With the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. dead, the nation has been awash with news retrospectives on the war and speeches by politicians, mostly offering sanitized versions of what's transpired.
With a few exceptions, these media/political reflections have had the feel of self-rationalizations, more than self-criticisms. They've conveyed a sense that the U.S. system is doing just fine, thank you, although a few mistakes were made.
So, you have President George W. Bush, the chief author of this catastrophic war, declaring that "normalcy is returning back to Iraq" even as fighting rages across much of the country and rockets rain down on the highly fortified Green Zone in Baghdad.
Bush's comment invited comparisons to the acronym coined by U.S. Army soldiers during World War II: SNAFU for "situation normal, all fucked up."
In the news media, there were specials, including a much-touted PBS Frontline two-parter on "Bush's War" which followed the mainstream line of mostly accepting the Bush administration's good intentions while blaming the disaster on policy execution – a lack of planning, bureaucratic rivalries, rash decisions and wishful thinking.
The chief interviews for the program were with former Bush administration officials and with journalists – such as Michael Gordon and John Burns of the New York Times whose influential reporting helped set the stage for the war – and with Bob Woodward, whose Bush at War was a generally flattering account of Bush's decision-making.
Remaining outside the frame of mainstream U.S. debate was any serious examination of the war's fundamental illegality.
During the post-World War II trials at Nuremberg, the United States led the world in decrying aggressive war as "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Yet, Frontline and other mainstream U.S. news outlets shy away from this central fact of the Iraq War: by invading Iraq without the approval of the U.N. Security Council and under false pretenses, the Bush administration released upon the Iraqi people "the accumulated evil of the whole" – and committed the "supreme" war crime.
An obvious reason why the mainstream U.S. press can't handle this truth is that to do so would mean that President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, a host of other U.S. officials and even some prominent journalists could be regarded as war criminals.
To accept that reality would, in turn, create a moral imperative to take action. And that would require a great disruption in the existing U.S. power structure, which hasn't changed much since Bush won authorization from Congress in October 2002 to use force and then invaded Iraq in March 2003.
Not only are Bush and Cheney still in office – and two of the three remaining presidential candidates, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, voted for the war – but the roster of top Washington journalists remains remarkably intact from five years ago.
Iraq War hawk Fred Hiatt still runs the Washington Post's editorial pages where you can still read the likes of Charles Krauthammer, David Ignatius, Richard Cohen and a bunch of other columnists who pushed for the war.
The same is true for the New York Times's op-ed page, where writers like Thomas Friedman have prospered despite their erroneous war judgments and where one of the few changes has been to recruit prominent neoconservative William Kristol, who has used his column to chide Americans who won't hail Bush's courageous war leadership.
"During the post-World War II trials at Nuremberg, the United States led the world in decrying aggressive war as "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Yet, Frontline and other mainstream U.S. news outlets shy away from this central fact of the Iraq War: by invading Iraq without the approval of the U.N. Security Council and under false pretenses, the Bush administration released upon the Iraqi people "the accumulated evil of the whole" – and committed the "supreme" war crime.
An obvious reason why the mainstream U.S. press can't handle this truth is that to do so would mean that President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, a host of other U.S. officials and even some prominent journalists could be regarded as war criminals.
To accept that reality would, in turn, create a moral imperative to take action. And that would require a great disruption in the existing U.S. power structure, which hasn't changed much since Bush won authorization from Congress in October 2002 to use force and then invaded Iraq in March 2003."
And what, if anything, will truly change with this next election? Parry states that "Frontline and other mainstream U.S. news outlets shy away" but it is also our candidates and the American people who "shy away."
None of the "big 3" presidential candidates is willing to show any courage or real leadership on this issue. None is willing to say that US conduct in Iraq has been "the supreme international crime." None is willing to fight for global justice.
Instead, what is offered to voters from "the loyal opposition?" We are told of Bush's INCOMPETENCE in Iraq. The implication, of course, is that his invasion of Iraq was legal but perhaps ill-advised. We are told of his poor strategy in carrying out the occupation but nothing of Iraq's sovereignty and our illegitimate occupation. And we are and will be told that, rather than "put the nation through any sort of war crimes trial", we should "get beyond all the partisan bickering" and move the nation forward.
Does anyone care about justice and accountability anymore?
Roughly one million INNOCENT Iraqis died under the sanctions imposed by Bush I and by Bill Clinton. What right did the US have, whether "approved by the UN or not", to starve to death innocent Iraqis, including more than a quarter million children? If the topic cannot even be introduced into the national dialog during the presidential election process, is there really any hope for meaningful change?
And now there are at least another million dead Iraqis because of Bush's invasion. War crime? You're damned straight it is! What kind of useless political process are we running in this country when candidates wouldn't dare make such an accusation? Sorry, candidates, the marketing department would prefer that you not use such inflammatory rhetoric. Give me a break.
The article's title, "When a Great Power Goes Mad" is just perfect. Sadly, our candidates and those who endorse them are also to blame. We demand no accountability; we get no accountability; and we get no change. Unacceptable. When our political institutions are incapable of honoring our values and beliefs, it's time to make radical changes in those institutions. If you keep voting for those who will not stand in true opposition to the tyranny of US imperialism, you are voting for the status quo and for all the injustice, suffering and destruction that implies.
by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 6:01:06 PM
Impeachment, I think, is necessary to help Americans feel that we are willing to admit that we let our country get out of hand. That I've always felt, but when Bob Parry talks about the World Court, that is a bigger issue. And why it occurred to me is because of the setto Kenya went through. They were ruining their country's livelihood, which is the tourist trade. Besides loss of life and personal property, the whole nation could have been in jeopardy. Kofi Annan helped them understand that, apparently.
Reconciliation is a word which lead to action in the Irish troubles and the South African apartheid. At this time, Americans are getting more divisive. We need leaders not of the elective type. I wonder if the people really asserted themselves (impeachment is a formal legal way, but there could be other ways), whether the rest of the nations would stand up for us.
by
Margaret Bassett (19 articles, 1092 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 606 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 9:33:54 PM
On a very practical level we see that the Rule of Law holds no sway with US elites. Political scientists Schmitter and Karl have defined democracy (1991) as follows:
"Modern political democracy is a system of government in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their representatives."
(NOTE: Modifications in the original quote appearing in Journal of Democracy Vol.2, No. 3 Summer 1991 were later made by the authors themselves, who were not pleased with how their "overzealous editors" altered their piece. What I reproduced above is exactly how the authors stated they wanted their definition to read.)
Another student of democracy, Larry Diamond, takes this idea further (1996) when discussing pseudodemocracy:
"In addition to the "vertical" accountability of rulers to the ruled - which is secured most reliably through regular, free, and fair elections (something I dispute occurs in the US since votes are counted in secret) - it requires "horizontal" accountability of officeholders to one another; this constrains executive power and so helps protect ... the rule of law..." (emphasis added)
The people have shown - to our representatives - that laws were broken. Our representatives - specifically Pelosi and Conyers - have denied our petition for redress of grievances.
I can only conclude that the US, by scholarly standards, is merely a pseudodemocracy.
by
Rady Ananda (77 articles, 216 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 559 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 11:09:08 PM
We need leaders not of the elective type. I wonder if the people really asserted themselves (impeachment is a formal legal way, but there could be other ways), whether the rest of the nations would stand up for us.
by
Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM
I have an,"Impeach Bush" bumper sticker. The other day, a woman stopped me in the parking lot to ask why I had it. She said I looked like a nice lady. I began to say that I support our Constitution. That idea must have triggered her programming because she then began to ask me if I believed in the Bible. There are a lot of Americans who are programmed. Cult mind control techniques can be used for a variety of purposes. We better face the reality and learn about what is driving too many Americans into disconnect and a type of madness.
by
Pat Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 82 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 12:58:31 AM
Cheri, Please read August Adams article on 29th re Obama
Adams wrote Obama and got an answer. That was brilliant initiative, I think. It is fundamental that all potential candidates stay out of the issue of impeachment, since it would appear self-promoting. I even cut Nancy Pelosi a little slack on the issue, since she would be in the eye of the storm if Bush/Cheney were brought up together.
In personal communication I have, and can do more, writing to those close to the candidates. My stab at timing is for the House to hold it's hearings after the Democrats have a candidate for certain. There would still be plenty of time before the first part of November, and in fact there is legally time until the new House is seated in January.
I wrote on Adam's post what I always say: Read the book! I'll practice what I preach and study it more today. The Genius of Impeachment by John Nichols.
However, on the question of organizing international simpathy for our catastrophe in the making, I think Obama's book "Dreams of My Father" would be a good place to start. He saw the symptoms of McCarthyism with his stepfather's plight in Indonesia. He saw the Dr. King dream delayed in Altgeld Gardens. And we got a glimpse of his redefining brotherhood when he sorted out his own relatives in Kenya. You are a good writer. Keep it up.
by
Margaret Bassett (19 articles, 1092 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 606 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 2:39:52 PM
