Alex Yawor – 4/23/06

This page was last updated on July 3, 2006.

Good reasons to question Bush; Alex Yawor; Beaver County Times; April 23, 2006.

Mr. Yawor’s previous letters attempted to bash President Bush regarding Iraq and VP Cheney regarding his hunting accident.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“An April 10 article had the headline ‘White House downplays talk of strike against Iran.’

“The first paragraph said that President Bush is seeking a diplomatic solution to Tehran’s suspected nuclear weapons program. The next paragraph and several reports published Sunday said the administration was studying options for military strikes: one account raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran’s underground nuclear sites.

“Britain’s foreign secretary called the idea of a nuclear strike ‘completely nuts.’ I call it ‘completely ludicrous.’”

[RWC] Not surprisingly, Mr. Yawor didn’t present Mr. Straw’s statement in context. Here’s how it was presented in The Times (London) on April 10, 2006. “The Foreign Secretary described the idea that the White House wanted a nuclear strike as ‘completely nuts’. He insisted that Britain would not support pre-emptive military action, adding: ‘I’m as certain as I can be sitting here that neither would the United States.’”

Of course, the reason Mr. Yawor didn’t present the comment in context is that it would have blown the central premise of his letter.

“The president took us to war in Iraq because he said it had WMD, weapons that we still have not found. Now, he wants to use nuclear weapons on Iran because of a ‘suspected nuclear program.’”

[RWC] Mr. Yawor is lying. President Bush neither said nor implied “he wants to use nuclear weapons on Iran.”

Regarding the WMD, how long will folks like Mr. Yawor try to hang on to this? Democrats were telling us about WMD in Iraq long before President Bush took office, and immediately before the war many of them stated Iraq was greater threat than did President Bush. If you believe people like Mr. Yawor, President Bush came up with the idea Iraq had WMD and the rest of the world disagreed.

“The whole world hates us now. How do you think they will feel if we use nuclear weapons on Iran? I cannot begin to think how much hatred there would be.”

[RWC] The whole world doesn’t hate us. It’s only nations and folks like Mr. Yawor.

“The president said that Iran is a threat to world peace. Why are we the ones to do all of the fighting and dying? Did God say that we are the protector of the world? If that is so, why aren’t we in Africa helping the people there that are being murdered by the thousands every day?”

[RWC] Everyone – except the Iranians – accepts “Iran is a threat to world peace.” That’s why they are trying to negotiate with Iran.

“BBC News of England has estimated that 194,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed and 350,000 seriously injured because of the wars.”

[RWC] I believe you’ll find Mr. Yawor got it wrong again. It was reported that there’s a 95% probability that the actual number of civilians killed is between 8,000 and 194,000. That’s nowhere near the same as claiming the death toll has been estimated to be 194,000. You’ll note Mr. Yawor doesn’t mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that continue to be found buried in mass graves by Saddam Hussein. You’ll also note Mr. Yawor didn’t mention the vast majority of Iraqi civilian deaths are the result of terrorist actions.

“How many civilians would die in Iran if we would start to use nuclear weapons there? I do not think that would make the other Arab nations happy and would probably cause them to send suicide bombers here to kill our civilians.”

[RWC] Mr. Yawor needs to retake geography; Iran is not an “Arab nation.” Arabs make up a small minority of Iran’s population.

I know folks like Mr. Yawor like to ignore this fact, but Arabs – Muslims is probably more accurate – already sent “suicide bombers here to kill our civilians,” twice. The first time was the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the second was the attack of September 11, 2001.

“By the way, could it be possible the reason we do not go to Africa to help is because there is no oil where the people are being murdered??”

[RWC] Was that the reason President Clinton did nothing during the 1994 Rwanda genocide in which approximately 800,000 people were murdered?

The primary reason we went into Iraq is because we perceived a threat to our security. Whether it speaks well of us or not, what is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan is no threat to the U.S.