How can he say this stuff?

I realize I've been a little heavy on things other than pictures, recipes, and trips to the zoo lately. Maybe it's just a phase, or maybe it's just the times we're living in, but for now, I can't just let these things go by without comment. Every night I vow to go to bed early, and every night I feel like maybe I'm missing something important, so I go off on a dozen or so internet tangents and fill my head with unpleasant facts. And then I feel compelled to tell people - people I know and love, as well as complete stangers who may happen upon this site - about what is going on in the world. And I know there are others who are much better at this sort of thing than I am. But I feel like I have to do something, and this at least feels like something.

It occured to me recently that if you just read the White House press releases and listen to what the administration says, it's easy to believe things are just ducky. It's even easier if you get your news from the main stream media. And if you watch Fox News, it's nearly impossible to find fault with the administration.

Today, President Bush said:

"Some say that America caused the current instability in the Middle East by pursuing a forward strategy of freedom, yet history shows otherwise. We didn't talk much about freedom or the freedom agenda in the Middle East before September the 11th, 2001; or before al Qaeda first attacked the World Trade Center and blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the 1990s; or before Hezbollah killed hundreds of Americans in Beirut and Islamic radicals held American hostages in Iran in the 1980s. History is clear: The freedom agenda did not create the terrorists or their ideology. But the freedom agenda will help defeat them both."

He also said that Hezbollah attacked Israel without provocation, but I'm not going to get in to that tonight. On the surface, it would appear that he is addressing those who would question his policies and that he might go on to justify his position with relevant facts. Instead, he set up a false argument that he counters not with facts, but with empty rhetoric.

What immediately jumped out at me was the fact - not the rumor, but the historical fact - that the reason Islamic radicals held American hostages was a direct (though delayed) result of the U.S. and Great Britain orchestrating a coup that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. They essentially installed a puppet ruler in the Shah. Why did the U.S. and Great Briatin do that? Because Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry. It was all about the oil even back then. The pro-Western Shah ruled in a more and more authoritarian fashion until he was ousted by a popular revolt. As I undertand it, part of the reason for the hostage crisis was another impending operation to restore the Shah to power.

Of course, at the end of that crisis, there's the whole October Surprise where it seems at least plausible, if not likely that the Reagan campaign neogtiated (illegaly) with the Iranian government to undermine the Carter Administration's efforts at diplomacy and extend the crisis until after Reagan was elected. Just a coincidence, do you think, that the hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugurated? This paragraph is largely speculation, but there is a lot of supporting evidence out there.

I'm a little fuzzy on the other atrocities he cited. And while it will take me a while to fill in the specific details, I know that in every case he mentioned, including September 11th (what year was that again? I wonder if President Bush even knows), the attacks on U.S. interests were motivated by oppostion towards and anger over U.S. policies. They don't hate our freedoms. They hate the way we meddle in their affairs and prop up unpopular un-democratic governments because they are freindly to U.S. (and British) oil interests.

And here we are today, the U.S. and Great Britain meddling in the affairs of an oil producing country in the Middle East - Iraq this time. Which has nothing to do with al Queda or the attack on September 11th (2001) or any of the other attacks he mentioned.

He's right about just one thing in that paragraph - History is clear: The freedom agenda (whatever that is) did not create the terrorists or their ideology. But he's completely wrong in thinking his current approach will defeat them.

Did you hear about Ian Wright's $100,000 electric car that is faster 0-60 than every car on the planet save for the $1.25 million Bugatti Veyron? If the money we've wasted in Iraq (Over $307,000,000,000 according to that little counter up there on the right) had been spent on alternative energy research, we'd wouldn't need the oil that prompts those who claim to know what is in our nation's strategic interest to do the things they do.

That would go a long way towards the goal of reducing terrorism and ultimately getting the terrorists to change their ideology and not want to blow us up so much.