How Can Bush Bring Freedom to Iraq When He Brings Tyranny to America?
The Washington, D.C., think-tank The American Enterprise Institute camouflages its purpose with its name. There is nothing American about AEI, and the organization's enterprise is fomenting war in the Middle East against Israel's enemies. Its real name should be The Likud Center for Middle East War.
AEI has the largest collection of warmongers in America. AEI "scholars" have agitated for war in the Middle East for years. A moronic president and 9-11 gave them their opportunity.
Now that the U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have failed, the AEI warmongers are conspiring with Vice President Cheney to foment war with Iran.
Writing in The Washington Note, Steven C. Clemons reports that Cheney is working with the AEI warmongers to short-circuit the efforts of Bush's secretaries of defense and state to find a diplomatic solution. Clemons reports that one former high-level national security official describes the Cheney-AEI conspiracy as possibly an act of "criminal insubordination" against President Bush.
Now that the Democrats have betrayed their mandate of last November to end Bush's war against Iraq and given Bush carte blanche to continue the gratuitous bloodshed, the neoconservative plan, spearheaded by Vice President Cheney, to initiate aggression against Iran is back on the front burner.
Disinformation is being fed to the media that Iran is responsible for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. This disinformation is routinely reported without skepticism by the American media in the face of challenges from experts. For example, a recent British report concludes that "few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency."
While the Cheney/AEI conspirators strive to whip up American anger at Iran with lies and disinformation, they are doing everything possible to provoke Iran. The warmongers have planted the story in the media that the United States is conducting covert operations against Iran. The U.S. Navy is conducting "exercises" off Iran's coast. The U.S. military in Iraq has violated diplomatic privilege and kidnapped Iranian officials in Iraq, despite protests from the Iraqi and Iranian governments. The U.S. government is stirring up more trouble in Lebanon by setting extremists Sunnis against Iran's Hezbollah ally. In short, the U.S. government is doing everything possible to start a war with Iran. Bombing Iran, perhaps after a contrived "false flag" operation, is the next step.
Bush continues to tell his favorite lies that he is bringing "freedom and democracy to Iraq" and that Muslims hate us because of our "freedom and democracy." He continues to make these inane assertions even as he ignores the will of the American people and destroys habeas corpus, the foundation of civil liberty.
Bush ignores the will of the people as expressed in last November's congressional elections and as expressed in opinion polls. The New York Times-CBS News poll released May 24 shows another sharp drop in public support for Bush and his war. America is "seriously off on the wrong track" was the response of 72 percent of the public.
President Bush, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government's policy than inmates in a gulag would have.
What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about "freedom and democracy," while he ignores opinion polls and election results, and detains people without warrants, tortures them and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them? Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush's America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence.
If this is "freedom and democracy," what is tyranny?
Recent polls show that the majority of the American people are no longer fooled, no matter what politicians say and the media report. The election last November demonstrated the electorate's lack of support for continuing the war.
The problem is in implementing the will of the people. Democrats in Congress are not only recipients of AIPAC, oil industry and military-security complex payoffs just as the Republicans are, Democrats are also behaving very cynically. They believe that it is Bush's policy that gave them control of Congress in November and that by continuing to let Bush prevail, they will clean up on a larger scale in 2008. They believe that their antiwar base has nowhere else to go.
Their cynical logic is probably correct as far as it goes. Bush is being blamed for the war and its failure. The longer this goes on, the worse the situation for the Republicans. Prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, I wrote in a column that the unintended consequences of an invasion would be the destruction of Bush, the Republican Party and the conservative movement. It has taken longer than I thought, largely because of Americans' blind desire for revenge for 9-11, but the prediction is on track.
The problem with the Democrats' cynical logic is that allowing Bush to prolong the war in Iraq increases the chances that Cheney, Israel and the neoconservatives can contrive a war with Iran. Most experts, and many in our own military, think that a war with Iran would go very badly for us, endangering our troops in Iraq by exposing them to more intense attacks from the more numerous Shiites, who would be armed with Iranian weapons that can neutralize our tanks and helicopters, leaving our fragmented and divided troops isolated and cut off from supplies and retreat routes.
The pending disaster would play into Cheney's hands. With America faced with the loss of an army, Cheney and the neoconservatives would likely succeed in convincing Bush to nuke Iran. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have already changed U.S. war doctrine to permit pre-emptive nuclear attack against non-nuclear powers.
Surprised by the inability of the U.S. military to prevail in Iraq and by Israel's military failure against Hezbollah, the neocons concluded that the only way to establish U.S.-Israeli hegemony over the entire Middle East is to nuke Iran. The neocons believe that using nuclear weapons against Iran will demonstrate to the Muslim world that they have no alternative but to submit to U.S. hegemony.
The Democrats are far from being alone in lacking the vision to see the abyss into which their cynicism is leading us. With the corporate media serving as propaganda ministry for the administration, Cheney will be able to whip up enough fear and anger to convince the American people that the use of nuclear weapons was imperative.
Bush's popularity will return, as he prevails over the enemy and tells Americans how he saved them from Iran's nuclear weapons. The Democrats' cynicism will have destroyed them and opened new avenues to destruction and violence.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
Finally, we approach the elephant in the room -- Zionism -- whether the evangelical, Darby-style dispensationalist kind or the Likud variety. Buying into the the "Clash of Civilizations" thesis does nothing but create a smokescreen for Zionism and those of the Great Jadoo Gher currently in power who are forever playing Kipling's Great Game.
The Zionist factor in all of this is a very real one, and is properly identified by Paul Craig Roberts. It was identified years ago by Gore Vidal, an old-fashioned American patriot beneath his leftist facade, when he characterised the neocon agenda as seeking to deploy American might in the service of Israeli interests. This was at its most frighteningly apparent during the recent crisis involving the British marines kidnapped by the Iranian military. The neocons were drooling in anticipation of the opportunity that this presented them to wage war on Iran, for Israel, under cover of helping Britain. The warmongering was especially shameless at their house journal, the National Review. The bloodless resolution of the dispute was a genuine disappointment to these neocon cannibals. But so long as a great nation allows itself to be used in this way it should not be surprised at what will often be unpleasant and unwelcome outcomes to ill-considered interventions.
I must, though, disagree with some of Mr Roberts' comments regarding the Bush administration. To dismiss the reports of Iranian involvement in the bllodshed in Iraq is absurd, given the close ties between the Iranians and several key players in Iraq, not least of all al-Sadr and his private terrorist force, the Mahdi army is senseless (al-Sadr has only recently returned to Iraq having been, according to virtually all commentators, in...Iran). The administration has lied shamelessly and opportunistically in the past; but on this occasion the facts regarding Iran's malign influence in Iraq are plain and speak for themselves.
I am amazed at the excessive Bush-hatred that can accuse the administration of continuing 'the bloodshed' in Iraq. The fault for the disaster in Iraq lies on many sides. Iraq would have had four years of peace and prosperity were it not for the decision of assorted bands of terrorists and criminals, none of whom possess so much as a shadow of legitimate right, to wage a murderous and pointless insurgency against what would otherwise have been a peaceful occupation. Bush's failing was in (a) trying to be the President of more than one country, and to confer benefits on Iraqis to whom he has no responsibility of any kind, and (b) childishly imagining that good intentions and a huge expenditure of American blood and treaure would provoke gratitude in the hearts of a muslim people, despite their having a fantastically bigoted creed and a culture that obliges them to hate even their benefactors, whenever those benefactors are not muslims. The Iraqis are, unfortunately, savages, and have conducted themselves accordingly; that is hardly Bush's fault.
It is outrageously partisan for Mr Roberts to accuse the President of stirring up trouble in Lebanon. Are the Palestinians encamped in that country now taking orders from The Great Satan? Is Syria's decades long meddling in that country, which continues to this day, really not worth mentioning at all? There are many things the PResident can be justly accused of and even hated for; the Lebanese turmoil isn't one of them and it reflects no credit on his critics when they are prepared to level even the most implausible and ridiculous charges against him.
The Middle East is a cockpit of oriental fanaticism, Jewish zealotry and intransigence, and Islamic extremism and downright insanity. You cannot involve yourself in such a place - whether for humanitarian reasons, or to serve Israeli interests - and expect the reactions of the natives to your intervention to be informed, sober and rational. If those traits had characterised Israelis or Arabs they would have worked out their differences long before now. What applies and is approriate in Western Europe and North America cannot, as any conservative knows, be extrapolated to the rest of the world: Bush's folly - perhaps motivated by the best of intentions - has been to buy into universalist and sentimental cant about bringing freedom and democracy to people who, whether or not they want them, are certainly not fit for either. But to saddle him with the bulk of responsibility for the disaster that has overtaken a habitually violent people, professing a habitually violent creed, living in an habitually violent region, is a lie as big as any uttered by the President and his advisors.
Simple solution--get out of the entire Middle East and tell them all to go to hell. Why do we need Israel as an "ally?" What benefits do we get from such an alliance? George Washington gave us sage advice on this issue in his Farewell Address.
"The Washington, D.C., think-tank The American Enterprise Institute camouflages its purpose with its name. There is nothing American about AEI..."
I would only add that said think-tank has nothing to do with the activity commonly referred to as "thinking".
If the media is in tow on this charade, they have less excuse now that Bill Moyers hs put out this documentary. Good stuff.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
"But to saddle him with the bulk of responsibility for the disaster that has overtaken a habitually violent people, professing a habitually violent creed, living in an habitually violent region, is a lie as big as any uttered by the President and his advisors."
This is absurd !! When the President of Our United States ignores the advise of wiser men -- diplomats, Generals, veterans of combat and historic allies -- who told him years before launching the war that attacking Iraq would "inflame a habitually violent people, professing a habitually violent creed, living in an habitually violent region," with disasterous consequences for the United States and the region, he IS responsible and justice demands he be saddled with the bulk of responsibility. To say otherwise is to say no one is responsible, no one is accountable, the term Commander and Chief is an empty image devoid of any real meaning and that the realistic practice of statemanship and/or leadership in a country such as ours is an absurd and fleeting, figment in the imagination of mans mind.
...Viktor K, not only has The Decider---as well as Goddamned manic Bolton "meddled" in Lebanon in their support of the indiscriminate Israeli bombing of civilians; placing the onus for the Harri assassination on Syria, while to my mind it bears the mark of a sub contracted Mossad venture. He now wants to instigate the renewal of the Cold War with the expanse of NATO to the Russian border...It would seem that Putin's handling of the emergent post Soviet Oligarchy, the same Cabal that quite literally raped a prostrate Russia---this malefaction under the auspices of Clinton---has rather irritated our friends at AIPAC, JINSA etc...I see you are most intelligent, and literate individual, this however selective you are in rhetorical approach. As was said by Hamlet: "We must speak by the card Horatio, lest equivocation be our undoing." Realist consensus holds that by placing the Security interests of Israel ahead of our own has this Administration embarked The Nation on the worst Foreign Policy disaster since Vietnam. Such a fact is incontrovertible. Unless one considers that facts may be "anti-Semitic." To say the US has not been, was not involved in the July 2006 IDF invasion of South Lebanon is to suggest that in addition: The dish ran away with the spoon, and the cow jumped over the moon. It is to my mind nothing less than intelligent prevarication on your behalf...Paul Craig Roberts has a history of being far too objective to be given to sudden Partisan mendacity.
How strange that Paul has pegged the 800 pound gorilla in the room...
Also ironic that the Chronicles readership has probably heaved a collective sigh of acknowledgment and understanding due to the fact that whole Chronicles m.o. seems to be to deflect anger on to Arabs and away from the Jews who are the problem.
...The guy has a point; and a damn good one if you ask me.
@Robert Reavis: while President Bush shares responsibility for what is happening in Iraq, the fact remains that the violence is being driven by the 'insurgents'. Of course, and as you observe (given the nature of the region and given the advice tendered to the President about the unwisdom of becoming embroiled in military action in Iraq) this does not excuse Bush's folly in blundering into the Iraqi debacle. In-and-out to topple Saddam would have been tenable; staying to build democracy, to spread freedom, to re-construct mosques, to erect theme parks etc has proven to be suicidal benevolence for American soldiers.
I dispute any claim, like Mr Roberts', that ascribes the 'bulk' (or entirety) of responsibility for the bloodshed to Bush because the main causes for that bloodshed lie entirely outside of the PResident's control. And though this may diminish (to a degree) his formal responsibility, it magnifies his folly and lack of foresight in getting involved to this extent in Iraq. His hands are not clean and it's not my intention to excuse his role. But the people with the bloodiest hands are the insurgents/terrorists exploding bombs in mosques and markets and at road-sides. Dislike of the President shouldn't blind us to that truth.
@ Mace Price: yes, the US government has taken a position over Lebanon. This is unremarkable. A sovereign nation-state with world-wide interests to uphold can do no less (though given the Necon factor there is always the issue of whether the US is really pursuing its own interests, or someone else's). But Bolton's 'meddling' in Lebanon is trifling compared to Syria's.
One of the greatest faults of the necons is that, as universalists, they have no respect for the experience and views of the various peoples across the world that they profess to be 'saving' in one way or another. They seek to impose American cultural values (e.g. equality for women) and American political practices (e.g. universal suffrage) upon people to whom such things are alien and for whom they may simply be unviable (not to mention unwanted). This is the root of their seemingly endless follies. But a paleo variant of this hubris occurs when conservatives try to explain events in places like Lebanon according to our American/Western assumptions and pre-occupations, and ignore what the locals have to say on the matter. The government of Lebanon and a large swathe of Lebanese public opinion is in no doubt that Syria was behind the al-Hariri assassination, and is equally sure that Syria is attempting to exercise hegemony over Lebanon. Mossad is certainly capable of working the kind of mischief you indicate, but I for one defer to the experience and opinion of the government and people of Lebanon on this matter, who are as well placed to distinguish between Tel Aviv and Damascus as anyone.
I have no brief for the Israelis. But let's not forget that their bombings, however indiscriminate, have invariably been in response to earlier provocations by either Hezbollah or the Palestinians encamped in Lebanon. Any state, even one as unsympathetic as Israel, has a right to defend itself against enemy aggression.
The previous brief was a brief for the Israelis. Getting hooked up with those impostors is the kind of entangling alliance that George Washington warned us to avoid.
The founding fathers knew what the Jews were like...
...VicktorK: I see you're very handy with a keyboard. I'll acknowledge yours is an impressive, if qualified and conventional rebuttal/brief. It also leads me to wonder which of us has the superior command of educated conjecture, and literary skills...I dislike pretension, particularly when I'm the guilty party. Nonetheless, as for your contention of deferring to a functional Government in Lebanon? Such a Government in terms of efficacy, is to my mind pure fantasy at worst; and gross exaggeration at best. As for the al-Hariri assassination as a Syrian effort? If so it was more than counter productive. What did it politically gain The Asad regime? An imposed compromise? Expulsion from Lebanon and a further loss of prestige and confidence on the part of the neighboring Arab States in the region?
I look forward to the day when Chronicles devotes an issue or a conference to what is contained in the uncensored Babylonian Talmud. Just as Islam is held accountable for what is in the Koran, perhaps the Rabbis will be held accountable for the blasphemies said about Christ, the Mother of God, women, and non-Jews. Perhaps we will see articles decrying Halakha treatment of women in the same vein as we've seen in criticisms of Islam and its treatment of women. And just as passages in the Koran pertaining to "infidels" has resulted in finger pointing and a cry to engage in a new crusade in the Middle East, perhaps all the derogatory things said about gentiles in the Talmud (chronicled in part by none other than Israel Shahak) will make the light of day. Then, as in blaming Islam for it's attack on Christendom, we can then turn to Moses Hess and the Jewish Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Chronicles could even invite Jewish Professor of Jewish History, Yuri Slezkine to address this fact and how Jews were in control of Stalin's Soviet Union. He could even read a chapter out of his recent book, "The Jewish Century" where he describes this fact. Next, Chronicles could ask Norman Finkelstein to discuss the crimes of Israel and apartheid conditions they've created over there. Next, Professor of Jewish Studies at Princeton University, Peter Schafer, could be asked to talk about his recent book, "Jesus in the Talmud" and the many blasphemies it contains. He might even compare the derogatory statements in the Talmud with the respect shown to Christ and Mary as contained in the Koran. Then, the topic of Zionism could be discussed and its relationship to the neocons currently in power. It would be a very interesting conference it it were ever to take place.
...Well VictorK? What do you think of such directness on the part of the previous "Commentators" here Sir? Any fool can see that the situation in The Middle east is rapidly coming to an impasse.
Someone has brought up the possibility of US Liberty/9-11 round two...
Mark my words - there will be a nuclear "attack" on a middle American city (the heartland - can't disrupt the inflow of Chinese goods by striking an important port city) and a media campaign to convince us it was Iran and Americans will once again swallow the blue pill and destroy all the enemies of the "Power of God" in that God forsaken desert.
The staff at Chronicles will wax poetic about the similarity of our situation to the French Revolution or some other nonsense.
Civilization is in the balance
I could care less if Socialist Israel or any of the various arab states want to shoot it up. The only reason we have any concern for these states is our continued dependance on M.E. oil. Our "wake up call" on this was 1974. Since then both subspecies of Demopublicans have held power and failed to resolve this easily resolved problem. So here we are 30+ years later and we continue to compound the problems because of lack of leadership in addressing the root problem.
As brother Kinky Friedman would say, "How hard can it be?".
Daniel J...Civilizations are based on repression. That's why I'm uncivilized.
I'm torn between varying degrees of libertarianism and racial collectivism....
I think there is just a "few good men" left and most of them are three times my age... Enough to leave one in perpetual despondency.
I strongly disagree with victorK. The intentions of the Bush administration towards the people of Iraq have been thouroughly malignant from day one.
Mature American adults should never take any Republican and Democratic presidents blatherings about America's good intentnions seriously. That vicktork-who I assume is an adult male-takes this nonesense serioulsy is shocking.
The people of Lebanon have a right to defend themselves against Israeli aggression. Israeli expansionism has always been the fundamental cause of the the bloodshed at the Lebanonese Isareli border and within Lebanon.
White Christian Amercians are under no obligaton to subsidize the Israeli war machine. Israel and America are the main roadblocks
to any possibility of ending the post WWII blood shed in the Middle East.
Does anyone know if Israeli has officially declared its borders yet?
FedEx overnight shipping and free prescription, http://MyRxPill.com