But once the Soviet Union fell and China became a sort of totalitarian capitalist factoryland, it seemed as if there was nothing left to hold us back. Now we could kick over all sort of irritating impediments: treaties, constitutional protections, war crimes laws, regulations, national boundaries, the uniform code of military justice, taxes, environmental regulations, and unions. Make no mistake, this is based on true belief.
Of course, it’s self-serving. Of course, there are huge elements of greed and ego involved. Of course, it is extremely profitable, most especially for the already rich and powerful. But it is also, without doubt, a matter of real belief that American world dominance, our style of democracy, free market economics and Christianity will make the world a better place, every time and inevitably.
That’s the underlying impulse, the theology, that led us to war in Iraq.
Saddam was a symbol of the frustration of restraint.
The most revealing story in Hubris, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn is this: “’Do you want to know what the foreign policy of Iraq is to the United States?’ Bush asked angrily. The president then answered his own question by raising his middle finger and thrusting it inches in front of Sen. Daschle's face, according to a witness, ‘Fuck the United States!’ Bush continued. ‘That's what it is - and that's why we're going to get him!’"
Saddam was protected by the most sacred tenet of international law: the sanctity of the sovereign state and its national boundaries.
Bluntly stated �" except in self-defense or with a Security Council resolution - the invasion of foreign country is a war of aggression. A war of aggression is a war crime. After World War II, we hung Germans and Japanese for doing that. The principle was additionally codified in the UN Charter. The UN Charter has the status of a treaty. According to the Constitution “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The reason that starting a war �" a war of aggression �" is a war crime is that it contains within it all the other crimes of war. If there was any doubt of the horrors released by war, or if we have somehow forgotten them, this war in Iraq is a clear reminder. There have been somewhere between 70,000 and 600,000 more Iraqi deaths than there would have been if the regime of Saddam Hussein had continued. Murder, dismemberment, rape, torture, bombings, disease and chaos are common fare. There have been additional deaths from the lack of medical services and medical supplies, of electricity, clean water, transportation and emergency services. All of this clearly unleashed by the American invasion. Nonetheless, this administration wanted a war.
So they invented a new theory of preventive war. If a country was run by someone who someday might have the weapons and the will to attack the United States, we could invade them now. This is the equivalent of changing our criminal statutes to permit police to shoot someone down on the street because they feel they have reason to believe that if he could get a gun, he might likely decide to use it.
The actual facts of this case are even more extreme. It was the equivalent of shooting someone who had just been searched and had policemen on either side of him who had been assigned to watch him to make sure he didn’t get a gun.
It is true that the United States has gone to war on thin grounds before. But, with the exception of Grenada, rarely with so little excuse, and certainly not establishing far reaching new principals that tear down fundamentals of world order.
The intent was to remove all restraints against the use of military power. The administration wanted the world to know America was free to go to war anytime it wanted. In the words of Richard Perle, "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'"
PART III: THE IMPULSE REMAINS.
The War in Iraq is clearly a failure.
Instead of demonstrating American omnipotence �" as the world’s sole remaining super power �" it sent the opposite message. Even a small, weak country, even in a nation in chaos, can fight the United States to a standstill.
Meanwhile, other states can freely pursue their ambitions, including nuclear ones, while Americans keep themselves busy trying to clear the highway to the airport of improvised explosive devices.
The following is part of an interview from the Kucinich website, regarding a critical vote that will be coming up this spring. How a person votes on this issue will give Americans a clear indication of who is and who isn't presidential material. That is to say, if one votes to continue war funding, they've missed the main idea of the November vote and don't represent the will of the people; alternatively, if there are enough votes to turn off the spigot, the war ends now.
Truthdig: What can people do?
Kucinich: People first of all need to know about this. People need to know that there is an attempt by our leadership to support the supplemental, and what the consequences are.... The most difficult part of the challenge is to get members of Congress to understand that they themselves voted for a bill which went into effect on Oct. 1 that appropriated $70 billion, which could be used to bring the troops home.
Unfortunately, our leadership is saying they're supporting the supplemental as a way of supporting the troops. So if we continue to ignore the money that's there right now to bring the troops home, we're losing an opportunity to bring the troops home now. People are now saying that they oppose the war, but they're continuing to fund it in the name of supporting the troops.
They say they're not going to abandon the troops in the field. We're professing a strange love for these troops by keeping them there, because the money's there to bring them home. So this is going to shape up as a major discussion across this country. People are going to want to know why Democrats would not bring the troops home now, when the money is there now.
Truthdig: For me this is really disheartening, because I feel like I have been lied to, and the American people have been lied to, because the [Democratic] Party was so against extra funds for the war. It's almost like the party has done a bait-and-switch.
Kucinich: I think there's going to be a concern around the country that this does represent a bait-and-switch. I'm hopeful that this position will be reconsidered and that the Democrats will not vote to keep the war going. But at this point, if the Democrats go forward and support a supplemental which by some accounts is now rising to $160 billion, they'll be providing enough money to keep the war going through the end of George Bush's term.
Now, this is a serious moment. I believe the public is largely unaware that this is happening, and I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised to learn that less than one month since this great realignment, that Democrats leaders, who came to power because of widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, are now saying that they will vote to continue funding the war.
Truthdig: Is there any hope to end the war now, and not go for this extra $160 billion in supplemental funds? Was there anything that happened in the room that gave you hope?
Kucinich: There's a type of thinking which equates staying in Iraq as demonstrating strength. There's a type of thinking which equates support for the supplemental with supporting the troops. This type of thinking is inherently flawed. It is circular in its nature. It will keep us in war. It will damn our troops to the horror of getting shot at from all sides. This is the time for Democrats to be uniting to exit from Iraq. And the exit door is already well lit with a sign that says $70 billion.
If we support the troops, why in the world would we not use the money to bring them home, instead of spending more money to keep them in? Why would we, when we have money to bring them home right now, appropriate another $160 billion which would keep them there, possibly through the end of George Bush's term?
The Iraq Study Group recognized the perilous nature of this war, and there is no indication that the administration is going to bring the troops home. Every statement that the president has made has been very clear with respect to his intent to continue the U.S. presence. He has basically said, "No timetables," and he hasn't set any call for troop eeductions.
Now, we have men and women who are dying there, and for what? That's why it's more than disappointing that the Democratic Party is not standing up.
Truthdig: So, again, what can people do?
Kucinich: I think it's important for people to contact their member of Congress, and to let the member of Congress know
how they feel. The people are also going to have to work their e-mail lists to pass the word, because not a lot of people know about this. It's going to be important for people to organize. It's going to take a mass movement to change this situation.
It's going to take a mass movement to really create such an uproar that approval of the supplemental will be stopped.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 81 quicklinks, 125 diaries, 775 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 7:43:18 AM
People have written that we should "be patient" and to "give the Dems time". From what I see, once they vote for that appropriation, Bush can keep the war going. The ONLY thing that Congress can do to stop the war is to cut funding. I don't think they will do it. It seems to me, we've been Bushwacked.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 2:13:26 PM
there are a few people out there predicting a bust including the Comptroller General of the US and the head of the US treasury in addition to the UK Daily Telegraph, see my article here---> click here
Also, there is evidence all around if one can read between the lines.
by
Steven Leser (231 articles, 49 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 1798 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 5:01:16 PM
Nice article. I only want to comment on your opening sentence:
"The vote in 2006 made it clear that people's eyes are actually open."
May I offer a small suggestion? Say, "People eyes are finally starting to open." That's a little different, because the people still have a long way to go to be said to have their eyes open.
Consider the last two presidential elections to see how much the American people learned on the basis of the first four years. By 2004, the people knew (or could and should have known) about multiple unjust and unsound tax breaks for the rich, the absence of promised WMDs and the twin ruses of a phony alleged al Q'aeda link and an eye for democratization. The Bushites had been shown to have ignored 9-11 warnings, and in four years hadn't found bin Laden or done anything with ground zero.
The had had the accountancy frauds, the Enron scandal, the embarrassing Supreme Court nomination, evidence of alarming secrecy and disregard for the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Kyoto Accords. There was the embarrassing failed Mission Accomplished, abu Ghraib, runaway war costs and casualties, the USA-PATRIOT Act, and bin Laden still at large. Bankruptcy was eliminated as an option for many and Bush tried to steal our Social Security.
This is off of the top of my head. I don't know if we had had Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff or Tom DeLay yet, or if they go in to 2004-2006 column, but it doesn't matter, because that was plenty.
The outcomes? About 50-50 in 2000. Four years later, after all of that bad news and those bad outcomes? About 50-50 again. Hmmmmm.
Now jump to the 2006 midterms. Nothing but bad news. Bush is immensely unpopular and even conservatives are starting to wonder if invading Iraq was a mistake based on a lie. Katrina has happened and the aftermath is well known. Bush has alienated much of his religious base and the rest of the country doesn't like his stem cell position.
Maybe add in the Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff or Tom DeLay scandals here. The Diebold debacle, the Foley incident, etc., etc.
Finally, six years later and after being figuratively beaten by a club for six years, here is the evidence of the "awakening" of which you write.
True, the Democrats prevailed in a substantial majority of these races and took a small majority in each house of Congress as a result of that. But they really didn't rout the Republicans like they should have in a race by race analysis of raw percent of votes garnered. The Democrats won a lot of very close races with modest majorities. Why so many close races? This should have been the demise of the Republican Party, but it may have been nothing more than a temporary setback, a hiccup.
And who believes that after two years of Democratic accountability and Republican resistance, with a steady drubbing by the MSM and hate radio in the background continually finding fault with everything that any Democrat or liberal does, that the American people won't forget everything and run back to the Republicans, especially given that the Republicans don't have all that much ground to regain.
If this is a reawakening, I hope somebody set the snooze alarm, because I don't really think that the American people have awakened enough not to be expected to doze off again soon.
Here's something alarming. What would a race of chimpanzees have done if they had been the subjects of a similar discussion? Let's say we gave 300 million chimps some ballots in 2000, and let them vote. Because they don't know what they are doing and because they know nothing about what the marks mean, the vote at random and the results are...about 50-50.
Then, give the chimps four years worth of news updates and bring them back in 2004. Of course, they understand nothing about what has happened or what it means, so they vote again at random (most would still undecided even up to election day) and remarkably, 50-50 again. Hmmmm.
Now you give them two years more of bad news, horrible news in fact, and let them vote again. Here's where the American people finally begin to separate from the chimps, but not by much. The chimps still vote 50-50 and win only half of the races whereas the Americans vote about 55-45 and win most of them by small margins.
Bravo.
My point is that these people are still very lost, not awake.
by
Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments)
on Monday, January 1, 2007 at 6:34:06 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
