Do unto Others as You Would Have Them Do unto You


This is in response to the lengthy article regarding the analysis of President Bush’s decisions. It was interesting in that the evaluation technique used was to assert certain derogatory accusations supported by suppositions drawn from such things as remarks made by the President. The room for error in such a technique is far greater than any error the President may have made in one of the weightiest and difficult jobs in the world! Not to recognize the burden of being at the helm of a country like America at one of the most extraordinary times in history, is a major flaw in seeking to promote understanding. It is equally erroneous not to cite the job description of a person charged to protect the American people who were unilaterally attacked on that fateful day in September 2001. Thus, when key facts and historical context are omitted, one must ask if the ones making the published remarks have a disingenuous agenda. President Bush called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea “an axis of evil.” Recent history has shown that remark to be entirely accurate, yet he was widely criticized – though he was right. Again that incident demonstrated that the criticism was based on personal opinion and not actually on fact. How many people have listened to or read the multitude of President Bush’s speeches? How many people have taken the time to listen to the President’s good ideas which are often ignored? And how many are making judgments based on carefully construed media sound bytes? It behoves good journalists to depart from innuendos and to get the facts. Thus, the facts like President Bush’s desire to protect the sanctity of life and to appoint godly judges in America should be considered. Can someone in Africa with all of the continent’s independence struggles find fault with Mr. Bush’s desire to spread freedom in the world? Actual strategies may be disputed (which is quite difficult for laymen with no access to classified documents), but the article attacked the thought behind the decisions of the President, and so this is also what I am addressing. What is also interesting is the massive amount of newspaper space given to such articles, and not to the destructive thinking patterns of an Arab Sudanese government on a campaign of genocide against African people in Darfur, or of its slave policy during the civil war in southern Sudan. Where are the newspaper articles which analyze the thinking behind Muslims killing Muslims from Sudan, to Somalia, to Gaza, to Iraq? Where are the articles which examine the background and intent of statements made by the president of Iran? To use the technique employed by the authors of your published article, one could also draw a conclusion that such unbalanced reporting actually reflects bias and skewed thinking. The golden rule says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What is also interesting is that Namibia’s own prime minister – Mr Nahas Angula – has actually commented on the INCREASED support from the United States President’s Emergency Fund to aid Namibia to fight HIV/AIDS. Also, just last year the US government helped to support 58ÃÆ’Æ‘ÀÃ…ÃÆ”šÃ‚ 000 of Namibia’s estimated 162ÃÆ’Æ‘ÀÃ…ÃÆ”šÃ‚ 000 orphans and vulnerable children. And between 2004/2006 the US government aided Namibia’s HIV/AIDS programme with N$870 million. Is the thinking of President Bush flawed for helping tens of thousands of Namibia’s poor and sick? Are attacks on his persona the gratitude which he should get from the people of Namibia? Maybe the authors of your published article would like to analyze glaring ingratitude? There should be a call to order and reason among gentlemen. What or whose purposes are served by such an article? Does it bring healing to the sick or food to the hungry? Does it solve any of Namibia’s problems to attack the one who is helping Namibia? Sticking to the facts and working together harmoniously to help people, should be the goal of well-meaning people. PAUL AND EVELYN LEONARD WINDHOEK