Five Years Later, the Question Remains
Why?
After Bush leaves office, we should not expect a revealing autobi- ography from him. His speech on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and re-assertion of his decision-making infallibility indicates we may never know why he and the Bush F-Team engaged in that lunatic mis- sion. Not even thousands of American lives and a trillion wasted dollars later.
The U.S. military probably will never rethink its mind-numbing, blinders-on tradition of loyalty to its commander-in-chief (he's their's, not ours) instead of to the American people, the real subjects owed alle- giance. And it probably will never realize it no longer has the capability of fighting a war if it has to put boots on the ground. The world has changed and everybody else in the world appears to know that except the U.S. military. We can only fight successfully as we did in Serbia nearly 10 years ago, from thousands of feet in the air. The military should have learned that lesson more than 30 years ago in Vietnam. But then, pro- motions still flow more freely during a war.
But the biggest puzzle that probably will remain unsolved, unless psychiatry gains the ability to analyze from a distance, is why Dick Cheney, the Bush F-Team's architect and tacit leader, is the hateful, nasty character that he is. The answer to that question may provide us with the answer to why we were so hell-bent to invade Iraq.
In our line of work, we have met several presidents and vice presi- dents, dozens of Cabinet officers, hundreds of senators and thousands of House members, including Cheney when he was there, and are hard put to think of a nastier person in public office. A reporter could understand his hatred of the press, as many members of Congress share that feel- ing. But rarely do any of them take it to the personal level, with a sneer, a snide remark or hateful statement or even an occasional gross insult. Congressman Cheney would simply walk past a reporter and ignore him or her with his trademark head-down stride if he thought he had nothing to gain by responding to a question.
Today's Cheney is far worse. He does not limit his open disdain to reporters any more, if he ever did. Now, according to him, his disdain apparently extends to anyone who disagrees with him.
Witness this interview with a TV reporter in Oman on the fifth an- niversary of the Bush F-Team escapade. Read it, third page, or view it.
Reporter, lamely: "Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fight- ing, and they're looking at the value gain versus the cost in Amer- ican lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives."
Cheney, after an uncomfortably long pause: "So?"
Reporter: "So......you don't care what the American people think?"
Cheney: "No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctua- tions in the public-opinion polls."
And Cheney goes on to equate the determination to stay the course in Iraq with Lincoln's determination during the Civil War, an amaz- ingly ludicrous comparison.
Well, this Gallup poll graph looks like a fairly steady rise to us, the rise beginning the moment the invasion was launched and "mission accomplished" claimed. But as Cheney says, we, as well as you, don't count.
Cheney's haughty attitude sums things up quite well, we think.
But why did we plunge into this quagmire in the first place? That is the question of the century so far.
None of the theories voiced so far rise in importance enough to justify the Bush F-Team's actions. Not oil, not one-upping one's Daddy, not payback for trying to have Daddy assassinated and not a simple- minded democracy crusade that will have just the opposite of the intend- ed effect. The better question is: what was Cheney's motive?
Why? Why? Why?
