Excellent!

##################

The Evildoers And The Misled

By Arianna Huffington

President Bush has made one thing clear: The war on terror is us vs. them. He's taken every opportunity to brand the terrorists and the Taliban as "the evil ones" -- the unmistakable contrast in this theological tableau being that we Americans are the "good ones."

So what are we to make of John Walker, the 20-year-old All-American kid who turned Taliban warrior -- and even condoned the Sept. 11 attack on his homeland?

I was always troubled by the president's repeated references to "the evil ones" -- from his first press conference after the attack, when he mentioned "the evil one" and "evildoers" five times, to his recent vow that "across the world and across the years, we will fight the evil ones, and we will win." I objected not because the terrorists aren't evil but because, as much as we would love it to be true, such a simple demarcation of good and evil flies in the face of history, religion and human nature.

The lure of this kind of reductionist thinking is not a new one. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, himself a victim of some of the most horrific evil of the 20th century, warned against it in "The Gulag Archipelago": "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."

Since Walker's capture, his friends and family have described him as "a sweet, kind, intelligent kid" with "a wonderful sense of humor," a devout Muslim who planned to go to medical school, then minister to the poor of Pakistan. So how did this "sweet kid" end up fighting arm-in-arm with the Taliban in the bloody riot at the Kala Jangi fortress in which a CIA agent was savagely beaten to death?

The answer is as simple as it is complex. "Now is the time to draw the line in the sand against the evil ones," said the president. The problem is the line in the sand is inside each human being. Walker crossed that line when he made the choice to embrace evil. Might the shocking revelation of "one of us" among "one of them" stop the president from being so smug as to think that carrying an American passport somehow exempts us from crossing that line?

First indications are not promising. When asked about Walker, W, the Slayer of Evil, went positively mushy, calling the AK-47-toting Talib "this poor fellow" who had "obviously been misled." Apparently "evil" automatically morphs into "misled" when pronounced with an American accent.

Since the president seems convinced that evil is an Al-Jazeera exclusive, I suggest he take a look at the mounting evidence that the terrorists responsible for the anthrax attacks are homegrown. New tests show that the powder used in the deadly mailings was of a strength that has only been produced by the U.S. military. The FBI is focusing on the likelihood that someone connected to America's now defunct biowarfare program is behind the attacks.

"I don't think they're manufacturing this in caves," said Dr. Ken Alibek, a scientist who used to work in the Soviet Union's germ weapons program. "It's coming from another source." One with a U.S. return address.

Nevertheless, the president continues to divide humanity into the moral equivalent of shirts and skins. "Our responsibility to history," he said, "is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." And this is a man who balked at nation building? Not only is this a ludicrous principle on which to base a foreign policy but also an equally ludicrous interpretation of the world's major religions. Mr. Bush should pull out his trusty Bible and brush up on what it says about original sin.

American ingenuity has come up with a vaccine against anthrax. But it has not come up with a way to inoculate us against evil. To pretend otherwise is to hold a worldview that cannot incorporate developments such as an American Talib, American bioterrorists, or whatever other red, white and blue bombshells the future may hold.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Answers

Methinks shrub should study the effects of The Great War Between the States in greater detail. In that war, brothers did indeed fight brothers, and siblings could be the "enemy", or fathers or uncles. To call them all evil would have been simple-minded and foolish, but, shrub does indeed fill that bill!!!

Just yet another reason for us all to vote "the same old, same old" out of office, and get some new intelligent blood as the leaders of this fine country, ones that KNOW HOW to read the Constitution and follow what it says.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Hey, for those of us who didn't vote for GWB [I am one of those], do you ever sit and wonder or speculate what YOUR candidate would have done, faced with the events of Sept. 11th? I do, though I've not come to any conclusions thus far.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Good point Joy, but really I can't think of anything that shrub did that ANYONE with just half a brain could have done equally as well!

Can you think of just what shrub did that was so out of ordinary?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

No, I can't, Annie. But I was just meaning it as wondering what if Nader HAD been elected? Or Gore? Or your candidate, Annie -- sorry, can't remember, was that Harry Browne? Just wondering, not comparing to GWB -- at least, not in terms of 'judging' his actions.

Just a side note, if the Dems want to win the next Prez election, they'd better start NOW to build up a strong, appealing candidate, eh?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

Nope, I haven't contemplated what Browne would have done had he been elected. I guess I can only focus on who is *actually* in the White House and not on what might have been.

Perhaps it's a lack of imagination on my part... :-)

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

My guess, and it is totally off the cuff, would be that Harry Browne would have never went to war over a criminal action such as the terrorists strike of 9-11, and I see it the same way, it's a criminal case just like the Oklahoma bombing.

There was no Constitutinal reason to declare war on "terrorism", now that is a very vague target for sure, designed to take away more of our civil liberties under the guise of patriotism.

We would/should have offered aid in the form of money, hospitals, doctors, and most importantly food, the poor Afghans are starving as we speak. Oh yes, they'll be "free" now due to our efforts in killing and bombing an already war torn country, free, that is, for the ones that haven't already died of starvation, or who are dying as we speak. They desperately need food and shelter, not more fighting over just who gets to be in charge of their country. Worry about saving their lives, then worry about how to control their country and drive out the megalomaniacs in charge now.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

My sentiments exactly, Annie!

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001