Monitor archives:
Copyrighted material

London Attacks Prove We Must Follow Bush Blindly

by Steve Young

Steve Young columns

The war that we're fighting over there so it won't come here, just In London, of course, but as England and the U.S. are attached at the hip on this one, it might as well be here.

The punditing Lords of Loud will most certainly use this moment in tragedy to politicize the attacks. (For the undoctrinated, "politicizing" is anything your opponent brings up.) So here they go again, evoking another 9/11 and all too ready to demand we all walk on red, white and blue eggshells.

The most macho of all the Lords of Loud, Sir William O'Reilly, cut his vacation short to scold anyone who would question our President's policies in the wake of the attacks. That if you did, you are anti-American and are aiding the terrorists. My guess is that he felt that his sub, little Johnnie "Terrorists Could Blow Up Paris And Who Cares?" Gibson was too junior to handle the haranguing himself. I remember Gibson a few years back on Geraldo, covering the O.J. debacle, as the voice of reason. Reason flew out the window the day he figured out that FOX News was a bellicose broadcaster's money pit.

O'Reilly said, and reiterated frequently, that, as always, the numero uno traitor on the anti-American, aiding-the-terrorists, hit list, was the New York Times. Basically, the Times should be shuttled off to Gitmo because they referenced Zarqawi as a "Jordanian fighter" instead of as a "terrorist." What seems to have slipped by Bill's crack researchers is that the anti-Bush, anti-American Washington Times has also labeled Zarqawi a "Jordanian militant" as well as an "insurgent leader."

The major chastisement though, was to demand that time had come to forget the past, deal with the mess as it is, and get on with winning the war in Iraq. And that means following President Bush's lead, because this is a war we cannot afford to lose. I mean, that's what you would do if you were an O'Reilly American.

Here's my problem, Bill: Let's say for the sake of argument, that the President and his war council have never lied to us. And let's say, for the sake of argument, now that we are in Iraq, mistake or not, because terrorists from all over the world have immigrated there to fight, we have no choice but to battle them there. I still have a small question:


We will hunt down our #1 enemy...bin Laden.

There are WMD in Iraq...except that there weren't.

Saddam Hussein has the ability to attack the U.S...except he didn't.

We will be greeted with flowers and as liberators...yet thousands of our young men and women have been killed or maimed (and not by flowers).

The war would pay for itself...and we are now many hundreds of billions more in debt.

We would need less soldiers, not more, to get the job done...and now we are forced to use the weekend warriors of the National Guard over and over and over to cover for huge drops in recruitment.

That the war would take us weeks -- 6 months, tops...AND YEARS LATER WE ARE STILL THERE.

And let's say for the sake of argument that these were just "mistakes." This is a president and an administration who feel that these "mistakes," that have cost lives, billions and our credibility throughout the world, should be rewarded with medals of freedom, high level promotions and distinguished nominations to places like, say, the United Nations.

This President and his hand-selected underlings have made mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake. And the reason he never admits to them is because to do so, he'd have to admit it so many times that sooner or later the American public would get the idea that perhaps, too many mistakes are too many. And the polls show they are finally appreciating the cost of these mistakes.

C'mon, Bill. You're a smart guy. Why is does it make so much sense to you that we follow the same people who have blundered us so extraordinary into one catastrophe after another? Since when is it so patriotic to be so partisanly blind? Rather than patriotic, wouldn't a person pushing that kind of logic be a...pinhead?

It brings to mind a rather obfuscated proverb. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 50 or 60 times, shame on those who continue to support a fool.

Steve Young is the author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" and can be heard on L.A.'s KTLK AM1150 (Sat 1-4PM) and read every Sunday in the L.A. Daily News Oped page (right next to Bill O'Reilly).

Comments? Send a letter to the editor.

Albion Monitor July 7, 2005 (

All Rights Reserved.

Contact for permission to use in any format.