganistan and Iraq, so that those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world." The grammarians call this wordiness. If the big democracies have not transformed a troubled world, is it these two hurriedly assembled ‘democracies' that will change the world? That would be the 1st wonder of the new millenium. What a wonderful world!

Fallacy 25. "We have no desire to dominate, no ambition of empire." Was that a slip of the tongue? Because that's how the world sees America—another cause of terrorism. It is no wonder that many young Arabs blame the US for their political and economic woes. In fact, they believe that American domination and her regime change policy would continue to sweep through Arab lands—from Iraq to Iran, Syria, North Korea, and who knows, some North African country.

The State of the Union speech on terror, therefore, is full of doublespeak. Let us not cover the cracks on the wall. But let us begin by asking the right questions. What is the cause of terrorism? Is man the solution or the cause? Can terrorism be completely wiped out from the face of the earth? Is the world a better or worse place since the war on terror, and what is the way out?

The world has gone through many dead-end passages in its history—from Vietnam to Pearl Harbor, from Bosnia to Rwanda and from Afganistan to Iraq. When would we see the light at the end of the passage? Why can we not live in peace and security on this earth? Why is there so much hate in this world?

It is my hope that we begin to address the political, economic, social, religious, health and environmental problems that give rise to this evil, and not by the wanton destruction of lives and property. That is the only way for generations unborn to see this earth.

If on the other hand, we continue chasing shadows, we will wake up one day to find that the terrorists have set the earth on fire. And then we would all jump into the sea to survive the conflagration. And think of the sharks and whales later. But too late. The world has ended!

(Concluded)

ARTHUR ZULU, an editor and book reviewer, is the controversial author of the best-selling book, CHASING SHADOWS!: A Dream. (A book that reveals the terrorists' master plan to finally set the world on fire!)

For a copy of the book and FREE excerpt, goto:

http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/21013

For contacts, mailto:

mostcontroversialwriter@yahoo.com