Gentle readers, allow me first to apologize for the length
of this article. The consideration of a president’s performance is a
complicated matter. We must consider not only what he has
accomplished/attempted, but the reality of what can really be expected of
him---with the cooperation, or not, of Congress and the reality of what WE
expect and will tolerate. I have lumped together these two subjects because “American
Exceptionalism” is intertwined in constraint of what can be done.
It’s easy to direct anger and frustration at our previous government when so much of its machinations were so repugnant to many of us. I’m afraid this is misdirected anger. For starters, we were not blind-sided by the Bush administration. Regardless of his campaign promises in the 2000 election and regardless of the dubious election that put him in office, by 2004 we had ample information and ample familiarity, including the evidence of Abu-Ghraib atrocities in April of that year, to have swept this man into the gutter. How many among us actually believed that the government was not behind this? The contention that the 2004 election was tainted is irrelevant; Bush should have been repudiated by a 90% margin! The reality that half of us voted for him in the face of all that we had seen is the issue that needs to be considered.
We are responsible for the misdeeds of our government. We have learned over and over that we cannot trust our government---we know they lie to us. We cannot trust our government to act on behalf of our own country, much less with integrity toward other countries. Any citizen who is not aware of this after Vietnam, alone, is clearly not engaged.
Mr. Bush was an under-achieving, under-educated man who rose to political heights, not because of his intelligence or ability to do anything well, but because of his name and his election machinery. He made no claim to be well-read or well-informed. He openly promoted religious dogma and advanced the notion of “American Exceptionalism.” He flaunted his lack of sophistication by speaking in “good-ol'-boy” vernacular, and represented the Republican Party’s repudiation of intellect. This approach to politics is totally laughable, except it works! It got him elected. Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and Rush Limbaugh represent the intellectual wing of the Republican Party!
This has become our national character. Mr. Bush is US! His government was a perfect reflection of who we are: under-educated, under-achieving, apathetic slackers, who are more interested in the NFL than the welfare of their country. Our recent prosperity has come from the naive benefaction of foreign lenders. We worry more about taxes than educating our children. We blame hard-working immigrants for our problems; we care more about Paris Hilton than Paris, France. We don’t pay our own bills; why should we care if the government doesn’t pay its bills. We vote for a man based on whether we “like” him, rather than what kind of a president he promises to be.
It’s in the shadow of OUR perfidy to our country that we must consider the performance of Mr. Obama. In 2006 we swept Republicans from office in outrage over Bush’s policies. What did the Democrats do to undermine his programs? NOTHING! If Bush were a Democrat, he would have been impeached---successfully---by the Republicans. But the Democratic Congress is implicated in all that transpired in the last eight years. All but a few supported the wars.
The resolution to support Mr. Bush’s war plans was based on three conditions: 1) proof of weapons of mass destruction, 2) proof of collaboration with al Qaeda and 3) proof of the connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. None of these conditions was met; the government issued flimsy lies on behalf of all three and repeated them over and over, based on the accurate assumption that we would be stupid enough to believe them. The government’s claim of connection between al Qaeda and Iraq consisted of a confession, subsequently retracted, by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, induced under torture after rendition and finally murder in Libya. For MWDs, we had “yellow cake”, aluminum tubes, Valerie Plame and “Curveball”; there was no evidence to connect 9/11, only claims. We were caught up in the drums of war because of 9/11, swept by passion into a reckless, irresponsible catastrophe. Aside from a few lonely voices, Congress, with no more sense than we, failed to rein in the president because it recognized that we were on board with the contagion of war fever. We swallowed the president's lies and backed his policies largely because we're cursed by the greatest military force the world has ever seen. Our reckless presidents use this might with our blessing because we think we can get away with it.
The so-called liberal press promoted the president’s plans by daily trumpeting his false claims, glorifying our presumed danger and determination to allay the peril. "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," says Howard Kurtz, the Post's media critic. "But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions." A “balanced” press would have pointed out in each story advancing government proposals that there was no conclusive evidence to support the claims. If the press were actually "liberal", front page articles would have appeared daily pointing out that the government had no case for war. The powerful scions who own the media have a stake in war. It's good for commerce.
Congress was briefed about “enhanced interrogation” as early as 2002; this was seemingly endorsed by press and journalists from both sides of the aisle. All of these people were also afraid to oppose this hideous policy. (See Jacob Weisberg's article from NEWSWEEK.) There is some contention now that our congressmen were not informed, but it largely comes down to “he said, she said”. There was ample information that our government was not behaving properly or legally. Beyond doing nothing, in 2006, in full view of the American public, congress passed the Military Commissions Act. Rejecting core American values, this act effectively undermines the Constitution, giving the president powers to be judge and jury over any individual whom he cares to claim is a “threat to the state." This was utter congressional capitulation, absolving government officials (including implicated members of congress themselves) of responsibility and prosecution from violation of the War Crimes Act. The president signed this abomination, which might have been titled: The George W. Bush Absolution Act, into law.
Unfortunately, we can't expect Congress to act on behalf of our laws in face of public opprobrium, much less a feckless president. Congress has no interest in assuming its constitutional duties as a one-third partner in running our government. Their sole interest lies in getting re-elected. In the early seventies, it was public outrage---outright rebellion and Congressional plug-pulling that impelled Mr. Nixon to evacuate his armies from Vietnam. Where are these young people, these people who care, now?
There was a time when we expected our government to have integrity and be responsible. Well within the memory of many, our leaders worried about at least appearing to do the right thing. This changed in the eighties. In 1979 President Carter pointed out the impending danger of oil imports and the strain of imbalanced trade accounts. In response to the clarion call of a looming threat to our nation, among the three presidential candidates in 1980, Carter promised to tackle this problem directly, John Anderson (a Republican running against the Reagan ticket) promised a “starter” fifty cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. Ronald Reagan promised “Morning in America:” no problems, no sacrifice, no tax, no trade problem, infinite oil---just elect him. That’s the message we wanted to hear; and the Republican Party has been running on that platform ever since.
We talk about patriotism and wear a flag on our lapel, but the vast majority of our citizens have no more interest in the welfare or integrity of their country than of their own household budgets. The integrity of our political system requires that the government follows its own laws. It is our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable to this standard. Instead, we accept, and we allow our government to operate from the dangerous premise of American Exceptionalism.
The roots of the term are attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, who noted in the 19th Century, that the United States held a special place among nations, because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy. The term itself did not emerge until after World War II when it was embraced by neoconservative pundits in what was described in the International Herald Tribune as "an ugly twist of late". Since that war we have been congratulating ourselves for “saving the world” and proceeding with the notion that “the world owes us.” We hear this from our government, we hear this from our parents; we hear it from the media. We are so accustomed to the notion that somehow our nation doesn’t have to operate by the same rules as other countries, that we're inured to it.
A couple of examples:
In the 1996 presidential campaign, President Clinton received contributions from sources connected with the Chinese government. This incident was made into a scandal because it’s in violation of our laws proscribing foreign powers from meddling in our politics. Clinton said, “Obviously it would be a very serious matter for the United States if any country were to attempt to funnel funds to one of our parties for any reason whatever.”
Fueled by the Republican campaign committee, Americans were outraged over this matter. Yet our government has made an art-form of meddling in the affairs of foreign countries and their political process for over eighty years. The list of specifics is epic. We manipulate the economies of foreign countries. We engage in all forms of shenanigans to disrupt their political process. We prop up dictators, foment political unrest, directly overthrow popular governments and occasionally execute heads of state, all under the rationale that it is in our national interest. WE, the people, accept the notion that this is OK for our government---because our national interest somehow trumps that of the rest of the world.(!)
And the (so-called liberal) press backs this fully. In recent years the press has trumpeted the government’s outrage over Iranian backed insurgency in Iraq…as though Iran has no right to impact the political course of their next door neighbor, thwarting our efforts. We did the same in regard to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. (How would we respond if Turkey invaded Mexico to overthrow their government?) Yet we obviously have every right to invade a country on the other side of the world, one that posed no threat to us? Our citizenry, you and I, are passive to this outrageous hypocrisy because we have bought into “American Exceptionalism!”
So in regard to the pursuance by the Justice Department of retribution from Bush administration officials over torture, the tangled web of responsibility that surrounds that administration would ultimately never be penetrated. Who, after all, is responsible?
For those who think, "The United States of America does not commit torture", it's time to face reality. Our government has a long relationship with torture. Aside from clear torture conducted during the Civil War, more recently we need only look to the Vietnam War. The United States sponsored, trained, and funded Operation Phoenix, which approved torture by our allies, the South Vietnamese government. By the CIA's own account, over 20,000 suspected insurgents were killed or tortured to death with our approval. We're now re-visiting how we trained torturers and allowed death squads to operate in Central America. During World War II we rounded up 120,000 Japanese Americans and put them in concentration camps. And now we think that there's torture going on by our allies in Iraq. Presumably, it's a matter of proximity to the evil. If you're doing it directly, is it different than if you're encouraging somebody else to do it (extraordinary rendition)?
So what is different now? The difference is that this has been made legal...this was officially sanctioned. This was ordered by the President. The Department of Justice made memos saying you can do this. The principals, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, sat in meetings and talked about interrogations that were plainly illegal, according to our laws, and according to treaties we have signed. All of it is now laid out before the public. If you look at Fox News or a discussion of this on the conservative side you find a strong assertion that: "Not only should this stuff have been done, but we should keep doing it."
So when administration lawyers were giving the go-ahead, when congress had knowledge of these measures and gave at least tacit approval, when the American public knew what was going on and allowed it to resume for years, who is responsible?
I personally am responsible. I learned of this, as did we all, in 2004. I was outraged, but did not fire off letters to my representatives over one more particular, disgusting episode in our government’s behavior. It was so obviously unacceptable that a letter was unnecessary. I failed to organize or participate in expressions of public dissent. We are all responsible for the actions of the Bush government. It's likely that culpability by top members of the Bush administration could never be proved in a court of law. I believe Mr. Obama is wise to stay clear of this matter.
And to what extent do we allow our government to prosecute anyone that the president chooses to call “enemy of the state”? How long before our president includes political enemies in such a broad category? And who, after all, are the terrorists anyway? If someone planted a bomb in the Pacific View Shopping Mall, killing 359 shoppers and clerks, we would call that person a “terrorist”. What if a bomb destroys a shopping mall in Baghdad, or a suburban housing tract in Kabul---a bomb that happened to be lodged in the warhead of a Cruise missile, fired from a U. S. Navy ship, and ordered by our president? Do we have the right to decide this is OK---because our lying government claims it’s in support of our national security? Only if one accepts the notion of “American Exceptionalism” can this not also be recognized as "state-sponsored terrorism".
And who is to say that such bombing makes you and me safer, even if there may have been two "terrorists" among the 320 dead? How many of the thousands of survivors of this massacre, will be compelled to take up arms and vengeance against us in any form of army that presents itself. Terrorists, no. These are freedom fighters. Any real "war on terrorism" must begin at home.
I’m sorry, friends; bombing foreign countries is not OK. Yet 90% of our ovine population supports this outrage. The “Republican Noise Machine”, led by Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, is on a propaganda blitz to convince us that any effort to undermine the policies leading to the mess they have put us in will be responsible for future and inevitable attacks. What's behind the unprecedented maneuvering of our former administration? This is much more than "legacy".
If Cheney and the noisy, right-wing rabble can coerce the new administration to continue the policies of the previous administration for even a month, it validates the Bush government and puts prosecution out of reach. On the other hand, if Mr. Obama is successful in defusing or even reducing the threat of international terrorism, this represents the greatest threat to these craven demagogues.
Additionally, engaging this rabble (Rush, Fox News, Hannity, etc) in fear-mongering over terrorism lends credence to the notion that policies of the new administration will have been responsible for future incidents of terrorism. In fact, the likelihood of such incidents is very high. The only likely solutions to this problem are either to perpetuate the Bush “Homeland Security” program, leading to a fortified police state, or stop doing the things that cause people to want to kill us. Cheney's solution is obviously the former; but we would have elected John McCain if that was where we wanted to go. Cheney is still trying to win the last election---after defeat. (Hey, Republicans did that in California in 2003 after losing the election to Grey Davis.)
To proceed with the second alternative, the American people must abandon the concept of “American Exceptionalism” and demand that our government conduct foreign affairs with integrity. We must come to realize how oppressive our foreign policy is. Please read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins for a primer on the subject. It's relatively short and quite engaging. We need to make the connection between these policies and terror! We need to care enough about our country and our world to do this.
As for what Mr. Obama should do, he has already stated that government officials complicit in torture will not be prosecuted. This ambiguous move side-steps the criminality of the policy, lending to it tacit approval. We believe Mr. Obama should pardon complicit government officials, as Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. This would make open acknowledgement of the criminality involved. Acceptance of a pardon is acknowledgement of having committed the crime. Next, the government should make (quiet) diplomatic overtures to the world court, opening the door for prosecution of war criminals.
Meanwhile, it’s cathartic that our nation should pay penance for the mess that our arrogance has created. We need this agony, obviously having forgotten the Vietnam War in a short generation. Mr. Bush had every intention of marching through Iraq, Iran and on, as Alexander, spreading his "vision of democracy,” Had he really found "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, would we have actually permitted this? With the right-wing rabble pushing it, I suspect so.
Real change must come from us. We must first realize that “American Exceptionalism” is a myth. We must come to realize that the impact of meddling in internal affairs of other nations---our foreign policy---is pejorative, not only to the world, but to us. We are not advocating detachment, rather a foreign policy that leads to a world that is better for the nations to which we give real aid, not the kind of aid that leads to enrichment of American companies and economic as well as military dominion. Likewise, we must come to realize that our immense military budget and strength is a liability, every bit as much as it’s an asset. We have seen up close what this power can do in the hands of a man like President Bush. Only the wisest among us is capable of using it responsibly.
We have shown enough wisdom to elect a person who appears to be capable of changing our direction. This is a good, first step. But the bottom line here is that unfortunately, President Bush was a reflection of us. If we want significant change to our institutions, then WE have to change. It’s unreasonable to think that by electing a different kind of president, we can change our institutions, in four short years, much less a few months. This process may take a generation. Just last week Mr. Obama signaled to the Israelis that we will no longer endorse the illegal establishment of settlements in occupied lands. On so many fronts Mr. Obama is on track that Robbinsense endorses his efforts; we give him a B+ for his 100-day grade.
It’s easy to direct anger and frustration at our previous government when so much of its machinations were so repugnant to many of us. I’m afraid this is misdirected anger. For starters, we were not blind-sided by the Bush administration. Regardless of his campaign promises in the 2000 election and regardless of the dubious election that put him in office, by 2004 we had ample information and ample familiarity, including the evidence of Abu-Ghraib atrocities in April of that year, to have swept this man into the gutter. How many among us actually believed that the government was not behind this? The contention that the 2004 election was tainted is irrelevant; Bush should have been repudiated by a 90% margin! The reality that half of us voted for him in the face of all that we had seen is the issue that needs to be considered.
We are responsible for the misdeeds of our government. We have learned over and over that we cannot trust our government---we know they lie to us. We cannot trust our government to act on behalf of our own country, much less with integrity toward other countries. Any citizen who is not aware of this after Vietnam, alone, is clearly not engaged.
Mr. Bush was an under-achieving, under-educated man who rose to political heights, not because of his intelligence or ability to do anything well, but because of his name and his election machinery. He made no claim to be well-read or well-informed. He openly promoted religious dogma and advanced the notion of “American Exceptionalism.” He flaunted his lack of sophistication by speaking in “good-ol'-boy” vernacular, and represented the Republican Party’s repudiation of intellect. This approach to politics is totally laughable, except it works! It got him elected. Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and Rush Limbaugh represent the intellectual wing of the Republican Party!
This has become our national character. Mr. Bush is US! His government was a perfect reflection of who we are: under-educated, under-achieving, apathetic slackers, who are more interested in the NFL than the welfare of their country. Our recent prosperity has come from the naive benefaction of foreign lenders. We worry more about taxes than educating our children. We blame hard-working immigrants for our problems; we care more about Paris Hilton than Paris, France. We don’t pay our own bills; why should we care if the government doesn’t pay its bills. We vote for a man based on whether we “like” him, rather than what kind of a president he promises to be.
It’s in the shadow of OUR perfidy to our country that we must consider the performance of Mr. Obama. In 2006 we swept Republicans from office in outrage over Bush’s policies. What did the Democrats do to undermine his programs? NOTHING! If Bush were a Democrat, he would have been impeached---successfully---by the Republicans. But the Democratic Congress is implicated in all that transpired in the last eight years. All but a few supported the wars.
The resolution to support Mr. Bush’s war plans was based on three conditions: 1) proof of weapons of mass destruction, 2) proof of collaboration with al Qaeda and 3) proof of the connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. None of these conditions was met; the government issued flimsy lies on behalf of all three and repeated them over and over, based on the accurate assumption that we would be stupid enough to believe them. The government’s claim of connection between al Qaeda and Iraq consisted of a confession, subsequently retracted, by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, induced under torture after rendition and finally murder in Libya. For MWDs, we had “yellow cake”, aluminum tubes, Valerie Plame and “Curveball”; there was no evidence to connect 9/11, only claims. We were caught up in the drums of war because of 9/11, swept by passion into a reckless, irresponsible catastrophe. Aside from a few lonely voices, Congress, with no more sense than we, failed to rein in the president because it recognized that we were on board with the contagion of war fever. We swallowed the president's lies and backed his policies largely because we're cursed by the greatest military force the world has ever seen. Our reckless presidents use this might with our blessing because we think we can get away with it.
The so-called liberal press promoted the president’s plans by daily trumpeting his false claims, glorifying our presumed danger and determination to allay the peril. "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," says Howard Kurtz, the Post's media critic. "But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions." A “balanced” press would have pointed out in each story advancing government proposals that there was no conclusive evidence to support the claims. If the press were actually "liberal", front page articles would have appeared daily pointing out that the government had no case for war. The powerful scions who own the media have a stake in war. It's good for commerce.
Congress was briefed about “enhanced interrogation” as early as 2002; this was seemingly endorsed by press and journalists from both sides of the aisle. All of these people were also afraid to oppose this hideous policy. (See Jacob Weisberg's article from NEWSWEEK.) There is some contention now that our congressmen were not informed, but it largely comes down to “he said, she said”. There was ample information that our government was not behaving properly or legally. Beyond doing nothing, in 2006, in full view of the American public, congress passed the Military Commissions Act. Rejecting core American values, this act effectively undermines the Constitution, giving the president powers to be judge and jury over any individual whom he cares to claim is a “threat to the state." This was utter congressional capitulation, absolving government officials (including implicated members of congress themselves) of responsibility and prosecution from violation of the War Crimes Act. The president signed this abomination, which might have been titled: The George W. Bush Absolution Act, into law.
Unfortunately, we can't expect Congress to act on behalf of our laws in face of public opprobrium, much less a feckless president. Congress has no interest in assuming its constitutional duties as a one-third partner in running our government. Their sole interest lies in getting re-elected. In the early seventies, it was public outrage---outright rebellion and Congressional plug-pulling that impelled Mr. Nixon to evacuate his armies from Vietnam. Where are these young people, these people who care, now?
There was a time when we expected our government to have integrity and be responsible. Well within the memory of many, our leaders worried about at least appearing to do the right thing. This changed in the eighties. In 1979 President Carter pointed out the impending danger of oil imports and the strain of imbalanced trade accounts. In response to the clarion call of a looming threat to our nation, among the three presidential candidates in 1980, Carter promised to tackle this problem directly, John Anderson (a Republican running against the Reagan ticket) promised a “starter” fifty cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. Ronald Reagan promised “Morning in America:” no problems, no sacrifice, no tax, no trade problem, infinite oil---just elect him. That’s the message we wanted to hear; and the Republican Party has been running on that platform ever since.
We talk about patriotism and wear a flag on our lapel, but the vast majority of our citizens have no more interest in the welfare or integrity of their country than of their own household budgets. The integrity of our political system requires that the government follows its own laws. It is our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable to this standard. Instead, we accept, and we allow our government to operate from the dangerous premise of American Exceptionalism.
The roots of the term are attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, who noted in the 19th Century, that the United States held a special place among nations, because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy. The term itself did not emerge until after World War II when it was embraced by neoconservative pundits in what was described in the International Herald Tribune as "an ugly twist of late". Since that war we have been congratulating ourselves for “saving the world” and proceeding with the notion that “the world owes us.” We hear this from our government, we hear this from our parents; we hear it from the media. We are so accustomed to the notion that somehow our nation doesn’t have to operate by the same rules as other countries, that we're inured to it.
A couple of examples:
In the 1996 presidential campaign, President Clinton received contributions from sources connected with the Chinese government. This incident was made into a scandal because it’s in violation of our laws proscribing foreign powers from meddling in our politics. Clinton said, “Obviously it would be a very serious matter for the United States if any country were to attempt to funnel funds to one of our parties for any reason whatever.”
Fueled by the Republican campaign committee, Americans were outraged over this matter. Yet our government has made an art-form of meddling in the affairs of foreign countries and their political process for over eighty years. The list of specifics is epic. We manipulate the economies of foreign countries. We engage in all forms of shenanigans to disrupt their political process. We prop up dictators, foment political unrest, directly overthrow popular governments and occasionally execute heads of state, all under the rationale that it is in our national interest. WE, the people, accept the notion that this is OK for our government---because our national interest somehow trumps that of the rest of the world.(!)
And the (so-called liberal) press backs this fully. In recent years the press has trumpeted the government’s outrage over Iranian backed insurgency in Iraq…as though Iran has no right to impact the political course of their next door neighbor, thwarting our efforts. We did the same in regard to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. (How would we respond if Turkey invaded Mexico to overthrow their government?) Yet we obviously have every right to invade a country on the other side of the world, one that posed no threat to us? Our citizenry, you and I, are passive to this outrageous hypocrisy because we have bought into “American Exceptionalism!”
So in regard to the pursuance by the Justice Department of retribution from Bush administration officials over torture, the tangled web of responsibility that surrounds that administration would ultimately never be penetrated. Who, after all, is responsible?
For those who think, "The United States of America does not commit torture", it's time to face reality. Our government has a long relationship with torture. Aside from clear torture conducted during the Civil War, more recently we need only look to the Vietnam War. The United States sponsored, trained, and funded Operation Phoenix, which approved torture by our allies, the South Vietnamese government. By the CIA's own account, over 20,000 suspected insurgents were killed or tortured to death with our approval. We're now re-visiting how we trained torturers and allowed death squads to operate in Central America. During World War II we rounded up 120,000 Japanese Americans and put them in concentration camps. And now we think that there's torture going on by our allies in Iraq. Presumably, it's a matter of proximity to the evil. If you're doing it directly, is it different than if you're encouraging somebody else to do it (extraordinary rendition)?
So what is different now? The difference is that this has been made legal...this was officially sanctioned. This was ordered by the President. The Department of Justice made memos saying you can do this. The principals, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, sat in meetings and talked about interrogations that were plainly illegal, according to our laws, and according to treaties we have signed. All of it is now laid out before the public. If you look at Fox News or a discussion of this on the conservative side you find a strong assertion that: "Not only should this stuff have been done, but we should keep doing it."
So when administration lawyers were giving the go-ahead, when congress had knowledge of these measures and gave at least tacit approval, when the American public knew what was going on and allowed it to resume for years, who is responsible?
I personally am responsible. I learned of this, as did we all, in 2004. I was outraged, but did not fire off letters to my representatives over one more particular, disgusting episode in our government’s behavior. It was so obviously unacceptable that a letter was unnecessary. I failed to organize or participate in expressions of public dissent. We are all responsible for the actions of the Bush government. It's likely that culpability by top members of the Bush administration could never be proved in a court of law. I believe Mr. Obama is wise to stay clear of this matter.
And to what extent do we allow our government to prosecute anyone that the president chooses to call “enemy of the state”? How long before our president includes political enemies in such a broad category? And who, after all, are the terrorists anyway? If someone planted a bomb in the Pacific View Shopping Mall, killing 359 shoppers and clerks, we would call that person a “terrorist”. What if a bomb destroys a shopping mall in Baghdad, or a suburban housing tract in Kabul---a bomb that happened to be lodged in the warhead of a Cruise missile, fired from a U. S. Navy ship, and ordered by our president? Do we have the right to decide this is OK---because our lying government claims it’s in support of our national security? Only if one accepts the notion of “American Exceptionalism” can this not also be recognized as "state-sponsored terrorism".
And who is to say that such bombing makes you and me safer, even if there may have been two "terrorists" among the 320 dead? How many of the thousands of survivors of this massacre, will be compelled to take up arms and vengeance against us in any form of army that presents itself. Terrorists, no. These are freedom fighters. Any real "war on terrorism" must begin at home.
I’m sorry, friends; bombing foreign countries is not OK. Yet 90% of our ovine population supports this outrage. The “Republican Noise Machine”, led by Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, is on a propaganda blitz to convince us that any effort to undermine the policies leading to the mess they have put us in will be responsible for future and inevitable attacks. What's behind the unprecedented maneuvering of our former administration? This is much more than "legacy".
If Cheney and the noisy, right-wing rabble can coerce the new administration to continue the policies of the previous administration for even a month, it validates the Bush government and puts prosecution out of reach. On the other hand, if Mr. Obama is successful in defusing or even reducing the threat of international terrorism, this represents the greatest threat to these craven demagogues.
Additionally, engaging this rabble (Rush, Fox News, Hannity, etc) in fear-mongering over terrorism lends credence to the notion that policies of the new administration will have been responsible for future incidents of terrorism. In fact, the likelihood of such incidents is very high. The only likely solutions to this problem are either to perpetuate the Bush “Homeland Security” program, leading to a fortified police state, or stop doing the things that cause people to want to kill us. Cheney's solution is obviously the former; but we would have elected John McCain if that was where we wanted to go. Cheney is still trying to win the last election---after defeat. (Hey, Republicans did that in California in 2003 after losing the election to Grey Davis.)
To proceed with the second alternative, the American people must abandon the concept of “American Exceptionalism” and demand that our government conduct foreign affairs with integrity. We must come to realize how oppressive our foreign policy is. Please read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins for a primer on the subject. It's relatively short and quite engaging. We need to make the connection between these policies and terror! We need to care enough about our country and our world to do this.
As for what Mr. Obama should do, he has already stated that government officials complicit in torture will not be prosecuted. This ambiguous move side-steps the criminality of the policy, lending to it tacit approval. We believe Mr. Obama should pardon complicit government officials, as Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. This would make open acknowledgement of the criminality involved. Acceptance of a pardon is acknowledgement of having committed the crime. Next, the government should make (quiet) diplomatic overtures to the world court, opening the door for prosecution of war criminals.
Meanwhile, it’s cathartic that our nation should pay penance for the mess that our arrogance has created. We need this agony, obviously having forgotten the Vietnam War in a short generation. Mr. Bush had every intention of marching through Iraq, Iran and on, as Alexander, spreading his "vision of democracy,” Had he really found "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, would we have actually permitted this? With the right-wing rabble pushing it, I suspect so.
Real change must come from us. We must first realize that “American Exceptionalism” is a myth. We must come to realize that the impact of meddling in internal affairs of other nations---our foreign policy---is pejorative, not only to the world, but to us. We are not advocating detachment, rather a foreign policy that leads to a world that is better for the nations to which we give real aid, not the kind of aid that leads to enrichment of American companies and economic as well as military dominion. Likewise, we must come to realize that our immense military budget and strength is a liability, every bit as much as it’s an asset. We have seen up close what this power can do in the hands of a man like President Bush. Only the wisest among us is capable of using it responsibly.
We have shown enough wisdom to elect a person who appears to be capable of changing our direction. This is a good, first step. But the bottom line here is that unfortunately, President Bush was a reflection of us. If we want significant change to our institutions, then WE have to change. It’s unreasonable to think that by electing a different kind of president, we can change our institutions, in four short years, much less a few months. This process may take a generation. Just last week Mr. Obama signaled to the Israelis that we will no longer endorse the illegal establishment of settlements in occupied lands. On so many fronts Mr. Obama is on track that Robbinsense endorses his efforts; we give him a B+ for his 100-day grade.
No comments:
Post a Comment