Saturday, May 31, 2003

TALKING TO TOM   In today's NY Times, Tom Friedman offers his "Theory of Everything" on the issue of why the world hates us.  Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/01/opinion/01FRIE.html His entire premise assumes that we would be at this ridiculous stage without the Bushies.  He's wrong.  He also welcomed comments on his column, so I wrote this:   Dear Tom:   Your Theory of Everything left everything to be desired.  Except for one sentence about unilateralism, you completely ignore the radical change in American foreign policy represented by the Bush administration.  There has been nothing like this before or since.  I was surprised to see your theory assume that much of the world would still hate us without Bush.  That is not the case.  Before Bush, we were well-respected around the world as partners.  Most who hate us now don't hate America or what we truly represent.  They hate the Bush administration.   Look at where we were in Clinton's last year.  We were at peace and well-respected everywhere around the world.  Clinton was the first US president to understand that the future of the world was diverse culturally, ethnically, racially and religiously; and he saw such diversity as a strength.  President Clinton could go anywhere in the world and would be treated as a valued member of the world community.  The US was no less the world's only superpower than it is now, but Clinton refused to bludgeon the world with our strength.  Even when many objected to our rescue of the endangered populations of Kosovo, he treated those who object with respect and was able to work with them successfully on many other issues.   Then came Bush.  Among the first things Bush did in office is throw out the Kyoto accords and the ABM treaty.  He welded himself indelibly to the radical Sharon regime in Israel -- suddenly, the Israeli policy in the Middle East was our policy.  Before 9/11, his administration plotted for an excuse to invade Iraq.  This caused not a little unease in the world, but we got a break, of a sort.  We got 9/11.   In the time immediately after 9/11, the world understood the violation of our nation by criminal foreign elements.  Flowers were laid at the door steps of our embassies around the world.  Even if Bush had gotten off to a rough start, he had a great opportunity to bring the world together to fight the elements that attacked us.  Instead, the world got more belligerence, more unilateral action, more treaty-busting, more international law-breaking.  We invaded Afghanistan to no great result -- Al Quida is just as active as ever -- but the world gave us a pass on that one because of our national tragedy.  But many nations saw their citizens arrested and detained by US agent in Guantonamo and elsewhere without charges or due process.  But the worst was yet to come.   Out of the dust of the Twin Towers, Bush got his invasion of Iraq.  He allowed one lie to prevail with Americans -- that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 -- and drummed up a few more, like massive WMD.  The world community at the UN and elsewhere twisted itself into a pretzel trying to prevent the invasion and assure the US that the supposed problem promoted by Bush -- WMD -- could be solved by other means.  Now, with the invasion over, Bush continues to pummel our allies like France and Germany over their righteous refusal to go along.  And the danger of WMD in Iraq is being exposed as the Big Lie that it is.   If I were in another part of the world, I don't know if I would bother working up the emotion of "hate" for the US.  I would think the world eventually would just mark us as irrelevant and work with us as little as possible.  Right now, the world community is probably holding its collective breath, hoping the US electorate throws the Bushies out on their ears in '04.  Beyond that, we really are going to get in an irreversible situation where we are not respected.  Our firepower is only as good as the last country we conquer.  And, terrorism being the last refuge of the powerless, we should understand what comes of wagging our might and power at the rest of the world.   Thanks.  You can look at my blog if you want at http://blogs.salon.com/0002042/. 10:37:15 PM    comment []

THE BIG LIE COMES HOME TO ROOST The Big Lie in the run up to the invasion of Iraq (now called the "conflict" or "battle" by the Bushies) was that Hussein had these horrible WMDs. Horrible! Bio, Chem, Anthrax! Tons of it! Ready to go! (No method of delivery beyond its own borders, but...) Big threat to USA! But, even in the Bush regime – the most secretive and deceptive of all administrations – the lie eventually gets exposed for what it was. After several unmistakable clues – the Iraqis did not use WMD in defense of the invasion and thousands of soldiers combing the Iraqi countryside has not found even one trace of WMD – the Bushies held close to their pledge that the WMD would be found. Even Junior, the Boy President, continues to claim that the WMD will be found. Tony Blair has the sleep of the just on this issue, too – but just wait until he figures out he’s been had. As usual, the slip-up of truth always happens when the victorious start beating their chests. Despicable radical war philosopher Paul Wolfowitz gave a victory interview to Vanity Fair recently and disclosed what should have been obvious to everyone – the Bushies promoted the WMD line because it was the best spin that brought in the most support for the invasion here and overseas. Unlike their factious statements before the invasion, the decision to invade was made for strategic geopolitical reasons (one reason cited by the Wolf-man: we get to move our bases out of Saudi Arabia) and the Bushies strategically made up bad-gay-Saddam stories to fool people into supporting it.  First came the decision to invade; then the false justifications for public consumption. The world community is in an uproar about this at just the right time. Bush is running around the continent right now, embarrassing himself by giving props to compliant puppets like Poland (always a pliant puppet for somebody) and making things worse with historic partners like France and Germany. His message for Europe – essentially "my way or the highway" – might have worked, for a short time, if the Iraq invasion would have been successful at accomplishing something tangible and if the USA was found have truly improved security through its belligerence. But now – with chaos in Iraq, new terrorist attacks, a heightened "terror-alert" (conveniently reduced just before the trip) and the continued unraveling of the Big Lie – Bush is faced with questions that he cannot answer, even if someone in his team of handlers screws up and lets someone get close enough to ask them. All of the countries that refused to support the illegal invasion of Iraq have lived to tell the tale, and their influence in the rest of the world increases the more their stance proves to be the correct one. All of them – like the Democrats at home, unfortunately – will be diplomatically nice at the G-8 summit, pretending they hadn’t been lied to by the world’s only superpower and letting bygones be. However, you will be able to see and hear them rolling their eyes as they sit across from the radical, out-of-control Americans, wondering what they are going to try to pull next. With the Bushies in charge, US credibility in the world is approaching zero. At home, it is said, the citizens don’t care much that they were lied to in the drive to invasion. The result – deposing Hussein – is good, they are told, so who cares how we got there. [By the way, looking at the ungovernable chaos in Iraq, is it any wonder that the winners of any power struggle there are going to be a gang of ruthless thugs like Hussein? Or that the biggest in-country supporters of the US invasion were simply those who lost the last power struggle?] And it’s not like the media is exactly in a good position to expose the Big Lie, when they spent all of their space leading up to the invasion swallowing Bushie bullshit whole and presuming in every news article that the WMD existed. Same with the Dems, who silently stood by and let the Bushies twist intelligence reporters and reports like a pretzel to justify their campaign. But, as time goes on, there is faint hope the Bushies will have to answer the question about WMDs. In the end, they will be left with a couple of naked trucks and they should have a lot of explaining to do. Whether they have to make those explanations has a lot to do with whether the media and the Dems do their jobs in the coming months. Don’t hold your breath. 12:12:35 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Michael B. Plaisted. Last update: 6/8/2003; 9:01:38 AM.