The War on Terror is truly a con of historic proportions. This is no doubt a controversial idea, but it is one I have long held. I have never found it plausible that George W. Bush and the rest of his radically authoritarian minions really cared about the freedoms of Muslims in the Middle East. The blame being shifted onto Iraqis for not creating a democracy out of the burning embers of the society we have left for them does much to expose America's latent bigotry.

Now that it is clear to anyone paying attention that our "freedom agenda" is as realistic as Mr. Bush really being a compassionate conservative, it is the responsibility of our leaders to expose what is really going on. Our own Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has been at the forefront of this, but it is now time for him to do more in light of events that imply that this con has become bipartisan.

Mr. Feingold has been very influential so far in exposing the fact that the War on Terror has only undermined our national security and aided the growth of al-Qaida. He has called out fellow Democrats for not doing enough, saying that they have "prevented Congress from acting to secure our country and restore our global leadership." However, even after his public condemnations, Democrats not only continue to resist measures that will cut off funding that continues the occupation, but they have actively participated in obfuscating the real issues and the true nature of what our country is trying to accomplish in the Middle East under the guise of the War on Terror.

This was seen most blatantly in the Democrats aiding the Republicans in their attacks on Moveon.org for the Petraeus "Betray Us" ad. Far too many Democrats decided that an organization having the temerity to exercise their First Amendment rights in a time of war is more important than the other major issues that came out of the hearings. This includes the largest issue of all, something which Mr. Feingold helped expose, namely that the hearing was designed to enable Mr. Petreus to not "seriously comment about how the war in Iraq relates to the larger global fight against terrorism."

I believe the reason why they will not soundly articulate how our continued occupation of Iraq for the decades to come will help us in the War on Terror is because it will betray the con. This is because the War on Terror really has never been about helping those in the Middle East reach democracy, but rather it has been fought for other, unspoken American interests. "I am saddened," writes former FED Chairman Alan Greenspan in his recently released memoirs, "that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."

If oil is even a contributing factor for why our oil baron in chief decided to attack Iraq, as Mr. Greenspan so matter-of-factly puts it, then what can we citizens do to counter this abomination being made out in our names, especially in light of the fact that it may soon be expanded to Iran? For Madison students, an outlet to help can come by contributing to the Campus Antiwar Network's efforts, as it has long been hard at work trying to expose the abomination of Iraq. CAN member Paul Pryse told me that CAN is keenly working to "expose the lie that we are there to provide security, that the occupation is about stability." Mr. Pryse mentioned how its work to kick Halliburton off campus fits squarely into this goal, as it aimed to expose the myriad of efforts made, including at this university, to allow Halliburton to "evade responsibility for what they have done in Iraq."

However, Mr. Pryse also discussed how its chief, unifying goals only relate to accomplishing a complete troop withdrawal in Iraq. With the prospect of an attack on Iran and drastic expansion of the War on Terror, more work certainly needs to be done to counter the propaganda trying to conflate the two. The most essential thing that can be done at this point is to construct a framework for which to talk about what we are really doing. Going to war in Iran will have nothing to do with Sept. 11 or combating terrorists or spreading freedom, and our country deserves a discussion over why such an attack might occur and what our government is really is doing in our name. Mr. Feingold and groups like CAN have been great so far in exposing how what we are doing is not about fighting the larger war against terrorism, but it has been a very long time since we had a national discussion of what has been done and what we will do. In 2002, anti-war activists were vilified for suggesting that our country was committing blood for oil, but as that prospect becomes increasingly more clear, so too does the fact that it is long past time for our country's activists and leaders to fully cut through the propaganda and get to the heart of the issue.

Harry Waisbren ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in communication arts.