George W. Bush and his top advisers learned little from the Vietnam debacle of the ‘60s, since most avoided service in the war. But many top Bush aides played key roles in the repression of leftist peasant uprisings in Central America in the ‘80s, a set of lessons the Bush administration is now trying to apply to the violent resistance… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (57)Page 1 of 1 pagesTo the psychotic lackeys who rule this article reveals an agenda which will not work in Iraq as it once did and is as yet in effect in the Southern portion of our hemisphere because no matter how well trained the death squads that are coming with logarithmic certainty to the Mid East, they will still wish to survive after their orgies of murder. This, the good people of the Koran will not allow without instant, self-immolating reprisal. An analogy can be drawn between Iraq and Vietnam in this arena as well. Death before dishonor; death before prostration to godless killers will take a toll upon even the most well-trained, well-equipped death squad commandos we can throw at the long suffering people of the Muslim world. We speak of a religion which grows in strength daily as opposed to all other religions which become mere hypocritical symbols of Christ’s message to the world: The Sermon On The Mount. The fundamentalist Christians worship one thing despite all attempts to cause widespread false perception of their ideas… believers willing to suffer all hardships but that is mere lip service. They believe in nothing but their own self-interest, compounded daily. Money is their true and only god As for Central and South America, the death squads may have buried millions but nothing has changed for their vicims except a new callousness born of a burning need for retribution. There too, and without Christian solipsism or Islam, the hunted will become the hunters. The endgame will only have proved that escathologically, the Meek will have as prophesized, inherit the Earth. Oh how the psycotic ruling lackeys hate to hear this ineluctable TRUTH!
Posted by Dominick on Dec 27, 2003 at 1:31 AM George “Attila” Bush has shown the world that he is no less a zealot than the Zionazi LIKUDNIK Hyena’s of Israel that murder, maim and displace the defenseless Palestinian’s while demanding that they “Quell the violence.”
This moron, DBA: MACHO MAN will leave a legacy of US imperialism that will take generations to erase.
Let us hope that George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon of MURDER, INC. will be replaced at the ballot box in 2004 or by the devastating fire and brimestone of total rejection before their tsunami of velvet gloved IMPERIALISM engulfs the world in an endless clash of religions and the deadly Psalms of the Neo-Con(men) who lead us into this Apocalypse of a thousand points of a nuclear Holocaust.
TAC,
Posted by TheAZCowBoy on Dec 27, 2003 at 2:09 AM Getting mired down isn’t necessarily bad for the Bush administration. Think back on Vietnam: After Kennedy decided to pull out and was killed, Johnson did all he could to get mired down. The end result was that America spent $130 billion on the Vietnam war--money mostly transferred to big arms and oil enterprises.
Today there’s a similar opportunity in Iraq. Yes, the coalition troops may feel mired down, but, mercifully, that feeling will stay far from the White House and the corporate boardrooms where the profits will be rung up.
Posted by Gregory Greene on Dec 27, 2003 at 6:17 AM A brilliant story, and one of the best on the In These Times website for a very long time. Hats off!
Posted by James Paterson on Dec 27, 2003 at 6:35 AM Mr.Parry deserves an award for his writing,Thank you for trying to keep Americans informed.
Posted by Joan Vaughn on Dec 27, 2003 at 10:15 AM i spent my last year as director of education in an orphanage in Guatemala...i am also on the Board of Directors of a new organization called Mayanhope (based in the Ixil Triangle)...you can check out the website at www.mayanhope.org...this article is the single best i have ever read on guatemala and what happened there. more importantly i think the connections made between the administration in place under reagan and the one now is extremely important to understand. i think this administration looked at vietnam as a learning experience, and the central american campaigns were the result of what they learned in vietam. now they take these victories from central america and try to apply them to a conflict they see as the same, but of course it is not. we are talking about a place (iraq) where the people have been fighting each other for at least 2000 years...in this time the position of power has constantly changed hands (between sunni, shiite, kurd, etc). In guatemala you have a people that were nearly wiped out by the spanish...and they have been kept in their “place” of subjegation for hundreds of years. when a rebel force did form, it had no weapons...no defense, no military style leadership...nothing but an almost spirirtual knowledge of the land they were fighting on (similar to iraq). these “communist insurgents” fought with little more than garden tools for the first few years. which are not WMD for sure. (i urge you to read rigoburta manch?¥s autobiography...she was the nobel peace prize winner in 1992.) these farmers with machetes were “the enemy at our back door”. and these people today still suffer greatly from these groups that work for Rios Montt and the FRG (powerful political party headed by the old general). in iraq this is not the case, these people are warriors who are fighting a different chapter to a story they havent forgotten...this is a continuation of the crusades...and with an administration that sees the opposite side of the same coin...i hope it doesnt get to the point where we have battles that lead our streets becoming “actual rivers of blood” the first and second crusades produced...but after seeing with my own eyes what we supported in Guatemala, i have no doubt that cheney, rumsfield, bremer and co. are deploying a military strategy that they consider a winner. of course the horrible part is what they “won” before were 200,000 innocent deaths.
Posted by colbyfm on Dec 27, 2003 at 10:40 AM Real fundamentalist Christains know that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but are spiritual. Those fundamentalist Christains which are in favor of a carnal warfare are following anti-christ principles and as such; are antichrist according to the second book of John which spoke of many antichrist amongst us.
Posted by frank spruill on Dec 27, 2003 at 3:20 PM i want to clarify that I used crusades in a religious sense because i dont think you can underscore the religious beliefs at play...but more importantly i see the “crusades” as a resources grab by the most powerful government in the world...and a complacent public who has a subconcious understanding that although this war is lining the pockets of the few...it also protects their right to buy gasoline for almost $1.00 less(per gallon) than the average human being. we must begin to understand how each of us somehow supports this policy and try and work to find alternative methods of living. by recognizing our personal responsibility (which im sure many readers of this magazine do) we can become a statement against wars for profit and resource control by the few.
Posted by colbyfm on Dec 27, 2003 at 4:06 PM And that is why someone remembered to honor those whose voices united a planet in opposition to this debacle. The Anti War Protester has been selected as Person of the Year by TvNewsLies.org.
Good for them!
http://tvnewslies.org/html/2003_person_of_the_year.html
Posted by Reggie on Dec 27, 2003 at 8:01 PM An excellent article! I was in Valparaiso, Chile, 1973. A summary of the article above will soon be ready for the danish readers.
Respectfully Yours
Carsten Korsar
Posted by Carsten Korsar on Dec 28, 2003 at 12:29 AM While the article is undoubtedly factual, it could have been written without any research at all, as if as an educated guess or estimation. Why? Because the tactics it speaks of are standard practice. They are done all the time in the business of killing… in the business of furthering larger economic interests through the shock of blood.
These things are not sophisticated but the act of reporting them makes them seem really important and complex. As though anyone involved in foreign or political affairs, from the politicians to the journalists, are somehow smarter than the rest of us. These events cannot be measured and analysed, they can only be expected.
Killing excess population as a way to knock another country into doing your menial labor, or providing you with cheap resources isn’t sophisticated in the least. Even if you get elected through impressive and dramatic means. And even if you’re filthy rich and “legendary.”
Killing ordinary people as a means to negotiate, and simply because there are TOO MANY of them anyway, doesn’t make any of this right. One country cannot foster internal conflict within another so that they can then go in and supposedly help. They cannot kill the locals as collateral damage and then demand payment for the rebuilding. This business tactic must end.
Using excess human flesh to get land, resources or cheap labor is a dirty way to run the world. What if the powerful nation and trendsetter is WRONG? What if American materialism is wrong in a bigger sense? Wrong for the global environment? Wrong for the psyche of the human being? And we have a whole globe indoctrinated into it somehow?
There is only one way to stop the killing of people as a way for corporate interests to realize their expanded visions for the future. Reduce the population… parents must think hard before farming children/fodder for their blood and dead grimaces. Every dead citizen is a poster for more fighting, more hatred, more division of the world. And more of the same.
No more babies… We all know how it ends. Politics is about people… the more the uglier. The more the easier.
Posted by michael luck on Dec 28, 2003 at 8:16 AM very good summary overview of the situation. however, what is lacking, as is often the case in articles such as this, is analysis of the Big Picture and how this disgusting episode in american history fits into it. the ruling oligarchy claims a population excess only because people get in the way of access and control of certain resources and they also require a certain amount of sharing of the land for food and water. thus, supporting genocide only supports capitalism--but not democracy. what a clever move to have confused an entire population that the two are one!
Posted by tanya marquette on Dec 28, 2003 at 2:46 PM I continually see the position of America on Israel misunderstood and often in a dangerous way.
What needs to be understood is a fundamental tenet of most Christian beliefs is that Israel forms must be in the hands of Judao-Christians and not in the hands of Muslims. Period. Much of what is called “the rapture”, “the second coming” and other such things requires this position for Israel. Belief in this requires that the US support the 1948 granting of land to Israel and the continued support of Israel.
In reality, there are perhaps three resolutions to the Israel/Palestinian situation: dissolve the refugee camps and force Jordan/Egypt/etc. to take in the Palestinians, reverse the 1948 grant to Israel and give the land back to Palestine, or finally make Palestinians Israeli citizens and give all the land to Israel.
Which one of these eventually happens is an open question and I am not sure anyone can say which one is “right”. But I am sure one of these will end up being the solution. Until this is done, Palestinians and their proxies will continue to kill the people that have “invaded” their land.
And, most importantly, the US will back Israel fully because the Bible says they must. If you do not understand this, you will never understand the support that Israel receives.
Posted by P Crowley on Dec 28, 2003 at 5:58 PM This is great!
Let TRUTH & REALITY mass-destruct the idiotic GeorgieBushit & his Dogs!
Posted by david koh on Dec 28, 2003 at 6:39 PM Thanks for this reminder of the brutal roots of our current foreign policy. I was arrested in 1983 in the Richmond, VA offices of then-Sen. Paul Trible (R-VA) in protest against the mining of the harbors of Corinto, Nicaragua—an act of our CIA which was against international law. At that time, I knew full well of Elliot Abrams and what he was up to. When I learned that George W. Bush had appointed him to a position of governmental power, my stomach turned and I felt sad for our nation.
Posted by Rob Conrad on Dec 28, 2003 at 7:19 PM Excels my admiration. thank you
REQUESTING YOU TO WRITE SIMILAR ARTICLE ABOUT THE SAME HYPOCRACIES AND SUGARGOATING OF AMERICAN POLITICS IN Turkey during the PKK insurgencies!PKK’S ACTIONS and Turkey’s inhuman remedies resulted to one of the biggest mass destruction of the Kurdish villages, displacement of hunrdreds of thousands of population.... all were done with direct AMERICAN HELP..
Posted by Ali Ahmadi on Dec 28, 2003 at 8:23 PM EXCELS MY ADMIRATION. THANK YOU.
request following this article by a second one.
atrocities that carried out by Saddam and neighbouring Facist military controlled satete of Turkey who believed talking in your own mother tongue was a criminal offence during 20th century so called civilisation.
PKK was born with popular support because extereme suppression of little headed, short vision Turkish rulers who are eagerly trying to join Europe.
ALL THESE YEARS OF ATROCITIES IN THE REGION CONTINUED WHILE AMERICA SUPPORTED BOTH SADDAM AND TURKISH RULERS.DESTRUCTION OF THOUSANDS OF VILLAGES WERE NOT DETECTED BY AMERICAN SATTELITES AND THOSE WHO INFORMED THE WHITE HOUSE WERE IGNORED AND SIDE LINED.
WHAT A PITTY TO SUPPORT DICTATORS AND THEN MASSACRE THE INNUCENTS FOR REMOVING A SELF BORN MONSTER.
Posted by Ali Ahmadi on Dec 28, 2003 at 8:34 PM Yes, all of these are a definition of the word “mess.”
It’s obvious the mess is part of the envisioned outcome. Let’s have articles look more at these final outcomes, as well as the “mess.”
Let’s look at the Vietnam war. It was one of the biggest messes in human history. What are the Vietnamese doing now?
Can we hazard a guess at the outcome of the Iraq conflict? The Israeli/Palestinian one?
Using Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Rawanda etc what have we got?
A lot of sound and fury; millions of details and in the end, some kind of resumption of an economy with a slightly different face.
All this sounds like plastic surgery to me…
Posted by michael luck on Dec 28, 2003 at 8:56 PM Excellent piece....good to be reminded of central american history at this time. From Suharto to Diem to the Shah...and indeed Rios Mont, US foreign policy follows a familiar pattern. What happens in Iraq however may well follow the French/Algerian model and we’ll find a Pol Pot type regime in place once the colonial powers leave. Clearly the war profiteers dont much care....they own it all already.
Posted by John Steppling on Dec 29, 2003 at 3:23 AM If only we tried to lead the world by example by using our great power for good ends, like feeding the hungry, developing clean, non-polluting technologies and working for a world in which every child was born to a family that loved and cared for it, we could make a difference and have no enemies. We will never kill our way to peace.
These evil men like Bush claim to be Christians, but as the Bible says, “By their actions, ye shall know them”. They are not Christian. Talk is cheap.
Posted by Stephen Kriz on Dec 29, 2003 at 3:54 PM Great research, nicely done. Thank you for continued excellence.
Posted by Ed Mellon on Dec 29, 2003 at 4:29 PM The body count from these obscenities seems to outrank 9/11 by quite a large margin.
As democracies, let us set the example by NOT meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. It should be written in our constitutions.
Posted by Patrick on Dec 29, 2003 at 9:04 PM Michael Luck, are you saying the US is doing this to establish an economy to trade with, to exploit or both? Or to “McAmericanize” 3rd world nations?
Posted by neil on Dec 30, 2003 at 1:16 AM It is the wise man indeed, who draws from a various and multitude of sources - so that he may derive his own conclusion in the quest for truth. To “sift the sugar from the sand” so to speak.
Posted by Brandon on Dec 30, 2003 at 9:03 AM Neil,
You question is interesting. Even though it might sound mundane, it strikes at the very essence of a very possible “grand plan” by over-ambitious players. Perhaps the greatest dreamers the world has ever seen.
I think all this US meddling and manipulation in other countries SEEMS to be about money, ideologies and balance of power but in reality it is about fear.
It is about the fear of loss or change. Fear about the natural passage of things, and the power of knowledge.
The US is big, that’s for sure. But it isn’t big in a way that can possibly last. It’s tacky, wacky and irresponsible. That is what has made it great, and what will bring it down.
However with this cockiness comes an unwillingness to change, modify, or relinquish. The attempt to conquer other ways of doing things through wowing them over to the American habit is a way of converting those we fear. We demonize other cultures, kill a lot of them, and convert the survivors with democratic hamburgers and blue jeans. This is the economy “bomb” in the arsenal, so to speak.
The first time this happened in our neck of the woods was with the Native American. All we ever hear is the White view that what the Indian did was uncivilized but could this view have been fueled by fear on the part of the intruder /
adventurer/ egomaniac?Was he perhaps envious? Was it a shock that indeed other ways to do things did exist, and that these perhaps showed up the thinking of the day among those who wanted to be the best?
“Being the best” is rudimentary thinking. Unlike many other cultures which we and our children are systematically prevented from knowing more about, we are still stuck on winning.
And so will we lose. Why we have to take everybody else down with us is what boggles my mind… Just too possessive to make much sense!
Posted by michael luck on Dec 30, 2003 at 1:22 PM I recoil in horror at the recall of that shameful time in central america—the anguish I felt at the ignorance of the american people of what the administration was doing under the guise of “fighting communism”. I am 76 years old and was very aware at the time. Now the current administration seems on the verge, and indeed, apparently has already begun, to go down a similar road in Iraq—under the guise of fighting terrorism—having prepared the way with the lies which gained support for the war— lies which many in the US still believe and which are constantly being reinforced by the compliant press. I am grateful for this truthful, well documented exposition. Perhaps some americans will hear and Robert Parry is not simply preaching to the choir! When you are afraid because you believe the lies it is hard to listen to anyone who doesn’t reinforce the lies; so one seeks out the sources who do , i.e. Fox and their ilk! It is hard for even those who know the truth to cross the barrier of fear and speak out..
Posted by Joseph on Dec 30, 2003 at 3:17 PM You make many outstanding points in your comparision between Central America and Iraq. One key difference is cul;ture. The US can kill people but it cannot easily destroy a country’s culture and values. Unless the US commits to a long term “Iraqi Marshall Plan” , the US policy will be an easy target for the right and the left to attack, THe final solution needs to be determined by the Iraqi people and with the cooperatio of its closest neighbors, particularly Russia. What is likely to happen if we “trust history” is for the next 20 years we will see the continued destruction of a people and culture by self interested nations looking to llower their cost of oil.
all good things,
m
Posted by Michael McCartney on Dec 30, 2003 at 4:34 PM This is very disturbing but revelatory reading. I knew old Reagan wasn’t the old sweetie everybody made him out to be, but I didn’t know he presided over such abysmal activities as these. Keep up the good work in informing the public of such vicious deeds committed by so many of the prominent, smooth, amoral, untroubled faces that rule in public life today.
Posted by Margaret Todd on Dec 30, 2003 at 4:58 PM Indeed. The only way out of this mess is to withdraw immediately and turn the Iraqi people over to the victorious forces of the former regime and the foreign fedayeen heroes who will kill them one by the hundreds in their own best interests.
Hurrah for the victorious Iraqi resistance and the blessings they will forever more bring to Iraq and the rest of the world by saving them from the evil designs of the greedy capitalist Bush Administration!!
Posted by Jim T on Dec 31, 2003 at 7:00 AM Jim T,
As if the primary goals of this invasion were for the benefit of the Iraq people in the first place.
Posted by Patrick on Dec 31, 2003 at 8:01 AM Many thanks for the history lesson. While were on about historical quagmires and all that, permit me to ask a question.
In 1853, while millions were dying from famine in India, Marx condemned the “sickening” conduct of British colonialism, which was casting Indian peasants into “a sea of woes.” For all of that, Marx thought the British might just be giving a hostage to fortune: “England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindustan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfill its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England, she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.”
Since it is obvious that the Empire never changes, and since we are to judge American foreign policy by the political stripe of its supporters, let me ask, should I condemn Karl Marx as a closet neocon, or should I condemn George W. Bush as a closet Marxist?
Posted by Bill Myers on Dec 31, 2003 at 9:58 AM The US will have no choice but to keep its troops in Iraq for the next 10 to 15 years in order to prop up any proxy government. The idiots of the INC have no capacity to form or maintain an army by themselves. The equation is simple. If you want your troops out you will need to kick out Bush from the White House in 2004.
Posted by Oracle on Dec 31, 2003 at 12:42 PM Michael and Neil,
Great discussion. . . I’d like to add this thought:About 10 years ago a book was written called “The Celestine Prophesy,” which although took on a life of its own as a New Age product line, nevertheless posed some interesting and salient questions --> It was a parable for modern times and made quite clear the links between fear, denial and the inability of some people to look at change as anything but the End Of The World.
In other words, “an unwillingness to change, modify, or relinquish.”
What strikes at the heart of the matter is that most of these people actually believe they are doing good:
Preemptive war, nuclear first strike and getting rid of those pesky activists [who are undoubtedly too ignorant and beyond salvation to know what kind of peril our country is in] are all part and parcel of what they believe is a design to save us from Evil.
Paradoxically, that same argument is used quite frequently on the left. The basic view of the other side as ignorant and bent on the destruction of all that is good prevails on both sides of the spectrum.
What is the common denominator? Fear.
I have talked with countless conservatives, with whom I agree on 80% of the major issues: We all agree that family is important, our children need to be safe, etc. There are a few emotional issues, but not enough to explain the rancor that prevails in this nation at present.
The situation reminds me of the late, great Yitzach Rabin who was murdered by rogue members of his own Shin Bet security service for making peace with the Palestinians. Similarly, Arab moderates have been murdered by their own extremists for the same reasons.
Do certain domestic concerns have an interest in seeing that the left and right never meet for tea? You bet.
Fear is the ultimate enemy but it it not omnipotent. We have already had our anthrax Reichstagg but there is still hope; most people just want life, liberty and happiness.
Thank you for posing some thoughtful questions.
Posted by Ed Mellon on Dec 31, 2003 at 3:46 PM <blockquote>What is the common denominator? Fear.</blockquote>
There’s more to the strategy than fear. Briefly, America needs enemies so the defense budget can keep on growing. More money for defense means more taxpayer funds transfered to the oil and arms corporations where the personal wealth of the key members of the Bush administration is invested. Everything America and Israel do to Muslims is designed to make enemies.
<blockquopte>We have already had our anthrax Reichstagg but there is still hope; most people just want life, liberty and happiness.</blockquote>
For more on the Reichstag comparison, see Parallels.
Posted by Gregory Greene on Jan 2, 2004 at 9:48 AM Anyone still wondering why “the Left” is completely impotent in American politics—more like a sewing-circle auxillary to some suburban vestry than anything like a political force—ought to browse the prim offerings above, where the awful moral equivalence of the anti-war “critique” has become its own negation.
It’s bad enough to draw a strict equivalence between the Central American death squads and the U.S. soldiers fighting ex-death squads in Iraq, but it’s still another thing to suggest not just equivalence but actual historical lineage between Bush and the Nazis (as both Ed Mellon and Gregory Greene have done: the Reichstag, for Christ’s sake?).
If either Mr. Mellon or Mr. Greene have evidence that the Bush administration was behind the anthrax attacks they should not wait another moment to share it with the public.
If not, they should spare us the re-mulched platitude of George Santayana: It’s already painfully obvious that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat themselves.
Posted by Bill Myers on Jan 2, 2004 at 1:47 PM where the awful moral equivalence of the anti-war “critique” has become its own negation.
what the hell?
Posted by colbyfm on Jan 2, 2004 at 4:06 PM hey, im only 16 but this world is already on my nerves, im no fanatic but i feel things need 2 change and i believe that it is criminal that the government gets away with so much stuff, and that the main stream media report practically none of it… i thank u for creating this site…
Posted by sean on Jan 2, 2004 at 5:02 PM Dear Colbyfm,
Re your question about the Left’s critique being self-negating, what is it about absurdity that you don’t understand?
Posted by Bill Myers on Jan 2, 2004 at 5:06 PM bill
read your sentence this way…
the awful moral equivalance of the brown paper bag critique becomes its own negation. so my confusion is in the “awful moral equivalance” (which means the equivelance of something morally awful) being critiqued...and then this critique becoming its own negation.
but your second message, i understand.
however, i still cant find where you explained how this ariticle makes you believe the left is negating itself.
when in fact what the author is telling us about guatemala is exactly for the reason that he sees parralles in iraq, and he doesnt want history to repeat itself.
i realize i am only part of a sewing circle and am therfore irrelevant(because i am a gossiping old lady and these people are unimportant) ...but i believe that we are quite frankly, getting our shit together, however, we on the left have problems, and we run around like chickens with our heads cut off, quite frankly because the last few years have just been overwhelming. I agree completly that we must become a more unified unit...but this does not mean that we must all become the same. as unions have reason to join forces with environmentalists, and human rights works have reasons to join with them...we will gain power not in our singularity but our deversity. is this utopic? no, absolutely not. and connections between iraq and guatemala are important for the reasons that exist...the people now in power and where they were during the wars in central america...the killing that was permited by these men, and why.
to answer your question before, because marx felt death was necessary for revolution has absolutely nothing to do with bush attacking iraq or the fact that his vice president was sec of defense during the use of death squads in guatemala. and if bush sits alone at night thinking of workers party revolts, im sure it isnt in how he is going to foment them.......although his policies do exactly that.
power to the people.
Posted by colbyfm on Jan 3, 2004 at 7:09 AM What have GWB, osama bin laden and the zeolots who run Israel have in common?
The ability to bring fear and terror to the innocent in the name of freedom and fighting oppression. These guys are extremists and they are running the world with help from multinational corps. military junta’s and the arms industry. Their ultimate weapon is misinformation using a compliant press so blaming others for the violence. They must be stopped. Together they form the threat to world peace that cannot be ignored.
Posted by Oracle on Jan 3, 2004 at 10:51 AM Bill Myers:
If either Mr. Mellon or Mr. Greene have evidence that the Bush administration was behind the anthrax attacks they should not wait another moment to share it with the public.
Just to clarify the reference to my article Parallels, it doesn’t deal with the anthrax attacks.
The origin of the anthtax attacks can be guessed at through the anthrax strain used: straight from a US government laboratory. The targets also give an indication; they were mostly connected with the Democratic party. The first target was the tabloid group that tends to dig a bit too deep into what happens in the country. It isn’t too far-fetched to think that the perpetrator was someone who sympathizes with the Bush government.
As for proof of the government’s complicity in the 9-11 attacks, the Web is an excellent source. I’ve only presented my own observations along with those of a person I trust. You won’t get any proof that those observations are true, so take them or leave them.. If the original tape of 20/20 of December 5, 2001 could be located, you’d get a confirmation of Mrs. Bush’s slip, however.
Posted by Gregory Greene on Jan 3, 2004 at 11:18 AM I’ll not quibble—for now—with colbyfm’s grammar check, but I’ll still take a pass on his call for “unity.”
Colbyfm doesn’t deny that the unintended consequences of President Bush’s invasion all play “our” way, and yet colbyfm refuses to follow that thought through—for no other reason, it seems, than the President is a Republican and a conservative. This is independent thought?
Since colbyfm missed the point of the Marx quote (Marx did NOT say that death was necessary for revolution), it’s probably worthless to paraphrase Orwell, but I’ll risk it anyway: Comrades, some things are true even if George W. Bush says they are.
If “history” is the real concern, as so many of the correspondents quakingly inform us, than we ought to be able to appreciate the distinction between a Washington which makes war on anti-fascists and a Washington which makes war on fascists.
For the sake of focus, permit me to ask: If the liberaiton of Iraq truly is the same-old Imperial adventure, why, then, were Henry Kissinger, Pat Buchanan and so many others on the “hard right” against it? (For further review, please see this month’s Commentary Magazine.)
Many thanks to Mr. Greene for his weaselly “clarification,” but I’ll stand by my comments: His “Parallels” argument, even with his hastily improvised “make up your own mind” asterisk attached, still insists on a strict moral equivalence between President Bush and the nascent Nazi Party. If this is how the Left shows its respect for history… well, take Mr. Greene up on his challenge, follow the link he provided and make up your own mind.
Posted by Bill Myers on Jan 3, 2004 at 1:20 PM Bill Myers,
Your quote: If the liberaiton of Iraq truly is the same-old Imperial adventure, why, then, were Henry Kissinger, Pat Buchanan and so many others on the “hard right” against it? (For further review, please see this month’s Commentary Magazine.)That is part of what a lot of us are upset about. This goes beyond traditional conservative thinking into something that could be considered extreme far-right, alienating a lot of Republicans. This is where some of us, I can’t speak for anyone, but where some of us feel we are correct in protesting his actions. If even members of his own party, including a few hard liners are against it, there is some merit in our arguments.
A lot of good points were made here, and if I had to boil down the whole reason for this “war”, which isn’t a simple thing to do, I think I could safely say Bush and his select team have played everyone and they’re going after what they want. It’s not in this nation’s best interest and the more lies told about it and the more days that go by that prove these are lies, the more vidicated we who oppose this feel.
The article doesn’t draw a strict equivelance--it says the same tactics were used as in this “war” with the same CIA people who now are in Bush’s team.
I disagree--this war has done nothing but rip this nation apart during one of the worse recessions. All that bullshit about Saddam was cruel, blah, blah, blah, blah. It doesn’t make our actions right, it never will.
Posted by neil on Jan 4, 2004 at 5:53 AM Bill Myers:
Many thanks to Mr. Greene for his weaselly “clarification,”
Weaselly as in unassailable?
Posted by Gregory Greene on Jan 4, 2004 at 12:48 PM Interesting to watch this discussion degenerate into psuedophilosophical rhetoric. You may know what you’re talking about but no one else does.
The overarching question is, will the terminal arrogance of the Bushites take us all down with it or will it be headed off at the pass?
Robert Parry’s excellent discussion gives us no indication. Only the ballot box can reveal the answer.
Posted by jtsnyder on Jan 4, 2004 at 1:42 PM The reason why some in the ‘hard right’ may have been opposed to action against Iraq has nothing to do with any fundamental disagreement with the need to secure oil and bases. As the article shows most have been complicit in the genocide in South America. However, they have enough sense to see that this venture would become a bleeding sore without a proxy army to carry out intense repression.
Posted by JJ on Jan 4, 2004 at 3:08 PM JTSnyder doesn’t have to tell me that he/she doesn’t know “what the hell” is being discussed, but JT ought to have taken a deeper breath before rushing in to speak for “no one.” Neil, JJ and Colbyfm seem to understand the terms of debate, even if they reach different conclusions. No matter. This nobody can’t be bothered to answer questions that haven’t been asked: “Only the ballot box can reveal the answer?” Yeah, there’s “pseudophilosophical rhetoric” floating around, all right…
To those who argue in good faith, I acknowledge that the Bush administration is a right-wing enterprise. But Bush, at least, has been able to face historical contradictions. Here is a guy who ran a campaign sneering at the very idea of nation building, but who now uses the phrase like it’s his last name. Here is the first U.S. president in history to promise to a Palestinian state. Here is a president who, as the New York Times tells us this morning, is ending 30 years of betrayal acceding to the principle of Kurdish self-determination.
This last point is a major one, because it also represents another turn against the bad old days, when the U.S. was so deferential to the House of Saud and the Turkish right that it was often impossible to make out which one was the puppet and which one was the master.
Here, the notion that the liberation of Iraq was all about the oil, as so many on this page have claimed, plays “our” way. Stripped of an oil monopoly with which to leverage U.S. foreign policy, the Saudis now awake in a fever to find themselves stuck in bed with their al-Qaida/Wahabbi clients. (Please see Michael Scott Doran’s review, “The Saudi Paradox,” in this month’s Foreign Affairs.) We ought to realize that the Bush right wing and the international Left have a common interest in the short term. That, at least, is the redemptive idea behind “permanent revolution.” (JT, you gettin’ ANY of this?)
To be sure, Bush and his cohort are probably desperate to sell all these promises short—they see better than most that their policy is leading them towards humanitarian internationalism—but that worry should only find voice in a louder call for solidarity with the democrats of the Muslim world. This will not be possible if we rely on the absurd moral relativism and party-line isolationism displayed on this page.
Posted by Bill Myers on Jan 5, 2004 at 10:43 AM JTSnyder: Only the ballot box can reveal the answer.
Bush will be reelected with a comfortable margin. He has the ultimate trump card: he can convince the nation of the necessity of another nice little war of aggression, timed to end victoriously just before the November election. The required provocation should turn up--to order like 9-11-2001 and, in 2002, the certitude of Iraqi WMDs--this summer when Congress begins debating the budget, where the defense portion will again break all records. The list of potential victims has been known for months; no wonder Col. Ghaddafi is so eager to get off it just now.
See my article War for Profit.
Posted by Gregory Greene on Jan 5, 2004 at 11:50 AM Col. Ghaddafi as a “victim?” A joke, right?
I hereby apologize to earlier critics. Mr. Greene does NOT engage in moral equivalence. This last note expresses love, pure and true. You are welcome to it.
Posted by Bill Myers on Jan 5, 2004 at 12:16 PM Col. Ghaddafi as a “victim?” A joke, right?
I hereby apologize to earlier critics. Mr. Greene does NOT engage in moral equivalence. This last note expresses love, pure and true. You are welcome to it.
Posted by Bill Myers on Jan 5, 2004 at 12:16 PM Drop what you’re doing and follow the link to Mr. Greene’s essay.
It’s a keeper: near-pornographic obsession with apocolypse, barely coded screeds against the “transnational owning class” (whomever do you mean, sir?), goofy cosmology—oh, and a plug for his “book,” where we can get even more of the same priceless stuff (for a small price, of course). Woof.
The invitation is almost too good to resist. I’d hate to part with any real dough on this, but the chance to glimpse Mr. Greene’s “thoughts” might just overwhelm my principles (everyone does have their price, I suppose). Anyone interested in a co-op?
To those who’ve argued that we have to judge an idea by the political/philosophical stripe of its supporters, I can only remark that even tiny rivulets of history supply their own ironies…
Posted by Bill Myers on Jan 5, 2004 at 12:53 PM Bill Myers: love, pure and true
Very perceptive--my book Walkabout is all about love. Unconditional love. Not nearly as cynical as my political commentary.
Do let me know what you think about it!
Bill Myers: the “transnational owning class” (whomever do you mean, sir?)
The foremost authority on transnational business is probably Professor Noam Chomsky. His writings are all over the Web.
Posted by Gregory Greene on Jan 5, 2004 at 4:26 PM Bill Myers: This will not be possible if we rely on the absurd moral relativism and party-line isolationism displayed on this page.
Disagee on that. It’s the very party lines Bush is using to split this nation and it hasn’t worked in all areas of his party, i.e., your earlier mentioned objections by Kissinger and Buchanan. He’s played the liberal, against the conservative and painted them as one party against the other. This gives his propaganda war plenty of fuel to go into the primaries.
I am a Democrat but won’t vote strict party lines like some I know. I wanted McCain to get the nomination and probably would have voted for him. For me, party politics had nothing to do with my objections to his handling of 9-11. After plenty of research I know how deep the Bush ties are to the Saudi royal family and the bin Ladens. Imagine if Gore had the same connections and was in office.
And morality? War may sometimes be a necessary evil but it’s still evil. I only see this as another botched job that no one will admit to until it’s too late. And in a society where even the president won’t take the blame for “mispeaking”, where will it end?
Posted by neil on Jan 6, 2004 at 3:57 AM Noam Chomsky may have said some silly things about the liberations of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, but he deserves better than to be counted as one of the faithful under Mr. Greeneís Chautauqua tent. In any case, Iíd be careful trotting out Revelations against ìthe transnational business class.î A reader who was half asleep could still stumble across 2:9: ìÖand I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.î (Mr. Greene must have missed that bit.) Then again, maybe Iím being too hard on Mr. Greene and his shout-n-holler wailings about the Second Coming. Hell, at least heís got an ìexit strategy,î right?
To Neil, I can only ask you not kid yourself about ìparty lines.î There are comrades on this very page who, hearing Bush report that the sun rises in the East, would fall over themselves to prove the opposite (or, failing that, to prove that the sunís trajectory is part of an insidious Halliburton plot). These are the same herbivorous types who STILL insist that Clintonís bent presidency was ìthe lesser evil,î but who wonít, or canít, face the same arithmetic when they decide to compare President Bush with Saddam Hussein, et al. (You ought to know that Sen. McCain supported the liberation of Iraq: part of the reason that his calls for transparency and decency in the post-Saddam era have fallen on deaf ears is because most on the liberal-left have left the building.)
Time and space draw short—and I have too much self-respect to share a public stage with the likes of Mr. Greene—so if anyone still feels I am in need of correction, he or she is welcome to address or abuse me privately. My e-mail address is posted.
Posted by Bill Myers on Jan 6, 2004 at 6:09 AM Yeah I know about McCain. I think his way probably would have been better, but I hope, and it’s a big hope, that if he had been elected and reacted the same way Bush did that I would be protesting as I am now.
That’s kind of overboard on the Bush and sun rises in the East thing. You hear a lot of frustration from people on this forum because the tactics mentioned in the article are working. The media control is working on the likes of those who chose not to care to give this any thought. This is one place where, sure, we blurt out reactions at times, I’m guilty of that.I listen to the people I’ve respected and stay away from sources like Fox News and the Limbaughs. This site hasn’t let me down yet, though I haven’t agreed with everything they’ve published.
Consider this last thought about those of us who oppose Bush and I must say I do so with every breath because everything I’ve seen so far from his administration hasn’t changed that. Had there been no Florida recount, and if it had occured had it gone smoothly, some of this opposition might not be as determined to scrutinize his every move. If you want one last comparrison, think of all the money we taxpayers wasted to get Clinton impeached when his actions did nothing to harm the economy or foreign policy. It was a joke. Sure, he wasn’t perfect, but I’d rather have him back in office that this oaf in now.
Posted by neil on Jan 6, 2004 at 9:25 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Robert Parry
- A Post-Rational Society?
- Big Media Hectors Obama on ‘Surge’
- U.S. Media Trivializes Campaign 2008
- Is Congress Gates Keeper?
Robert Gates, Bush's choice for defense secretary, has faced accusations and senate committees before - Negroponte’s Dark Past
The case against Bush's new intelligence czar - Sinking in Deeper
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 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?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
