This past week, President Bush gave a spirited defense for his policies in Iraq. Senator Kerry attempted to refute almost every point that President Bush made except for a very key issue. That issue is whether America's actions caused the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001 as well as elsewhere. Both said that American actions did not cause that terrorism.
President Bush's rationale for his statements were actually an insult to the intelligence of anyone who is even slightly familiar with the recent history of the Middle East. President Bush "reasoned" that American actions could not have caused the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center because we were not in Iraq before those times. For President Bush's logic to work here, America's actions in the Middle East started with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Senator Kerry also stated that American actions were not the cause of the said terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center though he states clearly that America's current occupation of Iraq is contributing to the growing strength of Al-Qaeda.
The factual flaws in President Bush's logic could start with 1953 when we participated in a coup that overthrew Iran's democratic government simply because they were nationalizing their oil fields. The result of the coup was that we supported the Shah and the oppression he brought to dissidents in the country for approximately 26 years. He was replaced by the Iranian Revolution. Or we could mention the American contribution to placing the B'aath party in power in the 1960's. We could also mention the support that we gave to Saddamn Hussein up until the time he invaded Kuwait. This time period included some of Saddamn's atrocities for which he was put on trial and convicted. Or we could also mention the sanctions we forced on Iraq that, according to the UN, was responsible for the deaths of 400,000 to 800,000 Iraqi children. A former UN Humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday, resigned over these sanctions and called them "genocidal." His successor, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned in protest against the sanctions. We could point to our preferential treatment of the ruling family in Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact that approximately 50% of the Muslim foreign fighters (remember that American troops are also foreign fighters there) in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia and that Iran is more of a democracy than Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is given a free pass for the presence of its fighters while Iran is singled out for blame and possible attack.
Then there is our relationship with Israel. This subject deserves its own section because of the complexities involved. There is a difference between supporting Israel and its right to exist per se and supporting its policies against the Palestinians. America, for the most part, has failed to make that distinction as Israel continues to confiscate more land while oppressing the Palestinians. Israel could not have continued with this oppression without American aid and support. Supporting Israel's existence as a friend and a matter of morality is good. But one does not have to include supporting their policies against the Palestinians as part of doing what is right.
The above is just a sampling of American actions that preceded both the invasion of Iraq and the terrorist attacks on the US. And the same person, Osama Bin Ladin, who called Zarqawi the "Prince" of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, listed the murderous sanctions against Iraq and our unbalanced support of Israel as 2 of the 3 reasons why we have been attacked. If President Bush was eager to believe Bin Ladin regarding Zarqawi's position in Al-Qaeda, why does he ignore what Bin Ladin has called the reasons for his war of terrorism. We should note that not only were our actions mentioned above unnecessary, they went against core basic American principles. Yet, from sitting in a tree, both President Bush and Senator Kerry loudly proclaim that American actions were not a cause for past terrorist attacks.
How should we then interpret President Bush's sincerity? One possible interpretation is to realize that those wanting more power, will be reluctant to admit previous misuses of power. Otherwise those granting such power, the American people, will view such a request as throwing more power after bad power. Certainly Bush was not President when our actions provided the reasons for the terrorist attacks against us, but he is, in essence, continuing to take the same old approach as has been used in the past only to a further degree. Bush's speech, though spirited and impassioned, fails the fact test. And because it fails the fact test, it also fails the logic test. And because of how Bush's speech fails the fact and logic tests, his sincerity must be doubted. The same can be said of Senator Kerry's sincerity though to a lesser degree.
But we should also note that history teaches us that wrong policies can produce even worse repercussions for both ourselves and the world. Despite the horrors that await our withdrawal from Iraq, our continued occupation is amassing a credit card bill that we may not be able to pay in the future. Certainly, our past sins have put us into too many positions where all of our choices are bad choices. Should this not cause us to repent of current sins just for the sake of our own survival?
Curt Day is a religious flaming fundamentalist and a political extreme moderate. Curt's blogs are at http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ and http://extrememoderate.blogtownhall.com
your point about Bush & Kerry, which is well-taken, is just a specific instance of a far more general phenomenon.
No American politician of either party is really allowed to publicly acknowledge the sins of American foreign policy. Marginal figures can sometimes get away with it, but it's rare. For instance, in a Republican debate in May, Ron Paul told some of these same truths about the CIA's 1953 coup in Iran, etc. He was immediately pounced upon by the flaming "patriotic" demagogue Giuliani, & essentially taken to task for telling the truth. (More or less, "How dare you imply, Mr Paul, that the US has ever done anything wrong!!) The ignorant Republican studio audience broke into wild applause for Giuliani!! Yee-Haa!
Similarly, Kucinich has publicly stated that the Iraq War is largely about oil. He was savaged for saying this once on "Meet the Press" by the neocon lunatic Richard Perle, and otherwise, his remarks have met with stony silence.
If Paul or Kucinich ever got to be serious contenders, they would simply not be able to say stuff like this. (Or, more accurately, because they say true stuff like this, they have no chance of ever becoming serious contenders.) All leading US politicians MUST pretend at all times that all US actions are (and always have been) moral and well-intentioned. The truth plays no role in this, whatever.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1234 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 12:01:17 PM
Your comment makes a clear point that in many cases it is not the candidates, but the corporate press that is the problem. If you can't tell the truth without being drawn and quartered on TV, and in newspapers, then you are in an unwinnable situation.
Add to that the YEE HAW! sector of the American public that makes it easy for the press to blast liberals and progressives.
If you were a politician, how would you take on the media knowing that they have the ultimate megaphone, and you have an old dixie cup with a short string?
by
John R Moffett (83 articles, 17 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 650 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 2:32:37 PM
Hi John - Well, you pose a very meaty question there.
Namely, "If you were a politician, how would you take on the media knowing that they have the ultimate megaphone, and you have an old dixie cup with a short string?"
That question can be approached many ways. One could frame an answer in terms of how an individual politician might handle it, or in much broader terms.
When I mentioned the Kucinich-Perle interaction on Meet The Press in 2003, about "oil" -- in that situation, if I was Kucinich, I would have stood my ground & fought back against Perle. What actually happened is that Kucinich said the war was basically about oil, then Perle snarled at him, "Congressman, you have no proof whatever of that!!" And Kucinich unfortunately decided not to fight back. He hung his head & literally said nothing in response.
(By coincidence, I got the chance to chat with Kucinich personally a few months later, after he spoke in my town. I told him I understood that he just didn't want to get down into the gutter to do mud-wrestling with a swine like Perle, but that I felt it had been a big mistake, to simply let Perle bully him into silence on that point. And Kucinich tried not to deal with my main point. Instead, he kept smiling & complimenting me on how "perceptive" I was, to recognize that he was just trying to avoid undignified mud-wrestling.)
But in the larger scheme of things, the problem is one of seeking to raise the general level of political consciousness. I think that the state of US society is becoming so dangerously severed from the truth, that we can no longer afford to let crass motives (purely electoral or career considerations; fears about media spin) determine our choices. An individual politician can only do so much, but an entire party could in theory say, "There are certain truths that we are going to hammer home, in the months ahead -- here they are." And all members could in theory be disciplined to focus relentlessly on those specified points. Telling the truth carries a risk, but always hiding the truth out of fear also carries a risk. The day is approaching where US society will pay an immense & historic price for its long refusal to confront the truth about itself.
A conscious party-wide attempt to educate the public to important realities plays no role whatever in the actions of today's D's & R's, both of whom are talking about things like Hillary's cleavage, while leaving unspoken the real & urgent issues facing the nation. A party could say, OK, we're going to educate the public about what the Iraq War has really done to Iraq society; or the fact that oil has always had a great deal to do with it; or the fact that the Pres, the VP, the AG, & all their henchmen are war criminals in the strict sense of Nuremberg. If the media then ridiculed that party, as of course they would, the party would fight back, exposing the media for its long & easily-documented history of lies.
Needless to say, neither of the 2 big parties can do this, because both are corrupt to the core, & are joined at the hip with each other & with the media. All 3 are joined together in a culture of lying -- the exact sort of thing Jefferson feared when he said that the tree of liberty had to be watered with the blood of domestic tyrants, every 20 yrs or so, to keep the system honest.
It's a long subject. I can't do it justice in a quickie post!
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1234 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 5:08:24 PM
The best way to take on the corporate press and to get the truth to the public, I think, is through organizing those who do not buy the denial and lies of the press and the politicians. You suggested that we organize rather than squabble, but it appears you dropped the ball.
I lived and worked overseas for twenty years, ten years in Muslim countries. I was in a building that was car bombed by terrorists, I was in Kuwait when Iraq attacked, I was in Pakistan when 30,000 persons volunteered to go to Iraq to fight the Americans and were turned back at the border by Iran, I was in Moscow after the attempted coup, and saw the die-hard communists marching in the streets. I have seen the proliferation of Osama bin Laden T-shirts in a moderate Muslim country since the Iraq war. We need to understand that the rest of the world sees us in denial, or stupid, or worse, and rightly so. We as a nation need to face up to our own actions and policies which have created the terrorist problem, and stop pretending, or believing, that we are to be looked up to for our moral principles and democratic ideals. We need to join the community of nations in trying to first understand and then solve the problems we all face, and make this a better world, not just for Americans but for all people.
I was encouraged by your suggestion that we organize. We cannot achieve much as individuals. We need numbers to have any influence. So where do we go from here? Do you plan to follow through with your own suggestion?
by
Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Monday, July 30, 2007 at 11:42:11 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 (
