Finally, The Silent Left Wakes Up!!

By Dwight Day

In January 2001 when George Bush became the new occupant of the White House, things were different. One has only to look at the first 21 months of the Bush administration, in terms of economic factors, and then make up his or her mind.

On Inauguration Day, the Dow Jones was at 10,587; it's down 32.5 percent. The unemployment rate is up 36 percent. The budget has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $157 billion deficit. We have also lost two million jobs. One would think that Republicans would not be comfortable running on that kind of record. But lo and behold there is no focus on the economy and so this is allowed.

We have had a tax cut which didn't help. The few hundred dollars that we all received in tax rebates was gone in a week and I haven't really seen a difference in my meager paycheck.

Until recently, the Democrats in congress had become spineless, afraid of standing up to their obligation under the U.S. Constitution. A few weeks ago, it appeared that they were just about to give the President a blank check to do as he pleased all over the world. It is an election year and no one wants to appear as if they are not in the fight against terrorism. Although polls show a slight majority for taking down Saddam, the Democrats would be putting politics over the interest of the American people by simply acquiescing to the President without much debate.

This "if you are not with us, then you are against us" kind of rhetoric used by President Bush in his address to the nation at the beginning of the year casts a wide blanket which does not help us in conducting world diplomacy. It cuts off all debate even here at home.

As someone said, "I guess if President Bush said Al Qaeda was related to the Democrats they would vote to bomb themselves." It's just pathetic that the voice of the left has become so weak. Where are the moderates?

Ok, we just recognized the one-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people. However, has anyone stopped to realize how many innocent people have died overseas at the hands of our government? Make no mistake, we could multiply the number times hundreds and the result would be shocking.

The U.S. is at a time in its history when it's probably at its strongest militarily. I used to believe that the U.S. was a country that used its power to champion democracy. I had to rethink that thought lately. We have had to give up so much since 9/11 and who knows we may still have to give up more.

The reality is we go in and bomb and then withdraw. The U.S. is not into nation building. President Bush who before 9/11, seemed to be an isolationist, a non-interventionist and not for U.S. troops all over the world, has now post 9/11, made a 180-degree turn. Nevertheless, this is not the time for a lone cowboy attack and we should not be risking the lives of American troops for a family vendetta.

Iraq did not attack us. It has been minding its own affairs. Yes, I agree that Saddam is bad, and he might be developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which by the way we helped him to get when we liked him. But how did we jump from Al Qaeda to Iraq? How have we been so gullible to let President Bush convince us that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam?

I must credit the President in going before the United Nations but let us give the U.N. weapon inspectors a chance. Although I laughed at the thought of the U.S. going before the United Nations (because not so long ago it was refusing to pay its dues), I saw the vital need of such action. So it was not just a big joke. The President told the U.N. "Show the world that you have some use - that you can act." To the rest of the world it seems that the U.N. is just a mere pawn for the U.S. to use at its convenience.

So how do you fight a terrorist? The terrorist has no state. They are individuals. Some are born in America. This is a different type of war and I doubt that it's by bombing or killing tat for tat. If anyone truly believes that getting rid of Saddam will make us any safer, they have another guess coming.

Why can't America say, "No!! We will end the cycle of violence. We will fight terrorism but we will focus on terrorists." Ok enough rambling.

I won't even mention the arrogance and secrecy in the current administration which won't release certain files nor directly answer to Congress or the American people.

The former doctrines of Containment, Non Proliferation, and Deterrence have now been flushed down the toilet. Now we have a new doctrine of MILITARY GLOBAL SUPREMACY, one of First Strike Preemption. Is this the doctrine of infinite arrogance? This is just absurd. Is anyone awake? I know this is a sovereign acting and that there is no entity above the sovereign, but what about international law? Can one nation just decide to get rid of another sovereign's government? Who gives America the right to be so almighty to dictate regime change in Iraq? In Palestine? Again, it's not what our objections are, but how we go about achieving these objections.

I just have to keep laughing especially when I read stuff like "Will not allow any foreign state to catch up or pass us or take the place of the former Soviet Union." Even if that is our goal, which is formidable, it's not the way the world's last remaining Superpower should be acting.

And then we wonder why Americans are hated? Ok moving right along.

Are we really talking about defense in pursuit of freedom? We do not have a history of doing well in interventions so why will this time be any different?

I won't be cynical and say ok it is two oilmen from an oil state going after the second largest reserve of oil in the world. I do not question that President Bush believes what he believes. I do not doubt his patriotism. However, although I respect his view, I beg to disagree. Is that still allowed in America?

Then not to mention the cost of this war! Both the White House and the Congressional Budget Office estimate between 100 and 200 Billion dollars for the cost of such an undertaking. And that is just the cost of winning the war, not of securing the peace and rebuilding afterwards. Where is this money going to come from? And why not instead spend this money (which we don't have) on a national health insurance plan or to jumpstart the economy?

Does it not then seem silly to act alone or with just Great Britain? Let's allow the U.N. weapon inspectors to go in - call Saddam's bluff - and then go in with the support of other countries. After all, we are making the world safer not just for ourselves but for everyone on the planet and others should help to foot the bill.

The job at hand is taking down Al Qaeda. We can't even get Bin Laden, and we are going to go after Saddam. The sacrifices of the Navy, the Green Beret, etc., are already great and the cost of Afghanistan is already overwhelming.

In the end it comes down to how you see the world. It could be a generation thing or it could be an arrogance thing or it could be plain stupidity. Whatever view you take, the outcome looks bleak and we are probably all doomed.

Dwight Day is Editor/Publisher of The House of YAD and an Editor-in-Chief & a Founding Editor of De Novo, the New York Law School student newspaper.