The 25 Fallacies of President Bush's State of the Union Address on Terrorism ( Part 1 )

Written by Arthur Zulu

On 20 January 2004, George Bush Jr.repparttar President ofrepparttar 126001 United States gave his last (?) State ofrepparttar 126002 Union Address. In this article, I will point out 25 fallacies ofrepparttar 126003 speech onrepparttar 126004 war on terror.

Fallacy 1. "By bringing hope torepparttar 126005 oppressed and delivering justice torepparttar 126006 violent, [the American servicemen and women] are making America more secure." Apologists ofrepparttar 126007 war on terror are quick to point out that there have not been any major attacks onrepparttar 126008 U.S. since September 11, 2001. But what ofrepparttar 126009 numerous terror alerts? And how didrepparttar 126010 deadly toxin ricin recently find its way intorepparttar 126011 US Senate forrepparttar 126012 second time! Or did ‘Senator' Ricin,repparttar 126013 ‘terrorist,' win a re-election intorepparttar 126014 upper house? Does that not show thatrepparttar 126015 terrorists still present a clear and present danger? Clearly an early warning signal!

Fallacy 2. "Each day, law enforcement personnel and intelligence officers are tracking terrorist threats; analysts are examining airline passenger lists;repparttar 126016 men and women of our new Homeland Security Department are patrolling our coasts and borders. And their vigilance is protecting America."

Americans and indeedrepparttar 126017 world should not live underrepparttar 126018 false hope of being protected byrepparttar 126019 intelligence officers. Becauserepparttar 126020 terrorists themselves are becoming more creative. Who has ever heard of shoe bombers before?

The U.S. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi exposed this illusion in her speech: "One hundred percent of containers coming into our ports or airports must be inspected. Today, only 3 percent are inspected. One hundred percent of chemical and nuclear plants inrepparttar 126021 United States must have high levels of security. Today,repparttar 126022 Bush Administration has tolerated a much lower standard. One hundred percent ofrepparttar 126023 enriched uranium and other material for weapons of mass destruction must be secured. Today,repparttar 126024 Administration has refused to commitrepparttar 126025 resources necessary to prevent it from falling intorepparttar 126026 hands of terrorists." In this case, is America protected? Ifrepparttar 126027 answer is no, what about other countries with less security measures and porous borders?

Fallacy 3. "We have not come all this way, through tragedy, and trials, and war, only to falter and leave our work unfinished." The war on terror is an unfinished business.

In fact,repparttar 126028 battle has only begun. Commenting on this,repparttar 126029 New York Times Magazine said thatrepparttar 126030 war on terror "isrepparttar 126031 beginning of an epic battle." And to support this, La Repubblica newspaper said: "Today we getrepparttar 126032 feeling that we are living inrepparttar 126033 middle of a tornado, an unparalleled catastrophe." Those are notrepparttar 126034 right words to describerepparttar 126035 end of a story.

Fallacy 4. "And by our will and courage, this danger must be defeated." That is a very upbeat statement. On 24 July 2003, US Vice-President Dick Cheney also sounded oracular when he said: "One by one, in every corner ofrepparttar 126036 world, we will huntrepparttar 126037 terrorists down and destroy them."

Al-Qaeda has now mutated into multifaceted anonymous groups. And this new phase is more dangerous thanrepparttar 126038 former centralized visible organization. Take a warning: Do not go to some radical Muslim country to search for terrorists. Because that your prodigal son, or your estranged husband, or in fact, that distant relative of yours may be a terrorist. A roll call inrepparttar 126039 prison at Guantanamo Bay reveals that even some Americans and Britons—citizens of two nations inrepparttar 126040 forefront ofrepparttar 126041 war on terror—have been "Talibanized."

Besides, these groups are becoming more desperate. They have succeeded in their use of surface-to-air missiles (SAMS)—tumbling down military aircrafts at will in Iraq. And make no mistake about it: these cave dwellers may crack a dirty nuke somewhere someday, or unleash a deadly plague. In that case, how wouldrepparttar 126042 world respond? Detonate a nuclear bomb? So you can see that "we are perilously near a new international anarchy" according torepparttar 126043 Washington Post. The war on terror, therefore, is not winnable.

Fallacy 5. "And one of these essential tools isrepparttar 126044 Patriot Act, which allows Federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets." Terrorism can not be wiped out by legislation. After all, these are man-made laws and man himself is imperfect. There must be loopholes, andrepparttar 126045 terrorists exploitrepparttar 126046 weakness ofrepparttar 126047 system. Now, what if they stop living in cells? Or what if they stop keeping their money in banks? Then they would be as elusive asrepparttar 126048 shadows.

Fallacy 6. "We are tracking al-Qaida aroundrepparttar 126049 world and nearly two-thirds of their known leaders have now been captured or killed. Thousands of very skilled and determined military personnel are onrepparttar 126050 manhunt, going afterrepparttar 126051 remaining killers who hide in cities and caves—and, one by one, we will bringrepparttar 126052 terrorists to justice." It is true that most ofrepparttar 126053 key terrorist suspects—including Saddam Hussein—have either been arrested or eliminated. But according to Time Magazine, "Lopping offrepparttar 126054 beast's head may not killrepparttar 126055 body." If Saddam or Osama bin laden are hanged today, more Saddams and Osamas will rise tomorrow. Terrorists want attention. And that is why various groups are eager to claim credit for any attack—even though they are not responsible. In like manner there may be a lord ofrepparttar 126056 flies waiting for Saddam and Osama to pass on before taking center stage and bringing his pursuers to ‘justice.'

How the Weapons Disappeared by George Bush

Written by Arthur Zulu

Fiction. That literary genre, supposed to be for dreamers, is growing fast. Not inrepparttar number of writers churning out fairy tales, but even among politicians—first citizens. Andrepparttar 126000 number one citizen ofrepparttar 126001 world for that matter—the President ofrepparttar 126002 United States!

Not that George Bush actually wrote an epic novel. But what he told Fox News recently, if crafted into a story, could make a best seller and go on to winrepparttar 126003 next Pulitzer. When asked why he invaded Iraq onrepparttar 126004 excuse thatrepparttar 126005 country possessed weapons of mass destruction when it actually had none,repparttar 126006 President gave three reasons as to howrepparttar 126007 weapons disappeared.

First reason. ‘It might have been destroyed duringrepparttar 126008 war.’

He meant thatrepparttar 126009 fighting army duringrepparttar 126010 war in Iraq destroyedrepparttar 126011 weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps those heavy military tanks shelling intorepparttar 126012 desert country destroyed it. Or those bombing military planes. In that case,repparttar 126013 weapons were not hidden underground whenrepparttar 126014 UN inspectors visited beforerepparttar 126015 war. Or they were bribed. The weapons were conspicuously displayed in buildings—withinrepparttar 126016 reach of everyone, even enemy army.

If this were so, we should hold these ‘liberators’ accountable for destroying this very bit of evidence. Not only did they destroyrepparttar 126017 weapons, they incinerated everything and scoopedrepparttar 126018 ashes intorepparttar 126019 River Tigres so that David Kay couldn’t find any evidence. I propose that an International Court be set up to try these servicemen and women for destroying weapons of mass destruction. Andrepparttar 126020 ‘members ofrepparttar 126021 coalition ofrepparttar 126022 willing’ should be re-named ‘members ofrepparttar 126023 coalition of destruction.’

But if you are so skeptical not to believe this, there is another story.

Second reason. ‘They might have been destroyed by Saddam.’

My God! there is nothing that this Saddam can not do. Even inrepparttar 126024 midst ofrepparttar 126025 war, he managed to destroy his dangerous weapons. But did he not need it to fightrepparttar 126026 ‘infidels’? Why should a good soldier destroy his weapons inrepparttar 126027 center of battle?

And this raises another question. What happens when nuclear weapons are exploded? Or was it that Saddam carried out a controlled, secretive, clever destruction of those weapons? This Saddam Hussein must be a genius of a kind—out of this world!

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use