Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 13, 2005
Why DID we invade Iraq?

(Elevated from a comment)

by Antifa

Why DID we invade Iraq?

Bush gave one reason, Cheney another, Condi another, the Pentagon another, the press another, Rummy and Crew another, each Congress critter cited his or her own, the tubefed multitudes all had their reasons, and new reasons are added almost daily as this thing boils over . . .

Ohhhh, Richard! It’s just too complex to ever figure out, to ever finally know — why DID we invade Iraq?

Unless . . . we talk about what goal every one of those myriad reasons points to. Let’s cook it down. What did everybody’s individual pot of justification stew have as a common ingredient? What was in every pot?

America Uber Alles. The PNAC creed.

Unspoken. Unexamined. Unquestioned.

Swallowed whole before discussion even began.

The presumption that we must come out ahead. That we deserve to be on top. Always. That America rules — or else.

That’s what we need to face, and disown, as a nation, as a people. That’s Lebensraum. That’s the Nazi creed of taking what you deem you need.

‘Or else’ is Cheney’s endless war from here on — until such time as we are stopped, just as the Nazis were stopped. That is all that lies down that road.

Are we, the American people, willing to live in this world without holding a pistol to their heads — all those variously unwashed, illiterate, multi-colored, billions of Others?

Are they all created equal, too? Are they human beings, with every one of our Declaration’s rights inborn? Do they deserve everything we deserve?

Or, are they untermenschen? Can we loot n’ shoot them, shock n’ awe, Baghdad style, and drive off into the sunset with what used to be theirs? Is everybody here . . . OK with that?

Are we, the people, willing to be one nation among a couple hundred nations? Talk things out, work things out, put the pistols down? Share? Or, is this whole planet our turf? Is Death to the Other our manifest destiny?

Nothing in America’s Declaration, Constitution, jurisprudence or international treaties asks or requires our loyalty to the PNAC creed. Quite the reverse.

With the Downing Street memo, and other papers, the recipe for this war is out in the open, and Americans of every stripe are asking themselves, who put Lebensraum in the soup?

The Project for a New American Century will get an up or down vote now, out on the street, where Frist can’t fudge or fake it.

As powerful as the sentiments that led to our first Revolution, as powerful as the sentiments that led to our Civil War, is the sentiment building among Americans today, as they realize the comic book creed of world conquest that Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld slipped into our stew, at the cost of our entire Treasury, twice over.

An all American sentiment — aboveboard, honest, straight and sunny — just as jake as calling a foul ball when you see one.

It’s simply this:

We Don’t Want To Rule The World.

And we’re not gonna do it, Dick.

Comments

I’m afraid that many Americans do want to rule the world, at least to the extent that the world should quietly do whatever they decide is in the best interests of the US. They don’t actually care enough to really want to rule, just control.

Posted by: Colman | Jun 13 2005 13:21 utc | 1

.. and the funny thing is, prior to 2001, America did have effective control, and nobody was really that pissed-off about it.

Posted by: DM | Jun 13 2005 13:28 utc | 2

That’s pretty much true.
“The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers, Lord Cheney”.

Posted by: Colman | Jun 13 2005 13:31 utc | 3

Well, if you consider the expansion of the US territory between the independance (the 13 colonies East of the Appalachians, basically) and what it became in the following decades, you’d have to wonder how alien the world conquest lunacy is to the core of American policies and principles.
This shit didn’t just happen because of Cheney and W. It was just put on crack. The same way Nazi militarism and expansionism didn’t come out of the blue but grew on Prussian-turned-German militarism and expansionism, which wasn’t cured by the WWI bloodbath mostly because German civilians didn’t experience it and were spared any destruction and foreign occupation (contrast that with French far more pacifist tendencies in the 1920/30s, which should partly be tied to the partial occupation of the country and near complete collapse in the early stages and months of WWI / contrast that to the Soviet, including Stalin’s, irrational fear of Germanyup to Barbarossa, partly tied to various crushing defeats in WWI, including the massive collapse of 1917, and various Western assaults during the ensuing civil war).

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jun 13 2005 13:48 utc | 4

Wonderful post, Antifa.

Posted by: JDMcKay | Jun 13 2005 13:52 utc | 5

Three words: Iraq Oil Union.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 13 2005 13:54 utc | 6

I see I’m reiterating a little of CJ’s post above but I’ll throw it in anyway.
Right on Antifa,
We don’t want to and refuse to be complicit in your attempt to rule the world Dick.
However Cheney’s and the necon’s mind set didn’t just start with PNAC. The project existed long before that manifesto materialized. PNAC was the project’s coming out of the closet announcement. It has been on the back burner behind a stew of subterfuge ever since the end of WWII.
As most here are probably aware, the US has been involved in a constant program of both overt and covert operations on the international stage where and whenever national and/or popularist movements threatened the hegemonic ambitions of the all powerful and venal ruling class of America. We citizens have just been kept in the dark by pablum propaganda of American righteousness.
This is something I rarely see discussed here at the MoA but I think it important to keep ourselves informed and vocal about this national disgrace.

Posted by: Juannie | Jun 13 2005 14:06 utc | 7

This thread echoes what I just posted on the previous thread.
I believe the options for good men and women in America not wishing to become “good Germans” may suddenly turn grim in the next few years: leave, resist (ie become an outlaw) or die.
I see no possibility of compromise with the Right Wing and they will *not* relinquish power.

Posted by: Lupin | Jun 13 2005 14:13 utc | 8

Although I don’t always agree or even like some of his posts, I think Justin Raimondo post today would fit into this thread. He’s a little less verbose than usual.

Posted by: Juannie | Jun 13 2005 14:16 utc | 9

I’m very pessimistic. I’m afraid it is hardwired into the language. Particularly the language of the corporations – “Our goal is to dominate the market…”
That America has been “dumbed down these last three decades is beyond dispute, and this less articulate (and so less confident) populace is less willing to rebel. So long as they get “results”, many Americans are willing to support their government.
The manipulation of the financial markets (Sir Alan Greenspan) is there to maintain this support for the government.
We are having this conversation thanks to the Iraqi resistance. We call them fanatics. Yet we {R}evere those in our own histories who were willing to die for their beliefs.
R’Giap is spot on about the Iraqi resistance. They understand this is a war of annihilation. And they fight with a God much bigger than General Boykin.
The PNAC will die in Iraq. What will fill the vacuum?

Posted by: John | Jun 13 2005 14:19 utc | 10

‘ Or, are they untermenschen? Can we loot n’ shoot them, shock n’ awe, Baghdad style, and drive off into the sunset with what used to be theirs? Is everybody here . . . OK with that? ‘
It’s a question of leadership… of who’s on top and controlling the microphone if you object to the term leadership being misused.
It’s not just us Americans. The human race ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.
If the people on top are greedy and ruthless enough to take advantage of an attack like 9/11 (to exercise a little “benign neglect” and allow an event like 9/11 to go forward? we may never know) to further their ends; if the “leadership” says “hey the gloves are off now, no more mister nice guy, it’s them or us”; then yeah… everyone else’s greed and orneriness will rise to the occasion.
But the deal was “we’ll bring about the worst possible conditions for just a little while, on our way to the best possible conditions”. That never pans out and it’s not panning out this time either.
People are beginning to realize just how shamefully we’ve all acted at this point. People are going to be angry. It’s going to be “the way I used to love you baby, that’s the way I hate you now.”
Unlike Vietnam we must this time confront what we’ve done, accept the consequences of our actions, and work our way through it. Or it will happen again.
The Germans are our models now. They spent a generation with their hats in hand, ersatz Americans in Europe, but when George W invited them on his Iraqi “adventure” they roared their approval of Gerhardt Schroeder’s “no!”.
I keep billmon’s Anglo-American Tribunal portrait framed on my wall, not becasue I want to see those guys dancing at the end of a rope, hell they’re very small people when it comes down to it, but because I want all of us to watch the trial on TV, day in and day out, to see the pictures of what our government has done, to feel the just opprobrium of the entire world. So that we can all just say “no!” next time.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jun 13 2005 14:35 utc | 11

Yeah, Lupin,
And even though I rationally agree with your evaluation I’ve committed myself to staying the course here for at least a while longer. I’m not ready to throw in the towel quite yet but honor those who have to keep the fires burning elsewhere when our home completely reverts to the homeland.
BTW I appreciated the tour and was happy to meet Maggie’s human in front of the Bastille.

Posted by: Juannie | Jun 13 2005 14:36 utc | 12

It’s an infinite regress of sorts, going back to the Puritans and the Conquistadors, who go back to…..”America” was founded by missionaries, and the mission has never ended. Does it encounter resistance? This is where Marx becomes so suggestive: he ties the Euro-American “mission” to the growth of capitalism, which overcomes all external (archaic) resistance. In fact it’s become quite “Asian” in the last century or so, and (of course) it’s finally “global”. Which is why, once again, the resistance can only arise from within–generated by the suffering of those who lose in the capital sphere. A “new international” will have to realize that resistance, and I can’t imagine how.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 13 2005 14:42 utc | 13

@Juannie. Thanks! Maggie is presently curled up on my feet under the desk. A storm’s coming and she wants to feel safe…
Which ironically brings me back to my theme.
If you’re a liberal in the US, a real liberal, I mean, the fascists are like Goldfinger in the classic 007 film, they don’t want you to tall, they want you to *die*.
They do, you know.
And they don’t believe in playing by the rules; the political process only exists to serve them. And theyt don’t believe in reality either; they’ll bury us all before they change tacks.
So at one point, all of us here are going to have to talk about exile or real resistance.
In your heart, you know it’s coming.

Posted by: Lupin | Jun 13 2005 15:15 utc | 14

That’s right Lupin, you encourage the fifth columnists. When the revolution comes, we’re going to appoint you moral officer.

Posted by: Colman | Jun 13 2005 15:29 utc | 15

Manifest Destiny and the PNAC’s creed has been around since the first tribe raided their enemies for women. The export of democracy by money and guns is new. Shock Therapy is new but as old as the Conquest of Mexico. Stupidity is the belief that rag-heads wouldn’t defend their land and religion from foreign invaders. Inevitable is either total mobilization, nuclear war and the Conquest of Islam or withdrawal from the Middle-East and blaming back-stabbing liberals for another USA defeat.

Posted by: Jim S | Jun 13 2005 15:39 utc | 16

“Conservatives for Espionage”
Now one would think that conservatives, who hold U.S. national security as one of their highest values, would be the first ones to cheer this FBI victory against a nest of spies. One would assume that the same people who are saying that anyone who criticizes the war is undermining the war effort and poses a threat to our troops would show no sympathy to a real threat to our troops when they see one. One might be forgiven for thinking that the denizens of the Right would be throwing their hats in the air at the news of this triumph of law enforcement over those who would steal our secrets. As it turns out, however, many leading conservatives are taking up the cudgels on the spy ring’s behalf – and claiming that the accused are victims of an insidious plot!
Why is that?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 13 2005 15:46 utc | 17

@Colman: I could do with more reasoned arguments and less snark, or do you just enjoy coming across as a jerk?
Funnily enough, I occasionally got the same snark from folks (on Billmon and Kos) two years ago when I posted the direst predictions of the disaster Iraq would turn into. Predictions now confirmed.
You people never learn, do you?

Posted by: Lupin | Jun 13 2005 16:42 utc | 18

Uh, Lupin, that wasn’t even snark. just rueful commentary on your increasingly dark posts.
It’s good to know I come across as jerk though. Thanks.

Posted by: Colman | Jun 13 2005 16:54 utc | 19

@Colman. Well, I would appreciate a reasoned reply.
To take but an issue: Do you think the Right will surrender power willingly in the US, for example?
If your prediction is “yes, they will”, then all my fears will indeed prove to have been unfounded.
No one will be happier than I.
But I’m hardly the first to have posted threads about the fact that they act as if they will never have to be NOT in power.
They use the Constitution and the mechanics of politics when it serves them, discard them when it doesn’t.
There are no checks and balances anymore.
So if I’m right and you’re wrong, then we must think of what we will do then, mustn’t we?

Posted by: Lupin | Jun 13 2005 17:13 utc | 20

I don’t really disagree with you, except in the depth of your hopelessness.
The situation is bad, certainly. They are acting as if they never expect to leave power. They don’t expect all sorts of things that happen to them. They didn’t expect to be bogged down in Iraq years later.

So if I’m right and you’re wrong, then we must think of what we will do then, mustn’t we?

I’m not American, so my two responses are containment, doing what we can while we contain the US, and encouraging change and opposition from within the US. I’m not going to surrender all hope though, and I don’t believe that the current administration are unbeatable superheroes. They will be difficult to beat back, but not impossible. Unless people believe they are unbeatable.

Posted by: Colman | Jun 13 2005 17:21 utc | 21

That would be my three responses apparently. Nobody expects the Irish Inquisition!

Posted by: Colman | Jun 13 2005 17:31 utc | 22

As usual by the time I compose anything I’m a few post behind but, whatever, anyway (took two Brown Ales to get to this point.):
The basis for all defense and aggression is fear.
The psychology of those denizens of anything is a non-reality based bio-survival imprint.
The USA (IMO) that the world used to revere was based on a more evolved psychology. One based on abundance rather than tooth and nail scarcity. One based on cooperation and not plunder. The pre-evolutes like Jefferson/Madison/Roosevelt(probably Mrs.), subverted the …the Euro-American “mission” to the growth of capitalism, which overcomes all external (archaic) resistance. (alabama)
For the world of 6+ Billion souls on a finite planet, this is perhaps a self fulfilling prophecy of the denizens.
At the “end” of the Cold War, I had high hopes that the higher human potential of interdependence (rather than independence or dependancy) and a cooperative win-win psychology would flourish. But the pendulum always swings and not just in the positive direction that we all are hoping for.
We here in America, as Deanander some time back pointed out, are totally spoiled brats (especially the Boomers. I can implicate them safely because I preceded them, just barely :-). but not malignant and venal. Perhaps we need to concentrate more on our own psychology, as well as the perverted psychology of the denizens, than on their politics. In other words, I think exposing the paleolithic psychological thinking of our “leaders” and offering alternatives might be worth our efforts.
Lupin, in my heart I know it’s coming, but I’m not sure just what is coming. Exile, real resistance and pendulums are all part of a reality based psychology. Our constant nudging can and will (I have to believe) effect the coming swing.

Posted by: Juannie | Jun 13 2005 17:47 utc | 23

The situation is bad, certainly. They are acting as if they never expect to leave power.
Correct,they want to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that their iconic representative can illegitimately occupy the White House for an unlimited amount of time.
See: “Repealing the 22nd Amendment”

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 13 2005 17:50 utc | 24

As an expatriate Canadian, I can’t resist (on the 3rd, but this time IPA)
In response to U’ $cam’s post, link duplicated.
Catch 23 is next.
Long live our gracious George ,
God save our noble George.
God save the George
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the George!

For a full rendition see here.
The most revealing:
6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the King!

Posted by: Juannie | Jun 13 2005 18:17 utc | 25

And this too: what is it about George?:

An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying king,
Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow
Through public scorn, — mud from a muddy spring,
Rulers who neither see, nor feel, nor know,
But leech-like to their fainting country cling,
Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow,
A people starved and stabbed in the untilled field, An army, which liberticide and prey
Makes as a two-edged sword to all who wield,
Golden and sanguine laws which tempt and slay;
Religion Christless, Godless — a book sealed;
A Senate, — Time’s worst statute unrepealed, —
Are graves, from which a glorious Phantom may
Burst, to illumine our tempestous day.
— Percy Bysshe Shelley

Everytime I hear the fool say “freedom,” I hear “liberticide.”

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 13 2005 18:32 utc | 26

You want the reasons. Call out Zbigniew Brzezinski and the group of long term strategists who looked toward Iraq as a necessary stepping stone In the late eighties and early 90’s. Are you out there ZB; come and talk to us? This is one half the picture.
The second half of the picture is the Cheney backers, those to whom he made promises that he has to keep, as he spoke at last August’s RNC. Mr. Vice President are you or your official proxies out there, and can we have your side of the story? I am sure Moon of Alabama would put both sanctioned pieces on display unfiltered.
Perle was honest enough to indicate that WMD was the reason we could all agree upon to justify selling of the decision. But what was the real reason for the decision? It certainly wasn’t anything that’s talked about in the press, anywhere. Even the Chomskies of the intellectual sphere are mute on this.
Please gentleman give us some answers.
I fear however the reality will be much more base than strategic issues. I wish there was some noble secret insight, but it would appear that reasoned argument fell out of favor after a power play delivered the 2000 election. And now alas, the laws of gravity have again denied the most fervent wishes of the deluded, and the bill has come due.

Posted by: patience | Jun 13 2005 20:46 utc | 27

“They are deceiving their soldiers and their officers that aggressing against Iraq and invading Iraq will be like a picnic. This is a very stupid lie they are telling their soldiers, what they are facing is a definite death.”
– “Baghdad Bob,” 2,003

Posted by: steve expat | Jun 13 2005 20:56 utc | 28

Perle was honest enough to indicate that WMD was the reason we could all agree upon to justify selling of the decision.
in the interest of accuracy, the stmt came from wolfowitz: “For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on…”
i assume he meant both neocons & neoliberals

Posted by: b real | Jun 13 2005 21:06 utc | 29

@patience
“Perle was honest enough to indicate that WMD was the reason we could all agree upon to justify selling of the decision.”
Not to nitpick, but that statement was actually made by Paul Wolfowitz. The only things I recall Richard Perle talking about during this period was how the United Nations had no authority to tell him what to do.
Anyway… looking for a single underlying rationale for the unrational? Putting aside issues like controlling the flow and cost of oil, the money to be made from sweetheart defense contracts, distraction from prosecuting Cheney’s old buddies at Enron, personal spite (“Tried to kill my daddy! Tried to kill my daddy!”), an international show-of-force (“Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars”) and good old imperial hubris…
They probably picked Iraq as a variant on the mountain climber’s rationale: “Because it was there.”

Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 13 2005 21:13 utc | 30

I should be encouraged by the activity level here lately. Every time I have composed a response in the last few days, somebody has already addressed my quibbles before I can press the “post” button.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 13 2005 21:15 utc | 31

@monolycus
Sure know that feeling somehow I’m just goin to have to be less verbose, more economic heh. Advertising or poetry that is the question!
It does seem like a very steep climb from the bottom tho almost hopeless but hang on what about that ledge there we know we can get up that far!
So every journey begins with one step etc.
If I were living in the US the next step has to be the mid terms. Despite any hesitations we may have about ‘democracy’ there are definately a few footholds up from the first ledge.
Decide quickly whether the demopublicans or a third party and get as many ppl as possible in the boat. (sorry another silly metaphor) Once the decision has been made just stick to it. Who can remember solidarity? There will be plenty of time for recriminations afterwards if that’s yer taste.
But don’t wait around for a ‘leader’ cause that is probably just Frankensteinism ie just create another monster. Movements can/should be undertaken by people. Leaders are just like lawyers really their knowledge of the system can help but their imperfect understanding of our desires means that they substitute their own desires.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 13 2005 21:56 utc | 32

now that i think about it more, wolfowitz’s admission – that wmd was the one thing they could all agree on – likely meant that was the issue that the brits would sign on w/ for violating int’l law & putting own their necks in the noose.
on leaders: “the problem is not to look for leaders, but to get on w/ the struggle. all peoples, when they struggle, produce leaders. leaders are not prefabricated nor are they born or agreements reached in small assemblies. popular leaders arise in the heat of battle, frequenly splattered w/ gunpowder and the smell of blood.” – tomas borge, the patient impatience

Posted by: b real | Jun 13 2005 22:37 utc | 33

dammit! “born of agreements”

Posted by: b real | Jun 13 2005 22:38 utc | 34

And speaking of Wolfowitz… how could I have forgotten that quickly buried story about his rabidly anti-Arab girlfriend from the World Bank, Shaha Ali Riza?
It’s not unusual for a man to promise his paramour the moon and stars(There is, after all, no greater fool than an old man in love as Claudius informs us)… I guess it is fashionable for arch-conservatives to promise their Cleopatras the kingdoms of Babylon and Mesopotamia.
I really wouldn’t even care about this particular story if it weren’t so hushed up by the administration. It’s like Bush the Younger’s arrest record; it might very well be silliness that amounts to nothing but the degree to which it is kept away from prying eyes fosters a great deal of suspicion.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 13 2005 22:41 utc | 35

#########, Monolycus, that was my line:

Posted by: Edmund Hillary | Jun 13 2005 23:14 utc | 36

@Sir Edmund
It took me way too long to figure out what you were talking about there! I was wracking my brains trying to figure out how my bringing up Wolfowitz’s love life could be construed as crapping on Everest. Okay… I’m with you now. You have my deepest apologies and I promise to give full citations in the future when I am quoting mountaineers, rock climbers or spelunkers.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 14 2005 0:04 utc | 37

i just hope that people don’t think everything will be okay once the bushcovites are gone. the US history of economic and military bullying won’t end when bush goes. US foreign policy differs little between the two parties, who, btw, differ so little as to be seen as the same by many folks.

Posted by: lenin’s ghost | Jun 14 2005 0:59 utc | 38

Why did we invade Iraq?
Here’s mho:
USA Today’s above the fold story is that, yes, Virginia, global warming is real, even tho Bush still doesn’t know it.
Next will be the admission that, yes, Peak Oil is also real.
The invasion of Iraq was meant to put a new and improved American puppet in place to insure total easy access to Iraqi oil that could be exploited by American and British petroleum cos, and to do that, the oil also needed to be privatized to pay off all the BushCo crooks.
Our presence now includes Afghanistan, we’re all chummy with some of the dictators in the former USSR stans, who also have natural gas, and whom we want to make sure do not favor Russia.
In addition, Israel wanted to get rid of Saddam because he was a threat to them. If Iraq devolved into civil war, it would keep sunnis and shias occupied with each other. and the kurds, well…
The OSP/Rummy totally cooked the info, just like Team B did with the threat of Russia, etc. back during Bush I…and with the same crew in place…their worldview, in other words, is, as you say, all about dominance.
I bet Wolfie’s girlfriend uses a rubber hose on him for fun, when he dresses in leather chaps…euuuwwww, what a horrific image. lick that comb, Wolfie.
I think they really screwed up vis a vis Iraq. I do not think they are as smart as they want us to believe. They screwed up because they are out-of-touch with reality, and wanted to believe Chalabi…I still don’t know whose side he’s on…his own, I suppose.
They used 9-11 to mind fuck the American people, and the American media (the ones that were not already in their pocket/on their payroll) to both go to war in Iraq and to win two elections…strangely, all those orange threats, all those scare tactics are gone now that they want to end the New Deal.
I think this invasion was part of the last gasp of an empire, not the beginnning of one, and I think, as in other places in history, as the plutocrats see the ruin of their plans, they will crack down, more and more, on their fellow citizens to plunder the treasury and make sure they get as much as they can. America will withdraw from Iraq, and suddenly the problem will not be a botched invasion (or, actually, a stupid action in the first place) but the opposition to it will be blamed.
In order to facilitate both plunder and blame, the plutocrats may allow the fascist goon squads to take out their frustration on liberals and immigrants and people of color, or they may not be able to stop them, since they’ve created this beast via Limbaugh and Coulter, etc. and the goons cannot get to the rich, but they can get to us.
I still believe there are enough people in govt (lifers, not BushCo) and the military who can stop this, but who knows. It would probably require some nasty business…it’s a morally complicated issue.
It seems that we have a whole cabal of Dr. Strangeloves running this country and their “parental” style, as Lakoff would put it, is more like the guy in Silence of the Lambs who wants to create a new and improved self and if only they could fit half the population in that cellar dugout.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 14 2005 1:06 utc | 39

A good summation, faux, but it goes somewaht deeper.

Posted by: mini-me | Jun 14 2005 1:18 utc | 40

Great little word fair faux. I believe we have a cabal of nut cakes in the White House also. Put it this way, I wouldn’t piss in none of their ears if their brain were on fire.
I still believe there a good chance the citizens of the US will awake from the slumber and vote out the rethugs. Limblohard is already on the radio covering their asses saying if Iraq is lost it’s because of the liberals. What an ass.
We invaded Iraq for three reasons: 1. Revenge for Bushcos father. Little boy was pissed Sadamm tried killing daddy. 2. Oil. Enough said. And 3. A Middle East presence.
I see Pearls name above. Where has the dark one been? Maybe he’s in hell already stoking the flames for when his buddies (the neocons) get there. The overlord of evil has been keeping a low profile.

Posted by: jdp | Jun 14 2005 1:37 utc | 41

Fauxreal: I still believe there are enough people in govt (lifers, not BushCo) and the military who can stop this, but who knows. It would probably require some nasty business…it’s a morally complicated issue.
Yea, verily. Nasty and complicated.

Posted by: maxcrat | Jun 14 2005 1:39 utc | 42

Why did we invade Iraq? Alignment.
Alignment of what? you ask.
Alignment is where the appeal of something grows exponentially when multiple things align. In the American System of Govt. the powers of the President are greatly enhanced during war time. A pliant Iraq cover’s Isreal’s eastern flank. Isreal has peace to its west in Egypt, to the far north in Turkey and vast desert to its south and south east. For Jewish Neocon’s the taking of Iraq makes the world safer for Isreal. And then there’s the oil.
So there you have it, the Alignment of Oil, Isreal’s security and Presidential War Powers – oh and they also thought it would be low hanging fruit. Oops on that one.
But that is only in the near term.
I keep thinking back to Billmon’s essay on the book about Leo Strauss that he reviewed here about a month back.
That book involves another alignment. This is an Alliance of Religious fundementalism and an Uber Wealthy Elite Uber Alles – a sort of Banana Republic on Steroids. That is, I suspect, what they are after. It means destroying Social Democracy and Social Democratic systems and institutions where ever they occur. This has created a huge wedge between us and our Social Democratic allies.
Social Democracy is the ideology of Freedom-AND/WITH-Fairness (all one word – for purpose here). The Neocons preach Freedom without fairness. Why? Because ideology allows them to pursue what they are really after – ever greater concentrations of wealth and power without having to balance out such notions against the idea of whether or not it is fair.
Take a look at those tax breaks. 30% went to the top 10%. But it gets grosser still in the top .01%. Who do you think the top .01% is? I mean, other than Warren Buffet and Microsoft? Those tax breaks aren’t tax rebates – you can’t give back money you don’t have. The Govt barrows money to pay the tax breaks, much of it from China. So you could almost say that the tax breaks are loans from China, brokered by the Govt with the Uber Rich as beneficiaries.
Except, the beneficiaries won’t pay back the loans. You and I will. But wealth concentration brings with it collapse in demand. And when it is finally triggered, the Uber Rich will be sitting on mountains of gold while the rest of us work in the salt mines for our daily bread and to pay back those loans.
They want to dominate here. They want to undermine there. They are totally okay with an unstable world. They want an unstable world because it undermines the Social Democratic world which is depended upon stability. They don’t want Social Democracy to thrive anywhere. There model is neofeudalistic – an unstable world not only doesn’t undermine them, it makes them reletively stronger.
They want everyone to be poor and be sustained and controled by religion. They will be wealthy and in control. Its hard to believe that with so much history pointing in the other direction that people could be pointed in this direction. But there you have it.
The guy that owned a castle during the Roman Empire might have been well off. But after the fall of the Roman Empire he was really well off reletive to everyone else. From that base he could carve up a bigger slice for himself.
This has been, I believe a long sought Neocon goal. They have planned for it. I don’t think any of the elections here are valid. I think the books are all cooked. They knew they could get alot of people but they could never be sure of majorities that they need. And they act like majority status is theirs permanently when, if the exit polls in Ohio are any indication, they barely won. And election polls in Europe are almost always spot on, but in Ohio they were wrong.
I am sorry, but I see these guys are very dangerous.

Posted by: Timka | Jun 14 2005 1:46 utc | 43

I’m of two minds about why we invaded:
1) Grand imperialist imperatives designed to realign the world, ones that we bear forward reluctantly, condemned to a generational struggle that we’d prefer to avoid because it will bankrupt us in every way.
2) Because it was gonna be just so easy. A few troops, some fireworks, then it was rose petals and fresh dates and yogurt and the troops will be home (or in Tehran!) by Christmas and Ahmed Chalabi would be acclaimed as the “Iraqi George Washington” and the oil would pay for the reconstruction and we’d each get a pony.
I think it was more that those planning the war embrace the first reasoning, but repeat the second one to themselves because it’s what divinely-inspired conquerer do: lower the balance of morality until the ends justify the means.

Posted by: Brian C.B. | Jun 14 2005 2:09 utc | 44

@Timka
I think you are very on-track by calling it neofeudalism. I said as much when the “bankruptcy reform” atrocity was passed with just a shrug of the shoulders from the Left.
Just that single piece of legislation puts it all into perspective. Punish the poor and protect the rich. And the fact that the Dems didn’t care any more about that latest bit of blatant class warfare to bother pointing out its fundamental hypocrisy moved my opinion of them from frustration at their apparent ineffectualness to overt contempt with their complicity.
I well and truly detest the rich. I despise them for flushing the environment down the toilet and breaking the lives and dreams of millions of impoverished human beings (whom they only view as a commodity to be exploited)just to make a quick buck. I despise them for their arrogance, their apathy and their sociopathy. And I despise poor people for aspiring to be just like them and supporting these injustices by embracing their harmful materialist value system.
I apologise for the negativity, but that’s my particular hot button.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 14 2005 2:15 utc | 45

fauxreal
thanks.

Well, Cowboy Dan’s a major player in the cowboy scene
He goes to the reservation drinks and gets mean
He’s gonna start a war
He hops in his pickup puts the pedal to the floor
And says “I got mine but I want more”–Modest Mouse

We’re now beginning to understand the brainless simplicity of Bush’s appeal.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 14 2005 2:16 utc | 46

Fauxreal
Saddam was not a threat to Israel.
Israel targetted Saddam because he was the only combatant from 1948 that did nto sign the armistice.
This was a wound that needed salve.

Posted by: ed_finnerty | Jun 14 2005 2:19 utc | 47

@Monolycus and Timka:
Agree with You. Nice to have an agreement around here every liitle while.

Posted by: Edmund Hillary | Jun 14 2005 2:47 utc | 48

@ Edmund Hillary
But Sir Edmund, shouldn’t you have credited
that line to George Mallory, whose corpse was
recently recovered on Everest?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 14 2005 5:46 utc | 49

The nit-picking on Mallory was mine, and not up to the
standards of this thread. FWIW, I tend to side with
Coleman and Debs in hoping that “the pendulum” will
finally start to reverse its long swing to the right.
There’s much work to do, and certainly no unique path
to redemption, but I really think that some interesting possibilities are opening up for major changes in the
American political equilibrium.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jun 14 2005 5:55 utc | 50

Arnold and senssenbrenner have give us the answer. Iraq and all else is naught but a naked power grab for absolute control. Plain and simple.
Yesterday a repeal of the 22nd ammendment which limits the president to 2 terms was introduced via senssenbrenner and co. How obscene is this given senssenbrenner recent closing down of the patriot act hearings?
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml
Arnold wants to have special elections to bypass his own legislature and create a constitutional way to create his own version of absolute power california style. How obscene is this five arnold’s window into office was a jury rigged special election?!!
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3223945
These guys are trying to force total control. They must be removed, tried and jailed. They are dangerous, delusional, and out of control. It must be stopped and stopped now! All who can scream need to scream this week, and for the rest of time it takes to bring this to an end. Those who can demonstrate need to demonstrate. Those who can agitate need to agitate. This madness must end. They have now revealed the fist beneath the glove.
Our founding fathers feared the ghost of Cromwell more than King George. Impeachment will show the strength of their construction, now that these lunatics have finally made their move, nothing less is possible. The reality of the Downing Street Memo must be on everyone’s lips.

Posted by: patience | Jun 14 2005 7:10 utc | 51

I don’t think they can get Georgie to stay (too obvious, plus they need the illusion of change) but I can easily ee installing Jeb next.

Posted by: Lupin | Jun 14 2005 8:04 utc | 52

A good post by Antifa.
I don’t want to delve deep into the question of collective, communal or hereditary guilt here and now.
The message is not useful I feel. It only preaches to the convinced, to those who understand and are are willing to accept. And even then – they don’t feel personal guilt, I would claim – Not in My Name says it nicely. They see themselves as outsiders, who risk being hunted and may have to flee (see Lupin). Traitors to their tribe. Some remorse, shame, and desire to make reparation may be present. These are on the whole positive emotions, but linked to the role of traitor, they don’t lead to action. Or do they? I can’t think of an example right now.
It is a passive, dispiriting point of view, and demaining towards those who, in a very individualistic society, simply assume that the framework of their lives is a given and the actions of the elites are completely divorced from theirs. Not to mention all those who don’t have time to think as they are busy trying to survive, just like families in Baghdad.
I prefer the role of dissident or opponent. That role has its limits, as one must work, to a certain degree, within the accepted framework, which, in the case under discussion, is that Americans are Good, or at least, that Most Americans are Good (stripping away the rhetoric of the day, whatever it is.)
Just one aspect of the matter. Important, all the same.
-oh, I meant the content besides ‘not wanting to rule the world’..

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 14 2005 8:12 utc | 53

Faux, and others:
Emergency Preparedness against the “Universal Adversary”
by Michel Chossudovsky, 7 June 2005
Orwellian “Scenarios”
A recent Report of the Homeland Security Council entitled Planning Scenarios describes in minute detail, the Bush administration’s preparations in the case of a terrorist attack by an outside enemy called the Universal Adversary (UA). The Universal Adversary, is identified in the scenarios as an abstract entity used for the purposes of simulation. Yet upon more careful examination, this Universal Adversary is by no means illusory. It includes the following categories of potential “conspirators”: 
•  “foreign [Islamic] terrorists” ,
• “domestic radical groups”, [antiwar and civil rights groups]
• “state sponsored adversaries” [“rogue states”, “unstable nations”]
• “disgruntled employees” [labor and union activists].
(…)
Link

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 14 2005 8:16 utc | 54

And while I am up:
Two-Thirds On Defense
Jurgen Brauer and Nicholas Anglewicz
June 10, 2005
–Jurgen Brauer is a professor of economics at Augusta State University in Augusta, Georgia. Nicholas Anglewicz is an MBA student there.
Excerpt:
On a per-capita basis, the average American in 2004 then did not pay $1,488 for defense but $2,605. In a word, the military ran on $217.08 per citizen per month, while the remainder of the federal government ran on $103.83 per citizen per month.
Link

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 14 2005 8:19 utc | 55

I was musing on some sort of mix of posts above and some topics I was contemplating writing on for Eurotrib when I finally started listening to something I’ve been saying for a long time.
These guys, in their deepest blackest shrivelled hearts and souls believe their own propaganda. They believe in Rand, in Strauss*, in Friedman, their paid for apologists. They’ve forgotten that they paid to have the golden scrolls inscribed and now believe they were handed down from on high. They’ve bought into the myths that they meant for the consumption of mere mortals. They don’t and can’t understand that they’re going to destroy the economy. They don’t and can’t understand what they’ve done in Iraq. They are anointed philosopher kings, acting strictly in their own interests for the good of all. They see themselves as acting morally. Don’t forget that they are human+: they eat, shit, have sex (sorry) and have to look at themselves in the mirror every morning. When they look in the mirror they don’t see immoral robber barons. They see paragons of virtue struggling against a misguided world.
They believe that a neofeudal state is the best thing for America because it is the best thing for them. They believe the ends justify the means. They believe they are improving the world, even while they are indulging in the venality of day-to-day US politics: greed is good.
The first rule of war (and the first that this lot forget) is to know your enemy.

*Or at least in what they think they wrote, ok Alabama?
+Except for the reptile Queen of course.

Posted by: Colman | Jun 14 2005 8:54 utc | 56

Heyyy, I’m a Universal Adversary!
The battle lines are being drawn — by President Cheney and his Amazing Meat Puppet.
Those battle lines include me out.
Ya know, the Boston Tea Party came along after the redcoats rubbed the colonists noses in their vote-less, powerless status one time too many. They didn’t know it was one time too many. Until it blew up in their faces, it was business as usual . . . they weren’t aware that the talking was all over.
Take away our representation — bit by bit, or all at once — and you will reach the tipping point, when the population becomes the Enemy.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When the only world view you know is fear, fascism looks grand.
These neo-cons, and their Good Republican followers, want a strong Leader to salve their fear. In that fear, they are beyond reasoning with now. They will either have their Leader, or we will deny them that.
The battle line is clear.
It’s we, the people, or Him, the Leader.
“There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons. And the word ‘council’ must be restored to its original meaning — surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man.”
– Adolf Hitler

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 14 2005 10:34 utc | 57

@Coleman – They believe that a neofeudal state is the best thing for America because it is the best thing for them. They believe the ends justify the means. They believe they are improving the world, even while they are indulging in the venality of day-to-day US politics: greed is good.
You are right here. Hersh has pointed this out several times. How can those believes be shakened? The situation in Iraq is probably eating at them already.

Posted by: b | Jun 14 2005 10:47 utc | 58

Colman: I couldn’t agree with you more.
I have personal experience with fascism having been in Spain in 1970-71-72 when Franco was still, well, a factor.
These people see themselves entiely and totally as the good guys. To them we’re scum. When I tell people they want to kill us, I’m not joking. They may not express it so clearly, but bottom line, that’s what they want.
I freaked out when I recognized that mindset (once touched, never forgotten) on the newsgroups around the time of Clinton’s impeachment. (proto-LGFers and freeepers then).
It’s only gotten worse since.
We might effect a sort-of-smooth transition to rejoin the human race (à la Franco to Juan Carlos, or even Brezhnev to Andropov to Gorbachev), but that’s not a given.
Honestly, as I have oten said, Bush is the symptom, not the cause.

Posted by: Lupin | Jun 14 2005 11:17 utc | 59

@Colman Well yeah apart from the sociopaths. Which amongst BushCo there are more than a few. These guys (mostly guys with a coupla imitation guys) are mostly just people and apart from the aforementioned exceptions people like to think they are doing the right thing. It’s more than an outstanding capacity for self delusion though. To pull off the sort of up is down, black is white philosophic gymnastics these types do requires an extra-ordinary sense of self, combined with an ability not look too closely at ‘unattractive’ subjects.
I am not suprised to learn that a number of their theorists (Wolfowitz et al) were once Trotskyists. I know little of Trotsky as I’m not a big fan of ‘if only’ scenarios but like many of my generation I have had considerable contact with self appointed Trotskyists.
My first meaningful contact with them en masse was during orientation in my first year at Uni. Socialist Action put on a wine and cheese party. Yeah don’t laugh they were only kids and I guess they wanted to recruit new members from the young uns.
Anyway I turned up with a few friends. The chief problem seemed to be wine or rather the lack of it but we managed to peel the earnest types from around the cask and hopped in to it.
After a bit they started speechifying so we went up the other end of the common room and turned up the sounds, then leaped around shouting, laughing and dancing, and generally getting oriented. They had been playing Lennon’s first album interminably. Don’t get me wrong I like the man but it didn’t feel like the sort of music to jump around to.
It was then that the bloke I was with made a fatal political error. He took off Lennon and whacked on “Who’s Next” which had just been released. We’re whooping to Baba Oriley or somesuch and probably concentrating a bit too hard on some women who despite their protestations to the contrary definitely looked like they needed liberating.
Next minute a bearded bespectacled fool in overalls (dungarees) with steam pouring out his ears comes striding across the common room at ninety miles an hour. The needle gets dragged off the vinyl with an horrendous screech and he starts screaming at us for bringing counter revolutionary propaganda to the meeting.
‘Whaddya mean counter revolutionary?” shouts my mate “I was only asking her what she was studying”
“That Townsend shit!” this fellow pontificates “Have you heard the words to “won’t get fooled again”? ‘the new boss is just like the old boss’ indeed”
I swear he would have harrumphed if he could’ve. A young old man.
The moment wasn’t helped when my friend cracked the bloke on the side of his head and said as he gently stepped over him “you shoulda told me she was your missus.”
No sense of humor the Trots. They were always ‘on duty’
Which brings me back to Wolfie. God knows what sort of twisted relationship he has with that Saudi woman but like most cultists the Trots demanded absolute obedience from the women.
I often suspected for many of them that the ‘freedom’ that they were arguing for with their feminist spiels was the freedom for women to work and mother them so that they would in turn be free to talk garbage without having to worry about the menial stuff that the rest of us endure.
When ‘Rummy’ was at his worst (I really must stop using diminutives and endearments to name these assholes) and talking about shock and awe and the need to ‘tidy’ up Iraq I used to sit and picture him with a baby child or grandchild that was soiled. Would Rumsfeld toss the baby in the air laughing while he organised the stuff to change the baby, then do so. Or would he toss the baby in the direction of the nearest woman and say “Here, you need to take care of this” I think we know the answer to that question.
It really helps to see this bloke in perspective. He’s just another uptight guy who has never relaxed enough to really enjoy his life. So why on earth would anyone feel that he’s some sort of powerful alpha male?
We need to remember that stuff about these guys cause they will blind with their BS if we let them.
It seems the US population are just starting to perceive this. Rumsfeld was hidden away for a lot of the second half of last year mainly cause of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib but now they can’t let him back out much cause he’s a loser.
About the time of the infamous helicopter on the aircraft carrier thing where W declared peace in our time there was an interview with one of Rumsfeld’s aides. It was a puff piece made to sketch the character of the great decision maker.
This guy was asked what contingency planning was done prior to the invasion.
He replied along the lines of “Contingency planning! Hush your mouth. I want to keep my job. Secretary Rumsfeld won’t allow talk of things that ‘might’ happen we are only to address what we know has happened/ is happening. Until then we can’t deal with it so why discuss it?”
Kinda makes ya see how they didn’t plan for the post invasion strategy.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 14 2005 11:30 utc | 60

Colman, it’s a fact (mysterious, but true), that we all need a king (why we must “need” a king, I don’t know, because the need isn’t rational at all). So the question comes down to something like, “what kind of king do you need”? Some of us need an intelligent king, others, a stupid king; some a kind king, others, a cruel king; some, a major king; others, a minor king; some, a female king, others, a male king (or a gay, or a lesbian, king)…..The range is apparently infinite, but some things are decisive: for example, the figure in question must wear a crown and a royal robe (a baseball cap and a t-shirt would serve very well in some settings). It’s also the role of a king to confirm us in our belief that we’re cool, especially where we harbor doubts about this point. Bush, as the king of the neo-cons, could be read with this in mind: what doubts do these people have, and how does he conjure away their doubts?

Posted by: alabama | Jun 14 2005 14:18 utc | 61

@alabama
Interesting. I think of myself as an iconoclastic anarchist. I don’t think I need a king figure. I don’t idolize sportpeople, politicians or .. well .. anybody really. There is no hope? It’s all irrational brain-stem monkey-king business? Dammit! This kinda puts the mockers on my socialist utopia fantasies.

Posted by: DM | Jun 14 2005 15:19 utc | 62

We certainly do not need a king. Ever. Ask Moses in the old Testament the Hebrews are warned against kings, and the suffering that goes with having them. Before the book of kings the Hebrews lived without kings. When Ceasar became king Rome was set up for the long decline. Kings are a disaster and have never worked.
I’ll stick with an elected official who can be removed from office anyday.

Posted by: patience | Jun 14 2005 15:50 utc | 63

“We have no king but Jesus.” – john “keep that supreme court seat warm for me” ashcroft

Posted by: b real | Jun 14 2005 15:59 utc | 64

@jdp

…I wouldn’t piss in none of their ears if their brain were on fire.

A most felicious serendipity in the typo — it’s as if you allude to the Graiai, the three hags with one eye (and tooth) between them.
Ah, if only like Perseus we could snag the one brain the entire Bush admin has among them (well, probably just a ½ brain…)

Posted by: BarfHead | Jun 14 2005 16:34 utc | 65

patience, Moses was a king, I guess, though not of the European mode…. I’m an anarchist too, DM–of the Kropotkin persuasion. I hope Kropotkin isn’t my king, but sometimes I’m not so sure of this (because it’s not necessary that a king be alive–as b real so wittily reminds us).

Posted by: alabama | Jun 14 2005 16:48 utc | 66

patience, Moses was a king, I guess, though not of the European mode…. I’m an anarchist too, DM–of the Kropotkin persuasion. I hope Kropotkin isn’t my king, but sometimes I’m not so sure of this (because it’s not necessary that a king be alive–as b real so wittily reminds us).

Posted by: alabama | Jun 14 2005 16:49 utc | 67

Sorry for the double post; I haven’t mastered the new posting delay feature.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 14 2005 16:52 utc | 68

Why? there’s never just one reason. but here’s a motivation, coldly planned and discussed in advance — OK, it ain’t quite the Wannsee Conference, but the essential attitude is the same: to consolidate our power it is expedient that these people should die.

It confirms that Bush had planned to invade Iraq well before 9/11, and indeed before his presidency even began: “‘He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,’ said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. ‘It was on his mind. He said to me: “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.” And he said, “My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.” He said, “If I have a chance to invade..if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”‘”
This is, in retrospect, horrific stuff. But then it gets worse. Herskowitz tells Baker “Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.
“According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. ‘Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.’
“Bush’s circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: ‘They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.’
“Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter’s political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush’s father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents – Grenada and Panama – and gained politically.”

Link
I recommend the whole article as it covers some familiar questions with a fresh perspective: to what extent can we apply the f-word to US politics today; what prospect is there for rebuilding a national consensus after the fall of the Bush Regime; how likely is such a fall; how many loyal Bush dead-enders are there and what are they likely to do; what role might the armed forces play; etc.
Also recommended: Doug Ireland on the New Blacklist (and did y’all know there were companies in the profitable blackmail biz during the Red Scare, offering for a hefty fee to “clear” your name from any suggestion of Red taint? ain’t entrepreneurialism grand?)

Posted by: DeAnander | Jun 14 2005 20:00 utc | 69

DeAnander
great article.
I am reminded of the scene if F911 where little boots says
“I’m a war president. I go to sleep with war on my mind”

Posted by: ed_finnerty | Jun 14 2005 20:11 utc | 70

Good find there, DeA.
The little cretins sure wanted to take their military toys out of the box, didn’t they now?

Posted by: Garden Slug | Jun 14 2005 21:00 utc | 71

I dimly recall a radio broadcast of a parody of the invasion in which America is a honey-tongued two-timer phoning to invite China and then Pakistan and others at the UN to her ‘invasion’ party. Anybody recall this or have a link?
Instead I see America and all the major power players at a table eating from a bowl of fruit. In the middle of the table is the last grape and they all want it. America beats them to it [by force], perhaps to eat it, or perhaps to sell it to the highest bidder.
It’s the Caspian Sea reserves and America is determined that Russia and China are not going to have it.

Posted by: gylangirl | Jun 14 2005 22:41 utc | 72

DeA- of all the brutish and nasty political opportunism, this has to be the worst. Pick a small country and invade. These bastards deserve a heapin’ helpin’ of karma…for this craven disregard for human life in order to score political capital, to the torture of innocent people as the new image of this country the world over.
I read a piece in this month’s Harper’s from a Palestinian man who was picked up, tortured, taken elsewhere and tortured, then released with papers saying that he was no threat to the United States. This was after they had anally raped him with something like a broomstick.
The man cannot go to the bathroom without reliving this trauma. He says he broods, and has images he cannot get out of his mind…he fears he is having a nervous breakdown.
He was TOTALLY INNOCENT of any crime. There was no basis for anything that happened to him. So all the wingnuts who want to say everyone in those prisons would cut our throats conveniently forget that both General Taguba and the Int’l Red Cross said 70% or so of those in these prisons are innocent. there crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Maybe those who support Bush in this torture will have a moment of karma payback, too. Maybe they need to know what it’s like to be innocent and have a broom stick shoved up your ass by a group of strangers.
The outcome of this moment in history is, indeed, not yet decided. My most basic response is to get my life in order, as much as possible. Sounds sillly, but it’s sort of like that idea…if you had to leave your house with 24 hours notice, what would you take? I want to have that answer ready….not quite that dramatic, but you get the idea.
I held vigil before the invasion, called my legislators, emailed, protested afterward…I no longer see those things as effective unless there are other Americans who are now willing to stand behind and with those whose first response was that Bush was lying.
The idea that BushCo might simply choose not to leave does not seem unimaginable. Not after the 2000 Florida issues and the midterms, and Ohio 2004, voter suppression, using homeland security to go after Texas dems re: redistricting. In that case, I suppose I will be going back to DC to hold vigil…and to defend myself, if need be. Anyway, I know where I will be in an event such as that.
Wouldn’t it be the height of irony to have people outside the vp rez telling Cheney to get out, after the republican goon squad did this to Gore?

Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 14 2005 23:50 utc | 73

Patterns Of War
Dead leaves on the ground
Slats in a picket fence
Soldiers in formation
Names on a wall
Mike Hastie
U.S. Army Medic
Vietnam 1970-71
December 13, 2004

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 15 2005 0:19 utc | 74

More than a century of spreading ‘Freedom and Democracy’ ?

US troops in Argentina, 1890
Marines in Chile, 1891
suppression of revolt in Haiti 1891
conquest of Hawaii 1893
occupation of Bluefields, Nicaragua 1894 & 1899
Marines in China 1894-95
in Korea 1894-96
Corinto, Nicaragua 1896
Invasion of China 1898-1900
conquest of the Philippines 1898-1910
conquest of Cuba and Puerto Rico 1898-1902
seizure of Guam 1898
San Juan del Sur, Nicaragua 1898
Samoa 1899
conquest of Panama 1901-14
annexation of Panama Canal Zone 1914
Honduras 1903
Dominican Republic 1903-04
Korea 1904-05
Cuba 1906-09
Nicaragua 1907
Honduras 1907
Nicaragua 1911
China 1911-41
Cuba 1912
Panama 1912
Honduras 1912
Nicaragua 1912-33
Mexico 1913
Dominican Republic 1914
Mexico 1914-18
Haiti 1914-34
Dominican Republic 1916-24
Cuba 1917-33I
Invasion of Soviet Russia to fight revolution 1918-22
Panama 1918-20
Honduras 1919
Yugoslavia 1919
Guatemala 1920
Turkey 1922
China 1922-27
Honduras 1924-25
Panama to suppress general strike 1925
El Salvador 1932
backed Greek counterrevolution 1947-49
backed counter-revolution in China 1948-49
suppression of Huk rebellion in Philippines 1948-54
intervention in Puerto Rico 1950
Korea 1951-53
Guatemala 1954
Lebanon 1958
Panama 1958
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia 1960-75
Cuba 1961
Dominican Republic 1965
Guatemala 1966
Oman 1970
Iran 1980
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Honduras 1983-89
Bolivia 1986
Panama 1989
Iraq Gulf war 1990-91
Somalia 1992-94
Yugoslavia 1992-94
Bosnia 1993
Haiti 1994
Liberia 1997
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
and Serbia 2001.
Not included in this list of military invasions are indirect acts of aggressions, such as American-sponsored military coups and subsequent massacres of the people.
For instance: the CIA-organised coup in Indonesia in 1965 and the witch hunt against communists and progressives in which many hundreds of thousands were murdered; the 1968 CIA-backed army coup in Brazil that led to two decades of military rule; the 1973 CIA coup against Chile’s President Allende and the US-approved murder of thousands of suspected leftists; the “dirty” war by the generals in Argentina who took power in 1976, torturing and killing tens of thousands of people, and engaging in a macabre traffic in the babies of murdered women; the 1980s murder and torture campaign carried out by mercenary death squads against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua under the leadership of the man who was the US ambassador to the UN, but now the Intelligence Tzar, John Negroponte; a similar campaign against peasants and suspected rebels including priests and nuns, in El Salvador; the hundreds of thousands of peasants and dissidents killed by American-backed generals over the last several decades of the 20th century in Guatemala; and many, many other cases elsewhere, including murderous CIA and American-run mercenary operations in the Congo and Angola.
Also, since the above list was first published: the 2001 invasion and continuing occupation of Afghanistan; the 3,000 US troops in the Philippines currently; the 300 American troops and “civilian” mercenaries in Colombia; the US sending of “advisors” in a rehearsal for aggression in Nepal, and now Iraq.

Source: FreedomWatch
Additional reference: Forgetting History

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 15 2005 0:28 utc | 75

Some time earlier there was a bit of a skirmish in the bar over the Likudnik lobby (AIPAC and their allies), with some barflies demanding an open discussion of pro-Israeli influence or direct Israeli influence on US foreign policy, and others suffering a histamine reaction to perceived suggestions of the good ol’ World Jewish Conspiracy.
I thought this article might be helpful. [excerpt]

There is a real need to be clear about who “the Lobby” is. It is sometimes called “The Jewish lobby”, which is inaccurate and misleading, and foments just the sort of conspiracy theorizing we must avoid. It implies that a population of 5.2 million Americans dictates a very crucial area of foreign policy to a nation of over 296 million.
The face and voice of the lobby is Jewish, because Jews are the most sympathetic and most passionate about this cause. But the votes that the lobby can deliver are not Jewish votes. Christian Zionist groups, numbering some 20 million strong, having their biggest strengths in areas where there are few or no Jews, and also voting at high rates, give the lobby its voting power. This is why many of the most radical bills in Congress are brought by members from Bible Belt states with virtually no Jews in them.
These two groups can mobilize votes and sympathy. They can mobilize some significant money as well, but nothing like what major corporations can raise. Corporations, which have enormous lobbying networks and many ways of funneling perfectly legal contributions to favored candidates, and who are involved in the sale of military and hi-tech equipment, derive huge benefits from the ongoing state of hostility in the region. Massive tax dollars flow to American corporations from aid to many countries in the Middle East, of which the annual aid to Israel is only one part. Israel receives by far the most aid, and 75% of all the aid must be spent with American corporations. Many Middle Eastern countries spend considerable money over and above the subsidies they receive from the US on American weapons and military technology.

Full article here
The author points out that the cosy relationship between Israel (“the world’s largest US aircraft carrier”) and the US goes back a long way, is entrenched in US foreign and domestic policy, and provides two large levers which groups like AIPAC can pull to exaggerate their actual political clout: the large Christian Zionist / Rapturista lobby, and the greedy military industrial sector. While AIPAC wields clout (never doubt it) and while individual Jewish Likudniks do have personal influence, the total drag and steering force on US policy comes from a more complex blend of powers and lobbies than one simple “Jewish Lobby”. Of course.
It’s never just one thing…

Posted by: DeAnander | Jun 15 2005 0:34 utc | 76

btw Outraged, nice to see you here again.

Posted by: DeAnander | Jun 15 2005 0:37 utc | 77

@DeA:
The emergence of the rapturistas/Bible Belt into the Middle East thing is a relatively recent occurrence–say 1996 onward.
The lobby in the US for Israel, prior to that point was, indeed, largely jewish, and had been for 40 years.
If one reads Haaretz, it appears the Israelis are as divided over Sharon as we are over Bush.
In my opinion, supporting Israel, unconditionally, in the last 50 years, has been a disaster in our foreign policy.
Osama and Iraq have just thrown more flaming jet fuel on the region.
Sometimes, it ain’t all that complex.
“Little Heydrich” will take his teddy bear to the Time-Out Room now.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 15 2005 0:54 utc | 78

@DeAnander
Cheers, have a round of drinks on me. Here, care for some bars nacks ? 🙂
Here’s a relevant repost:
If one ever doubted that every single member of Congress is owned by or at the very least neutered by AIPAC and thier ilk then the failure of even a single Congressman to support the investigation of a prima facie case for War Crimes committed by Israels IDF against the USS Liberty 38 years ago is proof. Let alone the virtually deafening silence of US corporate media …

USS Liberty Veteran’s Association Announces War Crime Report Filed Against Israel
WASHINGTON, DC – Friday, June 10 at 1:00 pm, Hotel Washington, 515 15th.St NW, Washington Room 11th floor (hit R for roof in elevator), Moe Shafer, board member of the USS Liberty Veterans Association and Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN, Ret., Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy who was involved with the initial Court of Inquiry investigating the attack in 1967 will present details of the “Report of War Crimes” brief filed on behalf of the USS Liberty Veteran’s Association concerning the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.
USS Liberty: 38 Years and Counting
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East – 12 Jun 2005
THIRTY-EIGHT years have passed since Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats attacked and nearly sank the American intelligence ship USS Liberty …

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 15 2005 0:57 utc | 79

i’m having some problems w/ that “american bunker” commentary @ common dreams. by the time i finished reading it i was ready to write it off as some pandering democratic propaganda, what w/ all the obvious mystification and partisan puffery & rhetoric. the piece starts out asking me to buy the idea that everything that happened in nazi germany is explained away by the leadership of one “emotionally ravenous psychopath” and then extends that example to our current state of affairs, that bush, being psychologically unbalanced, and apparently the writer of his own televised announcements of war, is the key to explaining away all of the mess we, collectively, find ourselves in now. that sounds pretty simple. actually too simple. what type of audience is this guy speaking to? “What is it that compels people, by the millions, to doggedly follow those often shallowest and neediest of humans who don the mantle of leadership and take them over the cliffs of hatred and militarism, crashing into great piles of mass carnage on the beach below? In my studies of this topic, the most compelling answer I’ve found is that nationalism addresses a profound existential fear that many people seem to feel in the face of the seemingly meaningless and insignificant lives they lead within a vast and indifferent universe” [emphasis mine]. the universe, eh? to be fair, he does come around later to admitting he doesn’t know and intuits laying some of the blame on “the human commodification and atomization that has been a product of the hyper-capitalism which has proliferated here in recent decades”, but even that’s a pretty broad, sloppy stroke of the ole’ paint brush. i guess i’m not a progressive, at least the type he is painting-by-numbers, because there no way that i would agree w/ this line of thought: “It is no longer inconceivable or even broadly improbable that the Bush junta will fall, and that America and the world will breathe free once again. This may be particularly likely after a new Congress is seated in January 2007, with quite possibly a substantially different complexion from the current one, and also quite possibly Nancy Pelosi, rather than Dennis Hastert, as third in line of presidential succession. All of which makes the hearts of progressives leap with a joy they’ve not felt for a very long time.” is this some sort of pep talk, designed to obscure the role the dems play in all of these transgressions? i don’t get the impression that he’s serious. “ We must, in short, think strategically and long-term if we are to have a hope of rescuing this country from its present peril. At a minimum, it would be wise for progressives to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam-era protest in attacking the soldiers who are sometimes every bit as much the victims of this war as are Iraqi civilians. More broadly, if we are to avoid a complete constitutional meltdown, we progressives may wish to start building bridges today to key constituencies which will prove crucial in eventualities like those described above.” but then, what can you do when you live in such an oppressive universe? smells like teen propaganda. mho.

Posted by: b real | Jun 15 2005 4:49 utc | 80

from b real: smells like teen propaganda. mho
LOL. I think it’s important to be able to imagine the failure of the Bush crew. As far as what the dems offer…that’s an extension of the problem, to be sure, but if we want to get rid of the junta, what choices are available at this time to counter them? there are degrees of problems, and, for me, the mercury is just about to burst from the top of the thermometer.
I would welcome a smackdown of the dominionsts, which would be an outcome of the removal of the junta.
Funny, news now is that they are questioning Bush b/c he’s saying God isn’t just their mack daddy…
BushCo must be seeing the polls that show how much so many Americans oppose theocracy…or trying to undo some of the damage of the koran incident. or a little of both.
btw, the Rev Moon’s door-to-door beggars are all over my town. I don’t know about yours. They never i.d. themselves as Moonies, but I always ask, and then I tell them that I think he’s a bad man. They don’t stick around. Then I said, didn’t he declare himself the messiah…within hearing distance of anyone around. An old man heard me say this yesterday and he repeated what I said to the beggar (who was, btw, at the GAS STATION…where there were lines because gas prices are fluctuating .20 cents per day)
…and then I had the nice opportunity to tell the man, after he said, “Jesus is the only messiah.” –so I sez, “you know, this guy who worked for Nixon wrote a book about some of this stuff…did you know the Rev. Moon paid for Bush’s inaugural prayer breakfast? What was THAT all about?
stealth truth campaigns…Rev Moon in the Lincoln Bedroom with a candlestick.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 15 2005 12:23 utc | 81

@DeAnander
History Doesn’t Repeat Itself – but it Rhymes.-Mark Twain
…pamphlet called “Red Channels”. … Remember your history: In the 1950s, the anti-Communist owners of a small chain of supermarkets in upstate New York started threatening the TV and radio networks with boycotts of sponsors’ products if they employed any persons listed as supposed Communists or lefties, in a sloppily researched little pamphlet called “Red Channels.” It didn’t take long for this small protest to instill fear throughout the broadcast industry, and the result was the Blacklist, a witch-hunt that lasted for years – even after John Henry Faulk, the blacklisted star CBS-radio host and actor, won his landmark $3.5 million libel suit in 1962 against the blackmailers of AWARE Inc., which – for a suitable fee – offered “clearance” services to major media advertisers and radio and television networks, investigating the backgrounds of entertainers for signs of Communist sympathy or affiliation. But Faulk didn’t work in national broadcasting for another 13 years, until he landed a spot on the TV series Hee-Haw in 1975. It took that long to end a quarter-century reign of terror in the entertainment industry, 18 years after Senator Joe McCarthy was dead and buried.
Does this Rhyme?:
New Clear Card Beginning June 21, the Orlando airport will let travelers pay $80 a year for a card that guarantees an exclusive security line and the promise of no random secondary pat-down.
Or these?: CBS and Dan Rather-gate? or even better Bill Moyers Responds to CPB’s Tomlinson Charges of Liberal Bias: “
Finally, this?: David Price: Sketches for a New Blacklist

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 15 2005 13:21 utc | 82

Looks as if the US Media is slowly waking up and starting to report facts. I know as we say here ‘one swallow doesn’t make a summer’, but at least it is more then what has been so far. From the StarTribune:
Fig leaf for war/Paper indicates U.N. was misled

This is where the plot really thickens. Perhaps readers will recall that Bush’s nominee for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, recently was accused of orchestrating the 2002 ouster of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, a U.N. agency. Why did Bolton want Bustani replaced? Because Bustani was aggressively seeking to reinsert chemical weapons inspectors into Iraq. The conclusion of many observers is that the United States did not want inspectors in Iraq because it undercut the U.S. case for an invasion.
Many Bush critics accused him of “using” the United Nations to justify war, rather than truly working to avoid military conflict. But they were naturally suspect because they oppose U.S. policy. The British briefing paper is especially significant because it comes from a government that is not only astute, but is also quite friendly to Bush’s objective of invading Iraq. The unavoidable conclusion is that both British and American citizens were duped into hoping that the United Nations would make such a conflict unnecessary. In fact, Britain eagerly and the United States reluctantly went to the United Nations to get a fig leaf of respectability for a war on which they had already decided.
In the end, the Security Council refused to play its role, arguing that the weapons inspectors needed more time (actually ample time) to complete their mission. Then the United States threw up its hands, branded Security Council members a bunch of hand-wringing pansies, and went to war. As the British briefing paper makes clear, that was pre-ordained.

Posted by: Fran | Jun 15 2005 13:43 utc | 83

I’m sorry but who can tell me what is “tribunal portrait”, please? I need your response, thx.

Posted by: Meng | Jan 23 2006 1:49 utc | 84

@Meng
it’s a reference to this image

Posted by: b real | Jan 23 2006 3:35 utc | 85

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.html
This why we invaded Iraq.

Posted by: Defender | Jan 24 2006 20:38 utc | 86

on the “think-tank”, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
sourcewatch
right web
‘Pro-Democracy’ Think Tank is Front for Israeli Lobby

Posted by: b real | Jan 24 2006 21:00 utc | 87

Gee thanks Defenderbot,
without your informed commentary I would have never known that we invaded Iraq because we do torture better than Saddam.
now you can crawl back under your rock

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 24 2006 21:33 utc | 88

Buy viagra online.

Buying viagra. Buy viagra online. Buy viagra. Try viagra for free. Viagra.

Posted by: Buy viagra online. | Jan 16 2010 1:21 utc | 89