lew, But why are we STILL there?
On Sep 10, 7:28 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any proof that Saddam had obeyed any one of the 17 UN resolutions > against him over 12 years about his WMD's which formed his surrender > agreement after we trounced himn in the 1991 Gulf War??? > > The reason we went into Iraq. > > On Sep 10, 4:18 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
