See more articles, reviews, fiction and poetry, including more of my writings, at group blog PLUTO'S REALM.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Lies, Lies, Lies


This is in response to comments on the previous entry, "Apathy." Apparently I overcame the apathy of a handful of readers, which sure makes this stuff easier! Thanks to TheMemoWriter, pk and billgates for their comments. If you haven't read those comments, you can either go to the previous blog entry or follow this link: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18193044&postID=114002731094927998.

I had made the following comment on The Memo Writer's blog: As far as the cover-up, the Bush administration seriously strikes me as pathological; they lie when there is no reason to lie at all. I mean, there actually was one plausible and defensible reason for going into Iraq, but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere.

Please realize that by "plausible and defensible," I mean from the point of view of the U.S. government, which is empowered within limits set by the Constitution to further the interests of this country as it perceives them. With the exception of the power to declare War, interactions with foreign countries are largely delegated to the Executive branch. Three years ago, Bush, with the misguided support of Congress, began his war on Iraq. No, I do not believe the war was justified, motivated as it was. The real problem is that the Bush Cabal lied to us about the reasons.

What I have come down to after years to think about it amounts to a "purloined letter." The reason is the one everyone would have supposed would be the reason, if not for the smokescreen puffed up by the Cabal, and by the inadequate responses of the Democrats. The United States attacked Iraq to set up a puppet government to maintain U.S. presence in the Middle East for the purpose of "stabilizing" oil flow and prices and providing support for Israel. What really galls me is that they never admitted this.

The Bush administration of course has changed its position as to its original entry into Iraq, behind a spin campaign of Orwellian proportions. First there was the ridiculous assertion that Iraq was somehow behind the 9/11 WTC attack. It's been made obvious since then that the invasion of Iraq was planned long before then; what exactly happened on 9/11 is still now and may forever be unclear (and speculation on such can probably get you into Guantanamo), but that tragedy was either fortuitous for Bush or was at least used by him to buttress his ongoing plan. After it became clear that most of the terrorists on the planes were Saudi's, the adminstration concentrated on its famous Weapons of Mass Destruction nonsense. Those Weapons are still hiding out in the mountains with the Easter Bunny. Now that these idiots have through incompetence mired this country in a mess with the potential to be worse than Vietnam, their only excuse is that now that we're there, we can't pull out because the American lives spent so far would be wasted. So let's waste more lives? Send your own sons and daughters!

Unfortunately I, like I imagine many Americans who saw through the Cabal's transparencies, was a little confused about the purpose of the Iraq invasion. All I could tell from the Bush-controlled press was, by process of inversion, what the reasons weren't. What really threw me off was Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. Which was a great piece of movie-making, by the way, and was where I first became aware of all the ties between the Bush family and the Saudi's. So I tended to buy Moore's explanation of the motivations behind the war as a kind of familial retribution toward Sadam, and an unwillingness to fully confront the Saudi's, the U.S. allies.

But as much as I still think that the Iraq war is to some extent an attempt to show that W's penis is longer than Dad's (in the guise of supporting Dad), I find it hard to believe that the whole Cabal, the power structure of which W is just a figurehead, would act on that motive, or at least risk and commit all of this country's resources, and the future of the Republican party, as well as the stature of the United States, to it. The real motive becomes clear when you see that the Saudi's, as U.S. allies, had basically gone south. For one, they were the real nest for all those terrorists (and yes, for the people who brought down those planes, I won't hesitate to use that term). Worse, they had become unreliable in their support of U.S. interests in the Middle East. So they were to be replaced by a "U.S.-friendly" (read: puppet) Iraqi "democracy."

Now see, there's a reason we have three branches of government, as much as supporters of today's cabal don't understand that. The Executive branch is designed to be the cop, the warrior, the chess player in the game of international diplomacy and war. Its thinking needs to some extent to be cold-hearted and analytical. Its innate tendency is toward authoritarianism. That's why we have the Legislative branch, which is supposed to be the voice of the people, and the Judicial, for temperance and rationality. A state run by the Executive branch would almost by definition be a totalitarian state, a police state. The weaker the other two branches become in relation to it, the closer we are to Fascism.

So I understand why the Cabal, fully in charge of the Executive, would want to invade and conquer Iraq. Iraq was run by a known murderous dictator who had shown, shall we say, adversity to U.S. interests in the past. This leaves aside of course the question that we trained him and put him in power, which is bound to have really pissed off some people in the "intelligence" community, although they really should have come to expect it by now from the other known failures of our raise-a-dictator program (take a poll in South America). Justification of an attack on Iraq didn't face the PR problems an attack on another middle Easter country would have faced. Iran was a close second, and is still an option, apparently.

To summarize, the U.S. feels it has to have a foothold in the Middle East for the two reasons I stated above. The Saudi's were no longer reliable to provide that, so we decided to make our own country. But the Bush people, warmongers as they may be, weren't willing to take the advice of actual warriors (the military knew the Bush strategy for war wouldn't work, from the beginning), and they screwed it up, badly. So here we are. You know, if I woke up tomorrow and was the dictator of the United States, I'd be tempted to attack someone, too. Power corrupts. So when I say the the real, unspoken rationale was plausibile and defensible, I mean from the viewpoint of the Executive. That still leaves it to the rest of the government and to the rest of us to give the country a conscience.

In other comment, billgates questions my commitment to freedom of speech, in light of this quote from "Apathy": This is my country.... If you voted for George W. Bush, especially the second time, and if you endorse the Patriot Act, if you are willing to give up in one fell swoop 230 years of American democracy, then get out of my country.

Well, first, realize that comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, heartfelt as its sentiment may have been. I fully realize that over fifty percent of the electorate (nevermind 99% of the Senate) is not about to get on a boat. It's just that the America Love It or Leave It sentiment as perfected by Archie Bunker always gets used by the right wing; it's only fair that lovers of freedom should be able to use it, too. I mean, yes I support the ACLU most of the time, but things like the threated Skokie march by the Nazi's (remember that?) really bring that kind of support to the stress point. Yes, I absolutely believe in freedom of speech for everyone, including Fascists. So if someone wants to run for office as a totalitarian, they should be able to do so. If the American public wants to elect a President whose avowed purpose is to dismantle the Republic, I suppose they have a right to do so (although I'm pretty sure that trying to overthrow the Constituition is till defined as treason, which it why the Cabal is guilty of treason as well as war crimes). But we all know that's not how dictatorships come into power. If you want to see how it works in the real world, look at Germany in the 30's and at the U.S. in the beginning of the new Millenium. They come to power by instilling fear in the people, by claiming a mandate, and then by abolishing the system which they used to bring them to office. So disagree with me all you want, but be honest about your motives.

Oh yeah, billgates, by "real war" I meant "necessary war." And yes, there are necessary wars. When you're attacked and defend yourself (and defend yourself against the people who attacked you, duh), that's necessary. And I hate to equate that with an unprovoked invasion. OK?

And finally, I have to comment on pk and TheMemoWriter's conversation about apologies. I agree. And have you ever seen a more half-hearted apology than Cheney's speech in which he supposedly took full responsiblity for shooting his supposed friend? Something to the effect of "I' m the one who pulled the trigger." Duh. Just think what would have happened if that guy had shot Cheney by mistake. And I don't see any reason to think it wasn't just a hunting accident. I do believe there's still a negligent homicide statute in Texas, though. I do believe discharging a weapon toward another human being is at least negligent. Oh, but yeah, Texas. Damn.

2 comments:

Jon said...

>So if someone wants to run for office as a totalitarian, they should be able to do so

Just to play devils advocate -- or, angels advocate in this case -- maybe this isn't true, speaking strictly of someone running for office, as opposed to someone merely speaking in favor of facism.

Government is force, and so running for office is less equivalent to speech than it is to the obtaining of a weapon. Our right to self defense justifies taking a weapon away from someone who has made it clear that they intend to use that weapon against us. In this case free speech has nothing to do with it.

Bob J. said...

The question as to whether a totalitarian candidate should be allowed to run for office is basically that of whether the American people, through the electoral process, should have the option or "right" to abolish their existing (pre-2000) form of government in favor of a totalitarian one. In the abstract, I'd say the answer to that would be yes; I've always held the view that the South should have been allowed to secede in the Civil War era. On the other hand, I don't think a fair vote can be held with the current mess regarding mechanisms for voting.

In other words, I think that if a group of fascists wanted to form a separate state, they should have the right to do so. If they could do it by majority vote in an existing state, they probably should have the right to do it there. If not, they have a problems. Shadows of Quebec separatism.

On the other hand, the existing government mechanisms should be able to resist its own overthrow. In other words, it should take more than a fascist in the executive branch to overthrow the whole machinery; checks and balances should prevail. Unfortunately, as I've said before, the other two branches have no effective means of enforcement without the cooperation of the executive.

We already have totalitarians in charge of the executive; they just haven't "cemented" yet. The question is, will the American people let them? I see some signs of resistance, so it's hard to say. Or will the "other" free nations finally wake up and get the balls to do something?