| Global Freedom Institute |
| National Security Leaks (Page 3) President Bush (41). Known for his �no new taxes� lie, as the former head of the CIA it is hard to believe that this would be his only deception. The Gulf War would be another. Comparing Hussein to Hitler falsely would serve his purposes, as well as the Patriot Missile Myth, the distortion of justifications for going to Somalia, his addition of Kuwait to the Carter Doctrine and adding military bases to Saudi Arabia to strengthen the doctrine would lead us farther down the path of future terrorist aggression. President Clinton. Beyond the lie of �I did not have sexual relations with that woman� and the endless political distortions and lies of this Administration, politically, the deceptions are worthy of notice. Clinton�s justifications for military involvement in the Balkans is about as deceptive as the Bush justifications for Somalia; neither were truly justified actions. Clinton further perpetuates the War on Drugs injustices; brings us to the brink of military conflict with China; ignores Israeli weapons sales to China (though he is not the first); allows the sales of targeting technology to China, and the list goes on. President Bush (43). While in office less than two years, Bush has signed the largest budgets in American history and proposed the largest budgets also, while claiming he was focused on �people over Washington�, meaning smaller government. He promised to help small farmers, while signing off on a $190 billion corporate farm aid program; promised exit strategies and clear victory conditions for military involvement before the War on Terrorism that has no victory conditions of methods of achieving them laid out; has promised to defend the Constitution, while writing Executive Orders that are not constitutionally founded; and insists on complete secrecy from the American people from everyone but his office, so he can control what is told to America. Many say it is normal for politicians to break election promises and to lie to us. However, that begs the question, why do we suddenly trust our politicians now? What changed? A fear of the alternative of not trusting them? Does an attack on this country suddenly make them trustworthy? Do we really believe that politicians would not look for ways to manipulate the situation to their own benefit? As for the second question, did the Bush Administration know... that is debatable. I could, and have made the argument that the Bush Administration knew. And I could back it up with argument after argument. But instead of doing that, with the history of politicians to lie to us, I leave you with one question: why aren�t we even willing to consider the possibility that they knew? If we don�t consider all possibilities, how will we ever know the truth? Instead, won�t we know the �truth� they want us to know, which may differ greatly from the Truth. I guess the real question is do you want to know the Bush version of the truth or the Truth? If it is the former, then I guess not questioning is good. If it is the latter, then questioning all possibilities is absolutely necessary. Including the �secrets� that they don�t want you to know that have no real national security reason to be kept. Tony McWilliams is a contributor to The Bond Fire, Aggressive-Voice and Common Conservative. This article appeared on The Bond Fire on 6/24/2002 Main Page |
|