"The Star-Spangled Banner" painted the United States in 1814 as "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." These words, though still mumbled by apathetic consumers at sporting events, amount to a cruel satire of the American people in 2007.
The 4th sentence of the Declaration of Independence reads "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (ie, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." It would be hard to find a more apt description of the US government in 2007, or a more appropriate remedy for this oppressive regime, increasingly loathed and feared by the citizenry.
We have a Constitution which defines a separation of powers. It also defines procedures for impeaching officials who violate its bedrock principles -- in particular, its Bill of Rights, its separation of powers, and its foundational notion that power derives from the consent of the governed. We make elected officials swear an oath to "protect and defend" this Constitution. Why bother with all this, if, when the day of tyranny finally arrives, the Constitution's own provisions are not used to defend the document's principles against the would-be tyrants who have so egregiously violated them?
In November, US voters told Washington that the public does not support the war; sees with increasing clarity that it is immoral and was launched on false pretexts; and wants it terminated. In response, Vice-Emperor Cheney snarled in a TV interview with an obsequious Bush toady that regardless of what the public or Congress might say about it, the White House intends not only to continue the war, but to escalate it.
Let's examine this extraordinary position. Here is a top official of a "democracy" -- in a war marketed as an effort to "spread democracy" -- stating publicly & with imperial scorn that he and his co-conspirators have the right to order the US war machine to bombard and occupy any nation they wish to target, even if their war is launched under demonstrably false pretexts. They claim the right to compel the public to furnish lives and bodies to be killed and maimed in the war, and to bear the moral and financial burdens of the war, in an action which not incidentally lets administration allies in the "defense" and oil industries profit handsomely from the ensuing mayhem. Needless to say, from Cheney's viewpoint, it's also of no moment that the war violates the Nuremberg Principles and UN Charter forbidding aggressive war, and that the conduct of the war violates international accords to which the US is a signatory.
If that position does not constitute tyranny and abuse of power, what would? The "long train of abuses and usurpations" cited against King George in the Declaration of Independence was no worse an abuse of power than this. And nothing Britain ever did to its American colonies came anywhere near the monstrous outrages perpetrated by the US on modern-day Iraq.
The war in Iraq is not merely "the most serious foreign policy blunder in American history," as even members of the political establishment have conceded. It represents, rather, a crisis derived from the decaying framework of the US political system, posing the most fundamental question about the relationship between the rulers and ruled in this country. Though the Bush regime led the way, the war is the joint product of both parties and the corporate media -- that is, of the entire political establishment -- with each part playing its own supporting role.
It's not a question of "Well, if only Gore had won in 2000, we wouldn't be in this mess." The mess springs from the very structure of US society -- the unequal distribution of power among its social classes, its economic and political relations with the rest of the world, its ruling ideology. As errors go, there's an immense qualitative difference between a system malfunctioning because its framework is rotting, & the more limited type of error due to a component glitch within an otherwise healthy framework. The war in Iraq is the first type of malfunction: systemic.
The official forms of discourse in US society have degenerated to the point that they no longer permit acknowledgement -- or even mention -- of the main issues confronting us. The problems run too deep. The issues which must be discussed, because they're so important, cannot be discussed, because they're too threatening to the powers controlling the system.
The crises facing our society are like those an individual must confront, when events force upon him a choice of either internally acknowledging a dark & terrible truth about himself, or continuing in denial. The truth seems too terrible to bear -- so the denial continues, & the pressure of the crisis intensifies.
What would a genuine discussion of the issues look like?
If we were to attempt a genuine discussion of the Bush regime, one might formulate the main issues as these:
Is the regime legitimate? After all, it took office by what millions recognize was a stolen election enabled by a corrupt Supreme Court and the president's brother's political machine in Florida.
Is the regime guilty of massive war crimes? After all, they invaded a country that posed no threat to the US, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and have permanently destroyed Iraqi society in their rush to plunder its oil. (This, while not permitting the slightest acknowledgement that oil has anything to do with it.)
Is the regime guilty of high crimes against the Constitution? They have eavesdropped on millions of citizens. They torture detainees, many of whom are probably guilty of little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They have repealed such basic democratic rights as habeas corpus, smeared political opponents, pandered to rightwing theocrats, stacked the judiciary & federal agencies with political cronies, and quietly sneaked into legislation passages making easier the declaration of martial law.
Is the regime a de facto dictatorship? After all, not only do they insist that the president can label anyone an "enemy combatant" and then disappear them; not only do they openly assert their belief in the "unitary executive;" they have also created an artificial state of permanent war, then claimed that a "nation at war" must grant its executive unlimited powers. They have openly claimed the right to wage war on anyone, even on false pretexts, using our bodies & tax dollars to feed a war machine owned by their cronies -- and added with sneering condescension that we have no say in any of this. Anyone who objects is a traitor! All this, in the name of "protecting Americans, freedom and democracy!"
The mainstream media are unwilling to even recognize the existence of such questions. Their comfort zones and expertise are better suited to "reporting" on the astronaut/love-triangle/diaper story, or the intriguing battles raging over Anna Nicole's corpse. There's a story in today's news that Iraq's cabinet has approved a draft of a new "oil law," which would largely turn control of Iraq's oil over to Western oil companies. But we know by now that Anna Nicole's corpse will get far more press in the days ahead, and that no media "analyst" will perceive any noteworthy connection between the new oil law and the Iraq War, originally launched because of imaginary WMD's. (That little boo-boo is regularly ascribed by the media to "flawed intelligence," an interesting phrase deserving further examination, if, against rising odds, we survive the next several months without a world-altering conflagration.)
What does it mean to "Support the Troops?"
In the giddy prosperity following WWII, it became commonplace in American culture to sneer contemptuously about the German soldiers who defended their wartime actions by claiming they were "just following orders." Underlying these sneers was the principle set forth at Nuremberg -- that a soldier has a moral responsibility to refuse to obey orders which their conscience tells them violate a higher ethical code.
Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.
As long as people continue to try to force the square peg into the round hole, i.e., to force-fit the situation into their "oil" paradigm, they will never understand the true nature of the problem. Not that people will do anything about it anyway, but they will at least have some idea of what's going on.
Here's what's going on: A bunch of delusional, bloodthirsty Zionists have taken over our government. They took over the Executive branch, and began purging anyone showing too much reasonableness, patriotism, or moral principle. They need like-minded ideologues in high places, not thinking people.
They are apparently supported by a coalition of deluded, armageddon seeking "Christians", and by a Congress completely in the pocket of the Zionist lobby. Bush is their "Messiah".
Although Bush is a stupid, ignorant, completely morally and mentally incompetent fool, he's got the right combination of horrific personal characteristics, making him the ideal "man" for the job...the perfect puppet.
And that job is to sacrifice America on the altar of Zionism.
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments)
on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 8:41:39 AM
Well, I agree with most of your individual points. The
difference between your perspective & mine is that I don't see the Zionist element as being ALL of it. I think it's a major part of what's going on, but not all of it; & not the main driving force. I've talked about this with you before, & we simply disagree about that part of the analysis.
Some of the things you write I agree with 100%. For instance, here you called Bush's personality characteristics the "right combination of horrific personal characteristics, making him the ideal "man" for the job." And somewhere recently you compared discussing the outlook for the '08 elections, to a terminal cancer patient making long-term investment plans, or something to that effect. Those comments were perfectly in line with my view of things.
But the idea that it's ALL Zionism -- I don't accept that. I think the general US trajectory would be the same even if Israel didn't exist. Most of US history, going back way before Israel existed, had much the same character as what we see today -- the worship of militarism, the aggression, the belligerence, greed, the dishonesty, the brainwashing of the public, and so on. The "Cold War" was a terrible lie in much the same way that the WoT is. And it's easy to see the common thread going back from the Cold War to the Palmer raids & Red Scare of the 1920's, & to the state violence against attempts to form labor unions before that. // Also, though people like Rumsfeld & Cheney are wicked brutes, they are not stupid. They are experts at sensing where their own personal & class interests lie. I easily see how such people would recognize the Zionist influence as a force to be reckoned with, & try to work with it to achieve their own goals ( & goals of common interest). But I don't accept the idea that they too would become "puppets" of any external force. To me, the main driving force is the underlying economic system; the rest follows from that.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments)
on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 10:39:21 AM
"But the idea that it's ALL Zionism -- I don't accept that."
Don't forget, it wasn't oil company executives or Lockheed-Martin executives dancing and high-fiving each other in Liberty Park, on 09/11/2001, with the burning WTC in the background; it was Zionist Jewish agents.
"I think the general US trajectory would be the same even if Israel didn't exist. Most of US history, going back way before Israel existed, had much the same character as what we see today -- the worship of militarism, the aggression, the belligerence, greed, the dishonesty, the brainwashing of the public, and so on."
I agree that the U.S. government has mostly always been militaristic and aggressive, greedy, dishonest, etc., yes. As I see it, in the U.S., "democracy" has never really been anything more than the sad spectacle of various factions of our amoral power elite struggling for control of the state apparatus.
"The "Cold War" was a terrible lie in much the same way that the WoT is."
Absolutely, but most of the people driving it were pragmatists, IMO; immoral certainly, but mostly practical people who went about their daily business of looting the hapless third world and building up an empire, all under the specious rubric of fighting the "spread of communism". As I see it, if Bush and his handlers had been in power during the Cuban Missile Crisis, instead of Kennedy, I doubt we would be having this discussion right now.
"And it's easy to see the common thread going back from the Cold War to the Palmer raids & Red Scare of the 1920's, & to the state violence against attempts to form labor unions before that. // Also, though people like Rumsfeld & Cheney are wicked brutes, they are not stupid. They are experts at sensing where their own personal & class interests lie. I easily see how such people would recognize the Zionist influence as a force to be reckoned with, & try to work with it to achieve their own goals ( & goals of common interest). But I don't accept the idea that they too would become "puppets" of any external force. To me, the main driving force is the underlying economic system; the rest follows from that."
As I see it, the U.S. was precisely the type of pre-existing "beast" the Zionists needed to help realize their immoral and highly ambitious colonial project.
Zionists realized early on that in the corrupt U.S. "democracy", control of money and control of the media ultimately meant political control. And so they've struggled and schemed for a hundred years; tirelessly and doggedly, at times brilliantly, always ruthlessly and opportunistically...and now it's finally paid off bigtime: Israel has finally become the very centerpiece of the existence of the American state. And I guess you can say that of the various struggling factions, the Zionist faction has clearly come out on top.
In fact, if you believe what ex-Zionist Benjamin Freedman says, most of the ills of the 20th century can be laid squarely at the feet of Zionists.
According to Freedman, Zionists sold out Germany (which before WW1 was a haven for European Jewry) and used their (even at that early time, significant) influence to push America into WW1, helping Britain and its allies defeat Germany, and in return getting the Balfour Declaration.
Rich M, excellent article, i believe your assessment of our present government is right on, however you are not on your knees and a growing number of people are realizing the extent of the corruption, thanks to the Web, and as people find out, many become politically active in ways that could bring forth actual solutions, which will no doubt include the sidelining of both wings of the Republocrat Party in favor of 3rd party candidates driven by the human desire to serve the public good, as opposed to the also very human desire to serve theirselves, even at the expense of other people.
If the MSM don't report something, did it happen? It can in this Network Age.
Or if they report a lie, does that mean that effectively it happened that way? Again, the Web is the great equalizer, one person can put out a fact that instantly makes it's way around the world, shifting the paradigm of those minds it connects with, and supporting those people in acting in new ways.
http://www.savetheinternet.com
click here American Revolutionary War- Armies, militias, and mercenaries
Colonists were divided over which side to support. The Revolutionaries (known as "Americans", "Whigs," "Congress-Men" or "Patriots") had the active support of about 40 to 45 percent of the population. About 15 to 20 percent of the population supported the British Crown after 1775 and were known as Loyalists (or Tories)."
imho, we can't win this war being waged on the Constitution and the People with violence; it will have to be done with ideas, knowledge and truth. The criminals doing these things and the traitors enabling them are afraid of the truth, of light being shed on their activities, of them becoming common knowledge and public opinion turning against them, no longer viewing the MSM and the Republocrat run government as legitimate. In the first Revolutionary War, We the People had the help of France and Spain, this time we have all the Peoples of the World on our side, and we can help them establish/restore democratic government in their own nations. Elites (now and all thru history) in the US conspire with their counterparts in all of the world's societies (including those in Israel) to subjugate and exploit the Peoples for their selfish benefit.
Game Theory has demonstrated that when people cooperate and everyone has full access to information, then everyone benefits- even financially.
Everything you say in your excellent article is true. In fact, It's common knowledge. Fact is, the reasons for the run up to the war have all been debunked. And not just on the Internet and fringe radio talk shows but right there in the MSM.
The profits of these oil companies are also reported to the penny. The Billions on top of billions.
Your article adds a vitrol perhaps missing in some MSM reports but the reality is there. The whole world knows about Halliburton, Enron, Bechtel, and all the gross profiteering of the Iraqi Reconstruction. The whole world sees the apparent failure of the IRAQ war.
We all know that the USA installed a Shia majority in Iraq that was allied with Iran. Most of us doubt the pretext for serious war with Iran or the sincerity of the surge. We see the saber rattling and watch the oil prices soar for both the USA and IRAN. And every other Oil producing nation. That also includes Venezeula.
The whole Axis of evil thing is a gimmick to give the illusion of instability and allow a contrived fear to drive the rigged open markets for Oil and other commodities.
All this in plain sight. So where's the outrage? There is none really.
DO people just not care?
Where's the outrage over Walter Reed Hospital?
I don't know. I can only conclude that THIS silent majority knows but either doesn't care or tacitly supports this new status Quo. And it's not new either as you point out in your article.
Deeper reasons? Doubtful.
As for the Zionists, I believe they wanted the WoTerror as a cover for their escapades in the occupied territories. I also think Bush went instead into Iraq so as to more directly profit his class and interests. I doubt the Zionists are thrilled with how things have gone since 2001. I mean look at Israel today. Things just aren't better for them at all.
But Britain financial centers are doing just fine.
Oh Well. (sigh)
Hey! What's on TV?
hoss
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 339 comments)
on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 7:10:08 PM
I'll try to respond to the "SO WHAT" part, though you touch
on several juicy areas.
First, it's true (as you say) that all the facts alluded to in the article are common knowledge, appearing even in the MSM. However, the MSM doesn't present these facts in such a way that their social significance is made clear. Thus the still-large audiences which still rely on the MSM are only able to see the trees, but never the forest.
A great example of this concerned the new Iraqi "oil law" last week. If you saw the NY Times article on it, it presented the facts, but avoided the obvious conclusions. It sterilized the language. The conclusion should have been "So we see that essentially, the US war in Iraq is leading to a puppet government giving away control of Iraq's oil to British & American oil corporations." Yet the language in that article made absolutely no connection between the war and the oil law. We were supposed to believe that the armed presence of 140,000 US troops had nothing to do with this bonanza being dished out to giant oil corporations.
Anyway, to return to SO WHAT? -- if we look at the whole population, about 29% still backs Bush. The rest falls into 2 camps. The larger is the one willing to be led by the Democratic Party. The smaller is the more astute & advanced group, which recognizes that the Dems are just a trap to keep large portions of the population from bolting the official system, & organizing to defend their own interests.
Most Democrats (talking about the voters now, not the DC guys) oppose the war and hate Bush, but still accept a large amount of MSM framing of their worldview; and still accept the Dems -- not understanding the Dems' true role in the system. In contrast, most of the disaffected Bush opponents have come to realize that the MSM is just ruling-class propaganda, & that the Dems themselves are really a ruling-class instrument.
So what I was trying to do in the article was sharpen some of these divisions in world view -- trying to persuade some Dems who are almost at the point of abandoning their party, to recognize the necessity of making the final break. I truly believe that as long as most people who are instinctively repelled by the likes of Bush-Cheney remain within the fold of the Democratic Party, there is no hope. (cf my reference to the party's "buffer" function, in the article)
The best way to understand politics, IMHO, is through class analysis. (This skips a lot of steps, I know.) But class analysis reveals what the Dems really represent. There's just no hope of serious change, as long as well-intentioned people allow themselves to be seduced by the fact that, say, a Charles Schumer smiles a lot on TV & seems gentle, while rightwing lunatics like Rummy or Cheney scowl all the time, & look like the monsters they are.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments)
on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 8:44:45 PM
As you point out the Democrats are in the same pockets as the Republicans but their roles are different. But even that that MSM reports by showing the same special interests hosting the gala's at the Two political conventions. MSM also reports the special interest's donations that go to both partys.
Perhaps what we're seeing is just a lack of general comprehension of the implications? Perhaps we're seeing some comprehension and a lot of aquiesence to this status quo.
Of course the Iraq war was about the oil. People on the street know that. Some even think that oil is worth fighting for. That's subjective. But what isn't subjective is the fact that we all buy gas and drive and buy oil and heat our homes etc.
Polite society is like that. We know what's going on and with a collective wink and a nod we protest and show outrage. And then we climb back in our cars and return to our heated homes.
Class distinctions and priviledge are not new. Nor is people's acceptance of their institutional, pidgeon holed place in this feudal structure.
Hey, keep of the good work!
Hoss
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 339 comments)
on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 7:10:15 AM
