All right. Let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We ignored the United Nations in order to teach Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We’ve waged war to preserve the United Nations’ ability to avert war. The paramount principle has been that the United Nations’ word must be taken seriously, and if we’ve had… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (45)Page 1 of 1 pagesExcellent. Why does CENTCOM say they are fighting with Saddam loyalist, when more than likely they are Iraqis just defending their country. Remember, when early in the war if one was wearing civilian clothes, they were military trying to deceive the “coalition of the killing” forces.
Posted by Stanley L. Stoner on Apr 12, 2003 at 12:55 PM When George Bush Jr. faces God, circular reasoning won’t work.
Posted by M. Lee on Apr 12, 2003 at 10:29 PM Well done. :) To be fair, though, the line “...we twisted the arms of the opposition in order to force it to agree to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition” really should read “...we twisted the arms of the opposition in order to force it to agree to let us oust a regime that breaks the arms of the opposition.”
In our well-placed impulse to criticize of Bush, let’s not forget who Hussein is and the things he did.
Posted by Contrarian on Apr 13, 2003 at 9:19 PM Let’s try that again.
“In our rush legitimately to criticize Bush, let’s not forget who Hussein is and the things he did.”
Posted by Contrarian on Apr 13, 2003 at 9:24 PM Bush & Co. appear to be lost in their own illogic if we *believe* what they say. But underneath the “idiocy” is a cold, hidden logic. The words “democracy,” “freedom,” “liberation,” “evil tyrant,” “terrorists,“and “WMD” are just used to trick the public while the real intent is carried out - the theft and control of people, territory, and resources; the billion dollar purchases and use of weaponry by Bush family and friends; the exertion of power to create a subserviate US global empire for the benefit of those in power. In other words, their “illogic” is a way of tricking the public while Bush & Co. become tyrants themselves. Pretty slick. Pretty sick.
Posted by Sam Turton on Apr 13, 2003 at 11:14 PM Hey Sam, who is that Canadian Prime Minister - Mr Secretion? I suppose he has no self-interests, hmm? Lets consider a few possibilities:
- Canadian media and leadership are generally fed up with the US and spread as much false information as the US spits out.
- Mr Se-Chretien can’t backpeddle fast enough when it comes to making tough decisions without the help of his anti-American Cabinet or his beloved European cronies.
- The strength of the Canadian economy depends on its proximity to the US, the US military strength, and the unassuming nature that is possible when your country makes no stance on difficult issues.
By the way, I like Canada and (generally) Canadians. I simply ask that you question your governments motives the same way I should question my own government.
Bush and Chretien are 2 different kinds of evil…
Posted by ROCKTIME on Apr 15, 2003 at 12:12 AM Thanks in-these-times !!
The article is hilarious, profound in its simplicity and very very enjoyable.. ! In addition, for me at least, it’s priceless because of the ease and simplicity with which it demolishes all the absurd claims on which this war is based.
What is mystifying and ultimately frightening, is how people DON’T see through these absurdities.
ROCKWELL - “The strength of the Canadian economy depends on its proximity to the US, the US military strength, and the unassuming nature that is possible when your country makes no stance on difficult issues.”
If you think that what Chretien did was a “no-stance” then you are more confused than you seem !!
ROCKWELL ” I simply ask that you question your governments motives the same way I should question my own government.”
How’s this for a motive ? The vast majority of Canadians were against
a war WITHOUT the UN !!! ( same goes for Chirac and Schroeder )If you dislike Saddam’s UN-democratic way of doing things why are you against the democratic way of doing them ?
I actually felt proud of Chretien ( as incidentally did Bernard Landry !! ) For once a leader didn’t do what the business establishment wanted and didn’t jump through the hoop like a frightened puppy.
Sam Turton put it perfectly ( and sadly ominously.. ) when he alerts that it’s not only “nice” people being a bit illogical, but a cold-blooded agenda in the process of developing.
Again… HOW DO PEOPLE NOT SEE THROUGH THAT… ? ( mystery )
HOW does someone get away with BLOWING OFF 150 of your BILLION $ in chasing down some harmless demented dictator while, what is it 15% ? of your own people don’t have medical insurance..??
these are serious things…
Dee Vee
Posted by Dee Vee on Apr 15, 2003 at 4:24 AM OOPs ... I meant ROCKTIME not ROCKWELL ... Sorry
Dee Vee
Posted by Dee Vee on Apr 15, 2003 at 4:27 AM Excellent article. This entire Administration is one big lie. When you lie and lie and lie, you get tangled up and forget what the truth really is. In addition to being the biggest liars to ever besmirch the White House, they are supremely arrogant, withholding information about 9-11, Cheney’s energy task force (ha-ha) and issuing Executive Orders to squelch release of papers that might be embarrassing to Bush’s daddy. These morally sick men think that they own the government, not the people. Bush and Cheney richly deserve impeachment…...
Posted by Stephen Kriz on Apr 15, 2003 at 2:49 PM WONDERFUL ENLIGHTENMENT OF CURRENT EVENTS. THANK YOU FOR POINTING TO WHAT IS CAUSING SO MANY OF US TOSAY WHAAAAAAA?????
Posted by LARRY -LARRY on Apr 15, 2003 at 5:18 PM This article is so true it makes me cry. What can we all do to set this right? I’ve voted and written and donated and marched but it seems tiny and ineffective. The people supporting the evil mayhem are so stubbornly stupid it’s like a cult. Like the absurd attack on the Canadian prime minister posted here. I marched in a protest and a woman shouted from her car that we should go to church. What is that supposed to mean? That the Prince of Peace who allowed his enemies to crucify him would applaud this war? I can’t even guess what she was thinking. How in the world can our country survive a controlling minority that does not know how to think? It’s like a hideous IQ test administered by the megacorporate media.
Posted by Ann on Apr 16, 2003 at 7:19 AM Ann:
God bless you and feel comfort in knowing that you are on the right side in this conflict. The woman who yelled out of the car is confused about the nature of Christianity, as is Bush. I also see the people behind Bush like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle as morally sick. In Timothy, it is said that “money is the root of all evil”. Not some evil, ALL evil. These men are modern day pirates whose lust for gold, or in this case, black gold, warps their thinking and allows them to believe two contradictory things at the same time. This is a symptom of their moral sickness. In other times, they would be tried for war profiteering, for setting up investment groups like Trireme and the Carlyle Group. If the media were doing their jobs, the Carlyle Group would be front-page news and every investigative journalist worth their salt, would be investigating the most massively corrupt and self-dealing Administration in American history. Instead, they are still writing articles about Bill Clinton’s sex life. Does anyone else see the moral hypocrisy and lack of perspective and utter lack of common sense here? Our Founding Fathers must be whirling in their graves!!!
Posted by Stephen Kriz on Apr 16, 2003 at 1:33 PM What is so excellent about this article? Through exagerration and sophomoric use of language, it pokes fun at the US decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
That’s okay, but this is been done before. The article doesn’t actually say anything except that the author is against the war and the Bush administration. So again I ask.
What makes this article excellent?
Posted by Nus on Apr 16, 2003 at 5:09 PM I like Freundlich, even if I can’t spell it. I subscribe to the magazine and it is usually the last thing I read before sleep. Can you tell me more about Peter?
I am certain that it is not lost on Freundlich that sarcasm and irony cannot penetrate the right. They have no curiosity, which often challenges reason, leaving them berift with dogma. We must attack their dogma like street fighters because we do it as an intelligent choice, not because we may become them.
Posted by Michael Bode on Apr 16, 2003 at 6:03 PM Excellent abstract of what this war is all about.
Want another laughable argument? George Bush, when giving Saddam the ‘ultimatum’, said: “It’s not about authority, it’s about will.” In a true democracy, institutions do not act out of will; institutions exist because the people give them the authority to govern (usually through votes).
Moreover, is acting out of will without authority the definition of terrorism?
Posted by Marcelo M. on Apr 16, 2003 at 9:09 PM Good on you, Freundlich. If Americans knew logical argument as well as they know how to go thumbsucker at the mere mention of the sophistries and stupidities of servility, our politics would be very different. And everyone would have a lot more fun.
I too collect laughable arguments. Don’t know how you might’ve missed the “rogue state” pearl. If the Bushleaguers don’t constitute a rogue state, I don’t know what does. Unfortunetely, we probably won’t get to see them cluster bomb themselves.
Fascists and Nazis used lagughable arguments to the same purposes as do the Bushleaguers. Because of that serious history, I couldn’t help turning the “rogue state” pearl into a richly deserved Tomahawk.
Rogue Corpocracy: a repocracy [rule by representative government as the sole source of governance] in which wealth-driven and class-driven corruptions by corporate and financial elites have come to dominate governance, AND which has come to be headed by an unconstitutionally appointed, zero-legitimacy president. Examples: USA under R.B. Hayes, 1877-1881, and G.W. Bush, 2001-2005.
This first war of aggression by our rogue corpocracy means a profound national dishonor for US citizens in the eyes of citizens around the world—whether US warhawks, propagandizers, and the servile acknowledge it or not. The fact that the rogue corpocracy is headed by men who are not “conservatives”, or even “neo-conservatives”, but extremists with pronounced fascist beliefs and behaviors does not save us from this dishonor.
Posted by Stephen Neitzke on Apr 16, 2003 at 9:38 PM In response to Nus 16/04, I think that this article does say something very important. It exposes something that runs through so much of our supposedly democratic government’s policies. It exposes the hypocrisy of our governments and administrators and we can begin to question the motives of our “representatives.”
Posted by Denise on Apr 17, 2003 at 4:37 AM Ugh. What a bunch of short sighted ignorant thoughts. 1. “We ignored the United Nations in order to teach Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored.” Actually, way back in ‘91 or so the UN passed a resolution. Its the one that allowed the use of military force to remove Iraq from Kuwait. The wording also stated that UN nations were allowed to use force to enforce future resolutions regardind Iraq. Well, my, my, that would imply that the US has the right to use military force, as granted by the UN waaaay back in the early 90’s, to enforce UN resolution 1441. So don’t say we are ignoring the UN. (A sidenote: The French do not ask for permission in their military dealings with thier own African colonies nor has Russia ever asked for military approval from the UN… ) Also, to compare Iraq’s policy on limiting free speech (i.e. arresting, torturing, and killing those who oppose Saddam) with what goes on in the US is outright absurd. Anyone is allowed to protest and speak freely. Dissension is allowed in the US, if it wasn’t I wouldn’t have to read about protests in the papers regularly. Just because you feel persecuted because you are being labeled anti-american does not mean that your voice cannot be heard. (I don’t believe Senator Kerry was thrown in jail for his comments about regime change in the US, but were he an Iraqi, I imagine he never would have been able to make those comments.) One last point: did you know the US was a democratic republic? The whole point is that we elect representatives to make decisions for us. (They are not there to make policy changes based on polls and public opinoin, thats what voting is for.) Regardless, the American people do support the war by a ridiculous margin, so all of the whining is moot anyway.
Posted by Scott on Apr 17, 2003 at 5:00 AM Not that I am any fan of this president, but some of our friends need to get over the 2000 Election debacle. This guy is hugely popular with the American public; a perception of whining isn’t going to help us win any elections. No matter what your opinion of this president, resorting to name calling and sophomoric “intelligence” slurs demeans the institution of the presidency and does nothing to advance our cause. Stick to the point and make the case to the people—if we do it well enough, they will listen.
Posted by N.B. on Apr 17, 2003 at 6:51 AM One of the great tactics of elitist, political party politics is the prouncement that we must forget the bad things of the recent past and “move on”.
As long as money-power can keep us moving on, all manner of new criminalities can be invented to increase social, economic, and political power to the predators of the governing and financial elites.
Malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance are ancient legal concepts covering how officials misuse power. Definitions of, and penalties for, the feasance violations should’ve been in our constitutions from the beginning.
An oath to uphold the constitution is meaningless as long as there are no penalties for doing so.
Absent feasance violation definitions and penalties, the five felons-in-waiting sitting as justices of the US Supreme Court wrecked Election 2000. Their malfeasant action—preventing Florida from choosing its own presidental electors—might not have happened had constitutional law dictated that the justices guilty of it be stripped of their social, economic, and political power.
The same can be said for the 107th Congress’ vote on “HJ Res 114, Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq”. On 10 October 2002, 296 House members and 77 senators violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution by voting to give away Congress’ war powers to a president’s discretion. It was a pure malfeasnace, violating the separation of powers. The president was unconstitutionally given a legislative function.
As long as we get over the Election 2000 debacle and move on, we’re playing THEIR game. Seems time to play OUR game.
Everyone with a plan for melding the best of our national representative government with citizen lawmaking—initiative and statute referendum— please raise your hand. That meld, afterall, is the 400-yr-long form of democratic REPUBLIC that brought ancient Rome to greatness.
What we have in the US is an elitist half-republic. No citizen lawmaking. Rep govt as the sole source of governance. It’s designed to enable governance for, by, and of the elites. Good job, so far.
The rogue corpocracy of the Bushleaguers—with their aggressor, anti-rights, and top-heavy financial policies feeding power to the governing and financial elites—gives us a great reason for constitutional renewal.
It’s time to stop moving on. It’s time to change our losing game.
Posted by Stephen Neitzke on Apr 17, 2003 at 1:14 PM I am very pleased with how this article concisely illustrates how the Bush administration is constantly engaging in its weapons of mass hypocricy. If more people would focus on the schitzo-effective nature of the logic which this administration uses, I think the democratic majority would vote to stop this 21st century crusade. Unfortunately the resounding applause that vague sentimentle jargin like god bless America recieves, tends to scare people out of making arguments of descent.
Posted by Julian Eaton on Apr 17, 2003 at 7:22 PM All right. Let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We ignored the United Nations in order to teach Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. Weíve waged war to preserve the United Nationsí ability to avert war. The paramount principle has been that the United Nationsí word must be taken seriously, and if weíve had to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then, by gum, so be it. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?
No. Despite all the witty paradoxes, that entire arguement is built around the notion that our attack on Iraq was motivated by our (the U.S.) desire to uphold the legitimacy of the U.N. Our actual, stated goals were to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to liberate the Iraqi people from their facist rulers, and to prevent aid and shelter for terrorist organizations. You can tack “and get a bunch of oil” on to that list if you’re so inclined, but at no point did our leaders yell, “come on lads, do it for the future legitimacy of the United Nations!”.
Posted by tribalwar on Apr 17, 2003 at 10:07 PM
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq was to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we were honor-bound to do that too because democracy as we define it is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.We didn’t defy democracy (as an ideal, or a system of government) in order to take action. The problems we encountered were not the fault of democracy, but rather the fault of a short-sighted automatic veto system, and (more to the point) certain nations’ willingness to allow greed and (particularly in the case of France) jealousy cloud their judgement. Chirac stated that France would veto any new British/U.S. resolution without even reviewing the document. Pretty fucking grade-school.
Posted by tribalwar on Apr 17, 2003 at 10:07 PM Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension here: We must speak with one voice against Saddam Husseinís failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We have sent our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does, and we twisted the arms of the opposition in order to force it to agree to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people, and if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.
ROFL. Comparing the censorship of ideas here to that in Iraq is just silly. Good use of broad language though, very commical. “Arm Twisting” can apparently mean anything from stern looks of disapproval, to the torture and execution of an entire family. That’s basically the same thing, right?
Posted by tribalwar on Apr 17, 2003 at 10:07 PM Tribalwar—#1
PF: “All right. Let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We ignored the United Nations in order to teach Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. ...”
TW: “No. Despite all the witty paradoxes, that entire arguement is built around the notion that our attack on Iraq was motivated by our (the U.S.) desire to uphold the legitimacy of the U.N.”
Neitzke: Freundlich has it right. Tribalwar has it wrong. Bush & surrogates repeatedly said that the USUK coalition would disarm Saddam because the UN would not enforce its policy as stated in 1441.
Posted by Stephen Neitzke on Apr 17, 2003 at 11:46 PM Tribalwar—#2
PF has not distinguished between “democratic action” [action based on democratic voting] and “democracy” (rule by the people), but the blurring is trival. We’ve become so numbed by the mis-use of the term, ‘democracy’, that it seems hardly anyone knows what it means. But there’s good fun in PF’s “...because democracy as we define it [rule by Bushleaguer rep govt with people-abusive wealth and class corruptions of governance] is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy [democratic action] as they [the Security Council] define it.
Tribalwar’s criticisms are parrotings of Bushleaguers’ nitwitisms—wrapped up with potty mouth that keeps him, her, it safe from any counter-arugment.
Posted by Stephen Neitzke on Apr 18, 2003 at 12:17 AM Tribalwar #3
PF has everything right. (1) Americans who’ve spoken out against the war of aggression on Iraq have been as extensively damaged as their attackers thought they could get away with. (2) Might-makes-right Bushleaguers knew that they had more might than might-makes-right Saddam. (3) Bushleaguer attempts to bribe the little guys on the Security Council can be assumed to have been Machiavellian in the extreme, even if they did fail. (4) Baby Bush always said that he would ignore the anti-war millions.
Tribalwar’s fuzz-think doesn’t rise to level of babble.
Posted by Stephen Neitzke on Apr 18, 2003 at 12:34 AM Well, I’ve never been referred to as an elitist politico before, but I suppose there is a first time for everything.
I might suggest that no matter how much yelling, protesting and whining you do about a “stolen” election 3 years ago, at the end of the day Bush will still be the president. To advance beyond that sticky point, you have to find a way to either (a) remove him from office legislatively (which cannot happen without a super majority of the GOP controlled Congress) or (b) defeat him in the coming election (which you can’t do if you are still fighting the last election.). Since (a) is pretty much not an option, that leaves (b).
RFK was once quoted as having said that “...it is far better to strike a match than to curse the darkness” We can continue to curse in darkness, or we can begin to formulate a platform that will eloquently and decisively illustrate our differences with the administration and how we can substantially offer better alternatives to America. I would argue that if we chose to continually obsess over the spilt milk of 2000, we are very likely to be thinking about it for at least 5 more years—and very likely many more after that when we see what happens with the soon to come Supreme Court appointees.
I am a new reader to this website; I understand your frustration and can sympathize with your feelings. However, I can only hope that through moderating our personal attacks and focusing our efforts on policy and the future, we can persuade America that we are about more than an election we didn’t like the results of. If that makes me an elitist politico, then so be it
Posted by NB on Apr 18, 2003 at 3:55 AM NB—
Nobody here, including me, has called you anything—certainly not an ‘elitist politico’. Your saying that you’ve been called that name is an intellectual DIShonesty.
There is a subtantial difference between the existence of elitist political party tactics and you as an individual.
Your saying that there are only two options for our dealing with Bush—impeachment and diselection—does imply that you consider no options outside the box. The Constitution, as it stands, seems to limit your political thinking.
The same post from which you imply that I called you a name states pretty clearly that I think it’s time for a constitutional renewal. You seem to have missed that part altogether.
My web site for DDL—URL inherent in my email address, given with each of my posts—has an intro essay, “State Of The Republic”. It’s a rigorous examination of why we shouldn’t countinue to think inside the box. It offers a plan for getting to constitutional renewal.
No, I don’t think that a constitutional renewal can be done before Election 2004. So I have this paragraph in the essay—
“For the US Anti-War Movement, the first order of business now must be to prepare for the dis-election of fascist G.W. Bush, as well as his aggressor, anti-rights, and top-heavy financial doctrines. Time to get real. Million-person marches are utterly powerless to stop Bush, his rubber-stamping Congress, and his rubber-stamping Court. We’ve got to take demonstrations to the next level. Reform. For now, the only real reform power that US citizens have is an overwhelming vote in Election 2004 against those who hold warmaking and legislative powers today—the fascist Bush extremists and the rubber-stamping predator politician majority in Congress, including the Silent Democrats. There are about 100 million withdrawn, unregistered voters available. That’s about the same number as voted in Election 2000. The only way that Bush can win Election 2004 is if those withdrawn people remain withdrawn from the vote. Take names. Get out the vote. Campaign tough love. Get new blood.”
Do you understand that getting out a new vote for new candidates, made more pro-people by tough-love pledges, would be helped a lot by a mass movement calling for constitutional renewal?
Knowing a bit about California politics, I hold you responsible for being able to understand such a situation.
—UCSB, 1971
Posted by Stephen Neitzke on Apr 18, 2003 at 4:21 PM NB:
Not to pick nits, but the phrase, “Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness”, is from the New Testament. Your point regarding the 2000 election has merit, but Dems should be vigorously reminding black voters in Florida how many thousands were purged from the voter rolls by Katharine Harris and her minions, thereby enabling the loser of the popular vote to become president, in 2000. It was theft, pure and simple and we should never, ever let the American people forget it. Not to mention the military ballots that were allowed to be counted when they should have been disqualified, due to the mock patriotic rhetoric that the GOP always uses as a club to bludgeon the Democrats. I don’t give a shit if it was a ballot from a military person, if it was filed late, it gets flushed! PERIOD. That is what equal protection under the law really means in the 14th amendment - not the tortured and flawed interpretation the SCOTUS used in Bush v. Gore.
Anyway, you make a valid point that we need to focus on 2004. I say, KEEP IT SIMPLE! Since most Americans can’t process more than five words at a time, beat this equation into their heads:
BUSH=FAILURE
BUSH=FAILURE
BUSH=FAILURE
His economic policies are a failure. His international policy is a failure.
The war in Afghanistan was a failure (remember a guy named Osama?).
The war in Iraq is a failure.
Bush was a failure in the business world.
Bush was a failure as a governor.
Bush is a failure as a father.
He is the embodiment of failure.
Remind people of that, over and over and over again.
Posted by Stephen Kriz on Apr 18, 2003 at 8:20 PM Mr. Neitzke—it didn’t take a logical leap for me to see that you were inferring that my suggestion was elitist in nature. You said that: ‘One of the great tactics of elitist, political party politics is the pronouncement that we must forget the bad things of the recent past and “move on”.’ Since I was advocating “moving on” I took your comments to include my suggestion. In any event, I apologize if I misunderstood your statement.
I don’t have the time to read your essay, though I am sure I would agree with much of it. From the excerpt you included, however, and your suggestion that we consider “outside the box” solutions, would I be correct in interpreting your comments to advocate replacing our current constitution? Is that what your “constitutional renewal” refers to? I’m not sure that you will get much support for replacing our system and starting over, but it could definitely use some adjustments. The electoral college, for example, is really quite silly and should be eliminated.
If you insist on continuing the debate about the 2000 debacle, at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that Gore’s legal strategy for dealing with the recount and court battles was lacking. While trying to claim the moral high road of “count every vote” he was at the same time only attempting to recount a few counties heavily in our favor. If it were really about counting every vote, he should have suggested manually recounting the entire state when there was still time to do so under the laws on the books in Florida. His timing opened him up to (in my opinion) well founded acquisitions of political convenience and led directly to the equal protection claim that 7 of the 9 members of the Supreme Court agreed was an issue. In my opinion, he wasn’t trying to make every vote count—only the votes that he thought would probably be most in his favor. Every vote should have been manually recounted, and whomever won the recount should have been elected president. I suspect that Gore might have been elected, but I haven’t seen any counts to this day that put Gore ahead in the final totals. In any event, he really wasn’t an inspiring candidate anyway—just ask the people of Tennessee. With their electoral votes, Gore would be president today.
Maybe we disagree about some of the finer points and strategy for the party… but we do agree that we have to energize and involve those that have been—to this point—uninvolved.
Posted by NB on Apr 19, 2003 at 1:01 AM Mr. Kriz—thanks for the source of the quote. I know that RFK was also quite found of it and used it frequently. I remember it most specifically when Ted Kennedy used it in his eulogy of RFK. Your points for 2004 are good ones—but we need to not only list his failures but enumerate how our candidates would perform differently. We need to tell America that we not only disagree with how the country is being run, but how we would do it differently… remember the much ballyhooed “Contract with America”? That is how a political party in opposition is transformed into a governing party.
Posted by NB on Apr 19, 2003 at 1:10 AM YES! Peter Freundlich has hit the nail directly on the head.
For his own glory, the financial enrichment of his friends and their companies, and for who knows what other reasons, George W. sent our young men and women off to die. They were protecting “freedom”. The freedom to discriminate against others based on race, religion, age, and sex…but hey, what do you expect in a country where you also have the freedom to starve on any street corner?
Never mind the Americans rotting in prisons—incommunicado—because they had the misfortune to be of Arab descent. I’m so glad Americans’ liberty is so well protected.
If a Democrat had done even half of what Bush has done to destroy this country and its economy, he would have been impeached and probably thrown in prison. Bush gets high “public approval ratings”. Are we Americans stupid, or what???? (The result of cuts in education?)
Posted by Diane Taylor on Apr 19, 2003 at 6:45 AM Let’s get it straight!! You’ve had 5 minutes of foreign policy and you’re now an X-spert (Spert with an X in front). WOW!!
Posted by roypendy on Apr 19, 2003 at 11:33 AM The United Nations are a bunch of impotent fools, incapable of action when it matters. The United States recognized a problem and did something about it. Hussein is a really sick and sadistic person. Look at the hundred + kids that were released from prison, or the torture chambers that were found. At least Bush had the huevos to do something about that. Look at all the people cheering in the streets and kissing our soldiers. Yeah, there are problems now with supplies, but that will soon be fixed. Stop smoking your pot, get your heads out of your asses, and wake up to reality. Iraq will be a better place when we are done and they are free.
Posted by Danny Ricci on Apr 20, 2003 at 3:11 AM Ding, dong.
Welcome to the wonderful world of international affairs.
For those of you who’ve just woken up we should warn you that there is some unpleasantness.
Around the world dozens of countries persecute their own people in ways which make you ashamed to be human.
We strongly advise that you do not do something about it.
*this is where I begin to doubt my own anti-war beliefs. In a certain light it’s possible to see America as a benevolent sleeping giant that’s just woken up and gone to set the world to rights before getting the sleep out of its eyes.
The only thing that’s keeping me from enlisting in the Bush Blair cheer squad is the nit picking. It’s the people who point out, not unfairly, that the arguments don’t make sense. It’s the people who point out that America hasn’t been sleeping. They point out that it’s been colluding and interfering and squanding its reputation as a thing of good in the name of self interest for way too long to take the moral high ground. It’s the knowledge that millions of Americans know in their hearts that their country is wrong and they know it’s their duty to point it out.
For all I know President Bush may well be an intelligent man but he shows no trace of being able to empathise and thus he exudes a pre-school petulance that will forever be his trademark.
Posted by susan on Apr 21, 2003 at 12:50 AM Lives would have continued to be lost anyway, even if this so-called “Carrollian” Administration had not have declared war on Iraq. If Saddam Hussein’s brutality throughout his terrorful reign has not been enough to deserve punishment, then consider the added brutality of his sons and friends as well. It is very much a shame that the people of Iraq suffer in both situations, yet no one has come up with a better one yet. Peaceful negotiations do not work with a man whose icon is Stalin and whose son steals UNICEF goods from the starving masses of his own country.
Posted by Shaina DeCiryan on Apr 21, 2003 at 4:50 AM Shaina,
There’s no negotiating with the Bush family. When you’ve finished serving their purposes, you’re executed. Just like a mafia family.
Noriega
Haseim bin Laden
HusseinThis is the person we want dictating foreign policy? No argument SH was rotten, but we had no right to remove him. Listen to all the Republican spins you want, the fact is, the UN wasn’t allowed time to address the situation, he was made a scapegoat for 9/11, this war has further angrered the Arab world and the international community and if you want to go further, who the hell are we to do what we did anyway?
Nelson Mandella, Jimmy Carter and the Pope—even Bush’s pastor said this was was wrong. The only “religious” leaders that supported it are also the ones who want to wipe out Islam and have called it’s prophet a “psychopathic pedophile.”
Posted by neil on Apr 21, 2003 at 6:44 AM Mr. Ricci:
No, get your head out of your glass of Budweiser (or is it Pabst Blue Ribbon) and realize the high-minded rhetoric used by the Bush Administration to justify this invasion was just a propagandistic smoke screen! If we were so concerned about brutal dictators, why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia, Congo or Indonesia? All have governments that routinely use torture on political enemies. Of course, let’s not forget about the suspects that the U.S. tortured to death at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan - really gives us the moral high ground, doesn’t it? Isn’t it curious how that story disappeared down the memory hole? What about the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that are kept in metal dog kennels in steaming heat, often hooded and shackled? We really know how to treat our POWs, don’t we? Of course, we just play a semantic game of calling them “enemy combatants”, instead of POWs and then we don’t have to comply with the Geneva Conventions? How tidy. Of course, you could also ask the hundreds of Middle Eastern men we are holding in custody since 9-11, without charging them and without providing them with counsel, as the Constitution guarantees. Ask them about due process and Miranda rights and the glories of American jursiprudence. Just an itty-bitty bit of untidiness, right? As Mr. Rumsfeld has indicated, we don’t mind a little “untidiness”, do we?
Open your eyes, fool. This country has no claim to any moral superiority and the invasion of Iraq was not some high-minded Christian soldiering, either. It was a greed and power-driven money grab by morally sick men like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al. Pull the flag decals off your windshield and see the truth!
Posted by Stephen Kriz on Apr 21, 2003 at 6:16 PM I don’t think it matters in this case whether just as many people would have died if Saddam had been left in power.
It most certainly doesn’t matter to people who are now dead and may have lived - at least for a bit longer. Or for those maimed and mourning.
What is more important is why we got rid of Saddam, how we did it and who did it.
The long run isn’t just the next couple of years. If we’re lucky the future will last longer, if we’re bright we won’t keep storing up trouble for those there to see it.
Posted by susan on Apr 22, 2003 at 5:41 PM I think the discussion of the article is more interesting than the article itself! I think the reason the article enrages so many is that they have only started to realize that we are not even pawns in the great scheme of geopolitical affairs, because pawns have some worth. We, as citizens are subject to the whims and desires of the the corporate, military-industrial elite ruling class. Republican or democrat makes no difference. All government actions eventually work to serve the status quo, keeping this elite class in power. Doesn’t matter what religious leaders and Noble Peace Prize winners say. And to think there might be two people in Boise who think like this!
Posted by Greg on Apr 25, 2003 at 12:26 AM September 11, 2001, war was declared on America. We are now at war against Global Terrorism. It rages now. Iraq was just the second stop. Get it???
Posted by roypendy on Apr 26, 2003 at 12:09 PM What a fabulous article! I absolutly loved it! Thank you so much, Mr. Freundlich for writing an article that gets you laughing and thinking at the same time.
Posted by Lila on Jun 23, 2003 at 7:05 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Peter Freundlich
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
