A story in Friday’s Clovis News Journal reported on protesters questioning President Bush. I’d like to answer some of the questions.
Jason Call asked why 1,000 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis are dead. Mr. Call, one word will help you understand why those people are dead: War.
Sadly, this is what happens in war. People die. Until a better way is found to rid the world of dictators who feel they must murder hundreds of thousands of their own fellow countrymen and women, this is the way it will be. You will recall that diplomatic resolutions to the problem of Iraq were tried for many years to no avail. As a last resort, force was used. You will also recall that war has ended slavery, Nazism, fascism, and communism. The number of lives lost doing so is astounding. However, if you know of a better way, please tell us how.
Robert DiGiulo wanted to know if President Bush knows what fascism is and if he realizes he is leading us there. He also criticized President Bush for cutting taxes for corporations and going to Iraq for oil.
I am sure President Bush knows what fascism is, but allow me to clarify for those who do not. According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”
I really would like to know how DiGiulo concludes that President Bush is leading us toward fascism if it is defined as stated above. President Bush is, by no means, a dictator. If he is leading us to a centralized autocratic government, it is with the help of both Houses of Congress, and is doing a good job of keeping it secret from the American public.
There is no severe economic and social regimentation, and definitely no forcible suppression of opposition. I am of the opinion that “the rich” (corporations included) need tax relief as well. I do know that “the rich” (corporations included) shoulder the heaviest burden in taxes.
If the war was for oil, DiGiulo should be angry with the members of Congress not allowing the drilling of oil in Alaska as proposed by President Bush. Doing so would have lessened our dependence on foreign oil and, according to DiGiulo’s statement, might have diverted a war in Iraq for the substance.
Avery Lueras asked why President Bush went against 70 to 80 percent of the country, and the world, and went to war anyway. The money spent on the war, Lueras states, could be used for education and child poverty.
Lueras would do well to remember that both houses of Congress overwhelmingly gave approval to President Bush for war. When our country was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an overwhelming rally of support from the country was apparent. So to say President Bush went to war against the wishes of so many is thoroughly false.
As for the world, Lueras is on shaky ground as well. A resolution was passed at the United Nations stating that if Iraq did not comply with said resolution, force could be used. If the world did not want to go to war, U.N. representatives should not have agreed to the use of force in the resolution they signed.
To say the money for the war could go to education and child poverty is opening a whole new set of arguments. With the money the United States has poured and is pouring into education — and education still continues to decline in this country — it would be safe to conclude more money toward this problem will not fix it.
As for the money being used to combat child poverty, Lueras should be happy that President Bush has passed, and is trying to pass more, tax cuts across the board. Cutting taxes means more money in Americans’ pockets. More money in our pockets helps with alleviating poverty, including child poverty.
Caleb Brandon is a lifetime resident of Clovis. Contact him at: