OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: George W. Bush, Chickenhawk in Chief

As a result of his evasion of service in the Vietnam War, Bush has no firsthand experience in or appreciation of the risks of war, such as becoming a prisoner of war. This truancy undoubtedly contributed to him sending American troops into combat without proper body armor and enough armored vehicles. It contributed to him employing policies that created so many more insurgents and enemies of America instead of winning over hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan. This includes being indifferent to tremendous civilian casualties, allowing Iraqi home invasions, imprisoning numerous innocent people including children, allowing people to be imprisoned for years based on the shoddiest evidence, holding detainees for years without charges, eliminating their right of habeas corpus, sanctioning the abuse and torture of prisoners, and gutting the Geneva Conventions meant to protect American and foreign troops. All of these policies created many more enemies and thus many more American casualties.

Bush never needed the protection of the Geneva Conventions, but American troops do. Because Bush discarded the Geneva Conventions for enemy combatants who become prisoners of war, American troops who become prisoners of war can't expect to be treated under the Geneva Conventions by the enemy. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, beheaded American Nick Berg as revenge for humiliation and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison by American troops. What a way to die. The American public should be outraged that this beheading was caused by the Bush Administration's policies for treatment of prisoners.

The president of the United States is supposed to be the commander in chief of the armed services, not their chickenhawk in chief. Bush doesn't have the moral authority to send troops into combat when he was too scared to serve in the war fought by his generation. Bush supported the Vietnam War as long as he didn't have to fight in it. While he evaded service in Vietnam, many other young Americans died in his place.

Why would any veteran or member of the military support someone who shirked his duties when he honorably performed or is performing his duties? Why would any citizen support someone with such a disgraceful military record? Why would anybody reward cowardice over courage?

Through his actions and words, Bush essentially said that if his country needed him, don't call on him, but send someone else in his place. Now Bush thinks he can lead the armed services and the country. Wake up, America. If he didn't have the courage to serve, he doesn't have the courage to lead.

1 | 2