Thursday, January 20, 2005

On "integrity"

According to the only dictionary I have at hand:

integrity n. 1. moral uprightness; honesty. 2. wholeness; soundness.

Condaleeza Rice, in her exchange with Barbara Boxer, was very concerned that her integrity not be impugned. This implies, of course, that she believes she has integrity. If the above definition is correct I suggest that she has none. She lied repeatedly about Iraq and Iraq’s capabilities in order to promote an illegal, unconstitutional, and totally unnecessary war. She lied about the content of memos having to do with the intentions of terrorists. And she lied about numerous other matters. Certainly many of her statements and actions also could not be considered very sound. Under questioning she admitted that mistakes had been made – although she didn’t name any and did not accept any blame for any. Democrats managed today to stall her confirmation until next week although why that will make much difference is not at all clear. She will surely be confirmed.

By the above definition it can be said quite definitively that the entire Bush/Cheney Administration lacks integrity. They have not only lacked moral uprightness but have been consistently dishonest. And their conduct of the “war” and international relations could be considered “sound” only by the most fantastic stretch of imagination. How is it they have managed to fool most of the people all the time? According to the latest numbers I have seen, fully 39% of Americans believe the “war” is not going well and we should withdraw as soon as possible. Where were these people in the last election (if, indeed, you can even consider it an election, more like an abomination).

Not content with having virtually destroyed the United States military with their misguided and stupid Iraqi venture, they are now making noises about attacking Iran. If this isn’t insanity on a grand scale I don’t know what is. And today, apparently Cheney suggested that Israel may take it upon themselves to take action against Iran, leaving others to pick up the pieces (who do you suppose those “others” might be). I say if Israel wants to start something with Iran let them pick up their own pieces, if there will be any left to pick up. There will never be any chance whatsoever for peace in the Middle East until Israeli greed for territory and water is curbed. And there may not be even then, given the fact that Israel should probably never have been given Palestinian lands in the first place. How would we have liked it if the British had decided to give the Jews a homeland in Rhode Island? In fact, the whole damn mess in the Middle East, and in much of Africa and other parts of the world, can be attributed to the acts of the British Empire, trying to create nations where there were none, trying to merge ethnic groups that were traditional enemies, and etc. As the British created the mess they should be made to deal with it now. But oh, I forgot about the oil. Silly me.

No comments: