Saturday, September 09, 2006

Bush's new "offensive": old lies wrapped up in newer desperation, hubris, arrogance and bigotry

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Charles Gibson of ABC pressed the issue: what had Iraq to do with 911? Bush leaned forward aggressively and shot back: I just told you!! Oh ..well!!! That clears up everything, doesn't it?

Bush's new offensive is summed up thus: repeat the same old lies but do it belligerently! The same old lies —no argument, no facts, no evidence! You are expected to take the word of a proven liar who, faced with an unprecedented national debacle, goes back to the well, summoning the old bogeyman: terrorism! Here's Bush's new package of old lies:
In the war on terror, we face a global enemy.
But who is the enemy? Is it the people of Afghanistan? The people of Iraq? Evil doers? Why don't we start with the "evil doers" in Bushco? Or —perhaps Bush prefers to murder them in order to save the infidel souls that he has "liberated"!
And if we were not fighting this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle; they would be plotting and trying to kill Americans across the world and within our own borders.
That's the if we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here argument. Bush is lying again. No one —certainly not the administration —has made the case that there were "terrorists" in Iraq before the US invaded. What are improperly called "terrorists" or "insurgents" by Bush are, in fact, guerillas resisting by whatever means an illegal, oppressive occupation. Such a resistance is recognized as legitimate by International law and is, therefore, not terrorism.
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I never would lay down my arms,—never! never! never!
--William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. (1708–1778), Speech to Parliament, Nov. 18, 1777
Those not making up the guerrilla resistance to the US are of three remaining groups: Kurds fighting for control of the northwest; Shi'ites and Sunnis fighting one another for control of Baghdad. What is that if not civil war? Bush either does not understand this or is deliberately misstating the facts in order to mislead the American people.
Against this enemy there can be no compromise, so we will fight them in Iraq, we will fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warns of this "clash of civilizations" rhetoric; if Bush continues, warns Brzezinski, the US may find itself on the losing side of just such a confrontation. The term "Islamo-fascism" is a made up word —the work of paid GOP focus groups and the right wing blogosphere. There is no such thing. It is pure and misleading propaganda designed to conceal the true nature of the conflict just as the term "insurgent" conceals the nature of Iraqi resistance to the US occupation.

Even if there were such a thing as "Islamo-fascism", how are we to know who to murder and who to spare? "Islamo-fascism" has its roots in racism, jingoism, and bigotry, just as do the terms "raghead" and "sand nigger". Islam is insulted and ought to be. As the bigot that he is, Bush has denied humanity to millions if not billions of the world's population.

Victory, meanwhile, seems even more elusive now than ever. Some three years after a Blitzkrieg called "Shock and Awe" more than 2,300 Americans are dead and more than 17,000 wounded. Iraqi causalities vary but the best estimates are some 40,000 dead from "Shock and Awe" alone; total dead between 100,000 to 140,000.

Of course Bush will exploit the terrorism card again. The opinion surveys reveal growing disenchantment, impatience with a war that is increasingly associated with torture, atrocities, escalating death, horror, and the absolutely unacceptable deprivations that the US has forced upon a civilian population.

There is no justification for what the US has done to the people of Iraq.
Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 911; Saddam doesn't even like Bin Laden, a right winger, a creation of the American CIA. Saddam had no WMD. Saddam's Iraq had not been a haven for "terrorists" before the US invaded, and even now, most of the so-called "terrorists" are guerillas who oppose an aggressive war by the United States. No ex post facto rationale put forward by Bush has ever, in any way, justified the heinous level of deprivation and horror exacted upon that civilian population by Bush.

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is absolutely correct: Bush is bogged down in the Iraq quagmire because he doesn't understand the nature of the conflict, the nature of Middle East politics, the subtleties of Middle Eastern culture. Speaking on NPR this weekend, Brzezinski, characterized Bush's recent statements as hubris and ignorance. Brzezinski had earlier stated that the US would lose a war of attrition. We have already lost our legitimacy.

Another Bush lie implies that the US is involved in a struggle to bring democracy to Iraq. That's the lie; now here's the truth: if the Middle East never becomes democratic , it will be because Bush has made a dirty word of "democracy". Throughout the Middle East, you will find this admonition: "Be nice to America....or it will bring 'democracy' to you!"

By violating all democratic principles to wage war of naked aggression against Iraq, Bush lost! Villages are not saved by destroying them; democracy is not defended when it is subverted. When the US is eventually forced to withdraw ignominiously from Iraq, it will have lost all credibility, all influence, and, most tragically, its own democracy at home. If it were true that terrorists "just hate freedom", then Bush succeeded where every terrorist failed!

The US is now thought to be the most dangerous nation on earth. Even our closest ally —Britain —will soon rid itself of the once promising Tony Blair who owes his demise to his association with George W. Bush.
Now I would like to say very briefly that in my view, that war which was a war of choice is already a serious moral set back to the United States. A moral set back both in how we start, how it was justified, and because of some of the egregious incidents that have accompanied this proceeding.
The moral costs to the United States are high. It’s a political setback. The United States has never been involved in an intervention in its entire history like it is today. It is also a military set back. “Mission Accomplished” are words that many in this administration want to forget.
—Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Charting a U.S. Foreign Policy Road Map for 2005 and Beyond 
Desperate to link Iraq to his phantom menace, the "war on terrorism" and, more recently, the "war on Islamo-fascism", Bush has become a war criminal under international law and a capital-crime felon under US criminal codes. When he can no longer hide behind the Presidential seal, Bush may very well find himself in the dock, charged with capital crimes. [See  U.S. Codes, Title 18, 2441]

The issue is not only aggressive war but torture. Contrary to the official cover story, George W. Bush authorized torture with a memo of Feb. 7, 2002. His deliberate act violates both Geneva and the above cited US criminal codes that were approved by a Republican-led Congress in 1996. Now that Bush has at last admitted the existence of the torture camps that his administration had initially denied, he seems more prosecutable than ever.
So let's take a step back and analyze what just happened.
  • First of all, Bush instantly pissed off what few European allies he had left, because he told them that the secret prisons didn't exist.
  • Bush once again painted himself as a liar. He might as well be wearing a sign reading "I cannot be trusted".
  • Not only did he lie about the existence of the secret prisons, but he must have also lied about the torturing of detainees. He has denied all along that "we don't torture", but the only reason for shipping them off to non-US territories is to have them out of the bounds of US laws & protections. Bottom line - of course they're being tortured.
  • In the process of admitting to secret "black-site" prisons, and having 'renditioned' these detainees for 'special interrogation', Bush is also pushing for congressional action to allow for a change in the Geneva Conventions and military tribunals. The Supreme Court has already ruled against this, but now Bush is trying to change the laws... right now... in a hurry... in time for the November election. Gee, could it be that Bush is politicizing his tough-on-terrorism rhetoric for GOP advantage?
  • Public Affair Magazine
 Now —appallingly —Bush insists upon "staying a course" when there is no course to stay. Old lies are no truer now than they were then. Bush insists upon miring the US in a Middle East quagmire in which there is not only no victory but no definition of one. Bush insists upon staying the course when, in fact, his incompetent administration has failed to define the "enemy" beyond an infantile description of "evil doers" and "terrorists".

Bush has committed the United States to a perpetual war that it has already lost, from which it cannot withdraw with honor, and cannot stay with even less. Whatever campaign of un-American aggression Bush has committed this nation to, I can tell you that it is not war. It is, rather, bloody murder —a campaign of aggression, oil theft, and imperial, vainglorious hubris. As Pogo said: "We have seen the enemy and he is us!" Bush has made of us Nazis!

We are the aggressors! We will not win! We will not have deserved to win! Bush has damned the US to a perpetual, un-winnable conflict which Bush does not and cannot understand, against a mythic enemy which Bush has not and cannot define, with tactics which do not and will never address reality!

Additional resources:


daveawayfromhome said...

Someone has sold BushCo on the idea that "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth". I'm not sure that old saw is necessarily true, especially once you've been caught in a lie, and have an alternate Authority telling a different story. That different authority seems (finally!) to be the Legislature, or at least the Senate. I'd say it's less from any sense of moral or political obligation than it is the dawning realization that Lord Bush really is trying to take away their powers and perogatives (it sure as hell aint a sense of honesty or justice).

And yeah, funny how BushCo has turned out to be the greatest threat to the American way that he claims to be defending us from. I'm sure in a decade or two we'll all have a good laugh over this.

"And if we were not fighting this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle; they would be plotting and trying to kill Americans across the world and within our own borders. —Bush"

Bush has said variations on this idea before, and I gotta say, I find the idea of luring your enemy to another country so that your own does not suffer the collateral damage of warfare to be an act of such moral repellence that it makes me nauseous.

Len Hart said...

daveawayfromhome, you write:

I find the idea of luring your enemy to another country so that your own does not suffer the collateral damage of warfare to be an act of such moral repellence that it makes me nauseous.

Equally nauseating is the idea that Bin Laden is reported to have said the same thing about us! Bin Laden's grand strategy was to lure large numbers of US troops into a "killing field", into a "war of attrition". This is consistent with the situation in Iraq; and, if so, it proves Bin Laden a more capapble general, a more capable "commander-in-chief" than the idiot who calls himself "President".

At the moment, I have but one source that credits Brzezinski with stating flat out that Al Qaeda was created by the US via the CIA in Afghanistan. I had, at one time, numerous sources that Bin Laden was, himself, a CIA "asset".

It all makes sense. Bin Laden is, therefore, the monster from the US imperialist/NEOCON id! Bin Laden is not Taliban but Caliban, a creature of the malevolent conservative sub-consious. Clearly —Bush took the bait. It is the US, rather, that has been lured into the killing field —NOT the other way 'round.

Also disproving Bush's cynical and morally suspect statement is the fact that the US will lose, IS losing a war of attrition.