Bush Needs New Lies And Hypocrisies
By Rowan Wolf
Bush needs new lies and hypocrisies because it is damned offensive to be told the same lies over and over. This is going to be a rant, so hang onto your hats. Here is Full Text of Bush's speech on 6/28/05. Here is Daily Dissent's Word Count of the speech.
Where to start? How about 9/11 and the war on Iraq (yes on, not in).
Iraq and Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with the events of September 11, 2001. The only connection is that 9/11 provided a jumping point for the neo-cons to do what they have been wanting to do for years - control Iraq. If Hussein had stayed "biddable" to U.S. dictates, there never would have been an invasion.
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq. Hussein did not fund or support Al
Qaeda. Period. End of story.
"America will not leave before the job is done."
What job is that? According to Bush:
"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror.
I am glad that the mission is clear to Bush, because I don't think it is clear to most folks. "we are hunting down terrorists" that we have drawn into that country - they simply were not there until "regime change."
One might question whether the Iraqi's now have "freedom," or what that "freedom" may ultimately look like. If it is Rumsfeld version of freedom, then it is "messy," and looting and killing is just what "free" people do. Likewise for "freedom" in the Middle East.
It is not at all clear what "source of violence and instability" is being removed. Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, Hussein was not a threat to his neighbors or anyone else outside Iraq. Certainly he was brutal to those he saw as a threat to his regime, but the US (and the world) have largely taken a hands off approach to despotism - unless larger "interests" are threatened. It is clear that now there is a huge source of violence and instability in the Middle East (and most of Asia and Africa and South America). It is also clear that the United States (and Britain) are largely the fomenters of that instability and violence.
Bush stated "we" were "laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren." Really? I thought that he had also stated that the "war on terrorism" is a multigenerational war - war without end. Maybe he meant to say our great-great-grandchildren?
If the US is not leaving Iraq until the "mission" is accomplished, maybe we should be more clear about what the "mission" actually seems to be. Here are my thoughts on the US "mission" - not in priority order:
1. Create a permanent US military presence in the Middle East to control "strategic" oil reserves. The US had to remove the thorn of US military presence from Saudi Arabia - so taking over Iraq and installing a "friendly (puppet) government there would allow the establishment of permanent US military bases in Iraq.
2. Take control of the economies of the Middle East by forcing open those economies to "free market capitalism" - US and Western oriented transnational corporations in control of oil and water resources, energy production, construction, etc. I can't believe that Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron (and others) don't want a seat at the OPEC table.
4. Provide justification for a huge increase in US military spending and presence so that the US can take "its rightful place" as head of the global empire. "Manifest destiny" run amuck in my opinion.
5. Money money money - the war profiteering of the friends of Bush is huge. It makes no difference that the profit is funded by the most enormous debt run-up in the history of the world.
6. Crash the US government a la Grover Norquist - shrink the government until you can "drown it in a bathtub" - except for the mechanisms of control apparently.
7. Make the US more "manageable" by removing the Constitution and the democracy. Fascism is really simpler and more profitable.
8. Create a "fundamentalist" state ruled by fear in the United States.
I could go on as the "mission" is both complex and interrelated but it is about power and it is about control. It is definitely not about "freedom" for the people, but it is about "freedom" of to exploit by the big players (and that does not mean nations).
"There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."
This is perhaps the saddest and most offensive argument of all. "They" (organized terrorists) were not in Iraq. The only place they had a foothold in Iraq was in the "no Fly Zone" which the United States illegally enforced and over which Hussein had no control. Now, however, Bush has made Iraq a "terrorist magnet." People are reportedly flocking to Iraq to fight the United States.
So what does it mean to "fight them over there?" It means that the people of Iraq get to play host to the U.S. war on terrorism. Bush stated:"We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror." How much more of an "ally" do you want than one who allows you to destroy their country and kill their people for your war?
If you were Iraqi, how would you feel about the repeated statement of "fight them over there?" Where "there" was your home, and the people being blown up everyday, and bombed and shot, and cities turned to rubble, and little clean water, and lack of a job was your daily contribution (or price being paid) for someone else's war? What would you think the value of an Iraqi life was in this scenario? Would it make you angry? Would it make you cry? Would it make you take up arms to throw the opportunists out of the country? Would you tell the US to fight "their" terrorists some place else?
Rowan Wolf teaches sociology in Portland, Oregon, and is the editor of Uncommon Thought Journal . She may be reached via email at [email protected]
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
© 2002- 2007 OLDAmericanCentury.org and OLDAmericanCentury.com