even many supporters of a ground invasion of Saddam Hussein's
Iraq are disappointed in how the military action has gone to date,
then much of the blame for the disillusionment can be placed on
the rhetoric used to sell the use of ground troops. Despite Hussein
being, as the President put it, "one of the world's worst
leaders," with a capacity for bedlam rivaling that of Adolf
Hitler himself, advocates for invasion said that the war would
be a "cakewalk," and that Iraqis would pour into the
street en masse to welcome their American liberators. The American
people were led to believe that once the Iraqi military was dispatched,
then Iraq would be prime territory for planting the seeds of Democracy
and, perhaps as importantly, of American commercial concerns.
the months since President Bush's "Top Gun" appearance
on the USS Abraham Lincoln (when the President declared that combat
operations in Iraq had essentially come to a close) have passed,
events have underscored the misrepresentation behind the pre-war
rhetoric. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis gathered for the funeral
of Shi'ite leader Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim in the center of the
holy city of Al-Najaf recently. That, along with the recent bombing
of the UN headquarters, suggests the Iraqis really don't give
a damn where the foreign occupiers are from, so long as they leave
one way or another. They've stopped believing the lie of "liberation,"
if they ever believed it at all.
Bush said that Iraq is a central theater in the Terror War. Fair
enough let's consider some of the other theaters. Like
Afghanistan, which is no closer to being an effective client state
this September than it was last. As Saudi Arabia's Riyadh Daily
"Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government has started negotiations
with Taleban officials in several parts of the troubled southeastern
province of Zabul." The fact that these negotiations have
gone unreported in the US press underscores their meaning
capitulations in the Terror War.
at broadly, a case can be made that the US has already lost the
War on Terror. And if rhetoric from the Democratic frontrunners
for the 2004 Presidential nomination is any indication, the US
can't even back out of the Terror War at this point. Howard Dean
has gone on record saying that the US is stuck in Iraq for an
indeterminate number of years, and that he would quintuple
the US presence in Afghanistan. John Kerry, his chief rival for
the nomination, doesn't want more US troops in Iraq but somehow
foreign governments to send their men in as part of a US/UN occupying
are grim times. No one running for President who has a prayer
of winning or even of finding reliable funding support is willing
to say what needs to be said: namely, that the US can no longer
handle its foreign policy commitments, and that we should embrace
a non-interventionist foreign policy.
hard is it to admit that, no matter how evil a foreign leader
is, that the US may not have the physical power or the moral authority
to impose "regime change" on foreign countries? How
hard is it to see that our foreign policy has contributed to countless
ills on the domestic front? How hard is it to see that Americans
wouldn't support US interventionism if they understood the history
of empires, and how easy it is even for our own to get overextended
and undermined by forces that could never defeat us if we practiced
an America First, "isolationist" foreign policy that
concentrated solely on defending our borders and our coastline?
have Americans learned since "everything changed" on
September 11, 2001? Not much, sadly. We still fall for the fatuous
rhetoric of empire, for the idea that the US government has a
singular moral mandate to run the world. A noxious lie, and one
that undermines the lives of Americans every time its trotted
out by an apologist for empire. But what politician is willing
to say that?
ON THE MARGIN
from LewRockwell.com columnist Shelton Hull:
suggest trying to find a transcript of Pat Robertson's appearance
on Buchanan and Press yesterday, co-hosted by a woman named Barbara
Birch. (A Society broad?) The ostensible subject was the then-pending
execution of Paul Hill, but the talk turned eventually to the
US request for more UN involvement in Iraq. Robertson noted his
deep disgust with the US state department, using the word "wimp"
to describe Powell and Armitage. He also used the phrase "Terror
Masters" in reference to yes! the ruling clerics of Iran.
He demanded the US provide "aid and comfort" to dissident
groups (presumably including the MEK) working to overthrow the
mullahs. Robertson refused to accept Buchanan's characterization
of his remarks that he was saying that Karl Rove had destroyed
the Christian Coalition, which seems to be Buchanan's belief.
All in all, a weird couple of segments, with no mention of the
Carlyle Group at all."
yet to find a transcript of this posted on the MSNBC website,
but Robertson's Ledeenian comments here jibe with the recent Christian
Zionist offerings on the 700 Club [a recent story on that
program name checked James Baker, Halliburton, and the Carlyle
Group at some length] as well as with the messages put forth by
TV Clerics Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey. If Bush ends up as a
one term or less President, how much blame can be laid at the
feet of the so-called religious right?
bastards stop at nothing. They prostitute the name of Christ.
They vitiate salvation to support the bottom lines of gun runners,
propagandists, and people who act as nothing short of agents of
the Devil. If Christians seriously wonder why it is that America
has lost its way, they need only look at these sanctimonious multimillionaires
of the pulpit who kiss the ass of empire, day in and day out,
like the whores of Babylon they are. Bush needs to purge these
people, without apology and without delay. They fetishize violence
and power, and bear no relation to the Christ who died for my