I fell asleep last night with the television on. This morning, as I gradually regained consciousness, I realized that the Chimperator was giving a speech. He appeared to be addressing the troops, but in reality he was addressing the Ohio Patrol Training Academy in Columbus, Ohio. Maybe that explains why all his applause lines fell flat.
Or, maybe it was because a) he has given this exact same speech 500 times, and b) he has lost all his credibility.
I don’t have a copy of his speech yet, but he gave substantively the same speech yesterday:
The attacks did not ‘remind’ us that we are at war. They caused us to go to war. Perhaps, they made us aware that war was being waged against us. But, you have to know something first, before you can be reminded of it.
The last time I checked, Iraq was a nation state. I agree that the ‘insurgents’ are killing innocent civilians. I agree that some of them have a hateful ideology. But, some of them just hate being occupied by a foreign power that is intent on hoarding all the contracts for energy development and reconstruction. They hate having their cities razed to the ground. They hate being raped, tortured, and killed in Saddam’s prisons. The fact that the war was based on a pack of lies doesn’t help, either.
One cannot grow weary enough of this canard. The fact that this logic was effective during the campaign nearly gave me aneurysm. The best way to protect the homeland is not to spend $300 billion in a foreign land. It is not to piss on Korans. It is not to hang innocent people by their arms, or to kick them to death. This logic is roughly analogous to the Soviets thinking they were protecting the homeland by invading Afghanistan.
I have some sympathy for this sentiment. And I know that we can’t just flip a switch and change our longstanding relationships with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other repressive allies. But we have already set up a variety of multinational organizations whose purpose is to promote free and fair elections, rule of law, and human rights. To truly begin an initiative to help the Middle East transform itself toward more representative government, we need the consensus and cooperation of all the developed, democratic nations of the world. Bush has alienated the very countries that we would need to be successful.
His speech fell flat. No one believes his strategy is working anymore.
I think we should stop saying that the US is ‘at war’ in Iraq. That language confers more legitimacy on the endeavor than it deserves. The US is engaged in an illegal occupation of Iraq.
what is your opinion of the ‘pottery barn’ rule?
Well, I certainly don’t have all the answers on this issue. I basically agree with the “pottery barn rule’ in that I definitely agree that the US has an obligation to rebuild Iraq. This is very unfortunate for our country, as it will cost billions and billions of dollars. Such is the Bush legacy.
There doesn’t seem to be much reconstruction going on at the moment–quite the contrary. I believe as long as US troops are occupying Iraq, the situation will continue to deteriorate. I believe there will inevitably have to be negotiations; the only question is how much bloodshed will occur before that happens?
I think there are some serious, credible proposals out there for what the US should do. I can’t remember the links right now, but I think a starting point is to listen to Iraqi civil society proposals.
I think the starting point would be for the US to put reconstruction funds in an international account to be administered by an international authority in conjunction with Iraqi institutions. To commit to a withdrawal of troops and replacement by international forces and Iraqi forces. To do this credibly means abandoning pretensions of controlling the oil fields as well as building the network of military bases the Pentagon has planned.
All of this bascially means the US surrendering the nefarious goals with which it went into Iraq. I am nt an expert on Iraq by any means. I don’t know what all this means for Iraq’s future, except it seems increasingly clear that the US military presence in Iraq is the problem, not the solution.
And also, especially in light of what we are seeing in Bolivia this week…
the US should halt the rapacious privatization of the Iraqi economy. I believe Naomi Klein has done the best reporting on this.
I think the starting point would be for the US to put reconstruction funds in an international account to be administered by an international authority in conjunction with Iraqi institutions. To commit to a withdrawal of troops and replacement by international forces and Iraqi forces. To do this credibly means abandoning pretensions of controlling the oil fields as well as building the network of military bases the Pentagon has planned.
All of this bascially means the US surrendering the nefarious goals with which it went into Iraq. I am nt an expert on Iraq by any means. I don’t know what all this means for Iraq’s future, except it seems increasingly clear that the US military presence in Iraq is the problem, not the solution.
Exactly. It’s the oil, stupid. All the other “reasons” are lies. And getting out of Iraq depends on revealing the truth about why the US went in, and reversing the disastrous energy policies that make control of oil so important to the US economy.
I mean, Chimpy’s speech fell flat, to a handpicked audience of his own Repuglican sycophants? Doesn’t he remember anything from being on the Yale cheering squad?
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving individual…unless it were to happen Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, the SCOTUS who put him in power in the first place…
This part bugs me:
“And the second way to defeat the terrorists is to spread freedom. You see, the best way to defeat a society that is — doesn’t have hope, a society where people become so angry they’re willing to become suiciders, is to spread freedom, is to spread democracy.”
I have some sympathy for this sentiment.
I don’t. It pisses me off that the word “justice” is never heard from that man’s lips. And “freedom” as actually practiced by Bush means freedom to starve, to go without health care, to die of AIDS, to be illegally detained and tortured, to rip off consumers, to despoil the environment, to cheat, lie, and steal–so long as you’re a Republican supporter and are against terrorism.
When Bushfuck starts talking about spreading justice as a way of combatting terrorism, wake me up.
I have sympathy for the sentiment that free societies tend to co-exist peacefully. Witness modern Europe and the modern far east.
I have no sympathy for Bush’s strategy for spreading freedom. It’s a failure in concept and in implementation.
And it will quickly bankrupt the country.
Everybody’s in favor of freedom, as a matter of principle. But freedom for individuals and society is biological, like blood pressure: too little is bad, but too much is bad, too. The trick is keeping the balance right among freedom, order, and justice.
As for Europe and East Asia, I wonder first about the role of economics (war, in certain circumstances at least, can be bad for business). In Europe, I wonder about the sheer exhaustion after two catastrophic wars within the space of 30 years. In Asia, I think first of Chinese hegemony, which makes a big war impossible, basically. The smaller countries “co-exist peacefully” by tiptoeing around the 800-pound gorilla.
So freedom, sure, but don’t stop there. Add in justice, social order, and balanced economic relations between countries (think EU). And of course, soccer as a substitute for war.
Who’s got your money for the World Cup?
I wrote about this ages ago.. saying freedom isn’t butter. It isn’t “spread”… and I agree with what you say d2boy..
I wrote a post here on BMT just the other day showing how the Bush administration has opposed freedom in other countries and supported dictatorial regimes in others (even in some cases like Egypt where he’s been backing the ANTI-democratic candidate).
But frankly the United States throughout its entire imperial history has never supported the development of freedom or democracies unless it served a more important particular political purpose. And as for the military.. sheesh for more than 100 years its been defending the economic interest of the US…
As far as I’m aware, the only country the U.S. hasn’t meddled with in terms of its political affairs is Mongolia. And heck, I might be wrong about that.
Pax
Thank you, Soj.
If only the majority of Americans knew these simple truths! But no–they live in the fantasy that their country is a benevolent force for good in the world.
Sorry soj, too late:
Wilhelm’s plan for policing the border was a mobile force that would mix fast ponies and Bactrian camels with light, high-tech communications gear.
It’s in a back issue of the Atlantic Monthly (subsc. req’d). I found it here
U know what? That’s about the most depressing thing I’ve learned all week… I’m serious. I am utterly blue.
Pax
According to William Blum’s Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (Monroe MA: Common Courage Press, 2000), the US has conducted 67 military interventions in other states since 1945. Johan Galtung sums it up:
Emphasis added. Obviously, the list requires updating.
Nonetheless, the US has a long record of supporting already existing democracies that don’t threaten any of its interests, including economic interests, which already makes it preferable to most hegemons in history. After all: “The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong” (Winston Churchill).
Sirocco, thanks for this thought-provoking post.
What are you implying when you quote Churchill? Do you mean that given a choice between national strength and justice in the way we treat others, you would choose national strength?
Does the fact that the Romans, Attila, the Brits, and the Soviets all committed atrocities somehow justify the American empire, since our body count is somewhat lower?
And when you say that “the US has a long record of supporting already existing democracies that don’t threaten any of its interests”, is that supposed to be praise? A more accurate version would go like this: “the US has a long record of supporting other governments, of all sorts, that don’t threaten any of its interests”. But I see nothing remarkable or particularly laudable in that.
Some people accuse me of being cynical, but I’m starting to feel like a raving idealist.
Thanks for your kind words.
No, I certainly don’t believe might makes right, not even in international relations. There is a venerable body of thought, called Realism, to the effect that such relations differ categorically from interpersonal relations in this respect. I strongly reject that. But as an empirical matter of fact, it’s rare to see pure altruism in foreign policy; enlightened self-interest (win-win) is usually the best deal you get. And since states look out mostly for themselves, there is less of it the more powerful the state in question. A 500-pound gorilla, and all that. So while it falls far short of the ideal to which I believe all states should strive, the US hegemony has still been better than most or all comparable powers, simply for being based upon a more even mix of enlightened and benighted self-interest than, say, the Roman and Persian Empires, Imperial China, or the Soviet Union.
By no means, but it puts it in a comparatively better light, wouldn’t you agree?
Excellent point. I suppose what I had in mind is that the US has taken greater pains to protect democracies than other regimes, for whatever reason (and idealism is probably one such reason, albeit a minor one). Most notably, during the Cold War the US exposed itself to potential nuclear annihilation in order to deter the Soviet Union from invading Western Europe. There is no historical parallell to this choice that I am aware of, and it belongs to the overall picture. Fair is fair.
Welcome to the club… I guess we so-called cynics are often the real idealists. By way of aphorism: Just as, in a mad world, only the insane can be truly sane, so in a callous world only cynics can be truly idealistic.
Heh, that was even quotable. Sadly it’s too long for a sig line though…
Hi Sirocco,
I’ll take exception with just one of your statements:
Most notably, during the Cold War the US exposed itself to potential nuclear annihilation in order to deter the Soviet Union from invading Western Europe. There is no historical parallell to this choice that I am aware of, and it belongs to the overall picture.
Wouldn’t this be parallel to many instances (with less lethal weaponry) in which a large state has protected itself with buffer states and has threatened war when another large state encroaches on its buffer?
In general, though, we agree more than we disagree. And you and I are not the problem. The problem is all those Americans who have no idea that their country is an empire that acts more or less like every other empire–who have drunk the koolaid and believe the national propaganda about spreading freedom and democracy.
So I’ve enjoyed this discussion. Now how do we involve more people in it?
Peace.
Actually, I don’t think so. The reason is that the mighty Atlantic shields the US from Russian invasion. When you think about it, as far as conventional threats from Eurasia are concerned, the US does not even need an army, let alone buffer states: An air force and a navy would suffice.
I enjoyed this discussion too – we should do it again some time! Regards from this pusillanimous euro-weenie.
We saw King George invoke “freedom and democracy” umpteen times in his second Coronation Speech last January. It appeared to be meaningless drivel, but was in fact a clear declaration and threat to the world, if you have the secret decoder ring.
For the past 90 years or so, “freedom” and “democracy” have been used as America’s self-justification for pursuing an imperialist agenda. Just as the British had “the white man’s burden,” and imperialists have ever used the excuse of civilizing the savages. “Freedom and democracy” is just America’s preferred flavor of syrup to pour over its foreign conquest sundae.
If you simply translate “freedom and democracy” in Bush’s mouth to “consonant with American imperial aims,” you will understand Bush’s agenda quite clearly.
I thought all foreigners understood this. I know 99% of Americans don’t.
Wonderfully clear! I wish I had been so eloquent.
Since the failure and incompetence of this administration is becoming more and more obvious to all but the neo-con and radical right true believers, it is tempting to think, ah, people are getting it. The R’s are going down in the next elections, no question.
But WE thought it was obvious last November. And the R’s are still in control. Yes, most Americans know we’re headed in the wrong direction (over a cliff with a drunk at the wheel). But they aren’t yet convinced that Democrats can change the country’s direction. I think many still are just cynical – politicians are politicians, there’s nothing we can do but try to lay low and ride out the current insanity.
Those of us the left (progressives, Dem’s, pick your identifier) have to work our butts off to make it clear that we have a real alternative to offer and that we can make a difference. One on one – talk to friends, family, colleagues, neighbors. Work for candidates we support. Hold our D elected representative’s feet to the fire – Republican lite and answering only to the big money folks who’ve been supporting your campaigns in the past is no longer acceptable.
Don’t let up. Don’t relax.
I didn’t even read all your post, that’s what Bush’s speeches do to me, but I read enough to know we have one sorry excuse for a president.
I still can’t quite wrap my mind around the fact that what should’ve been the guy’s greatest shame (9/11) is his greatest glory. No one says the obvious about him, mainstream I mean, that he was asleep at the switch and failed America terribly on Sept. 11 and all the months leading up to it.
But what we get from his lying mouth are constant reminders of it, and from what I see, constant exploitation of it for his personal political gain.
He took whatever goodwill America gave him (undeserved) and ran with it. And here he still is, yacking about it as the justification for anything and everything…
Sad for us.
I think most of us are aware of Bush administration’s policy failures in Iraq. But I also think we have to keep our eyes on the Iraqis themselves, and how they are moving forward. This from Bloomberg via the Iraq Revenue Watch “News” page is instructive:
The visit will pave the way for a June 22 conference in Brussels on the reconstruction process in Iraq. Iraqi leaders are due to meet foreign ministers of 80 countries to coordinate Iraqi reconstruction and boost trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe and the U.S. on the Middle East.
I think in some ways Bush’s strategy is irrelevant to the Iraqi Government, but he seems to be the only one who hasn’t got it yet: It’s their country now. Including the purse strings, the oil, and every contract issued under the totally corrupt CPA (a whole ‘nother diary). The meeting is intended as one between sovereign nations, and points to the willingnes of (at least) the EU to normalize relations with Iraq. Then sign new contracts.
The message from the Iraqis to Halliburton could easily be: don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Bush, et. al. may very well regret what they wished for. Not the same as getting what you asked for.
The Dear Leader’s speech was largely designed to be a promotion for the renewal and expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act. (See, for example, the WaPo story.)
But here’s the rub: Bush is trumpeting that “federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted.” This statement alone should tell us everything we need to know about how ineffective use of the USA PATRIOT Act has been in prosecuting terrorism (however broadly they choose to define it).
According to the most recent figures from the Dep’t of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Cases were terminated against 80,424 defendants during 2002. Most (89%) defendants were convicted.
(See also this graph of the federal conviction rate over the past 20 years.)
89% is the overall figure — so didn’t anyone bother to tell Bush that, by comparison, “more than half” is a woefully poor conviction rate? He’s trying to spin it as though it was some sort of indication of success, whereas it’s really a demonstration of failure. That kind of distinction, however, has never stopped this Administration before, so why should they allow a cold dose of reality to spoil their fun here?
Did they really think that no one was going to notice?