WHOSE WAR WAS IT?

WHOSE WAR WAS IT?

By Peter Fredson

November 26, 2005

Whose war was it really? Was it Bush’s War? Dick Cheney’s War? Karl Rove’s War?

There is an honest debate among bloggers and reporters about which person in the Bush administration decided that invading Iraq, for whatever reason, was a good idea. All three are neocons immersed in the philosophy of preemption, domination, and aggressivity as means to imperial glory. Any one of the three were certainly capable of putting forth this strategy for the new administration to follow. Or were other more sinister people to blame?

Did any one person dominate the drive to dominate? Was there an accidental coalescence of people and institutions urging the destruction of the Wall of Separation of Church and State, or was it a conspiracy? Was it mainly a drive to ensure supremacy of wealthy elite, a compliant religious assembly, or power-hungry militarists?

How about the avid televangelists, the white supremacists, the ultra-conservative media owners, the gung-ho war profiteers, a political operative, a very powerful lobbyist group or someone else on a mission toward fascism, domination, or some hidden ideology? There were hundreds of avid zealots like Paul Weyerich, John Rendon, William Kristol, and wealthy people who started mind-dumbing “foundations,” like the Heritage Foundation, which had sinister and malevolent intentions on the democracy which bore them.

It may be been all of the above, that decided political action by deceit, stealth, and imposition was the key to dominance to override any objections of democracy to the imposition of ideological reconstruction of the country. Newt Gingrich certainly took advantage of all of the factors, and ex-Nixonians still seething with resentment joined him with gusto.

We may have to wait until some sycophant, with a bad conscience, decides to emulate Deep Throat. The Bush administration, for all its shabby grasp of history, nevertheless learned a lesson from Nixon. Don’t make any recordings, don’t keep notes, and don’t leak information. The three-fold defense of Bush against the Dark Side of Public opinion is: secrecy, denial and obfuscation. Lying, deceit, misinformation, “spinning the truth” are considered legitimate means for governing a diverse populace. That is why it is so difficult to “pin them down” on anything.

What was discussed when the fat-cat energy executives met with Dick Cheney to draft legislation about energy? What was discussed or promised when Bush met with fundamentalist leaders before the first election? Who put forth the proposal of the merging of state and church, when, and under what circumstances was it approved? What was discussed or promised when Bush met with Republican fat-cats before he was approved as a candidate? How much did the influence of George’s daddy affect his choice of candidacy and what was promised to the party?

Why are there usually 100% of Republican votes for anything Bush proposes, regardless of how unwise or stupid it might be? What sort of pressure or coercion or punishment meets the single Republican who dares to criticize the Emperor? Are cash contributions and assured votes enough to bribe politicians to prostitute themselves, disgrace themselves, in return for their assured votes in Congress, hoping that secrecy and denial will never let their treachery become public? Do they really believe that they must hang together solidly or they will all hang separately?

Several hundred questions like these could, should, legitimately be asked and answered for a viable democracy to succeed, unless dirty tactics turn out to be a good approach toward an open and honest Presidency. Some people believe that the ends do legitimize the means.

Senator McCain, so far, is the only Republican that publicly broke with Bush on the issue of torture and abuse, mainly because of his personal experience in the matter. Even then he was ever-so-delicate in his approach, and still upholds Bush even though he was the object of dirty tactics from the Bush people during elections. How can a President who lies, misrepresents, evades, and obfuscates, attract any loyalty? It’s a mystery to me.

WHOSE GOD SAID “GO TO WAR?”

It was most intriguing to learn that Bush invaded Iraq because his God told him to do it. We have several statements that he talks to his God, but it is rare to hear of any answers he gets.
Any President that creates legislation on the basis of selected quotes from his favorite sacred book is obviously highly suspect of being under an illusion, mental aberration, or indoctrination of some sort.

Certainly that is not the American way since prior to Independence or later. We tend to follow the Constitution after it was framed by the Founders, not some manuscripts of desert rabbis of a Neolithic minor culture perpetually quarreling with their neighbors. But Bush would alter our Constitution at the drop of a quotation from Jerry Falwell to accommodate his religious beliefs. He sees himself as not subject to man-made law but only to his version of whatever passes for a God among his loyal fundamentalists.

In fact, we sometimes think of Bush as above the law, as evinced by specific advice from his highly selected Attorneys, such as Ashcroft or Gonzales, which had certain contempt for civil rights and for the efficacy of torture and abuse.

Bush exhibits a fascination for fantasy in his life. He avoids reality. His endless photo-ops are not charity, nor compassion, nor kindness but carefully scripted theater productions intended to improve his image. To that end he struts, swaggers, smiles broadly, shakes every hand in reach, pats little black boys on the head. It’s all fake, all illusion. He might pardon a turkey for Thanksgiving but he didn’t pardon any human from death during his term as Governor of Texas.

His next step logically would be to put to death anyone who masturbates, as they are murdering several hundred thousand sperm with each wallop. Republican Senators spoke fondly of castrating Bill Clinton for getting full-blown relief from an intern, although Bush got his relief from cutting brush and strumming a guitar during Katrina. Matter of choice, I guess.

He showed great compassion toward Terri Schiavo, and even approved special treatment in Congress for her, but he sent 2,100 of his “brave boys” to their compassionate deaths to get oil, land, and a huge embassy from a country he is destroying. He might have to pardon Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice later, and perhaps some Republican Senators, so keep tuned.

As popularity polls for Bush keep slipping downward we can expect a spirited defense from someone with an extraordinary ego, a tight grasp on fantasy, some loyal cohorts who will back any lies he invents, and a host of crude or stupid actions ending up with a larger deficit, less support for the aged, sick and poor, more attacks on the environment, and several more billionaires.

Evidently it’s all “worth it” to our imperial leader of the chosen ones.

We all wish Bush would tell us when it is no longer "worth it". How many more dead US troops must he accept? How many more dead Iraqi civilians? How many more corrupt corporations? How many more proselytizers masquerading as advisors, mercenaries or contractors. Is he waiting until Jerry Falwell can ship a million bibles to the Muslims? Is he waiting until his large bases or embassy staff are in place? Does he want to seize another palace for winter vacation when cutting brush in Crawford palls? WHEN, George, WHEN?