Saturday, September 23, 2006

Bush lost the war on terrorism because he dare not win it

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush lost the war on terrorism by waging and losing the war against the people of Iraq. The people of Baghdad have suffered most. It is doubtful that Bush has ever killed, captured, or brought to justice a single bona fide terrorist. It is enough for Bush to produce a body and term it a "terrorist" after the fact. Bush, of course, has assumed for himself the power to define terrorist; therefore, a terrorist now may not have been a terrorist earlier and vice versa. You just have to take Bush's word for it from day to day.

Bush's Orwellian use of the word "insurgent" clouds the issue; it deceives the American people and the world. What Bush calls an "insurgency" is most often a "guerrilla" resistance to the US occupation. It was Dick Cheney who claimed -perhaps falsely -that Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq." Sadly, Tim Russert did not press Cheney on this point despite the fact that there is good reason to doubt Cheney who also told us that we would be greeted as liberators.

Casting doubt on Cheney's assertion is the fact that the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zagawai was a hostile one. At last, Bush has never made a convincing case that either Iraq or Zarqawi had anything at all to do with the events of 911 which he cites as the catch rationale for an endless war. Clearly -this is absurd and especially so when you consider the fact that 911 was never properly or thoroughly investigated.

It was Colin Powell who blamed Al Qaeda for 911. Has anyone seen any convincing evidence that Al Qaeda ever operated out of Iraq? The Washington Post reported that Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda had been disputed even before the US attack and invasion.

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer, September 9, 2006; Page A01

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden." ...

The fact of the matter is bluntly this: we don't know who planned or executed 911. Various "official conspiracy theories" are full of holes. And we have George W. Bush to thank for forever for obscuring the truth of it.

The war between Shi'ite and Sunni is something else altogether and the US should never have gotten in the cross fire, though we are definitely the catalyst.

Even George W. Bush recently admitted that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911 but not before he allowed a terminally gullible American public and a sycophantic corporate media to indulge the delusion and spread the lie for years. In normal times, that would have gotten a President impeached. These are not normal times.

These are times that demonstrate a second very important reason Bush has lost the war on terrorism. These are Orwellian times and terrorism is a perpetual war. Bush has lost this war because he dare not win it and cannot afford to win it. It's the only issue he polls well on; without it, he's finished. It is tragically ironic that the future of humankind may very well depend upon the infamously short American attention span inuring a jaded public to a demagogue who is rapidly approaching the limit to which he can ratchet up a rhetoric that millions have already tuned out.

Bush lost the war on terrorism in many others ways. Prominently, Bush never had an enemy, and, most certainly failed to identify one. Terrorism is not a philosophy or an ideology. Terrorism is a tactic that may be exploited by numerous enemies of US imperialism. Terrorism may be employed against US imperialism from a number of opponents at every end of the political spectrum. How does one wage war against a tactic? Enemies of US imperialism are found everywhere in the world. Are we to invade every country and kill every critic? Absurd!

In this case, a war of arms, tanks, and solders is impotent and absurd. The catastrophe in Iraq proves that. Consider the case of World War II, often cited nostalgically by militarists who find in that chapter redemption for our short but bloody history. Americans cling to the myth that we defeated Nazism -but we did not. What we and our allies defeated was the German army. We did not defeat Nazism itself.

Even the Nuremberg Trials -which US prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson hoped would set a precedent for world justice -did not defeat the Nazi ideology which is still alive and well and less underground than is comfortable. That Bush repudiates the Nuremberg Principles, and, in fact, may be in violation of those principles himself, is evidence enough that Nazism is not dead.

Bush's failure demonstrates a basic, common sense principle apparently lost on American liberals who were initially fooled by Bush. That principle is simply: terrorism cannot be defeated with terrorism; a tactic cannot be defeated by employing that tactic. We are what we do. If we employ terrorism, we are terrorists.

If 911 was an act of terrorism because it targeted the civilian population, then the US attack and invasion of Iraq is, likewise, an act of bloody terrorism. The civilian population of Iraq has suffered from American terrorism, blood lust and vengeance.

There is NO evidence that anyone having had anything to do with 911 was, in any way, and at any time since 911, harmed in any way by the bloody, disproportionate and barbaric Blitzkrieg on Baghdad, a Blitzkrieg, lately called "Shock and Awe", that most certainly murdered some 140,000 civilians in the bombing campaign alone.

This is one of a multitude of compelling reasons Bush must not renounce the Geneva convention. It is absurd that he be allowed to try "detainees" and possibly convict them upon "evidence" kept secret from defendants as well as the American public. Bush -a known and practiced liar -simply cannot be trusted. Such an unprecedented overturn of every principle established by Geneva and Nuremberg would guarantee the executions of a limitless number of innocent civilians. There is no justice without accountability. The alternative is tyranny.

The US is not killing terrorists in Iraq; rather, a guerrilla resistance to the illegal US occupation of that nation are killing Americans. If you think the US is killing bona fide terrorists in Iraq, show me one and prove it. Some very astute writers have charged that George w. Bush took the bait. If terrorists there are in Iraq, they were not there before the US attacked and invaded. Terrorists would not have been tolerated by Saddam Hussein. Hussein is credibly reported to have loathed Bin Laden who is at once Bush's whipping boy but absolutely essential to Bush's perpetual, unwinnable war.

The Bush administration never foresaw nor planned for the eruption of three civil wars now raging in Iraq. The separate wars are waged by Kurds in the Northwest, Sunnis and Shi'ites against one another as well as against the so-called "government" in Baghdad. Confusing the issue for a man who cannot no nuance and most certainly lied about reading "...three Shakespeare's" and a Albert Camus, is the fact that the army that he placed in harm's way is in the cross hairs. More importantly, Soldiers are sent into war zones to shoot people. Who is the enemy? Is the enemy Sunni? Shi'ite? Kurd? Who do we shoot? If none of those groups turn out to be the mortal enemy of the US, then what the hell are we doing in Iraq? [See: Terrorist Network Disconnect, Gareth Porter, September 13, 2006]

Americans have begun to see through transparent lies. Bush, therefore, has found it necessary to obscure truth with yet another: we are war with Islamo-fascism. This is not an enemy! Islamo-fascism is a GOP invention, a phony word made up by the right wing blogosphere and GOP consultants desperate for yet another boogie man. Moreover, Islamo-fascism is racist, on a level with rag head, camel jockey, and sand nigger. Bush might as well have said: we are at war with sand niggers. His policies most certainly wage war on everyone but wasps back home.

Bush plays the race card, knowing full well that his base is mostly bigots and extremists for whom any one of any color is the object of condescension or disgust. These are people who would have taken picnic baskets to lynchings. These are people who call Mexican-Americans spicks and pepper bellies. These are people who called the citizens of Viet Nam -whom we were supposed to be defending against the Viet Cong -gooks! Is anyone surprised that Texas Governor Rick Perry would try to link terrorism with immigration from Mexico -never mind that the suggestion is ludicrous on its face. Perry, nevertheless, appears in a Marlboro man jacket with the Rio Grande behind him and tells the people of Texas that to be secure against terrorism, we must secure our borders against immigrants from Mexico. Last time, I checked none of the 911 terrorists came from Mexico. Perry, like Bush, before him exploits fear, suspicion and bigotry. But Kinky Friedman would not be outdone. He recently called New Orleans evacuees "crackheads and thugs". Earlier, he said that " ...sexual predators should be imprisoned and forced to 'listen to a Negro talking to himself."'

Why should we be surprised that millions more now hate America than at any other time in our history? Is every country in the world, then, peopled with potential enemies of the United States? If so, we have only ourselves to blame; our only enemies are the enemies of our creation, the monster from our collective id; they are the blowback of our stupid bigotry, racism, and ruthless yankee imperialism.

Bush dare not win his war on terrorism because it just might turn out to be as fraudulent as everything else about his failed and miserable administration.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: September 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe. ...

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes...



12 comments:

daveawayfromhome said...

It's funny that a guy who doesnt find the word "torture" to be clear enough (ask any 10-year old boy and he can give you a pretty clear idea), seems confident enough of the idea of "terrorism" to invade two countries. Actually, it's not that funny.

Len Hart said...

Indeed, Drive! Bush thinks in absolutes; he doesn't do nuance. Wasn't anyone suspicious, then, when he sought clarification on a fine point of law that Bush would not have understood anyway? So fine as to be trivial. It was all a disingenuous exercise and the Congress bought it. Geneva is finished if the precedent stands...if the President stands. Bush has, in fact, repudiated Geneva and that is a violation of Article VI of the Constitution. Congress is now complicit in Bush's crimes. We have NO legitimate government.

StopKinky said...

This bothers me abouy Kinky:

On Wednesday, September 13, 2006, the Dallas Morning News published an Associated Press interview with Kinky Friedman. Kinky tried to downplay the racist nature of his recent unfortunate comments saying that the black hurricane refugees in Houston from New Orleans were "thugs and crackheads":

Friedman last week said he would provide $100 million to Houston, or any other city facing similar crime problems, so Houston could hire 1,200 new police officers to deal with crime and weed out the "crackheads and thugs" among the thousands of Katrina evacuees from New Orleans who relocated to Houston.

Roundly criticized as a thinly veiled attack on blacks from Louisiana, Friedman said Wednesday his proposal "was not in any way racist."

"How can you possibly regret that, telling the truth?" he asked. "I am not a racist, I am a realist. ... I never said what color their skin was. .... I'm smarter than that."


Yet on September 9, 2006, Guillermo X. Garcia with the San Antonio Express-News Staff reported on a question-and-answer session with Kinky and directly quoted him:

In answer to a question, Friedman said the comments do not indicate that he holds racist views. Rather, he said they demonstrate his ability to take on a subject the other candidates won't touch.

"Racism was here before I came around," he said. "I am just trying to bring up these issues within the (expletive) society."

Later, he said: "As it happens, the crackheads and thugs who remain in Houston after Katrina happen to be black; that's fact."



This latest lie follows Kinky's previous lies about his past claims that he vote for Ann Richards and Al Gore and against the Constitutional Amendment rejecting equal marriage rights. Here is one such false claim:

Susannah McNeely: ... after your bid for Justice of the Peace in ’86, you said you were leaving “that worthless tar baby that is politics” to the young people. What happened that changed your mind and prompted you to run for governor of Texas?

Kinky Friedman: Nothing changed my mind, that’s still correct. This is not a political campaign. It’s a spiritual one—a spiritual calling.
...
SM: So does this idea of the honorable cowboy have anything to do with why you threw your support behind President Bush in this last election? You did, didn’t you?

KF: Yes. I did in this last election, but I didn’t vote for him the first time.

SM: Who did you vote for in 2000?

KF: I voted for Gore then.
I was conflicted. . .but I was not for Bush that time. Since then, though, we’ve become friends. And that’s what’s changed things.

SM: So it’s your friendship with him that’s changed your mind about having him as president more than his specific political positions?

KF: Well, actually, I agree with most of his political positions overseas, his foreign policy. On domestic issues, I’m more in line with the Democrats. I basically think he played a poor hand well after September 11. What he’s been doing in the Near East and in the Middle East, he’s handling that well, I think.


Kinky statements about his past votes have proven false based on Kinky's public Kerr County voting records:

"Quite often, I did not like my choices," Friedman was quoted as saying in Friday's Dallas Morning News....

"The voting record doesn't look strong, but my voting record is better than Dick Cheney's," he said....

According to Kerr County voting records, Friedman voted in the 2004 presidential general election but not in any other contest since 1994.


Vote Strayhorn or Bell, not Perry or Kinky.

Len Hart said...

Strayhorn is an opportunist. And, god help him, Bell has no charisma at all. But, at least, he's not a GOP and, as far as I know, he's never been one.

Fuzzflash said...

In a just world, Borat would arrive at Kinky’s next gubernatorial campaign gig and offer to join the good ol’ Texas Jewboy in a duet of Borat’s, recently released, “Throw The Jew Down The Well” (cf, YouTube). Let’s see if Kinky still does satire.

Speaking of racists, Senator George “Macaca” Allen has achieved bubkes bounce in recent polls following his much hyped “Virginia Loves Simeons” initiative, however overseas wildlife refuges have responded positively, pledging several razorbacks for the proposed “Allen Ape House” in Norfolk. His Democratic opponent, Vietnam Vet James H. Webb, has retained a 30 % poll turnaround after a couple of feral macacas viciously, yet inadvertently escaped from Senator Allens oral cavity at the end of a long and tiring day on the campaign trail. Senator Allen has denied his recent use of the prescription tranquiliser, Ibogaine, had anything to do with the “incident”. He further denied having to “break out the Klan” any time recently. The two senatorial aspirants remain locked in “a statistical dead heat”, Senator Allen’s handlers have advised him that still-shots with oran-utans are okay, if he goes with a beige or blue tie, but live-to-camera with chimps was not a good look. Voters hate it when they smirk. Marmosets and lemurs? No problem.

Dante lee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dante lee said...

Your tax dollar at work:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

Fucking duh! Those guys sound like C-3PO: "Sir. I believe this asteroid may not be entirely stable."

Len Hart said...

Welcome back, Dante! Any progress on the computer problems?

Vierotchka said...

Fuzzflash, Ibogaine is no tranquilizer, it is a banned substance in America; banned because it allows junkies to kick their habit, is used outside of the US by psychiatrists and psychologists to help heal their patients and used by individuals to further their spiritual development, and has entheogenic properties similar to those of Ayahuasca. It is a sacred substance taken from the bark of the Iboga (sacred wood) roots, and as such it should be treated with respect - I certainly do. Just saying! :)

Len Hart said...

Fuzzflash, watching bigots fight it out must rank with betting on sewer rat fights in sleazy back alley ways. It makes Chinese cricket fights look genteel by comparison.

Fuzzflash said...

Vierotchka, you are correct to point out that Ibogaine is not a trank. This is careless pharmacology on my part. I referenced it in a tame attempt at satire inspired by HST'S "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72". The good Doctor Thompson quotes a study from PharmChem Laboraties,Palo Alto, CA, which claims: "....In human studies 300 mg given orally, the subject experiences changes of perception.... with animals often appearing......" eg, macacas. Thompson was pillorying The Man from Maine, Senator Ed Muskie, who was running for the Pres. Dem. nomination, as being so lifeless that he must be exhibiting "The Ibogaine Effect". It was a complete beat-up by Thompson, "Big Ed Exposed As Ibogaine Addict" he wrote in April '72 Rolling Stone in his capacity as National Affairs Editor. The MSM ran with it and Muskie's candidacy was doomed by a vicious display of psycho-active swiftboating. In November, Nixon stomped McGovern anyway. Big Ed was never a serious player. I had no idea of the sacredness of the bark of the Iboga roots or its uses healing or dreamtime journeys. This drug is far too valuable to cheapen by trying to tarnish George "Macaca" Allen. Thanks for the tip.

Len, Sacha Baron Cohen who plays Kazakstani reporter Borat, as well as Ali G, is Jewish. Borat is a sexist, racial bigot. In the character of Borat, Cohen is capable of kyboshing Kinky's campaign. I agree that bona fide bigots going at it "hammer and tongs" are as rank as any rat/cricket fight club.

Anonymous said...

Len, I found a site you simply must visit.
It is absolutely mesmerizing.
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
I wept.