22
Apr
2003
The political landscape is heating up with controversy over the war with Iraq, all in the name of freedom of speech and the First Amendment. It would be highly amusing if it weren't such a critical issue both in terms of our national esteem and the potential dangerous long-term consequences.
The controversy of course is the right or the wrong of the war itself, primarily based on the Bush Administration's policy of preemptive strike. Conservatives maintain that a preemptive strike was necessary to remove the Hussein regime because of its lethal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Liberals counter with the lack of proof of such weapons, or any evidence that Hussein intended to use them in a direct assault against America. Furthermore, liberals claim that the real agenda of the Bush administration is to control Iraq's oil inventory, which represents a substantial resource.
Both arguments are legitimate ones. But rather than find the common ground, the fight is afoot in the arena of the First Amendment, with both sides wearing freedom of speech as their armament, while at the same time demanding that the opposition be censored, or better yet, silenced. Neither side sees the irony or the hypocrisy of their respective positions. Each argues against the other, demanding the other's accountability, insisting on retractions, instigating boycotts, resorting to childish name-calling, and stomping about.
All of this carrying on is typical of controversy, and its very existence is comforting to some degree because it means that the First Amendment is intact. What is disconcerting is the prevailing theme that disagreeing with the war, or with the Bush administration's handling of it, equates with a lack of patriotism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
While it is not surprising that conservatives immediately label persons who express any modicum of dissent as a liberal, the fact is that most Americans fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes (conservatives with unconditional support versus liberals in blanket opposition). There is an underlying discomfort with the war because the evidence supporting the claims of Hussein's production of weapons of mass destruction, and/or the alleged connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, is disturbingly vague. On the other hand, there is no doubt in most American minds that Saddam Hussein is a vicious and dangerous despot, whose harsh regime caused Iraqis to live in an oppressive atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Beyond Iraq, what grave risks are associated with a policy of tolerance of a strategic ruler whose leadership is so inhumane and volatile?
Both sides of this global controversy are posing hard questions that deserve answers, but unfortunately are not forthcoming. Profoundly important questions about potential conflicts of interest still remain unanswered relative to certain executives of the Bush administration, primarily President Bush's family and Vice President Cheney, who have personal financial interests in the oil industry, most especially as it relates to the Middle East, and who have a stake in the outcome of who controls the Iraqi oil supply.
Additionally, the process of rebuilding Iraq should be thoroughly transparent but appears to be moving forward without due process. For instance, if contracts are being let to Bechtel and Halliburton companies, how were these decisions made? Were requests for proposals sent out, globally, to all qualified companies as required by law for governmental contracts? If so, why was Cheney's company, Halliburton, awarded a contract worth billions of dollars over other qualified applicants? These questions are not only reasonable, they are also imperative, reflecting a strong sense of patriotism because the underlying concern is for the honor and protection of the American people.
There is a plethora of documentation and testimony to the enormity of Iraq's oil reserves, the control of which is as much about power as it is about fuel. This war is positioning America for a dominant role in controlling Iraq's oil, an outcome that brings as much risk as it does reward in terms of the geopolitical fallout. How deep Americans are willing to probe this aspect of the war is still sketchy. To date, the debate is barely being had. Instead of constructive debate born of healthy skepticism on both sides of the argument, there is an overwhelming down-and-dirty opposition that stifles thought-provoking, civilized discussion that can lead to better understanding; a process that breeds respect and perpetuates our precious First Amendment.
The controversy of course is the right or the wrong of the war itself, primarily based on the Bush Administration's policy of preemptive strike. Conservatives maintain that a preemptive strike was necessary to remove the Hussein regime because of its lethal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Liberals counter with the lack of proof of such weapons, or any evidence that Hussein intended to use them in a direct assault against America. Furthermore, liberals claim that the real agenda of the Bush administration is to control Iraq's oil inventory, which represents a substantial resource.
Both arguments are legitimate ones. But rather than find the common ground, the fight is afoot in the arena of the First Amendment, with both sides wearing freedom of speech as their armament, while at the same time demanding that the opposition be censored, or better yet, silenced. Neither side sees the irony or the hypocrisy of their respective positions. Each argues against the other, demanding the other's accountability, insisting on retractions, instigating boycotts, resorting to childish name-calling, and stomping about.
All of this carrying on is typical of controversy, and its very existence is comforting to some degree because it means that the First Amendment is intact. What is disconcerting is the prevailing theme that disagreeing with the war, or with the Bush administration's handling of it, equates with a lack of patriotism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
While it is not surprising that conservatives immediately label persons who express any modicum of dissent as a liberal, the fact is that most Americans fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes (conservatives with unconditional support versus liberals in blanket opposition). There is an underlying discomfort with the war because the evidence supporting the claims of Hussein's production of weapons of mass destruction, and/or the alleged connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, is disturbingly vague. On the other hand, there is no doubt in most American minds that Saddam Hussein is a vicious and dangerous despot, whose harsh regime caused Iraqis to live in an oppressive atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Beyond Iraq, what grave risks are associated with a policy of tolerance of a strategic ruler whose leadership is so inhumane and volatile?
Both sides of this global controversy are posing hard questions that deserve answers, but unfortunately are not forthcoming. Profoundly important questions about potential conflicts of interest still remain unanswered relative to certain executives of the Bush administration, primarily President Bush's family and Vice President Cheney, who have personal financial interests in the oil industry, most especially as it relates to the Middle East, and who have a stake in the outcome of who controls the Iraqi oil supply.
Additionally, the process of rebuilding Iraq should be thoroughly transparent but appears to be moving forward without due process. For instance, if contracts are being let to Bechtel and Halliburton companies, how were these decisions made? Were requests for proposals sent out, globally, to all qualified companies as required by law for governmental contracts? If so, why was Cheney's company, Halliburton, awarded a contract worth billions of dollars over other qualified applicants? These questions are not only reasonable, they are also imperative, reflecting a strong sense of patriotism because the underlying concern is for the honor and protection of the American people.
There is a plethora of documentation and testimony to the enormity of Iraq's oil reserves, the control of which is as much about power as it is about fuel. This war is positioning America for a dominant role in controlling Iraq's oil, an outcome that brings as much risk as it does reward in terms of the geopolitical fallout. How deep Americans are willing to probe this aspect of the war is still sketchy. To date, the debate is barely being had. Instead of constructive debate born of healthy skepticism on both sides of the argument, there is an overwhelming down-and-dirty opposition that stifles thought-provoking, civilized discussion that can lead to better understanding; a process that breeds respect and perpetuates our precious First Amendment.
