The Real Grave Threat to Peace

On October 7, 2002, President Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, in which he called Iraq a grave threat to peace, and that "knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst." Today, five years after the U.S invasion of Iraq, as U.S. and Iraqi body counts continue to climb, the conclusion of this bloody occupation is nowhere in sight. A few weeks ago, President Bush claimed the Iraq war was "noble, necessary and just" even though the initial rationales for war -- stock piles of chemical and biological weapons, an active nuclear weapons program, and direct links to al Qaeda -- have turned out to be false. Bush remains steadfast in defending his decision to invade Iraq despite all the horrible consequences. If the U.S. had kept the inspectors in Iraq instead of invading, it's hard to imagine Saddam Hussein killing between 82,591 -- 90,115 Iraqi civilians, or 4011 U.S. troops. It is unlikely that 1 in 5 Iraqis would have been forced to flee their homes for neighboring countries like Syria. And, of course, who can forget the billions of dollars already spent on this never-ending war. But none of that really matters to President Bush. He lives in his own version of reality -- one where future historians will revere him as another Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill.

And then there's John McCain. The Arizona Senator has made his support for the initial invasion and continued occupation, a cornerstone of his campaign for the Presidency. He has also hinted that Iran could be the next target of U.S. military action (see "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"). The question is, has John McCain learned anything from the tragic destruction of Iraqi civil society under the guise of "protecting" the United States from some perceived threat? Unfortunately, no. Senator McCain is banking on the same currency that has served the Bush administration so well in the past: fear. Playing the fear card means never having to tell the complete truth. McCain has been claiming repeatedly that al Qaeda is being trained by Iran and then unleashed to attack coalition forces in Iraq. Although McCain did correct himself, one must understand that his deceptions are intentional. He is employing the same propaganda tactics used by the Bush administration to connect al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as partners in crime. We must keep John McCain out of the White House. After all, he has already told us that there will be more wars. We must insist on peaceful negotiations instead of war. We must keep the option of war as a very last resort. This is why it's so imperative that we support the Democratic nominee for President come November, whoever it may be.

Comments

[Don Adams]

The latest rationale for the war has to do with U.S. "strategic interests" in the area and the world. Part of the problem is that Bush/Cheny have made virtually no attempt to explain their conception of these interests to the American people. Public accountability and the public oversight of political power seem to be at an all-time low in this country. In addition to speaking out, e.g. in blogs, we'll have our say in the ballot boxes before too long. But what is at stake is more than just who holds office: we will also be voting on the extent to which we the people demand to be "in the loop" when it comes to our "strategic interests" in the world. In other words, we will be voting on the extent to which we in this country still value democracy. Let's push for a big turnout, and let's make McCain pay a big political price for the role he pledges to play in the erosion of government by the people.

[Ralph DeMarco]

I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, I think people are too wrapped up with entertainment (TV, sports, gaming) and their jobs/kids to research the issues we know are important. But I hope that enough enlightened voters take the advantage back from the Evangelicals who made the difference in many states for W. The question of being part of setting a foreign policy agenda most Americans agree with is tough. W. said that Clinton had been too interventionist with his foreign policy in the 2000 debates, then he went and invaded Iraq. So even voters can't trust what they say their agenda is, so what do you do?

I'm not optimistic about the future of accountability. Remember that Ford pardoned Nixon for all past crimes, even before he knew the full extent of them. Historians almost all agree the Ford made the right decision to spare Americans from the anguish of a President dragged to court like everyone else and maybe even be sent to - gasp - jail. Bit I think that once you make the President safe from all criminal charges he/she has little fear of Congress to hold them accountable even for violating the Constitution, Geneva Convention, Military Code of Conduct, etc, (not to mention the patronage, politicization of the Justice Dept). Nobody has ever been as stupid as Nixon since he lost that case about his recordings and had to hand them over to us, the people. All Pres since then have been very secretive, and W. has set a new record.

[Don Adams]

Your comment on the pardoning of Nixon reminded me of Edmund Burke's _Reflections on the Revolution in France_ (published in 1790). Early on (beginning on p.16 of the Oxford World's Classics edition) he ridicules the idea that the people have a right "to cashier [their governers] for misconduct." With respect to the King he says (p.29), "As he is not to obey us, but as we are to obey the law in him, our constitution has made no sort of provision towards rendering him, as a servant, in any degree responsible." King Bush, eh?