yawn On Sep 10, 5:18 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Revelations of war crimes and moralizing idealism > By Charles Bogle > 10 September 2008 > > Several months before invading Iraq, President Bush dismissed > irrefutable evidence that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass > destruction. > > By the close of 2003, with no weapons of mass destruction found and > the American public beginning to question the rationale for the war, > the White House fabricated a letter that “proved” the purported links > between Iraq and al Qaeda as well as Colin Powell’s claim before the > United Nations that Niger had shipped uranium to Iraq. > > So reports the Wall Street Journal’s former senior national affairs > writer Ron Suskind in The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope > in an Age of Extremism. > > Suskind argues that these impeachable offenses are manifestations of > America’s loss of its core values and hope for a better future; and > that extremism, both in the US and the Mideast had undermined the > inability “to walk in the shoes of the ‘other.’” > > This idealism, coupled with a selective historical memory, seriously > flaws an otherwise readable and important book. > > Suskind’s evidence for his claims is compelling. A highly placed > American intelligence official, who is “always right,” told the author > that a few months before the invasion of Iraq, top British > intelligence official Michael Shipster had a secret meeting with the > Iraq intelligence chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush. During this meeting, > Habbush told Shipster “there were no weapons.” “This guy,” related the > American, “was the real McCoy. He knew all there was to know.” Yet, > when this information was presented to Bush, the American intelligence > official reports that the President said, “Fuck it. We’re going in [to > Iraq].” > > Habbush was also involved with the fabricated letter, though in an > indirect manner. The White House produced a handwritten letter, > backdated to July 1, 2001, from Tahir Jalil Habbush to Saddam with the > former’s forged signature. A CIA agent then hand-carried the letter to > Baghdad for public dissemination. > > The forged letter falsely affirmed that Mohammed Atta, the alleged > mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks, had visited Iraq and > was prepared to carry out attacks on its behalf. It likewise mentioned > “a shipment from Niger,” thereby providing apparent substantiation for > Bush’s lying claim in his January 2003 State of the Union address that > Iraq had sought to obtain uranium in Africa in order to develop > nuclear weapons. > > The British and American mainstream media were quick to trumpet this > CIA forgery. London’s Daily Telegraph published an article with > extensive quotes from the letter and statements supporting its > authenticity. Over the next few days, the American media, visual and > written, performed the same duty with even greater enthusiasm. > > Former CIA Director George Tenet and former Tenet deputy Robert Richer > (Suskind’s main source for the Habbush letter story) have rebutted > Suskind’s claims about the Habbush letter. Suskind has responded with > a transcript of a taped conversation (available atwww.ronsuskind.com) > with Richer in which the former CIA deputy states that the Habbush > letter was in fact written on White House stationary. > > Suskind takes us on a walk in others’ shoes by creating an omnipotent > narrator who is privy to the thoughts of real and fictional > characters. Bush and Cheney, as well as Muslim fundamentalists, > represent the extremists refusing to walk in the shoes of the other; > while characters such as a young Pakistani Muslim working in > Washington, D.C., an American mother, Ann Patrila, who takes in an > Afghan college student, a US bureaucrat trying to stop nuclear > proliferation, and the late Benazir Bhutto—represent a willingness to > “revive hope” and “the beating heart of moral energy.” > > Not surprisingly, to walk in Bush’s shoes is, according to Suskind, to > walk in a “bullying presence” whose decisions are based on his “gut” > instead of analysis. A prime example of this “presence” is an anecdote > concerning the sadistic pleasure Bush experiences as he bicycles > alongside his aides’ as they participate in “The President’s 100- > Degree Club” (running 3 miles in triple-digit Crawford, Texas, heat) > while tauntingly calling out “losers” to those who can’t finish. > > Bush’s bullying, sadistic personality may explain his obscene > dismissal of the news that Iraq did not possess WMD, but it explains > neither why the US declared a preemptive, brutal war on Iraq nor the > larger, objective conditions underlying this decision. > > Certainly, Suskind is correct that many Americans have lost hope in > the future, and if by a loss of America’s core values he means the > principles of the Enlightenment that informed America’s founding > documents, he’s also correct. But these losses long predate the Bush > Administration and have far deeper roots than the incumbent > President’s personality. The connection between the decision to invade > Iraq and America’s declining economic power (and the rise of competing > national economies) dating back to the 1960s, receives no attention. > Nor does the fact that America has been at war, either directly or > indirectly, with a number of countries throughout this period. > > Instead, Suskind offers whitewashed, simplistic descriptions of > American foreign policy. Wendy Chamberlain, a fictional character who > heads the Washington D.C. Middle East institute and is among the > characters whom the author depicts as representing hope and America’s > core values, thinks the Marshall Plan was implemented because it was > “the right thing to do, and when you do the right thing, you don’t ask > for anything in return.” > > That America enacted the Marshall Plan as a strategic decision aimed > at insuring markets for its commodities and avoiding the kind of > crisis that followed WWI is not considered. > > The author himself writes that because the seventeenth century’s > Enlightenment didn’t visit the Muslim countries, the belief that > “nothing is as it appears” informs their often duplicitous foreign > policy decisions. But because America did experience this > Enlightenment, “[t]his sort of brutal gamesmanship has been America’s > strong suit” until “[i]ts latest generation of political managers and > war-on-terror strategists.” > > Suskind’s assertion begs several questions. Has the author forgotten > or chosen to ignore American imperialism’s history of duplicitous > actions, e.g., its claims of promoting democracy while effectively > creating military-ruled vassalages in much of South America, or the > near-genocidal efforts to bring “democracy” to Vietnam? Is he not also > aware of America’s history of direct or indirect role in hindering the > efforts of Middle East countries to achieve a more enlightened, > democratic form of government? > > Suskind’s solution to the current crisis facing mankind amounts to an > appeal to global idealism. “The world works” when “everyone moves > forward, in a kind of modest (italics added) unison,” he affirms. But > how does everyone go about moving forward? And “modestly,” at that? > > To posit, as Suskind finally does, that this movement is possible only > by returning to the “American story,” which is “not about the > privileged defending what they have with mighty armies or earnest self- > regard” (a story Suskind ascribes to the extremist Muslim world) but > about “common people” taking control of their lives and “discovering > their truest potential,” flies in the face of history. > > The twentieth century lays strewn with the corpses of millions > (including those of “common” Americans), who died defending the > possessions of the privileged. History also proves that no fundamental > social change has occurred “modestly,” as the American, French, and > Russian revolutions attest. It is the kind of idealistic > interpretation of history presented by Suskind that the privileged > promote and depend upon as an ideological prop for their rule. > > Ron Suskind has provided a valuable service in unearthing the lies > underlying the criminal invasion of Iraq and consequent tragic loss of > lives. But that this service is undermined by an idealistic > interpretation of history has necessarily resulted in an equally > idealistic, non-tenable solution. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
