Opinion
For Bush, cohorts, the world is not enough
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Harry Waisbren:
- Climate change hits home (April 9, 2008)
- Kagen gives hope to health care crisis (March 25, 2008)
- Assembly passes on chance to effect real change (February 29, 2008)
- For Bush, cohorts, the world is not enough (February 1, 2008)
- Legislature's approach to BTN indicative of policy stagnation (December 3, 2007)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
When Martin Luther King, Jr. first began speaking out against the Vietnam War, he declared, “He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth.” When I analyze my endemic cynicism over the state of American democracy, I repeatedly come back to this concept.
Both democracy and freedom are dependent on the truth, as without it, effective deliberation cannot occur. Without true deliberation, citizens become highly susceptible to manipulation by interest groups representing the rich and powerful. The people then are no longer fully empowered to make their own decisions amid the static of fudged facts, and they experience the spiritual slavery Dr. King described. This, once again, is our current status — the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, degrading into a rusting city on a hill of lies.
Both major political parties as well as the media have refused to pursue the truth over the specific reasons why the Bush administration propagated egregious lies regarding our country’s true motives for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This came to a head quite recently, as Mr. Bush added a signing statement to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act — signed into law Jan. 28 — that negates Congress’s attempts to bar funds for permanent military bases in Iraq.
Furthermore, Mr. Bush’s Nov. 26 “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” between Iraq and the United States was enacted, without precedent, without the consent of even Congress. The U.S. is planning on staying in Iraq permanently, something the Bush administration neglected to mention to either the Iraqi or American people throughout this entire escapade.
This is hardly surprising given the Bush administration’s general distaste for the truth. A recent study conducted by the Center for Public Integrity found that the Bush administration told 935 deliberate lies in the lead-up to the Iraq war as “part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
Why this isn’t considered an impeachable scandal by Democratic Party leaders or the supposedly independent press is beyond me. This is now a country in which lying about a blowjob can get one president impeached, yet the opposition party says impeachment is “off the table” for another president whose lies illegally pushed our country to war, ravaging our economy, military and international reputation in the process.
Considering the continually looming prospect of a new war with Iran, why are so few people in our government or the media pursuing the truth over why we went to Iraq in the first place? The answer may be that the power players already know the answer to this question, and they are simply choosing not to speak about it. The conservative former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan alluded to this in his memoir when he wrote that he was “saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Fortunately, there is no need to trust Mr. Greenspan’s word alone, as many members of the Bush administration have written about similarly imperialistic ambitions themselves. High-ranking Bush-allies Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Jon Bolton and even Bush’s brother Jeb helped found the neoconservative think tank The Project for a New American Century in the late ‘90s. The signature report made by this think tank was titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” and it was designed to build off the work that Dick Cheney had done in the early ‘90s when he was Secretary of Defense for George H. W. Bush. Although this report was written about a year before Sept. 11, it provides a disturbing view down the rabbit hole through which Alice and all the rest of us have fallen. This report is designed as “a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival.”
This blueprint calls for America to procure strategic military bases in Iraq, Iran and North Korea through force. Although these three countries were later dubbed the Axis of Evil, the need to invade was specifically cited as transcending the desire for regime change. The report unequivocally states “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
This is further emphasized by the statement “from an American perspective, the value of such [permanent military] bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene.”
Right here, clear as day, are the true American foreign policy objectives, and they do not involve us “freeing” the Iraqis, Iranians or anyone else. We have only cared about the permanent military bases that are being established right now. We are acting imperialistically to ensure the military and economic superiority of our empire, yet almost all members of our political institutions are either too cowardly or corrupt to call for anyone to be held accountable for this travesty or even explain to the American people what has been done in our name.
We need to have a countrywide discussion over whether we can be both an empire and a republic at the same time, and if not, which we’d prefer to be. Only the soul of America is at stake, and I for one am sick and tired of both political parties and the press equivocating about what we have done and what we plan to do from here. It is the duty of all Americans to help expose this, for just as it was when Dr. King spoke out in opposition to the Vietnam War, “the time has come for America to hear the truth!”
Harry Waisbren (hwaisbren@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in communication arts.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
“Only the soul of America is at stake”
Absolutely, we should have left Saddam in Kuwait and also let him take over Saudi Arabia.
No Al Quaeda, no 9-11, no Gulf Wars and Saddam would be pumping oil like crazy to support his war with Iran. Oil would probably be about $20 and Saddam would never let Iran develop nuclear weapons.
Hard cheese on the people of the Middle East and Saddam would probably have (snd use) a-bombs, but at least my gas would lots cheaper.
all true…well written stuff.
Yeah, best to leave Iraq to be ruled by monsters who would do this:
… strapped a pair of mentally retarded women with explosives and blew them up by remote control in two pet bazaars Friday, killing at least 73 people.
…the women had Down syndrome and may not have known they were on a suicide mission.
“Both democracy and freedom are dependent on the truth, as without it, effective deliberation cannot occur.” What is truth, how do you define it and how can “truth” really be shown to the people. (o oo oooo MATRIX) In any situation there are two sides of a story. Two people can watch any instance and have a completely different story that they consider to be the outright truth. Where can we find this so called “truth” we Americans need so badly Mr Waisbren?… I would really like to know.
And as a good majority of people bitch and moan about what’s going on in our country and around the world (as do I hypocritically so) and as you so truthfully stated what Alan Greenspan said how he was “saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” we all should really shut our fat mouths until we all stop consuming the oil (mainly driving our cars) that has driven us into this dependent and truthfully shitty situation in the first place.
“Both democracy and freedom are dependent on the truth”
Really? I thought democracy was dependent on majority rule, and I thought that freedom was dependent on respect for the remaining minority.
“Yeah, best to leave Iraq to be ruled by monsters who would do this:”
Incorrect.
Generally, the attacks you refer to come more from the opportunistic groups that sought to fight the U.S. when a power vacuum was created. Those who commit these atrocities “invaded” shortly after we did, both backed by nation states, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and as independent groups who are loosely affiliated with Al-Qaeda-type organizations.
In fact, most officials, even in the stubborn Bush administration, agree that dismantling the Baathist bureaucracy was one of the major mistakes after the initial ground battle was over. This means that we would be better off if those who were doing the day-to-day operations of the Iraqi government were still in power.
Step 1: Hypothesis Step 2: Investigate Step 3: Make educated statements
NOT
Step 1: Google search Step 2: Cut and paste Step 3: Sarcastic remarks
“when a power vacuum was created”
Would it have been so much kinder to leave Saddam in charge do you think? And his sons were such princes of fellows, what with all the raping and murder and so forth the future was grim too.
“leave Saddam in charge”
Well, it would either turn out like Saudi Arabia or Cuba.
Oil daddy scum of the Earth -or- Cold War era grudge that won’t die?
I’d take Saddam and Cuba over the wealthy rat’s nest in the Kingdom of Saud.
“Those who commit these atrocities “invaded” shortly after we did”
I thought that the defeatocrat narrative was that all “militants” were home-grown “freedom fighters”, you know, just like the Yankee Minutemen of yore?
Alternatively, I thought that the flypaper strategey was completely BS?