|
To unsubscribe, change your address, or subscribe, go here for Bush Headline News or here for Inside Bush Watch.
BUSH WATCH...BERNARD WEINER
Bernard Weiner, playwright-poet and Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at various universities, was a writer/editor for the San Francisco Chronicle for 19 years, and is co-editor of The Crisis Papers.
home |
google news |
comment |
features |
today's news |
news update |
news archives |
us |
contact |
Bushism as Greek Drama:
"Hubris" and "Tragic Flaws"
By Bernard Weiner
April 26, 2006
The world of theatre that I've swum in for decades as a drama
critic provides a useful prism through which to view today's
political events and players.
This is especially true when thinking about drama from ancient
Greece and Europe's Renaissance. Those periods remind us how
often human tragedy repeats itself over the centuries. (Which is
why many modern directors return so often to the wisdom of these
ancient plays, often staging them with contemporary conceits so
as to make the connections overt for their audiences.)
Much of ancient Greek drama focuses on the disastrous results of
"hubris," an overweening pride and arrogance that can lead
rulers to go outside the ethical/legal boundaries. (See "Oedipus
Rex," "Antigone," "The Orestia.") Almost invariably, because
their reckless attitude upsets the delicate balance required for
proper rule, punishment or even tragedy results -- and not just
personal, but for society as a whole.
NIXON, REAGAN & CLINTON
Nixon, coming off a landslide GOP victory in 1972, committed
"hubris" by thinking himself immune from normal laws ("When the
President does it, that means that it is not illegal," he
claimed) by authorizing secret wiretapping, breaking & entering,
bribing of witnesses, etc. -- the felonies that came to be subsumed
under the rubric "Watergate." To avoid his imminent impeachment,
Nixon resigned, the only President to do so in American history.
Reagan, a popular Republican president in the 1980s, had his dip
into hubris by engaging in the Iran/Contra scandal (illegally
selling arms to enemy Iran in order to secretly finance
anti-government guerrillas in Nicaragua), and then claiming the
violations of law never happened. Reagan probably avoided later
criminal prosecution when GOP President George H.W. Bush
sandbagged the scandal by pardoning key participants "pre-emptively,"
before questioning under oath could begin.
The Democrat Clinton entered the halls of hubris when he,
believing a President could get away with anything, lied about
having engaged in dubious conduct with a government intern. He
was impeached but the Senate did not convict, believing, along
with the overwhelming majority of the American people, that
lying about sex did not constitute a "high crime" against the
country or Constitution.
BUSH'S UNPRECEDENTED HUBRIS
Now we have Bush Junior, who has attempted to codify his
power-grabbing hubris by claiming that the President can do
whatever he chooses to do as long as he does so as "commander in
chief" during "wartime." Using this dictatorial theory, Bush has
authorized torture, illegal spying on U.S. citizens, breaking &
entering into citizens' homes and computers without their ever
knowing such violations of privacy occurred, leaking classified
information to friendly reporters, and on and on.
The scale of Bush's hubris is unprecedented in American history,
which may be why, five years into his rule, even friends and
conservative supporters are opposed to his unconstitutional grab
for power. Many of them recall Bush's predilection for operating
outside the laws and traditions of our democratic republic;
three times he has expressed an affinity for dictatorship. What
may have been Freudian-slip jokes when uttered several years ago
-- such as: "it would be much easier if this was a dictatorship,
as long as I get to be the dictator" -- now don't seem so funny.
THE "TRAGIC FLAW"
Which brings us to the next theatrical concept from the Greeks,
and honed in the works of Shakespeare in the Elizabethan period
in England more than 400 years ago: the "tragic flaw."
The essence of this theory is that, by and large, rulers are not
brought down only, or even mainly, by external events -- rather,
they bring ruin upon themselves because of some significant
deficiency in their own character, a "tragic flaw" in their
psychic and ethical makeup. They are consumed by overweening
lust for power, or don't mind using immoral means in the service
of good ends, or can't control their obsessions, etc. Think:
"Macbeth," and ambition; "Othello," and jealousy; "Hamlet," and
indecision.
Nixon's "tragic flaw" was his paranoia, needing always to know
what his political opponents were up to, hence the break-in and
wiretapping of the Democratic Party headquarters, the building
of his "enemies' list," digging up personal information for his
"dirty-trick" operations against political opponents, etc.
Reagan's "tragic flaw" was his simplistic view of the world,
divided into "the evil empire" (the Soviet Union) and us good
American guys; this stark black-and-white view of reality led
him illegally to sell armaments to another enemy (Iran) in order
to find ways around Congressional laws that prohibited U.S.
funds going to the anti-Communist Contra guerrillas in
Nicaragua.
Clinton's tragic flaw, again derived out of a weak aspect at his
core, was his need for constant affirmation, which he could
assuage by finding a woman who would sexually service him out of
adoration.
ROVE'S M.O.: DENY AND ATTACK
Bush is the apotheosis of all those weaknesses into one
humonguous Tragic Flaw unlike any that has been seen in American
politics, with worldwide consequences that result in hundreds of
thousands of deaths and maimings. What is different is that the
other leaders, at some level, knew they were misbehaving and
tried like the dickens to hide the evidence. These politicians
were undone when they came to learn, once again, that the
coverup is always worse than the crime.
Bush, of course, has tried to conceal his many mistakes, but
when that doesn't work, the Rovian approach for Bush is to
loudly assert, in a threatening in-your-face manner, that his
worst weaknesses are really his strengths. (For example, he's
violating laws and the Constitution in order "to protect
Americans.")
As the many violations and scandals begin breaking through the
denial dam, the policy is altered to proudly assert a
"constitutional right" right to do whatever Bush and his cohorts
are doing or planning on doing. In short, a variation of Nixon's
claim (a theory knocked down instantly by the Supreme Court in
the early 1970s) that whatever the President does is ipso facto
legal. Most legal scholars today support the Supreme Court's
outright dismissal of that claimed right to abrogate the
Constitution and upset the separation of powers structure -- but
let us not forget that Bush may well have a working majority on
today's Supreme Court.
From where does Bush's tragic flaw derive?
ORIGIN OF THE DISEASE
In almost any area of governance you can think of, George Bush
is ridden with the fault-lines of his tragic flaws -- and may
have borrowed some from earlier leaders.
Bush is so bereft of self-esteem (much of it derived from his
upbringing, by constant humiliation by his parents, by a string
of personal and business failures, by his inability to admit
error and tell the truth), that he can't help himself from
over-compensating by displaying a persona of cockiness and
belligerent authority. In short, the bully syndrome: deficient
on the inside, aggressive on the outside. Bush, let us remember,
delighted in blowing up frogs with explosives as a child.
Incompetent by nature and practice, Bush surrounds himself with
yes-men and those who likewise are boastful bumblers. Basically
ignorant, dogmatic and intellectually incurious, Bush easily is
manipulated and swayed by those few insiders he trusts; namely,
Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the architects of
his political ideology and modus operandi.
One can sense that the American people during the past year or
so figured out that Bush and his crew are way over their heads
when it comes to intelligent leadership -- witness the debacle
that is Iraq, the post-Katrina-disaster federal "assistance"
they thoroughly botched in New Orleans, the economy which has
put future generations trillions of dollars in hock, the
Medicare and Social Security messes, Plamegate, domestic spying,
torture, etc. etc.
When Bush uncorks another of his deficient media performances
these days, a majority of the American people simply don't pay
much attention anymore to what he says, since they know it bears
only the slightest connection either to what he is doing or to
the activities of Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld behind the curtain.
IMPEACHMENT AS A NECESSITY
Many citizens, numb and apprehensive, seem fixated on somehow
riding out the next two-and-a-half years of disastrous policies
and destructive consequences under Bush. Or perhaps they suspect
that something will come along, maybe the Republicans losing the
House or Senate in the November midterm election, to finally
offer some hope for the future -- including Bush and Cheney
resigning rather than to face impeachment. Don't count on it.
These guys will have to have the stake of impeachment and
conviction driven through their hearts to get them to vacate the
White House -- which is why we have to keep driving this issue
this early in the process. We have to make it a viable,
mainstream option and reasonable topic for discussion.
Certainly, our immediate future -- the pending attack on Iran,
perhaps using "tactical' nuclear weapons -- does not offer the
slightest bit of encouragement. On the contrary, I'd say the
odds are 50/50 that America will survive that reckless
adventurism, which potentially could lead to a World War
III-type conflagration.
WHY GENERALS ARE SPEAKING UP
As we prepare to march and demonstrate Saturday in New York and
elsewhere against the war in Iraq, it is essential that we remember
there's another war re-flaring in Afghanistan and that Bush&Co.
are quite eager to take us into the maelstrom of still more
military madness in Iran. A trifecta of dangerous, reckless
wrong-headedness.
That's why the generals are speaking up (finally!) in opposition
to the Cheney/Rumsfeld war policy, and why we need to crank up
our opposition on the civilian side. We did it decades before
with regard to the Vietnam debacle, and helped bring that
conflict to a close, and we can do it again here with regard to
Iraq/Iran. But only if we're ready to do the heavy lifting to
build a truly effective oppositional Movement. Let's get to
work.
Stop Us Before We Kill Again!
By Bernard Weiner
April 20, 2006
The essence of Bush&Co. strategy, from January 2001 to today, can be
boiled down to this: We'll continue doing whatever we want to do until
someone stops us.
So, if you're wondering whether the U.S. will back off from attacking
Iran, or whether corporations will no longer be given the ability to
dictate Administration environmental policy, or whether domestic spying on
U.S. citizens will cease, or whether Scalia might recuse himself on cases
he's already pre-judged -- if you still harbor any or all of those
illusions, forget about it.
Since Bush&Co. openly carry out the most reprehensible crimes, with nobody
being able to prevent them from moving on to even worse atrocities, it's
almost as if their unconscious is screaming out for a political
intervention, reminiscent of that old plea from a tormented serial-killer:
"Stop Me Before I Kill Again!"
But consciously, as they sense their time in power may be coming to an
inglorious end and as they read their quickly-sinking poll numbers, they
can't help themselves from issuing their traditional, in-your-face dare:
"Stop me if you can, losers!"
This big-A "Attitude" started long before Inauguration Day, when Karl Rove
& Dick Cheney were devising their strategy and theory of governance. It
goes something like this: We need only one vote more than the other guys
-- on the Supreme Court, in the Senate, in the popular vote totals in key
states. Once we get our victory by whatever means necessary, we are then
the "legitimate" rulers. We can claim The People Have Spoken and that we
have a "mandate" for action and can do whatever we want. If you don't like
it, tough. If you're foolhardy enough, you can try again at the next
election and see where that gets you, suckers -- our side counts the
votes!
THE POSITIVES & NEGATIVES
The Bushistas look around and, though not happy with how their policies
have fallen out of favor, they can be somewhat sanguine. After all, their
fundamentalist base of about 33% is still hanging in there with them. The
mainstream media -- most newspapers, Fox News, radio talk-shows, cable
pundits -- are still more or less in their pockets. The bothersome
Democrats remain in the minority, marginalized in Congress and far away
from the levers of power. The votes are still tabulated by a few
Republican companies, many from e-voting machines that are easily
manipulatable by company technicians, even from remote distances. Another
major catastrophe -- a new war, a huge natural disaster, a major terrorist
attack -- can re-focus the headlines away from Bush&Co.'s current and
ever-growing scandals.
On the other hand, a determined prosecutor Fitzgerald is still out there,
deeply knowledgeable about what really went down in the manipulation of
pre-Iraq War intelligence. The military establishment is rebelling against
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war policies, openly in the case of those generals
who resigned to speak their minds, and covertly in the case of those
actively serving who are leaking their opposition to Jack Murtha, Sy Hersh
and others. More and more conservative and moderate Republicans are
backing away from too-close association with BushCheney, and there have
been a number of embarrassing defeats for the Administration in Congress.
Revelations of one Bush&Co. scandal after another keep coming (Katrina,
Abramoff, domestic spying, WMD lies, torture, Plamegate, Unitary Executive
dictatorship, and on and on).
Given all that -- and one suspects that is just the tip of the criminality
iceberg -- one would expect that Bush and Cheney would be approaching the
impeachment dock shortly. But while a majority of the public is willing to
consider or support making Bush and Cheney accountable for their lies and
corruption and incompetency, the weak-kneed politicians simply refuse to
even consider a censure resolution, let alone to pass one authorizing
impeachment hearings. In short, the Democrats have chosen not to put up a
real fight for either the future well-being of the Constitution or their
own political survival, preferring instead to watch from the sidelines as
the Republicans implode in corruption, scandal and disarray.
And so, with no effective opposition in their way, Bush&Co. simply keep
moving forward. Next stop: Iran.
THIS IS NOT JUST SABER-RATTLING
Though there is some speculation that all this talk about Bush attacking
Iran is so much saber-rattling to get the Iranians to back away from
pursuing their nuclear ambitions, I don't buy it.
Bush&Co. want this war for a variety of reasons: to further their
deeply-held goal (and Bush's sense of "legacy") of altering the
geopolitical makeup of the greater Middle East; to control the vast oil
reserves in the region; to provide yet another demonstration model to
Muslim rulers in the area not to mess with U.S. desires and demands; and,
of course, to wrap Bush in the warrior flag yet again as a way of
deflecting attention away from his domestic and foreign scandals by
counting on the public's fascination with footage of laser-guided
"precision" bombs striking the "enemy's" buildings and radar batteries.
("Precision" is in quotation marks because by now we know to anticipate
thousands of dead and wounded civilians when the missiles and bombs go
off-target. And, let us not forget, we haven't even brought up the subject
of the radiation effects that might ensue if, as is being planned, Bush
uses "tactical" atomic bombs, the so-called mini-nuke "bunker busters," to
get at Iran's deep-underground labs. If such WMD are employed by the U.S.,
hundreds of thousands could be killed or badly damaged by radiation, and
the area contaminated into the far future.)
The propaganda barrage being laid down by Administration spokesmen these
days is so utterly identical to the fog of lies that preceded the attack
on Iraq that it seems all Rumsfeld and Rice have to do is simply re-use
the original press releases and change the last letter of the target
country, "n" instead of "q." We even get ye olde "mushroom cloud" image
hauled out again, supposedly warning us about Iran's non-existent nuclear
weapons; this time, that mushroom cloud could well be one effected by the
U.S. bombers and missiles.
Even the fantastical expectations are as out of whack as what we were told
would happen in Iraq. There, we were promised, the American forces, in a
"cakewalk," would be greeted as "liberators," with kisses and flowers. In
Iran, we're told, much the same will occur, and the oppressed Iranians,
chafing at the harsh rule of the fundamentalist mullahs running the
country, will rise up and topple their repressive government.
Seymour
Hersh writes: "One former defense official, who still deals with
sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military
planning was premised on a belief that 'a sustained bombing campaign in
Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise
up and overthrow the government.' He added: 'I was shocked when I heard
it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?'")
NUCLEAR BUNKER-BUSTERS?
These predictions of a popular Iranian uprising, which arise out of
neo-con ignorance and desire, simply ignore the realities on the ground.
Imagine, for example, how U.S. citizens would feel -- even those opposed
to the Bush Administration -- if a bullying foreign power bombed the hell
out of our country's scientific and industrial laboratories, killing a lot
of our citizens in the process, and badly hampering our economic progress
for decades to come. If the attack included nuclear bombs, multiply those
angry reactions (and the resulting radiation deaths) by a thousand per
cent. How would the citizens react? Of course: The American people would
unite behind their leaders, beloved or despised, in resisting the
attackers. Much the same reactions should be anticipated from Iran's
citizens.
In Iran's case, given that it's the major Muslim military and political
power in the region, that resistance might well lead to retaliation where
it hurts. Israel, America's one surefire ally in the region, probably
would be attacked, thus widening the already red-hot conflict; U.S.
warships in the area would be targeted by Iranian missiles; oil sales to
the West would be greatly reduced or cut off entirely, and perhaps other
oil fields in the region might be bombed; the Straits of Hormuz, which
control entry into the Persian Gulf, might be blocked to sea traffic;
Iranian assault troops might enter Iraq to support the insurgency, which
would have redoubled its attacks on U.S. forces; Iran-sponsored terrorists
would hit American targets both in the region and perhaps even inside the
United States. Plus, the Law of Unintended Consequences would lead to even
more ruinous events not even contemplated here as other Islamic nations
become involved.
Surely, Iran knows how much the U.S. military is stressed these days in
Iraq and Afghanistan, how thin the troop strength is around the globe, how
so many U.S. troops are going AWOL or are not re-upping, how National
Guard troops and commanders are reacting negatively to their overuse
outside America's boundaries, how many in the Pentagon brass are opposed
to Bush policy, etc. The aim of the Iranians, in this scenario, would be
to get the U.S. bogged down in yet another land war in the region.
In short, it's not just the ineptly-managed quagmire in Iraq that is
behind much of the opposition from high-ranking officers and retired brass
in America's military command. Clearly, they are speaking out now because
of the prospect of another disaster about to unfold in Iran, which will
get young American troops slaughtered and tied-down in yet another
military adventure.
(Let us be clear. The military brass currently in revolt against Rumsfeld
and his superiors -- the unnamed Cheney and Bush -- are not liberal
activists energized by the issues of whether these wars are moral or legal
or even well-advised; they are arguing, for the most part, on how best to
properly manage such conflicts, how to more effectively conduct such
imperial adventures while keeping their troops safe. But, whatever their
motives, progressives should welcome any dissent that weakens the hold of
the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad on the levers of uncriticized power.)
WHY IRAN WANTS NUKES
Do I believe that Iran's rulers are nice, progressive guys who deserve our
active support? Of course not. Ahmadinejad mirrors Bush as a close-minded,
backward-looking, religiously-influenced fundamentalist leader, and Iran's
senior mullahs likewise. Do I believe Iran wants uranium-enrichment purely
to build nuclear power plants? Of course not. They desire to be the big
power in the neighborhood, plus they've seen how defenseless Iraq and
Afghanistan were treated, and how this differs from how the U.S. behaves
toward North Korea, Pakistan and India, all recent members of the
nuclear-weapons club.
If for no reason other than their own protection against the two atomic
powers in the region (the U.S. and Israel), the Iranian government's goal
is to possess some nuclear-tipped missiles. Their atomic program is taking
its first babysteps these days. America's own intelligence analysts
believe it would take
anywhere from five to ten years to get to the point of Iran having a
nuclear arsenal. And, if both sides possess nuclear weapons, the world may
return to the days of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, as a brake on
rash action.
The Bush doctrine of "preventive" or "pre-emptive" war is to hit potential
enemies before they can even get on the track of building up their
weaponry. Hit 'em while they're weak and vulnerable, even if they have no
plan of attacking anybody (such was the case with Iraq) -- that's the
operating principle. The Islamic states are weak and vulnerable right now;
hit 'em. Iraq is weak and vulnerable; take it. Iran doesn't yet have a
fully developed nuclear program; blast it.
THE APRIL 29TH ANTI-WAR TEST
Nobody is sure when the U.S. attack on Iran will come. Given the
resistance inside the American military to launching such an attack, the
Bush propaganda machine may feel it needs a few more months to soften the
public's attitude to the "inevitability" of the move on Iran. (And to
obtain the international fig-leaf of a vaguely-worded U.N. Security
Council authorization vote for war.) Or they could judge that the
situation requires a "the-sooner-the-better" approach, before too much
opposition develops in the American body politic and around the globe.
Since this will not be a ground invasion, the air assault could happen at
any moment. I'm guessing we have maybe a month in which to head this
madness off at the pass.
Before the attack on Iraq in 2003, more than ten million people worldwide
marched in opposition to that imminent invasion. Three years later, there
seems very little organized resistance to the impending war on Iran. Only
now is the possibility of such a U.S. attack coming onto most folks' radar
screens. The peace movement seems puny in its ability to organize masses
of demonstrators these days, whereas the march of immigrants across the
country brought out millions.
We'll have a better sense of the strength of the peace movement on April
29, when the big anti-war march (the war being opposed is the one in Iraq)
will happen in New York City, this one organized by United for Justice &
Peace. Will those in the anti-war movement see the larger picture and
alter their approach and rhetoric and actions accordingly? We shall see.
Bush Visits His Shrink, Session #2
By Bernard Weiner
April 13, 2006
"The last
time we met, sir, you had me thrown out of the White House, thinking
me too aggressive with my questions. Now you're back for another session.
What's changed?"
"It's worse. My world is falling apart. People aren't afraid of me
anymore. The whole Plame and Iraq-intelligence and NSA spying stuff is
coming at us full force, and we haven't got good answers. I can't sleep
well. I have more nightmares. Not even the pills help. My wife, my doctors
and my chief adviser more or less ordered me see you again. Otherwise, I
wouldn't have come, believe me."
"I do believe you. Many clients in the early stages of counseling get
very uncomfortable when the therapist brings up sensitive topics. It's not
unusual for them to lash out at the therapist rather than doing the hard
work of diving into that uncomfortable area and trying to deal with those
issues."
"I don't believe in therapy, doc."
"Do you mean you don't believe it exists? Or that it doesn't work, at
least that it wouldn't help you?"
"I've gotten to where I am today on the basis of my will and belief in
myself, and I see no reason to question myself now."
"But you seem to be suggesting that you've lost your hold over people
after years of doing what you're always done. So maybe it's the perfect
time to re-examine your patterns and your behaviors and see if any changes
need to be made. I'm happy to work with you, if you wish to do that."
"But if I start doubting myself, then the people will lose their faith in
me, and I'll lose more of my self-esteem, and so on. It's a no-win
situation. I want you to just move on to other areas, doc. But I want to
make sure again that our confidentiality agreement is still in place;
nothing I say leaves this room, right?"
THE SWAMP NIGHTMARE
"Yes, of course. OK, we can move on to other topics, and perhaps as we
talk, some of the other areas that need work will insert themselves. Why
don't you tell me about those nightmares you're having. What's the most
recent one?"
"It reminds me of the one I told you about during our first session. In
this one, I'm stuck up to my neck in black tar, in a swamp red with blood.
Sharks are circling me. I scream for help to my friends in the airboats,
but they just smile and wave at me. Burros, whose noses are machine-guns,
are aiming at me from the bank; big sheets of paper are falling on me from
the sky. I feel like a perfect target: unable to get out of the tar; my
enemies can pick me off; my friends aren't coming to my aid; the paper
sheets are falling faster and faster; the black swamp is sucking me down.
I wake up in a cold sweat."
"I certainly can see why you'd be disturbed by those images. What do
you make of the dream? You began by saying it reminded you of the
nightmare you told me previously, where you were swimming in black sticky
stuff and crying tears of blood. Why do you think, for example, your
friends would not be coming to your aid?"
"In the dream, they think I'm going down anyway, so why come near me? They
might get shot also or get eaten by the sharks. So they smile and wave and
pretend they're still my friends. But they've really just deserted me to
save their asses."
"And can you translate that to your life in the real world? Do you
think your friends are deserting you?"
"My poll numbers are in the toilet, and I'm losing battle after battle in
Congress as conservatives and moderates peel off. I guess those are the
people in the dream smiling and waving at me. They're no longer in my
pocket, not afraid any more. They rode my coattails into power in
Congress, but having to face re-election in November, they're now happy to
put some distance between themselves and me, away from that mucky swamp."
ADMITTING WEAKNESS IS WEAKNESS
"Who's trying to shoot at you? What do you think the swamp means? And
who are the sharks and where do those dropping sheets of paper come from?"
"Burros are like donkeys, so no secret there; the Democrats are taking
pot-shots at me every day. And more and more elements in the press are
circling like sharks, smelling my political weakness, and dumping on me,
though we still have Fox and the cable-news shows and the radio talk-shows
that our base listens to. The swamp? Not a bad description of Washington,
D.C., if you ask me. And, like in the earlier dream, I guess the tar
probably is oil, and the blood is from the war in Iraq."
"You'd make a good therapist, sir; I think your interpretations are
spot-on. So let's extrapolate. If your current policies are losing you
support, bringing out the political and media 'sharks,' why not consider
altering your policies, perhaps moving closer to the center, so you can
get more of your programs passed?"
"For one thing, we can't be sure the people would vote for my policies
these days. Besides, I told you: That way says to the people, and
especially to my supporters: 'I was wrong, my policies were wrong.' That
makes me look weak. If a President appears weak, he loses his clout,
people are not afraid of him any longer, and thus he becomes even weaker."
"But the dream seems to be telling you that your behaviors and policies
have already weakened you. But let's put that political aspect aside for
now; the key question outside the dream is: What are you really afraid of,
deep down, that keeps you from making the necessary compromises
politicians must make?"
(Long silence.) "I'd be seen as what my parents and others have called me
all my life; I'd be a "loser," someone with no intelligence to get things
done effectively, just living off the reputations and assistance of
others. This office was going to change that for me. We were thinking big,
moving big in the world, and in the country; sure, people thought we were
cocky and arrogant, but it was more that we were absolutely sure we were
doing the right thing so why compromise with those who disagreed? God
chose me to save the country, to fight the Evil Ones, and to change the
world for the better, don't forget that."
SAVING THE LEGACY
"Yes, I do understand you feel that way. But I keep getting back to the
central question: Your way, the barrel-on-through approach, confronting
and threatening, seems to have alienated not only your enemies but many of
your friends as well. Unless you're willing to fight to the end, simply
continuing those behaviors that used to work for you in the past, then
you'll have to make adjustments to save yourself and your legacy. And, I
might add, to avoid impeachment."
"Yes, we may have to make a few tactical adjustments in these months
before the November election, so we can hold onto the House and thus stave
off any possible impeachment hearings there -- and maybe criminal charges
later. But my advisors and I are determined in the next two years to
continue to play hard-ball with our enemies and those who desert us.
That's the strategy that got us here, and kept our political enemies
totally flummoxed. We will stay the course in Iraq; we will continue to
roll back governmental regulation of corporations; we will rule from the
Unitary Executive position; we will monitor all communications, domestic
and foreign, and, if it comes to it, we'll force a constitutional crisis
and trust that our court appointees will rule in our favor."
"And if that doesn't work and you and the Vice President are impeached?
Would you resign rather than put yourself and the country through a trial
in the Senate?"
"I don't think it will come to that, but if it does, we'll take it to the
very end and let the chips fall where they may."
"May I speak freely here, sir?
"Of course. You're a rich psychiatrist who has been most generous to the
party; you're a Pioneer. Besides, you don't have an agenda, so it's easier
to listen to you."
"You used the word 'chips.' Many fellow Republicans might well respond
that you're not playing poker here, sir. Those 'chips,' they might say,
are the Constitution, and the GOP, and the people of this country, and
your wife and your girls and, and other nations, and your -- you're really
willing to take the country down with you, if it comes to that?"
SPREADING THE BLAME
"I said you could speak freely, but you're taking liberties, Mr. Shrink.
Watch what you say. Anyway, if we are taken down, it won't be my fault.
It'll be the partisan Democrats, getting revenge for what we did to
Clinton, and the weak-kneed in our own GOP ranks who couldn't take the
heat, and the Iraqis, who would do anything to get back at me for invading
them, and the people for electing me, and the neo-cons -- a number of them
are Jewish, by the way, which will come in very handy in assigning blame.
Our forces will take a hit, sure, but we'll reorganize our true-patriot
movement and go after those evil ones who 'lost Iraq' -- the cowardly
moderate Republicans, the slimy Democrats, the Iraqi terrorists, the Black
Caucus, the Islamists, the Jews, the liberal internet wackos -- and we'll
be back in a few years. And I'll be regarded as a saviour of our cause who
was done in by forces of Satan. I won't go off with my tail between my
legs, but brandishing a sword of vengeance and faith."
"Do you really believe all that?"
"No, of course not, at least not all of it. But it'll play out there in
the Red states, and I'm young enough, I'll be around to give it a focus."
"All this is very interesting. But let me, as your consulting
therapist, offer an alternative idea about your situation. It's just a
theory, so tell me if I've gone wrong here. It's possible that you are
indeed in a swamp, but it's not just oil but a moral quagmire that derives
from the blood you have to spill daily to maintain your control of those
resources, and, in a sense, even to keep control of yourself. In this
interpretation, that's why you're so agitated and depressed. There's no
implication that you're a bad man or a 'loser' in this regard; lots of
presidents, even the best ones, found themselves in that same area of
moral ambiguity when sending young men and women to die in wars."
"I don't like where you're going with this, doc. I'm warning you."
"Another way of looking at your situation, as one reason your poll
numbers have fallen so precipitously, is that the country senses that
you've been sucked down in that swamp not only by external enemies and
situations but by your own choices. In this view, you're a Faustian
character who exchanged his soul for power and control -- but it's not
just you who is suffering because of it. The country as a whole is feeling
the impact of your decisions, in a wide variety of areas, and realizes
that since you're incapable of or unwilling to alter the course of your
policies -- or even to acknowledge that you might have made some major
errors -- they have to move in a different direction.
"I know this interpretation might not be easy to hear, but I'm offering it
as a possibility, something you might want to think about. In my
professional opinion, you need to do something, quickly, sir, to ease the
internal pressures building up in you. I say all this both to help save
your presidency, since I still believe you're capable of greatness, and to
save you, since your psyche is too delicately balanced right now, and I
don't want to see you go over the edge into a total breakdown."
"You're just trying to tear me down, like the rest of them. I warned you.
I hope you enjoy your stay in Gitmo, fella. Guards! Take him away!" [They
start to exit.]
"I know this session may have been really painful for you, sir, but if
you change your mind once your anger subsides, you'll know where to find
me." [Exits.]
"Shrinks! Meddling bastards! [picks up red phone] Rummy, shock-and-awe,
baby! It's Iran time." #
Bush's Grand Game:
A "PNAC Primer" UPDATE
By Bernard Weiner
April 5, 2006
When the Bush Administration keeps hauling out its "we-didn't-know-nothin'"
spin -- about Katrina, 9/11, Iraq, torture -- in effect they're using
incompetence as their defense. How can you try to censure or impeach us,
they're saying, when we didn't know what was happening, what to do or how
to do it?
Their incompetence by this time has been well-documented and par for the
Bush course. But, as the evidence demonstrates, in each of those cases
they knew a lot more than they let on, having received adequate warnings
of the scenarios that were about to unfold.
They knew the levees might well be breached in New Orleans and did
nothing; more than 1000 died. They knew a major al Qaida attack was coming
in late-Summer 2001, probably by air and aimed at icon American targets in
New York and Washington, and did nothing; nearly 3000 died. They knew
their own advisers had alerted them that Saddam had no WMD and no
connection to the 9/11 attacks, but they went ahead anyway and lied the
Congress and American people into Iraq; tens of thousands of U.S. troops
and Iraqi civilians have died and are continuing to do so. They knew,
because they had approved the "harsh" interrogation methods, that tortures
were being carried out on prisoners in U.S. care, but they did nothing
(until photos leaked to the press); more than 100 detainees have died, and
many thousands more have been brutalized and/or humiliated. They knew that
eavesdropping on American citizens was illegal without court-sanctioned
warrants, but they went ahead anyway, convinced nobody would ever learn of
their law-breaking.
All of that is reprehensible, and will be added to the list of charges for
the eventual impeachment hearings of Bush and Cheney, and/or to the
criminal trials of those two and their subordinates. But what I propose to
talk about here are not specifics of the high crimes, misdemeanors and
thorough-going bunglings. To do that is to focus on the trees while
ignoring the forest; we need to go deeper and find out who planted the
seeds.
AN IDEOLOGY OF GREED & CONQUEST
To get a handle on how Bush&Co. took America into its current domestic and
foreign crises, one must first understand that their policies and actions
did not originate after Bush was installed in the White House in January
of 2001. The philosophy of greed and power-amassment already was in place
years prior to that.
And so it's time to re-examine The Project for The New American Century,
about which still too little is known by the American public. There were a
number of us writing about PNAC three years ago -- William Rivers Pitt,
myself, Neil Mackay, John Pilger, Tj Templeton and others -- but, after an
initial flurry of interest by the media, discussion about that neo-con
think tank mostly dissolved.
Much of the following takes off from my original 2003 essay
"How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer:"
A PNAC Primer" -- which is the most widely reprinted article I've ever
written. That piece has been updated to reflect the new evidence that has
surfaced in the past several years.
THE ORIGINS OF THE CRISIS
Most of us Americans saw the end of the Cold War as a harbinger of a more
peaceful globe, and we relaxed knowing that the Communist world was no
longer a threat to the U.S. The Soviet Union, our partner in MAD (Mutually
Assured Destruction) and Cold War rivalry around the globe, was no more.
This meant a partial vacuum in international affairs. Nature abhors a
vacuum.
The only major vacuum-filler still standing after the Cold War was the
United States. The U.S. could continue the so-called "soft imperialism"
approach, the kind of diplomatic, well-disguised defense of U.S. interests
(largely corporate) carried out under Bush#1, Reagan, Clinton, et al. Or
one could go the Karl Rove route of speeding up the process and
accomplishing those same domestic and foreign ends overtly -- with an
attitude of arrogance and in-your-face bullying -- within maybe one or two
Republican administrations.
Some of the ideological roots of today's Bush Administration
power-wielders could be traced back to the political philosopher Leo
Strauss (short version: act aggressively, do whatever you have to do to
win), and to GOP rightist Barry Goldwater and his rabid anti-communist
followers in the early-1960s. But, for simplicity's sake let's stick
closer to our own time.
In the early-1990s, a group of ideologues and power-politicians, most of
whom had been in positions of authority in the Reagan Administration,
found themselves on the outside looking in during the Clinton era, and
were relegated to the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The
members of this group in 1997 would found PNAC, The
Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to
prepare for the day when Republicans regained control of the White House,
and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well. When that
day came, their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be
in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.
PNAC was not a rag-tag group of lightweight amateurs. The PNAC founders
were heavy hitters, with juice: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James
Woolsey, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, James Bolton, Zalmay
M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, et al., most of whom
were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, savvy as to how to
exercise power to the max in Washington. But even given their reputations
and clout, the openly militarist views of this group -- attacking other
countries "pre-emptively," for example -- were regarded as too extreme to
be taken seriously by the generally mainstream, small-government,
isolationist conservatives who controlled the Republican Party.
THE EARLY DAYS OF PNAC
To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the
HardRight, several wealthy billionaires and corporations helped set up
far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers,
magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in
support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place
and the HardRight cabal and their supporters could assume control.
That moment arrived with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush
in 2000. The temporary "outsiders" from PNAC were once again powerful
"insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert
maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is
Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz up until last year was Deputy Defense
Secretary (now president of the World Bank), I. Lewis Libby (now under
indictment in the Plamegate scandal) was Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot
Abrams was put in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security
Council (and is now a Deputy Secretary of State), Dov Zakheim was named
comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton (now U.S. Ambassador
to the United Nations) was Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle was
chair of the important Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, former CIA
director James Woolsey was on that panel as well, etc. etc. PNAC's
chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard. In short,
PNAC had a lock on foreign/military policy-creation in the Bush
Administration.
But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking
all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP, they
needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode
to their rescue. In one of their major reports, written in 2000, PNAC
noted that "the process of [military] transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic
and catalyzing event --
like a new Pearl Harbor."
The Bush Administration, which came to see 9/11 as an "opportunity," used
9/11 and the fear that it generated in the general populace as their cover
for enacting all sorts of draconian measures domestically and as their
rationalization for launching military campaigns abroad. The Patriot Act,
drafted earlier, was rushed through a frightened Congress in the days
following 9/11 and the mysterious anthrax attack; few members even had
read the huge document. The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) to
go after al Qaida in Afghanistan now is hauled out by the White House to
justify torture, domestic eavesdropping, and anything else the
"commander-in-chief" wants to authorize during "wartime."
THE DOMESTIC RAMIFICATIONS
Today, the Bush manipulators, led by Karl Rove, continue to utilize fear,
hyped-up patriotism and a permanent "war on terrorism" as the basis for
their policy agenda, just as they did in 2004 to get Bush re-elected.
This, in order to continue to fulfill their primary objectives, not the
least of which is to roll back and, where possible, decimate and eliminate
domestic social programs that the far-right has hated since the New
Deal/Great Society days, and to free corporate ambitions from government
regulation. In short, a great leap backward to turn-of-the-(20th)-century
laissez-faire policy.
By and large, these long-established social programs (Social Security,
Medicare, Head Start, etc.) are popular with Americans, so Bush&Co. can't
attack them frontally. However, if all the monies are tied up in wars,
defense, tax cuts, etc., they can go to the public and, in effect, say:
"We'd love to continue to fund education and environmental protection and
drugs for the elderly, but you see there's simply no extra money left over
after we go after the bad guys. It's not our fault."
Up until recently, that stealth strategy has worked. But, as Bush's
fast-falling approval ratings suggest, the public is not buying that line
so unquestioningly any more. Even so, Rove seems wedded to what's worked
so well for the White House in the past, and so continues to use fear of
terrorism as the main selling-point to the American public.
Don't get me wrong. Islamist fanatics dedicated to killing are real and
deadly and must be stopped. The question is: How to do that in ways that
enhance rather than endanger America's long-term national interests, and
in ways that protect the very liberties and freedoms the terrorists
allegedly are against, and what the neo-cons claim to be defending? The
Bush approach is to use a howitzer in hunting for gnats; after all, Bush
said, the Constitution is
just a goddamned piece of paper."
One doesn't have to guess what the PNAC guys might be thinking, since
they're quite open and proud of their theories and strategies. Indeed,
their writings lay out quite openly what they're up to, but few took such
extreme talk seriously. Now that they're in power, actually making the
policy they only dreamed about a decade or so ago, with all sorts of
scarifying consequences for America and the rest of the world, we need to
educate ourselves quickly as to how PNAC, and other HardRight think-tanks,
work and what their future plans might be.
Given the absolute mess the Bush Administration has made in Iraq, the
neo-cons, whose ideology underpinned the invasion and occupation of that
country, are somewhat in disfavor these days. But, importantly, they
haven't given up on their ultimate goal of transforming the geopolitics of
various key regions in the world, and installing U.S.-friendly
governments, by force if necessary. The policy of setting up new
"democracies," however, comes with a caveat: Your country had better elect
the right candidates, meaning those that will accommodate U.S. desires.
Look how the Bush Administration is punishing Hamas in Palestine, Prime
Minister Al-Jaafari in Iraq, President Chavez in Venezuela. All
democratically elected but not quite what the Bush White House had in
mind.
PNAC'S PROUD PAPER TRAIL
So let's take a quick, chronological look at PNAC, to see how we got from
there to here. Some of these PNAC documents and strategies, which now are
official U.S. policy, you may have heard about before, but I've expanded
and updated as much as possible.
1. In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a
strategy report
drafted for the Pentagon, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then
Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. (Both men would later help found
PNAC.) In the report, the U.S. government was urged, as the world's sole
remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the
globe. The report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions,
but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective
action cannot be orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and
protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the
advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our
leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance
capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger
regional or global role." Wolfowitz outlined plans for military
intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw
material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
Somehow, this report leaked to the press, whereupon the negative response
was immediate. Senator Robert Byrd led the Democratic charge: "The basic
thrust of the document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining
superpower in the world, and we want so much to remain that way that we
are willing to put at risk the basic health of our economy and well-being
of our people to do so." Clearly, the objective political forces that
could support this policy free of major resistance hadn't yet coalesced in
the U.S. And so President Bush the Elder repudiated the paper and sent it
back to the drawing boards.
2. Various neo-con/HardRight intellectuals outside the government were
spelling out the new PNAC policy in books and influential journals. Zalmay
Khalilzad (formerly associated with big oil companies, currently U.S.
ambassador to Iraq) wrote an important volume in 1995, "From Containment
to Global Leadership: America & the World After the Cold War"; the import
of this book was to urge the U.S. to move aggressively in the world and
thus to exercise effective control over the planet's natural resources. A
year later, in 1996, neo-conservative leaders Bill Kristol and Robert
Kagan, in their Foreign Affairs article "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign
Policy," came right out and said the goal for the U.S. had to be nothing
less than
"benevolent global hegemony," a euphemism for total
U.S. domination, but "benevolently" exercised, of course.
3. In 1998, PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack Iraq
and remove Saddam Hussein from power. A
January letter from PNAC urged America to initiate that
war even if the U.S. could not muster full support from the Security
Council at the United Nations. Sound familiar? Clinton replied that he was
focusing on dealing with al-Qaida terrorist cells. But PNAC's lobbying was
able to convince a GOP-dominated Congress to pass the "Liberation of Iraq
Act," with nearly $100 million earmarked for Iraqi opposition groups.
LAYING OUT "GLOBAL HEGEMONY" PLAN
4. In September of 2000, PNAC, anticipating a GOP victory in the upcoming
presidential election, issued its white paper on
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for
the New Century." The PNAC report was quite
frank about why the U.S. would want to move toward imperialist militarism,
a Pax Americana, because with the Soviet Union out of the picture, now is
the time most "conducive to American interests and ideals. ... The
challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American
peace'."
As Neil Mackay
observed: "In its own words," he wrote, the PNAC report is a
"'blueprint for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise
of a great-power rival and shaping the international security order in
line with American principles and interests'." This 'American grand
strategy,' it says, must be advanced 'as far into the future as
possible'."
And how to preserve, enhance and advance this Pax Americana? The
answer, William
Rivers Pitt noted, lies in following a five-fold plan:
"Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia
and the Middle East; Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our
fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities; Develop and
deploy a global missile-defense system, and develop a strategic dominance
of space; Control the 'International Commons' of cyberspace; Increase
defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up
from the 3 percent currently spent."
Most ominously, Pitt, wrote, "this PNAC document described four 'Core
Missions' for the American military. The two central requirements are for
American forces to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major
theater wars,' and to 'perform the "constabulary" duties associated with
shaping the security environment in critical regions.' Note well that PNAC
does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars.
That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military
must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance
for all to see."
In serving as world "constable," the PNAC report went on, no other
countervailing forces will be permitted to get in the way. Such actions
"demand American political leadership rather than that of the United
Nations," for example. No country will be permitted to get close to parity
with the U.S. when it comes to weaponry or influence. Therefore, more U.S.
military bases will be established in the various regions of the globe.
Post-Saddam Iraq would serve as one of those advance military bases.
Currently, it is estimated that the U.S. now has more than 150 military
bases and deployments in different countries around the world, with the
most recent major increase being in the Caspian Sea/Afghanistan/Middle
East areas, the so-called "arc of oil" states in that area of the world.
5. George W. Bush was moved into the White House in January of 2001.
Shortly thereafter, a report,
"Strategic
Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," was
commissioned from the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy -- yep,
that James Baker, the Bush consigliore. The report advocated a more
aggressive U.S. posture in the world and called for a "reassessment of the
role of energy in American foreign policy," with access to oil repeatedly
cited as a "security imperative." It's possible that inside Cheney's
secret energy-panel papers, which he refuses to release to Congress or the
American people, are references to foreign-policy plans for how to gain
military control of oilfields across the globe. We do know now that
maps were rolled out at those energy-panel meetings,
which detailed which foreign oil-companies might get a slice of the Iraq
oil pie.
"SWEEP IT ALL UP, RELATED OR NOT"
6. In February of 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said publicly that Iraq was contained
and posed
no
military threat to its neighbors or the U.S. But mere hours
after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rumsfeld ordered his aides to begin
planning for an attack on Iraq, even though his intelligence officials
told him it was an al-Qaida operation and there was no connection between
Iraq and the attacks. "Go massive," the
aides' notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up.
Things related and not." Rumsfeld leaned heavily on the FBI and CIA to
find any shred of evidence linking the Iraq government to 9/11, but they
weren't able to do so. So he set up his own fact-finding group in the
Pentagon, the
Office of
Special Plans, that would provide him with whatever shaky connections
it could find or surmise.
Paul O'Neill, Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, reported that
he was astonished that the first Cabinet meetings in January 2001 were
focusing on war with Iraq. The leaked
Downing Street Memos also supply proof of how far along the
war-plans were developed, years before the invasion began.
William Rivers Pitt offered some intriguing possibilities
about why this Bush&Co. obsession with attacking Iraq:
"The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control
of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a
warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To
establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and
overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are
allies of the United States...
"At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind
this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of
Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle
East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten
lanes wide and steppin' out over the line."
And, of course, inherent in all these PNAC plans is for
the U.S. to act in concert with its one surefire ally in the region,
Israel, which has to be supported and protected economically and
militarily. (Jews and non-Jews alike in PNAC worked hard to maintain U.S.
support for Israel.) The U.S. has a friend it can count on, Israel has a
protector against its Arab neighbors. A two-country backscratching system.
"PRE-EMPTIVE" WARS OF CHOICE
7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively
in the world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published the
"National
Security Strategy of the United States of America."
The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this
major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in various
PNAC white papers and similar ones from other think tanks, such as the
American Enterprise Institute, the operational hub of Washington's
neo-cons.
Chief among these proposals are: 1) "Pre-emptive" wars should be launched,
even if there is no meaningful provocation or imminent threat, whenever
the U.S. thinks a country may be amassing too much power and/or could
provide some sort of competition in the "benevolent hegemony" region. A
later corollary rethinks the country's atomic policy: nuclear weapons
would no longer be considered defensive, but could be used offensively in
support of political/economic ends; so-called "mini-nukes" could be
employed in these regional wars. 2) International treaties and opinion are
to be ignored whenever they interfere with U.S. imperial goals. 3) The new
policies "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe
and Northeast Asia."
In short, the Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly, as a
New Rome, an empire with its foreign legions, and threat of
"shock-and-awe" attacks, including with nuclear weapons, keeping the
outlying colonies, and potential competitors, in line. Those who aren't
fully in accord with these goals better get out of the way; "you're either
with us or against us."
"FIXING INTELLIGENCE AROUND THE POLICY"
8. Paul O'Neill's wonderment at the early emphasis on making war on Iraq
was well-placed. Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair secretly were
colluding precisely to launch that war, even while they were telling their
skeptical publics that there were no plans to do so. We now know that Bush
told some U.S. Senators in March of 2002
"Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out," and that Blair and Bush
agreed in July 2002 to
launch such a war. (Four years earlier, when talking with his
speechwriter about a possible run for President,
then-Governor Bush said of Iraq: "If I have a chance to
invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.")
Even today, Bush hauls out his
retread lie that he did everything possible to avoid war and
was hoping to forestall it through diplomacy. In the latest
White House/Downing Street Memo, we learn that he even
considered provoking Saddam into providing a casus belli by flying a plane
low over Iraq painted with United Nations insignia on it, in hopes that
Iraq would shoot it down. Likewise, Bush continues to lie that Saddam
would not let the U.N. inspectors back in to verify that he had no WMD;
Saddam did let them in, the inspectors weren't finding anything, and Bush
quickly launched his attack.
Neither country had the proof required about Saddam's supposed caches of
WMD, so, according to the top-secret
Downing Street Memos, which were leaked to the British press
in mid-2005, it was decided to "fix the intelligence around the policy."
In other words, Bush&Co. would move the war plans forward and, in the
interim, try to cobble together some reasonable-sounding "intelligence"
that could justify the invasion. Hence, Cheney's red-hot anger that the
CIA couldn't, or wouldn't, come up with the proof required, so Rumsfeld
then established his own in-house Office of Special Plans, staffed with
PNAC political types rather than intelligence analysts. The required
"intelligence" was pasted together from unreliable raw data and rumors
from dubious exiles supplied by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.
That "intelligence" was stove-piped directly to Cheney in the White House,
thus avoiding having to vet it through the government's professional
analysts, and the green light was turned on, with Powell delivering the
laughable pack of lies to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003. The
Council wouldn't vote for a specific authorization for war and so Bush
hastily launched "shock-and-awe" bombing and the ground-invasion of that
country before the international community could organize itself
effectively to resist.
Bush two months later, standing under a huge "Mission Accomplished"
banner, declared that the U.S. "has prevailed" over the Iraqi enemy.
Expecting to be welcomed as "liberators," and with no Plan B to rely on in
case that didn't happen, the U.S. soon became bogged down fighting a
mostly nationalist insurgency that continues until this day, one that grew
in ferocity because the U.S. was responsible not only for an enormous loss
of Iraqi civilians as "collateral damage," numbered in the tens of
thousands, but also because of lack of employment for young men and the
much-publicized torture and humiliation of thousands of detained Iraqis.
Iraq then became a magnet, and
perfect training ground, for jihadist fighters from all over
the Middle East.
SUMMARY & PNAC'S FUTURE PLANS
Everyone loves a winner, and American citizens are no different. Bush's
approval numbers were unusually high after his "Mission Accomplished"
speech. The situation is quite different today, with Bush's numbers down
into the low-30s (Cheney is at 18%!), and with a strong majority believing
the Iraq War cannot be won.
By following the PNAC precepts, the costs have been huge in troops and
treasure, and in damage to America's reputation. Bush&Co. may well be
losing the larger war around the globe: the U.S. now lacks moral stature
and standing in much of the world, is revealed as a liar for all to see
(no WMDs in Iraq, no connection to 9/11, no quick handing-over the interim
reins of government to the Iraqis as initially promised), has destroyed a
good share of the United Nation's effectiveness and prestige, is
needlessly alienating our traditional allies, is infuriating key elements
of the Muslim world (especially in the Middle East), and providing
political and emotional ammunition for anti-U.S. terrorists, etc.
Already, we're talking about half a trillion -- trillion, with a T! --
dollars in costs for the Iraq War and reconstruction. And PNAC is deeply
involved in preparing the ground for Bush's next war, which may either be
a ground invasion of Iran or, more likely, a joint Israeli/U.S. or
U.S./U.K. air assault on that country's fledgling nuclear facilities and
scientific laboratories. The propaganda assault against Iran already has
begun, and it is eerily similar to the pre-Iraq war propaganda. It would
appear that the evidence is once again being "fixed around the policy."
The consequences of such an assault on Iran -- unlike Iraq, Iran is a
formidable Mideast power -- are barely addressed.
One can believe that maybe PNAC sincerely believes its rhetoric -- that
instituting U.S.-style "free-markets" and "democratically-elected"
governments in Iraq and the other authoritarian-run countries of the
Islamic Middle East will be good both for the citizens of that region and
for American interests, but even if that were true, it's clear that these
neo-con incompetents are not operating in the world of Middle Eastern
realities.
These are armchair theoreticians, most of whom made sure not to serve in
the military in Vietnam, who truly believed, for example, that the Iraqis
would welcome the invading U.S. forces with bouquets of flowers and kisses
when they "liberated" their country from the horribleness of Saddam
Hussein's reign. Most Iraqis, especially the majority Shias, were happy to
be freed from Saddam's long reign of terror. But, as it stands now, U.S.
military forces are more likely to remain trapped in a political/religious
quagmire for years there, given that so many of the Shia population, along
with the rebellious minority Sunnis, just want the occupying soldiers to
leave.
BIG ON IDEAS, SMALL ON REAL-WORLD BRAINS
Despite the utter cockup that the Bush Administration has made of Iraq,
PNAC theorists continue to believe that remaking the political structure
of the Middle East should proceed as planned. It will be done by force if
necessary, although they hope the example of what the U.S. did to Iraq
will make war unnecessary.
These are men of big ideas who don't really think. They certainly don't
think through what takes place in the real world, when the genies of war
and religious righteousness are let out of the bottle. The military
planners did great with the actual invasion, but when the Saddam
government collapsed, and with it law and order, and much of the
population remained sullen and resentful towards the U.S., the Bush
Administration had no prepared way of dealing with this new situation on
the ground. They were dangerously slow to react, and had to change
Occupation administrators several times; many of the appointees dispatched
by the White House as political favors were young novices with no
expertise or smarts about the complexities of Iraqi cultural and political
life.
No, friends, the PNAC boys and their AEI-type allies are dangerous
ideologues playing with matches in a region soaked in gasoline, and the
U.S. is going to get burned badly even more in years to come unless the
Bush Administration's hold on power is broken. Since censure and
impeachment at this stage are problematic (though we must continue to
agitate for them, making those topics part of the daily discourse), the
surest way to accomplish this is to defeat the Administration's party at
the polls in November 2006. That would result in Democrats taking over the
House, thus breaking the HardRight momentum that has done, and is doing,
such great damage to America's reputation abroad and to our country
internally, especially to our Constitution and the economy.
Burdened with an unpopular president and a corruption-ravaged party, the
GOP looks weak in the early run-up to the November voting. But this
election defeat of the Republicans will happen only if there is a huge
grassroots campaign to defeat them, and if there is genuine reform of the
voting process. Right now, the GOP continues effectively to control the
voting machinery and the vote-counting software, and may well have
manipulated the election results in 2002 and 2004. We must work tirelessly
to ensure electoral integrity and transparent ballot-counting.
We don't need or want an emperor in our country. We don't need huge tax
cuts for the wealthy when the economy is stagnating or tanking. We don't
need more "pre-emptive" wars, we don't need more shredding of
constitutional due process. Instead, we need opposition leaders with big
ideas who are capable of creative thinking. We need peace and justice in
the Middle East to help alter the chemistry of the soil in which Islamist
terrorism grows. We need jobs and economic growth at home, and we need
authentic and effective "homeland security" consistent with our civil
liberties. In short, we need a new Administration, which means that we
need to get on with our serious work to make all this change happen. ASAP.
Organize, organize!, ORGANIZE! The first primaries are only several months
away.
Copyright 2006, by Bernard Weiner
Inside Rove's Diary:
Strangle That Censure Baby
By Bernard Weiner
Posted: March 29, 2006
Sorry, diary, no time to jot, it's been a helluva few months here in the
White House as one balloon after another has exploded in our faces.
We just can't seem to tamp down the Iraq situation enough for us to slide
by the November election. The goddamn ragheads can't even agree on a
government months after their own balloting! And if scores more civilians
and U.S. troops continue to get killed every day, it's not good news for
us politically. All we need is a few months of relative calm and a
government in place that will do what we tell them to -- for one,
permitting our military bases to remain on their territory. But we may not
get that.
But we'll use whatever comes along. If the Iraqis ask us to leave, we'll
announce that we'll leave. However, we'll make the effective date after
the election, and then things may change, ha ha.
That hope that our troops might be leaving should garner us more support
with our GOP base, at least enough to hold onto our majority in the House
in the midterm election. That's all that matters right now.
Then the Iraqis can go back to slaughtering each other, I don't care. The
few American casualties are "the price a nation pays for the defense of
freedom." Focus groups seem willing to buy that one, so that's our story
and we're stickin' to it. We gotta hope it will balance out the
"incompetence" albatross that's hanging around our necks.
The GOP base used to be monolithic in support of us. But now a good many
are drifting away, having figured out that we don't really have a coherent
plan for Iraq, and saying we're wasting our troops and treasure for no
good purpose. (They sound like goddamned Cindy Sheehan!) What do they
know? We do have a plan: It's called permanent war, permanent control, but
we prefer not to talk about it. As for bankrupting the treasury, duh,
that's the idea, stupids. How else can you get big government into the
bathtub for lessons in drowning?
MIDTERM ELECTION MACHINATIONS
Those GOP turncoats may not be able to bring themselves to vote for a
Democrat in November, but, if they sit on their hands on election day, it
amounts to the same thing. The Demoncrats could well sweep into power in
the House, and we can't have that. If the Dems control the House, we're in
deep doodoo.
They would control the committees and thus would have full use of subpoena
power and would put us under oath in a variety of dangerous hearings: on
domestic spying and break-ins without warrants, on our ties to Abramoff,
on our lies and deceptions that took us to war in Iraq, on the Halliburton
thievery, on our misuse of the FBI and Secret Service, on our encouraging
the use of torture of prisoners, on our Patriot Act and its shredding of
constitutional protections, on our theory that presidents can break the
law whenever they feel like it as long as they use the magic words
"national security" and "war on terrorism," and so on.
In short, we've got to win in November (Memo to Self: Be sure to call our
friends over at Diebold and Sequoia), which is why we've got to squash
Russboy's censure resolution real quick before it gains any traction.
Thank God the Demoncrats are such jellyfish, backing away from Feingold as
quickly as they can swim. If we can make the public think it's just a few
weird liberals and pro-terrorist bloggers behind censure, we're home free.
But if the public fails to take that bait, the Dems' censure ploy might
tempt more GOP moderates and conservatives to jump ship, and censure might
even lead to impeachment. I say strangle this little sucker right now in
its crib; don't even take the risk it might grow up.
If they want to play this game, we have to let them know they're in the
big leagues now. In short, find (or invent) dirt on Feingold and cover him
in it to the point where it will make the SwiftBoating of Kerry look like
a high school prank. I think the Dems will get the message and will remain
their usual docile selves. God, how I love my job! I just hope I can keep
it.
A MISTRIAL OR PARDON
Fitzpatrick continues to let me dangle in the wind, and, if something goes
wrong, I could wind up indicted along with Scooter. Well, if it comes to
that, I'll join Libby's game of courtroom hardball: We'll both call key
Administration witnesses to discuss classified information, and the
government will have to withdraw the indictments lest "national security"
be compromised.
But if none of that works, there's no way I'm going into the slammer. Even
though it will smell to high heaven, Bushboy will simply have to pardon us
pre-emptively and stop the case in its tracks. Poppy Bush did it with Cap
Weinberger in Iran-Contra and got away with it, so why not Dim Son?
Sure, the Demoncrats will yell and scream, but what the hell can they do
about it if they remain in the minority and the mainstream media remains
pretty much in our control? The Dems are quite aware of our political and
criminal liability in so many areas, but they don't have the legislative
tools, or the balls, to try to stop us.
THOSE LOUSY POLLS
It's so much fun running at the Dems' perceived strengths full bore and
then watching them totally flummoxed, ducking and covering, instead of
simply standing up straight, taking the hit and breaking our momentum. On
the other hand, the Demoncrat opposition is starting to attack us on our
strong suit, "national security," and the poll numbers are showing more
and more Republican defectors don't feel as safe or as trusting under us
as they once did.
Jesus Christ, Bushboy is down to 33% in the polls! That's just about the
percentage of our rock solid evangelical base. Cheney is at 18! Why did he
have to go hunting quail in his condition? Lucky the sheriffs agreed to
come back the next day to interview him, when he was, uh, more sober in
his judgment. (Good one, that!)
We've got to do something drastic to change the news agenda. Wonder if
there's anything in the works: An assassination? A terrorist attack inside
the U.S.? Some "missing" WMD that suddenly gets found in Iraq? Maybe a bit
more anthrax powder making its way through the halls of Congress? Bombing
the Iranian nuclear facilities? McCain taking over as Veep after Cheney
resigns for "health reasons"? Something. Anything?
THE CLUELESS OPPOSITION
The point, which I have to keep reiterating to the weak-kneed down in the
bunker, is that no matter how outrageous our behavior, no matter how much
the Dems and a few GOP moderates twist and shout in pain and anger, we
don't have to worry. They haven't got a clue how to stop us.
We were declared the winners in 2004 (notice I didn't say that we "won the
election," hee hee), and that was the referendum on our rule. The Dems
don't get do-overs. Assuming we can squash all this talk about
censure/impeachment, hold onto the House in November, and keep our media
boys in line, the Dems will just have to wait until 2008 for another one
of their losing tries.
And, if we're lucky, they'll pick Hillary and we'll get another four years
of Republican rule, with our guys still in positions of power throughout
the three branches.
Eat that pickle, you pinko liberals.
Copyright 2006 by Bernard Weiner
Anti-Semitism From The Left
By Bernard Weiner
Posted March 22, 2006
Anti-Semitism on the Left is generally not spoken about, but it's real and
appears to be growing. For those so inclined, it's easy to slip from
denunciations of Israeli policy -- many of us on the Left are quite vocal
in opposing Israeli policies and actions -- to out-and-out anti-Semitism.
It's often difficult to locate that fine line. Jew-haters often can hide
their true feelings and arguments inside broadsides against Israeli
policy, but those opposed vehemently to certain Israeli policies (and I
count myself as one of that breed) are definitely not anti-Jewish in this
context. So how to tell the difference?
Certainly, AIPAC (the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
has no problem: Anybody writing anything in opposition to Israeli policies
is all too-often smeared with the "anti-Semitic" or "Jew-hater" brush; if
they happen to be Jewish, AIPAC types often throw the phrase "self-hating
Jew" into the denunciation.
In my experience, in order to judge articles about Israelis and Jews
somewhat accurately, you sort of have to follow a pundit's writings over
time, and discern where the arguments are coming from and where they are
going.
REACTIONS TO ISRAELI POLICIES
Most liberals and leftists, including those who have grave disagreements
with Israeli policy and U.S. policy toward Israel, abhor generalized
statements about any subgroup of people, be they Jews, Arabs, Muslims,
African-Americans, gays, women, et al.
But because U.S.-supported Israeli policies are at the heart of much of
the conflict in the Middle East, and thus are connected in some degree to
Islamist terrorism around the world, anti-Jewish feelings get stirred up
more than usual in these current times.
The anti-Semitism-on-the-Left issue cries out for more in-depth
examination as to motive and intent. Perhaps in time, I will be able to
delve deeper into this topic. Suffice it to say that elements of
anti-Semitism are alive and well not only in the usual hate and neo-Nazi
sites on the internet but also can be found where most of us live in
alternative, progressive and even mainstream circles.
I realize that I come at this topic from an insider's extra-sensitivity,
having been raised Jewish and with many members of my parents' families
having perished in the Holocaust. Perhaps I'm over-reacting. I would love
to believe that, but I don't really think so. I'd love to hear others'
opinions on this development, which might help expand the thesis.
THERE IS NO VACCINE AGAINST HATE
Anti-Semitism is like a dormant virus, relatively quiet most of the time
in respectable society and discourse, but which bursts out into the open
now and again, usually in times of economic and psychological crisis. The
resulting social rash can be deadly. And there is no vaccine, other than
shining the light of truth on ignorance, with which to combat the disease
of hate. (In America, overt racism against blacks similarly is a virus
that tends to lie dormant until suddenly bursting out in tense times.)
Since the Israel/Palestine situation goes unresolved decade after decade,
and since the explosive region there is so much at the heart of U.S.
policy and thus of resistance to that policy, it should not surprise
anyone that the virus of anti-Semitism is erupting once again, and in so
many areas.
Just a few examples:
THE FORGED "PROTOCOLS"
* We get more than the usual number of anti-Semitic letters these days at
The Crisis Papers, mostly disguised but more often recently out-and-out
Nazi-type screeds directed at "the Jews." For the most part, we don't
print them, but every so often we do so to reveal to our readers the level
of what passes for intelligent debate from some on the Right fringes. (And
how far are the incendiary comments about "traitorous" liberals by the
likes of Coulter, Horowitz, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Savage from crossing
the line into incitement-speech?)
* In earlier years, world leaders would not speak openly in anti-Semitic
terms; but recently, for example, officials from Malaysia and Iran in
public speeches have stoked the fires of anti-Jewish suspicion and hatred.
And just a few years ago, Egyptian TV broadcast a documentary filled with
anti-Jewish propaganda, based largely on the long-discredited forgery
called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," about an alleged Jewish plot
to rule the world. Schools in many Muslim countries (including states
allied with the U.S.) continue to teach their young students to hate Jews,
likewise using the phony "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as their
starting point.
* The fact that there are a number of well-known Jews at the heart of the
neo-conservative movement in America -- most notably Wolfowitz, Perle,
Feith -- has engendered a good many rants about how "the Jews" control
U.S. foreign policy and have taken America to war in Iraq for reasons
having more to do with protecting Israel than America. (Ignored in these
screeds are the majority of non-Jews involved in the neo-con and HardRight
movements, and the influence of Christian Zionists and the
military/industrial/Big Oil complex on American foreign policy.)
* The Left was somewhat split over last weekend's anti-war demonstrations.
Many liberals chose not to participate in the large marches organized by
one of the main national anti-war groups, A.N.S.W.E.R. ("Act Now to Stop
War & End Racism"), because that outfit's emphasis on Palestinian
statehood at the expense of Israel's existence -- thus implying that Jews
need to be eliminated from the region -- is both offensive and
ill-advised; the group also is much criticized for co-opting rallies
organized by other anti-war groups and bringing a whole host of domestic
and foreign issues into marches supposedly devoted to getting the U.S. out
of Iraq. Those not choosing to march with A.N.S.W.E.R. avoided Saturday's
rallies or made other arrangements; many are gearing up for the April 29
nationwide demos being organized by United for Peace, which concentrates
less on side issues and mostly on ending the war in Iraq.
Well, one could go on and on with such a listing. The point is that
scapegoats are required in any time of crisis. Often those scapegoats are
"the Jews," but at other times and at other places, the focus of hate is
directed at "the liberals," "the blacks," "the gays," "the Arabs," and so
on.
"KILLING EACH OTHER, OF COURSE"
I recall my travels in Yugoslavia when Tito was holding together that
artificially-constructed, multi-ethnic country by force of his charisma
and his Communist police-state. I asked all the academics and students I
ran into what would happen when their leader died. It didn't matter
whether these reasonable intellectual types were Serbs or Croats,
Christian or Muslim, the answer was always the same: "When Tito dies?
We'll go back to killing each other, of course."
But, I protested, you've lived together in peace for decades now, you are
often good friends and colleagues, you even intermarry; why would you
revert back to such brutal ways of dealing with each other, to a kind of
vicious tribalism? The answer I got was heartbreaking in its scapegoat
simplicity: "Because you can't trust the [insert name of ethnic or
religious group], they're all liars and thieves." When, years later, the
Serbs and Croats began slaughtering each other, I was appalled but not
surprised. Ancient rivers run deep.
And Jews are, in some ways, as ancient as they come, and therefore
throughout history have served as handy scapegoats when an outlet is
needed for blame and resentment.
THE NEW "JEWS"
But there are Jews and there are those who might be considered the new
"Jews," who take their lumps as well: homosexuals, Chinese in Southeast
Asia, Palestinians and other Arabs in Israel and the U.S. (and often also
in Arab nations), African-Americans in the South and in the inner cities,
Mexican immigrants, whoever. It's the same process of stereotyping and
repression, which often leads to discrimination and violence, even when
the group being victimized changes.
Again, this topic of anti-Semitism on the Left and Right is enormous, and
I only want to raise it here as a warning flag for progressives, something
we need to examine and deal with in thinking about how
discriminated-against groups are treated.
For obvious reasons, anti-Jewish expression on the Left mostly does not
make its way into liberal discourse. But if you want a good starting-point
for thinking about the issue, I'd suggest a 2003 article that transcribes
a rare forum on the topic: Jamie Glazov's
"Symposium: Anti-Semitism - the New Call of the Left" at FrontPage
Magazine.
Perhaps what is called for is a national forum on
religious/ethnic/sexual-preference scapegoating that includes
representatives from all discriminated groups. The participants might then
become aware of the commonality of their persecution (and often of their
persecutors), and develop a coordinated way of defending themselves and
going after those who wish them ill.
The Middle East Muddle:
Is Peace Still Possible?
By Bernard Weiner
Posted March 21, 2006
The run-up to the impending war against Iran -- and make no mistake, the
foundations are being laid daily by the Bush Administration -- bears a
remarkable resemblance to the propaganda barrage before the U.S. attacked
Iraq: Iran is the repository of all things evil, they will destabilize the
region if they get nukes, they support terrorists, the U.N. and
international community can't wait until there are mushroom clouds in the
sky, etc. etc. All that's missing is an invented tie-in with 9/11.
Because of the thorough botch the Bush Administration has made of the Iraq
Occupation, and because there are no extra U.S. troops to go around, it's
a reasonable presumption that there will be no ground invasion of Iran.
Instead, following passage of some ambiguously-worded U.N. Security
Council resolution, there might well be a U.S.-Israeli air-bombing/missile
assault on that country's nuclear facilities. (The experts tell us that
Iran won't have nuclear-weapons capability for anywhere from three to 10
years out -- in short, there is no imminent threat to the U.S. or anyone
else.)
The reaction by Iran and other Islamic countries to such an air assault is
likely to be intense, perhaps including retaliatory attacks on Israel, and
damaging the American and European economies by withdrawing oil sales to
the West or blocking ships from entering the Straits of Hormuz into the
Persian Gulf. And, of course, one can anticipate that the Bush
Administration -- unless the impending attack can be stopped in its tracks
by popular opposition -- will be caught flat-footed (again!) by its usual
lack of planning for the unforeseen consequences of its wars.
But rather than focus on what is about to go down in Iran, the chaotic
disaster that the Bush Administration's attack on and inept occupation of
Iraq has led to, or even the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, I'd
like to propose an examination of the Middle East situation since it
serves as the kindling for the firestorms that sweep the entire region.
Hamas is now on the inside of the halls of power, Israel is about to
choose its new leaders, and the situation is encouragingly fluid, with a
tenuous truce in major fighting between the two sides. Thus, this is an
especially propitious time for all parties to reflect and meditate on how,
or even whether, a just solution is still possible, and what such a Middle
East peace might mean for the entire region.
THE MEDIEVAL ISLAMISTS
A resurrected holy Muslim empire has been the dream for many decades of a
segment of the Islamic religion. Or if that dream is unrealizable, at
least their desire to be left alone, outside the distractions and decadent
temptations of the 21st century, to implement their strict version of the
Koran.
Regardless of what the U.S. does, that Islamist resurgence is bound to
occur, even, or especially, amidst a more widespread Islam that is willing
to exist side by side with Western modernity and tolerance.
But certainly the harsh treatment for nearly 60 years of Palestinians by
Israel, a nation supported by the U.S., has been a spur to the growth of
that fanatic Islamist movement in the Middle East.
U.S. NEGLECT OF THE REGION
On the surface, American policy in the region appears to make no sense. It
seems clear that if the U.S. is after a calmer Arab Middle East, and with
it a stable flow of oil to America and Europe, its first order of
business, one would think, would be to ensure a just peace between the
Israelis and Palestinians, so as to tamp down the fire that endangers so
much in that region.
But under both Democratic and Republican presidents, the status quo has
been left to fester, partially because intervening in this convoluted,
passionate dispute rarely pays off for the U.S. and often leads to
embarrassing failures. And so Israel, America's lone dependable ally in
the region, is blindly supported by U.S. administrations, no matter what
its leaders do. The Palestinians are teased with words about a coming
Palestinian state, but nothing much really happens from the U.S. end.
While Carter and Clinton at least tried to bring the parties together, and
actually were starting to accomplish something, the Bush Administration
promises much and delivers little, and is unwilling to use its leverage to
get its ally Israel to make the concessions it will have to make for a
lasting peace.
WHY SHOULD U.S. WORK FOR PEACE?
The well-armed Israelis feel insecure, the powerless Palestinians feel
humiliated and brutalized, thousands die, terrorism grows in this
atmosphere -- and not much changes, decade after decade. And, from the
point of view of America's political leaders, why should it be changed?
The oil keeps flowing, so why would any U.S. administration risk touching
this dangerous third-rail of international politics?
How about because it's the right thing to do? How about because the Middle
East would be stabilized? How about because Islamist terrorism would lose
one of its most potent recruiting arguments? How about because the U.S.
would regain much of the positive prestige it has lost as a result of
Bush's wars against Muslim countries?
Even supposing a just peace could be worked out between the Israelis and
Palestinians, Islamist terrorism would still exist, would still be capable
of awful acts of mayhem and murder. But much of the passion behind today's
terrorism would be diminished or, in some areas, even disappear were the
Palestinians to obtain their own viable state. Similarly, there would be a
concomitant diminution of Israeli brutality and murder in the new
arrangement.
Which brings us to how we get to that state of peace. Even with the
victory of Hamas, an organization dedicated to the elimination of Israel
from the map, polls continue to demonstrate that most Palestinians prefer
a peaceful, two-state solution. Most Israelis, if their security can be
guaranteed by treaty, likewise seem to prefer peace with a Palestinian
neighbor-state rather than decades of still more bloodshed and insecurity.
WHAT WILL HAMAS & ISRAEL DO?
It's not going to be easy. Hamas has been dedicated to the destruction of
Israel, so asking them to recognize Israel's right to exist now that they
are in charge of the Palestinian Parliament seems to make no sense.
Likewise, Ehud Olmert, Israel's acting prime minister, wants to carry on
many of the hard-line policies of Ariel Sharon, such as completing the
Separation (Border) Wall and enlarging key existing settlements in the
Occupied West Bank, which antagonizes the Palestinians.
We don't know how the new Hamas leadership will look at the compromises
that will have to be made in the movement toward peace. Will it, can it,
evolve into a government that accepts a two-state solution? If a
geographically and economically viable Palestine state were to be created
next door to Israel, would they, could they, accept that neighbor?
We don't know who the new leaders of Israel will be after the upcoming
election. If it's the hard-line Likudist Benjamin Netanyahu, peace
prospects are minimal. But if the new Israeli leaders are open to the idea
of an equitable two-state solution, progress can indeed be made. (And,
looking at the demographics, as Sharon did, Israel simply has to divest
itself of the Occupied Territories, lest the Jewish nature of the State of
Israel be placed in jeopardy. The probable outcome is that the bulk of the
Palestinians will be on one side of the border in their own state, with
the bulk of the Jews on the other side in a smaller, but more religiously
homogenous, Israel.
WHAT A SOLUTION MIGHT LOOK LIKE
So, everyone knows, and always has known, what the eventual solution will
be, will have to be: A secure Israel, a viable Palestine, an
internationalized Jerusalem of some sort. To get there, Israel will have
to exit from virtually all of the West Bank, abandoning almost all of the
settlements there and agreeing not to attack inside the new Palestine's
borders; the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel's right to exist,
and refrain from terrorist attacks on their neighbor.
Those Palestinians who would prefer to return to their ancestral homes
inside Israel will, for the most part, have to relinquish their claims and
agree to accept financial compensation for those properties, money that
will help them purchase land and buildings inside the new Palestine state.
As Ernest Partridge ingeniously has suggested, only partially tongue in
cheek, Jewish settlers in the West Bank would be allowed to remain on
condition that they renounce Israeli citizenship and accept Palestinian
citizenship. One imagines that the settlers would leave voluntarily.
Those parts of Jerusalem that are regarded as Holy Land by three great
religions will have to be administered by an international body of some
sort.
Once the peace treaties have been signed and implemented, then the doors
will be open for bilateral treaties on water, jobs, environmental
protection, etc.
WHAT'S BLOCKING MOVEMENT TOWARD PEACE
-
I suspect that there will be no significant U.S.
movement toward bringing peace to the Middle East while Bush/Cheney are
in power. It's simply not a priority for them; indeed, it's possible
that they are quite content with keeping the Palestine/Israel dispute on
the boil, thus ensuring their superpower hegemony in the region. (Then,
too, Bush&Co.'s fundamentalist Christian base requires that Armageddon
take place in the Holy Land prior to the Second Coming of Christ, so
peace is not what they're after.)
Keeping the parties at war reminds one of the reason why the Reagan
Administration supported Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s, to ensure
that the two regional giants would battle and decimate each other.
Because of Bush Administration screwups, if current trends hold, Iraq
will be ruled by Iran-leaning Shi'ite parties, bringing Iraq and Iran
closer together. The irony of history.
-
Nobody quite knows how to factor in Fatah, Arafat's
organization, into the Palestinian equation. Would the more moderate
Fatah, defeated in the recent parliamentary elections, be willing or
able to serve as a mediator between Israel and the new Palestinian
rulers (since the Israelis don't want to negotiate with Hamas)? Could
Fatah, would it, work out tentative peace proposals with the new Israeli
leadership? If so, could the Fatah negotiators sell it to Hamas?
-
Will Hamas, now that it is the governing body rather
than the secret militant opposition, move somewhat toward the center? In
doing so, would they be willing to deal for a
geographically/economically viable Palestine by agreeing to recognize
Israel's right to exist -- and would their fanatic base permit them to
do this? (Sort of like the Catholic IRA making peace with the
Protestants in Northern Ireland, which spawned "the Real IRA," those
extremists eager to continue the violence.)
THE HOPE THE OTHER WOULD VANISH
It seems to me that no progress whatsoever toward peace can be made
without a willingness to start at a point "beyond history," as it were.
That is, both sides would acknowledge historical grievances going back
decades, or in some cases hundreds or even thousands of years -- but, in
the interest of bringing the conflict to an acceptable close, simply
stipulate that each side has its historical grievances and move on. No
more "my victimhood was worse than yours, and you owe me for this, that
and the other atrocity."
In the past, neither party has wanted to move seriously toward peace
because, in truth, each side believed that with just a bit more pressure
or violence, the other side would disappear. Yes, I know this attitude
doesn't make rational sense, but not much is rational in this ages-old
dispute.
The Palestinians believed that they could force the Israelis to give in
and grant them everything they wanted, which would mean the effective
destruction of Israel; the Israelis believed they could force the
Palestinians through the brutalities of an Occupation to move to other
lands and abandon their desire to push the Jewish state into the sea.
Now, it's possible that both sides, after ceaseless murders and
brutalities over the decades, might come to a mutual awareness that enough
is enough, that the Other is not going to disappear, that the Israelis can
destroy Palestine if they so choose, that the Palestinians can ensure that
Israel will never live in peace. In short, a political accommodation will
have to be made, for the sake of the children and grandchildren, and
economic viability, of both countries.
Supposing that a peace treaty can be obtained, and implemented properly
with sensitivity, peace and prosperity for both peoples may eventually be
achieved.
But, as always, how to get from here to there? Aye, there's the rub. All
we can be sure of is that Middle East peace won't be, can't be,
accomplished as long as the current U.S. administration is in power.
Conservatives Are Jumping Ship:
Bush Is Going Down
By Bernard Weiner
March 8, 2006
I'm more and more convinced that it will be Republicans, many of them of
the true conservative and realist kind, who effectively will do in the
Bush Administration.
In this, I am reminded of the behavior of Richard Nixon when he realized
that he was fast losing his middle-class, bourgeois base: He called it
quits on the Vietnam War, and likewise on his presidency after his crimes
were exposed.
But unlike Nixon's crew, Bush&Co. seem willing to take the country down
with them, so desperate are they to hold onto power, deplete the treasury,
pay off their corporate friends, carry out their ideological revolution --
and keep themselves out of the federal slammer.
The crimes of the Bush Administration are so many and varied that none of
us should be surprised by anything that might happen in the coming weeks
and months: Bin Laden captured or reported killed, a U.S.-Israeli air
assault on Iran's nuclear facilities, a major terrorist attack inside the
U.S. to be followed by martial law, the announcement of a bird-flu
outbreak with the military placed in charge. I'm pretty level-headed and
don't usually think in these dire terms, but these guys have backed
themselves into a tight political corner and are desperate -- and
dangerous.
THE IMPLODING SCANDALS
Bush is at 34% approval rating (Cheney is at 18!), and their scandals are
blowing up in their faces: Katrina lies and incompetence; Iraq lies and
incompetence; the Dubai Ports deal and incompetence; GOP bribery and
corruption; Libby under indictment and Rove apparently about to be; Bush
claiming authority to authorize torture, spy on millions of American
citizens and violate the law whenever he incants the magic words "national
security"; Congress rebelling at being frozen out of decision-making, etc.
etc. But in the face of all that, the Roveian M.O. is always to attack
their foes and to hype the fright quotient.
The Administration didn't have to consider the most extreme options until
recently, when the wheels started falling off the Bush bus. The attacks
were no longer coming mostly from liberals and Democrats; more and more,
they were coming from loyal conservative Republicans, who, cognizant of
the sinking poll numbers, saw the handwriting on the wall: They realized
they could well lose their majorities in the House and Senate -- in other
words, severed from their jobs and access to the spoils of power -- and
they started distancing themselves from the Administration.
So, rather than beating my usual drum here denouncing the high crimes and
misdemeanors of the Bush Administration, I thought I'd just lay out the
comments of those conservatives and let them speak for themselves. (My
late friend Emile de Antonio, the documentary filmmaker, taught me a good
lesson; it's always better, he pointed out, to quote what the Wall Street
Journal is saying rather than quoting a hippie or left-activist making the
same point. When your own posse smells the moral rot up top, the end is
near.)
The quotes here are on Iraq and the neo-con ideologues who took this
country to war, though currently the flak is also coming hot and heavy
from the Right on both the domestic spying and Dubai ports scandals. (Even
conservative Republican Senator Richard Shelby says Bush broke the law in
the way he handled the
Dubai ports contract, and neo-con leader
Bill Kristol suggests the other "i" word ("incompetent") in describing
how Bush&Co. stumble around trying to govern: "I think it's become in
people's minds an emblem of the administration that just isn't as serious
about the competent execution of the functions of government as it should
be."
THE NEO-CONS BEHIND THE WAR
Let's begin with a reminder that the conservative establishment didn't
agree from the very beginning with Bush's neo-con obsession to invade
Iraq. President George H.W. Bush, who successfully organized a massive
coalition to push Iraq's army out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War, warned
his son privately and through his spokesmen of the dangerous consequences
both of invading and occupying Iraq and of doing so without wide
international support. As he said of Iraq in "A World Transformed"
(written with Gen. Brent Scowcroft): "Had we gone the invasion route, the
United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly
hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps
barren -- outcome."
Fast forward to the present, when so many Republican stalwarts are saying,
in effect, that they backed the wrong horse. Their party was taken over by
rightwing extremists, incompetent at that, whose reckless neo-con policies
are doing great danger to the country and to the future of the once-great
GOP. Here's
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, chair of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation,
going even beyond the war into the deeper crimes being committed against
Americans' freedoms:
"Most Americans do not yet realize that |