|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
You say War, I say Invasion BBC NEWS | Middle Eas... Real Support for Iraq Invasion: 10% of American Pu... United Nations too Democractic for the U.S., Not D... I was trying to come up with a good analogy that w... The Logical Fallacies: Index Tuned into some righ... Wired News: Why Did Google Want Blogger? Strange,... The Observer | Comment | Mr Bush goes for the kill... House restaurants change name for 'french fries' a... "The War Prayer" The War Prayer by Mark Twain Fear, the Foundation of Religion Bertrand Russell... Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
3.18.2003
Watching the "Ultimatum Speech" last night I found that I had no opposition to the ideas that Bush was promoting. The Iraqi people need help. Freedom is a good thing. Self determination is the guiding light to peace. Saddam Hussein is a threat to his own people and they would benefit from a better government. The real heart of my opposition to war in Iraq is a matter of trust. I have a fundamental distrust of the people that are at the helm of this ship. I don't consider this mistrust to be unfounded. I know that the basis for any depth of support for the Bush agenda is a product of a massive amount of propaganda. I have witnessed the extent that right wingers will go to secure power for themselves and their politicians. And I see a level of intellectual insincerity that alarms me. It is for this reason more than any other that I oppose not just this war, but most of the Bush agenda. The reasons I don't trust President Bush and his administration: -- The Republican use of nationalism, racism, patriotism, religious fundamentalism and corporate interest in their politics. While not directly advocating most of these ideas outright, they are complacent in dealing with elements within their party that use these tactics to gain political support. The president has not taken the lead in calling for the restraint of French bashing that is being spurred on by many in the Republican party and their de facto propaganda unit, the talk radio network. They have made blatant use of the flag as a symbol for their cause as it changes from terrorism to invasion. Bush sprinkles his speeches with biblical and evangelical references as a way of showing support for the fundamentalist that are attacking Roe v. Wade and other issues on their own morals terms. What concessions will he make to this christian element in his governing of a predominately Muslim nation in a predominately Muslim part of the world? Related to this is the implication of the U.S. government that despite weak ties to the 9/11 terrorists that Saddam is in cahoots with the terrorists. This is capitalizing on the innate feeling that the American people will accept weak evidence because of the racial and religious connections of the Iraqis and the terrorists. A connection we would be more cautious to make about anglos and christians. Despite the weak assertion that we are not at war with Islam, I am sure that many fundamentalists are reassured by the liberal dose of religious overtones present in the president's speeches. The republicans in the house and senate have appointed themselves as protectors of the president, usually by pointing the Unpatriotic Finger at the offending person who dares question the "commander in chief". Even legitimate debate receives the once over to drive back any criticism. -- Political gain comes foremost before all else. Iraq will become a tool of the Bush Administration in their political strategy. Some would argue that this is already the case. I agree. Readers of the John Dilulio letter, a former member of the whitehouse team on Faith-Based issues know that with Karl Rove in the navigator position that no decision gets made without political calculations. Sometimes this means they never get around to substantive debate about the real-life merits of their actions. This is a by-product of Whitehouse team assembled for the intent of serving the political needs of the big contributors that bankrolled the Bush takeover of the whitehouse. The foreign policy has fallen into the hands of the hawks that were brought in to re-employ some old Bush and Reagan troops and to baby sit the foreign policy deficient Bush.What would be the worst case scenario is one in which the Bush politicos throw out all pretext of handing over power to the Iraqi citizens and start using the natural and human resources as bargaining tools for political favors. Do we have the confidence that this will not be the case. I think the historical evidence for this administration speaks volumes to that effect. -- The Bush administration's loyalty to the idea that public domain resources should be handed over to the wealthy to manage for the rest of us. And I fear that this guiding principle will be used in the decision making process in Iraq. This would lead to the handing over of Iraqi assets to whoever lobbies the US government for that privilege. Most importantly oil, after that, everything else. This policy held prominence in the United States up until 9/11 when the focus shifted to foreign affairs and the "war on terrorism". The Bush administration though has not stopped with the transfer of public assets into the hands of private corporations. Just witness the massive tax cuts that get passed even as the federal government slides further into deficits. -- The diplomatic process by which this war was executed undermined the credibility President and the United States. This only adds to the distrust created by the 2000 presidential election. On numerous occasions the president was spreading false or misleading information to bolster support for his decision. This fact makes it clear that none of these reasons were primary justifications for the invasion or else their falsification would have halted the process. Instead new reasons would crop up to replace them. It will also be difficult to determine the success of the rebuilding of Iraq. The evidence of our success will be as suspect as the evidence for our invasion. Indeed Rumsfeld has floated the idea that Saddam will falsify civilian Iraqi deaths. There will be pressure to preserve the "Knight on a White Horse" image that helped make this war go down easier with the American public. Any resulting political institution will be hailed as a success even if it fails to meet expectations. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
