I knew this clever, conniving and morally lacking man who was advising another person having relationship difficulties.
The advice came to, "When she starts arguing with you about something you did, deny, deny, counter-accuse." While the angel of good conscience told me that was probably a terrible way of dealing with an argument, the devil of bad conscience informed me that this was a very effective way of ending an argument.
I think the Bush administration has been listening to the devil and embarking upon this terrible, but effective, way of ending arguments.
On Oct. 16, 2002, the United States officially declared war on Iraq, ignoring portions of the citizenry that, even before the beginning of the conflict, declared the war would be unjust.
Deny: Bush and his administration justified the Iraq war, claiming the country possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Deny: Bush also stated, "Hussein aids and protects terrorists."
Counter-Accuse: Bush recently proclaimed, "Terrorists would take control of Iraq and establish a new safe haven for which to launch new attacks on America."
The highest ranking CIA official in Europe, recently retired Tyler Drumheller, reported to 60 Minutes that Bush has ignored crucial information regarding weapons of mass destruction in April 2006. Shortly after the ground war ended, the CIA reported to a Senate committee that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
As for terrorists, al-Qaida has members in over 70 countries, including the US, according to CIA reports. Under this logic, are we to finish the conflict in Iraq and continue to topple the dominoes in othercountries?
Is there a board with a list of host countries waiting to have the chalk line of war drawn through them? And when we get to the bottom of the list, are we going to begin fighting and hunting for terrorists in our own streets? Where does the use of war, death, and destruction to combat global US dissenters end?
Communists, the enemy of America's way of life two decades ago, have control in China, North Korea and Vietnam, to name a few. Sudan, Iran, Cuba and Pakistan have sponsored, harbored, trained, and betrayed terrorists within their own borders.
Is America responsible and morally justified in putting combat troops in the cities of these sovereign nations with no more than a hunch of violent potential from these countries to go on?
Recently, a report compiled by Johns Hopkins School of Public Health was published in the British medical digest, The Lancet that approximates the Iraqi death toll to be 600,000. For an approximation, I would be willing to say the figure is off by 200,000 - you do the math.
Deny: The day after the report, Bush said, "I don't consider it a credible report."
Deny: He further said, "Neither does Gen. Casey and neither do the Iraqi officials."
Counter-Accuse: He finished with, "The method is pretty well discredited."
John Hopkins School of Public Health has been conducting surveys in 50 countries studying the effects of HIV and other major health issues affecting populations with consistent and well documented results. John Hopkins School of Public Health is a consistently number-one-ranked school by US News and World Report. I believe the John Hopkins School of Public Health has squeaked by on credibility.
Furthermore, Bush "applauded" the Iraqis for the courage in the face of violence, as if the Iraqi people were given a choice before having war waged in their country. I guess I should be applauded for breathing oxygen.
We need to start listening to what the government is telling us and not just hearing what the government is telling us.
The information is available if you look. Unless, of course, you like the sound of deny, deny, counter-accuse.
Jason Hodson is a senior mathematics major and writes 'Towards disrespectful authority' for the Daily News. His views do not necessarily agree with those of the newspaper.
Write to Jason at jlhodson@bsu.edu.