Osama, Bush and the Thrust for Power
Part Two of Two
Guest Blogger: Dave Amos, Arcadia, Calif.
Why did Bush invade? Get familiar with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-con think tank based in Washington DC, and it all comes together. One of the sub silentio aims of PNAC is to dominate the world oil market by gaining political control of the Middle East.
The purpose of the Iraq War, in my view, is as follows:
(1) Maintain American ability to remain the world’s #1 economic and military power (the two are co-dependent), and
(2) Allow Western Oil Interests (especially American oil interests) to become the dominant economic force in the world and thus further enrich the establishment even further.
But beyond this quasi-ideological reason for invading, there was another reason: to promote the idea that Bush’s war on terrorism was a real “shooting” war, and that thus, Bush is a “War President.” This is important, for this provides the pretext for Bush to expand the powers of the executive branch of our government and to offset the built-in system of checks and balances provided in our Constitution. Thus, we see the promotion of the odiferous concept of the “unitary executive” president.
Get this straight, folks, Bush invaded for reasons of American domestic eco/politics, and not because of his fancied “war on terror.”
But Bush was able to sell the American people (but not most of the rest of the world) on the Iraq War was part of the war on terror. The American people are slowly becoming aware that Bush’s war on terror is built on a house of cards comprised of a fabric of lies.
As readers of history are well aware, it is a standard ploy, used over and over again by political and/or military leaders who strive for more and more power, to get what they want on the domestic scene by scaring the wits out of their citizens by promoting the idea of an outside threat to the very existence of their country.
Sometimes the threat is made up of whole cloth, sometimes the threat is greatly exaggerated, and sometimes the threat is very real. Mostly, however, the threat is greatly exaggerated, and so it has been with the threat of terror. Was 9-11 horrible? Yes. Is Osama bin Laden a danger to the citizenry of the United States (and other nations)? Yes. Is Osama bin Laden and his ilk a danger to the very existence of the United States? Not even close.
Did Iraq under Saddam do horrible things, such as his invasion of Kuwait? Yes, of course. However, the Gulf War and the international sanctions that followed made Saddam/Iraq become a small threat to anyone outside the borders of Iraq.
Was the threat of in 2002 a danger to the US citizenry? No.
Was the threat of in 2002 a danger to the very existence of the US? No.
Was Iraq a logical place to massively undertake a war on terrorism? By no means.
Did Bush and his cohorts (including the willing media) promote the idea that Osama bin Laden is a threat the citizens of the USA very existence of America? Yes.
Did the Bush Administration promote the idea that Saddam/Iraq posed a threat to the citizens of the USA? Yes.
Did Bush and his cohorts promote the idea that Saddam/Iraq posed a threat to the very existence of world peace? Yes.
Does the Bush Administration still promote such ideas, even after they have been proven to have, in my view, bankrupt policies? Yes.
Has the invasion of Iraq proven to be a terrible mistake? Yes, although an alarming number of American people do not understand the ramifications of this terrible mistake. That is, Americans, trust an American president, who has demonstrated an ability to kill, on a large scale, to achieve his goals and still believe that we had to eliminate Saddam because he was a nasty man.
But Osama has never been captured. He remains the symbol of terrorism, a symbol so invaluable to George W. Bush and his Administration.
George W. Bush is not about fighting terrorism. George W. Bush is not about protecting America. George W. Bush is about George W. Bush, who’s goal, while president, is to be in a position to use (and abuse) absolute power.
What domestically has happened due to the concentration of the Bush Administration's desire for more and more power, and the GOP’s concentration of absolute legislative power? The answer: A culture of corruption, built on the notion that the "ends justify the means."
This year may be our last chance to meaningfully begin to change, that is, to take the steps necessary to return to the workable notion that in the United States, power must be shared to be effective as our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Or has the Rubicon already been crossed?
Tune in next November.
Guest Blogger: Dave Amos, Arcadia, Calif.
Why did Bush invade? Get familiar with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-con think tank based in Washington DC, and it all comes together. One of the sub silentio aims of PNAC is to dominate the world oil market by gaining political control of the Middle East.
The purpose of the Iraq War, in my view, is as follows:
(1) Maintain American ability to remain the world’s #1 economic and military power (the two are co-dependent), and
(2) Allow Western Oil Interests (especially American oil interests) to become the dominant economic force in the world and thus further enrich the establishment even further.
But beyond this quasi-ideological reason for invading, there was another reason: to promote the idea that Bush’s war on terrorism was a real “shooting” war, and that thus, Bush is a “War President.” This is important, for this provides the pretext for Bush to expand the powers of the executive branch of our government and to offset the built-in system of checks and balances provided in our Constitution. Thus, we see the promotion of the odiferous concept of the “unitary executive” president.
Get this straight, folks, Bush invaded for reasons of American domestic eco/politics, and not because of his fancied “war on terror.”
But Bush was able to sell the American people (but not most of the rest of the world) on the Iraq War was part of the war on terror. The American people are slowly becoming aware that Bush’s war on terror is built on a house of cards comprised of a fabric of lies.
As readers of history are well aware, it is a standard ploy, used over and over again by political and/or military leaders who strive for more and more power, to get what they want on the domestic scene by scaring the wits out of their citizens by promoting the idea of an outside threat to the very existence of their country.
Sometimes the threat is made up of whole cloth, sometimes the threat is greatly exaggerated, and sometimes the threat is very real. Mostly, however, the threat is greatly exaggerated, and so it has been with the threat of terror. Was 9-11 horrible? Yes. Is Osama bin Laden a danger to the citizenry of the United States (and other nations)? Yes. Is Osama bin Laden and his ilk a danger to the very existence of the United States? Not even close.
Did Iraq under Saddam do horrible things, such as his invasion of Kuwait? Yes, of course. However, the Gulf War and the international sanctions that followed made Saddam/Iraq become a small threat to anyone outside the borders of Iraq.
Was the threat of in 2002 a danger to the US citizenry? No.
Was the threat of in 2002 a danger to the very existence of the US? No.
Was Iraq a logical place to massively undertake a war on terrorism? By no means.
Did Bush and his cohorts (including the willing media) promote the idea that Osama bin Laden is a threat the citizens of the USA very existence of America? Yes.
Did the Bush Administration promote the idea that Saddam/Iraq posed a threat to the citizens of the USA? Yes.
Did Bush and his cohorts promote the idea that Saddam/Iraq posed a threat to the very existence of world peace? Yes.
Does the Bush Administration still promote such ideas, even after they have been proven to have, in my view, bankrupt policies? Yes.
Has the invasion of Iraq proven to be a terrible mistake? Yes, although an alarming number of American people do not understand the ramifications of this terrible mistake. That is, Americans, trust an American president, who has demonstrated an ability to kill, on a large scale, to achieve his goals and still believe that we had to eliminate Saddam because he was a nasty man.
But Osama has never been captured. He remains the symbol of terrorism, a symbol so invaluable to George W. Bush and his Administration.
George W. Bush is not about fighting terrorism. George W. Bush is not about protecting America. George W. Bush is about George W. Bush, who’s goal, while president, is to be in a position to use (and abuse) absolute power.
What domestically has happened due to the concentration of the Bush Administration's desire for more and more power, and the GOP’s concentration of absolute legislative power? The answer: A culture of corruption, built on the notion that the "ends justify the means."
This year may be our last chance to meaningfully begin to change, that is, to take the steps necessary to return to the workable notion that in the United States, power must be shared to be effective as our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Or has the Rubicon already been crossed?
Tune in next November.
posted by Lou Delgado at 12:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home