Letter from Marianne Dugan
Iraq – August 2003 – Colorado Central Magazine
Editors:
No one can claim that Saddam Hussein wasn’t a horrible man, but his (presumed — even that is now in doubt) removal leaves two questions unanswered:
Are the Iraqis any better off? The Iraqis are themselves saying that anarchy is worse than tyranny, the American administration is saying that Iraq will have free and fair elections and choose their own leaders, as long as they choose rulers we like, and does anyone still remember that the Taliban were originally chosen as an end to anarchy?
So question two is:
Where do we stop? Afghanistan outside of Kabul has already slipped back into anarchy, and this administration, whose distaste for “nation-building” is notorious, is already looking for the next “threat to peace and security.”
Well, well, so now we know. I was wondering whether the administration was going to turn right from Iraq into Iran or to the left into Syria. (That’s all right; there’s plenty of time for Syria before the election.) Same accusations: Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), harboring Al Qaeda, supporting world-wide terrorism. And we, the American people, will never know if there is any truth to these accusations or not.
I’m told that many of us still believe in those WMD which the American army on the ground — like the UN inspectors before them — are unable to find. (Pity about Colin Powell; he and Tony Blair have sacrificed their credibility on the altar of Bush’s campaign promise to invade Iraq.) We have apparently swallowed whole the out-and-out lie about Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda. Everyone in government KNEW that the only Al Qaeda cell in Iraq was in the northern part over which Saddam had little or, more likely, no control; never mind the sheer unlikelihood of one despot aiding a rival despotry within his own territory.
(Query: Does the Bush administration’s failure to bomb the hell out of Lackawanna mean that Bush is soft on terrorism?)
So as we watch the Bush administration build up its case against Iran, how about a bit of healthy skepticism? As the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
On the domestic front….
Well, waddaya know, those tax cuts for all Americans just don’t apply to anyone at the bottom of the pyramid. Child credits? “We don’t give money back to people who don’t pay taxes,” which would make sense, I suppose if we didn’t give money back to corporations that don’t pay taxes. Little loopholes like 80% depreciation allowances, or a head office in Bermuda, don’t count when the government is giving money away.
The administration doesn’t give a damn about the increasing numbers of citizens falling off the bottom. Homeless people can’t vote, of course, so it’s to the Republicans’ advantage to increase the ranks of people who can’t pay rent. Hungry people are in no position to insist on decent wages or safe working conditions, so by all means let’s increase their numbers.
Reimburse the states for Homeland and Border Security costs (both clearly Federal responsibilities)? Don’t be silly; if the states had more money they’d just fritter it away on education and safety nets. Never mind your civil liberties, folks; it’s your lives that are being eroded.
Nevertheless, the Bushites will win in 2004, since Bush will certainly see to it that we are at war at that time and Americans DON’T vote out incumbents during a war. Come 2008? Gee, I wonder if Bush will suspend national elections due to a state of emergency. You think this idea is too far-fetched? I sure hope so!
Marianne Dugan
Tuscon, Ariz.
Post Script: Slim get your blood pressure down. When rape is inevitable….
