Quicker Than Vietnam, & "Worse Than Watergate"
The speed with which the anti-war forces have coalesced and influenced the general mood of the country about Iraq has
amazed the peace-movement. "Amazed" because it took years and years for those of us active in the anti-Vietnam War
period to educate the general public to the point where they could even consider that their leaders might have lied to
them and led the country into an unwinnable war.
And here we are, just a little more than a year after Bush started "shocking & aweing" in Iraq, and most of the American citizenry -- who once had been overwhelmingly behind the U.S. adventure in
that country -- already has moved toward strong opposition to Bush's war policies. Truly remarkable!
How to explain this relatively quick development? Here are seven likely reasons:
FIRST, we have to understand that, in all likelihood, Bush would have had a free ride with their war -- or at least a freer ride -- if the Iraqis had simply acquiesced to the
occupation of their country. The U.S. would have marched into Bagdhad to flowers and cheers, set up shop, distributed
the oil and reconstruction contracts to the various U.S. and multinational corporations -- and all of this would have
been accompanied by widespread acceptance by a docile Iraqi population.
That was the expectation of the naive neo-con planners in the Bush Administration, led by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
Perle, et al. This was the "liberation" fantasy. The U.S. would set up a puppet or at least American-friendly Iraqi
government, steal the country blind for the benefit of the GOP-supporting corporations, establish military bases in Iraq
from which to reshape the geopolitical map of the Middle East, lean harshly and heap abuse on whatever Iraqis got swept
into the detainee net (whether innocent or guilty) -- and the Iraqis would not object, but would be eternally grateful
and accepting because the brutal dictator Saddam was no longer in power.
Lo and behold, it turned out that Iraqi society is much more complex and nationalist than those genius neo-cons ever
imagined. (When you get locked into a simplistic, black-and-white way of looking at the world, you are unencumbered by
bothersome complexities.) And, more than a year later, it's finally dawning on Bush -- though, of course, they will not come right out and admit it -- that they wildly miscalculated, with the result
being the death and maiming (still going on) of many hundreds of young American soldiers, along with thousands of
Iraqis, many of them innocent civilians.
Surprise! Iraqis don't like being brutalized and treated as subhumans in their own country by an Occupation army.
"Liberation" takes on a whole new meaning. Now it has become a term used by Iraqis to describe their goal after the
Americans leave or are driven out.
OH, THOSE MINI-CAMS!
SECOND, one can point to the democratizing impact of image-technology. One can take digital photos and video -- and
pictures on tiny cell phones -- and beam them around the world in a few seconds; one can log on and instantly send an
email describing a wartime event. Rumsfeld, a man in his 70s, was astounded and shocked; he saw these technological
breakthroughs as terrible things, permitting the Abu Ghraib tortures and abuses to be seen worldwide. Otherwise, the
various written reports on prisoner-interrogation techniques could have remained buried in the military bureaucracy.
(Given what happened when soldiers had sent their snapshots back to the States, the Pentagon now has taken steps to
severely limit troop access to email in Iraq, and the taking of photos and videos and cell-phone pictures.)
The real impact of their leaders' immoral war in Vietnam was brought nightly into citizens' living rooms via the network
newscasts. But it took years to get to that point. The Abu Ghraib images took less than few days to make Americans
question what the Bush Administration was doing in their names -- aided, no doubt, by their increasing knowledge of how
they'd been lied to about the justifications for this war. Iraqis, of course, already had known of the to rtures, but it
fired their resolve to get the U.S. out of their country as soon as possible.
HUNGER FOR NEWS -- BUT NOT ABOUT COFFINS
THIRD, connected to #2 above, the 24-hour news cycle requires a constant supply of events and images. The result is a
never-ceasing, instantaneous bombardment of news and visuals from the field, beamed all across the world but most
importantly to the American homeland. It took years and years for this kind of reporting to have an impact in the
Vietnam days -- when film had to be flown back to the States for processing each day -- and less than a year for the
barrage of images from Iraq to build up that anti-war momentum.
FOURTH, despite the fact that the Bush Administration uses a mercenary army -- both volunteers, often from poor and
minority communities, and "contractors" -- and that dead bodies (and images of the flag-draped coffins) of U.S. soldiers
are not permitted to be seen by the American electorate, the word is filtering out. These 800+ American dead, and nearly
17,000 American wounded, are seen as dying and getting maimed for an invasion that may or may not have seemed
justifiable in the first place, but which is understood these days as being run by incompents who are clueless as to
what they are doing.
It was (and remains) ad hoc, on-the-run military planning, based on a forlorn hope that somehow it will all pull
together eventually into something that could look vaguely like a "victory." Our young men and women were (and are)
being placed in harm's way for no good military or political reasons, without adequate equipment and numbers, and with
bumbling military and civilian leaders in charge. Disgraceful!
THE POWER OF THE 'NET
FIFTH, the internet has become the contemporary equivalent of the Vietnam-era TV news networks. Those journalists then
were revealing far too much for the powers-that-be to accept. And so, the far-right in the decades after Vietnam made
sure to corner the market on mass-media information, buying up network after network, cable outlet after cable outlet,
etc. The result is that the mass-media in the Bush era basically were (though this is starting to change) cheerleaders
for Bush policy, and the normally objective print-media outlets -- such as the New York Times, Washington Post and
others -- followed their lead, even into the killing zone that is Iraq, though this is starting to change as well.
But a huge segment of the population was turned off by the propaganda being peddled as "fair and balanced" news
reporting by these mass-media outlets; hungry for a more objective, or at least an alternative, source for news, they
turned to the new technology: the internet. There, super writers and analysts -- some working for non-American papers
such as the Guardian and Independent in England, Globe and Toronto Star in Canada, et al., others writing solely for internet websites -- report unfiltered news and supply
alternative takes on what it all means. For access to the best of these websites, see The Dissenting Internet list. (http://www.crisispapers.org/features/internet.htm)
The best demonstration of the power of the internet as an organizing political tool can be seen in the following
examples: 1) When more than 10 million citizens worldwide marched in the streets in February of 2003 to protest the
impending U.S. war on Iraq, virtually all of the organizing for that demonstration came via the internet. 2) MoveOn.org
can mobilize millions of dollars in support for its liberal causes within hours or days, just by sending a bulk e-mail
to its two million members. 3) Howard Dean shot off to an amazing head-start in the Democratic primaries largely due to
the "meet-ups" and fundraising he was organizing via the internet.
This doesn't even mention the number of public issues that have been kept alive and highlighted by constant internet
attention, eventually forcing many of the mainstream, conglomerate-owned media to pay attention to the issues raised,
and even to begin reporting on them in their mass-media outlets.
BUSH'S WORST ENEMY
SIXTH, Bush are their own worst enemies, both in their policies and in their incompentency in implementing them. They come across
as arrogant bullies, swaggering their way across the post-Cold War landscape, grabbing what they can get (because with
the Soviet Union gone, they believed there was nobody to stop them), and woe to those who get in their way. Their lies
and deceptions are so bald-faced as to be almost laughably obvious.
If they had just told the truth -- that the U.S. needed to take Iraq so as to re-shape the geopolitical map of the
Middle East, and to guarantee that the natural resources there would be safeguarded from the potential grasp of
terrorist fanatics and put into the hands of friendly business interests -- at least some might have gone along with
them, for the "idealism" of their cause. But no, in order to justify an invasion, they had to hornswoggle the Congress
and the American people and the United Nations into believing all sorts of crude bullcrap. (Most of the globe's citizens
saw through the deceit from the git-go; it took Americans a bit longer to wake up to the true nature of this
Administration.)
And then, once Bush got their way and invaded Iraq, they revealed themselves to be absolute incompetents, with no "post-Mission
Accomplished" plan, not enough troops, not enough life-protecting equipment for our young men and women in harm's way,
no understanding of the complexities of Iraqi culture and politics, no sense of the tenacious nationalism that animates
a proud culture under Occupation. In short, everything Bush touched turned to dust; with an election coming, it was time to make and take the best deals that could be arranged, to
get American deaths off the front page of voters' minds.
HEROES WHO BLOW WHISTLES
SEVENTH, one has to point out and celebrate the individual citizens of courage who chose to tell the truth from inside
the belly of the beast.
It's fairly easy for those of us writing screeds and exposes on the "underground" internet to step forward and take the
heat. It's far more difficult for those on the inside, or who were on the inside and still walk the corridors of power,
to step up to the truth-plate and tell what they know.
When they do, their revelations are attended to with great interest by the populace precisely because these individuals
were at the center of the action and have chosen courageously to reveal what really happened. There are such
lesser-known whistle-blowers as Sibel Edmonds, Joseph Darby, Katherine Gun, anonymous souls within the CIA and Pentagon
-- who have had to deal with threats, loss of their jobs, mass-media denunciations, etc., as they revealed embarrassing
secrets involving the Bush Administration.
But I'm thinking also of books and articles by, among others, such Bush Administration luminaries as White House aide
John DiIulio, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Anti-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke, Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, Gen.
Anthony Zinni and so on. Because of their willingness to step forward, we now know a hell of a lot more about how Bush really works, the level of corruption and incompetence, the unrealistic and wacky HardRight theories that substitute
for effective policy analysis, the lies and deceptions that led us into Iraq, and so much more.
"WORSE THAN WATERGATE"
One more recent book must be mentioned at length, because it so rigorously and completely reveals the true levels of
awfulness of the Bush Administration: John W. Dean's "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush"
(Little, Brown).
Dean, you may remember, was President Nixon's chief legal counsel during the Watergate scandal. He saw, from the inside,
the crimes being perpetrated against the Constitution and the American people by leaders of his own Republican Party.
Eventually, Dean testified before the Senate Watergate Committee, exposing the rotten West Wing core of charlatans and
felons who ran the place. His testimony helped lead to the only resignation of an American president, when Nixon
departed in disgrace in the face of impeachment.
Dean, of course, is no longer inside the White House. But his GOP contacts, sources, experience, and insights give his
words more gravitas than would similar expressions coming from a Democratic reporter. He knows whereof he speaks, and
we'd best pay attention.
DEAN LISTS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES
The title of his book indicates how bad the situation is. For those who've forgotten, Watergate was the Nixon-era
umbrella term that represented the felonies and other crimes committed by that administration in an effort to gain and
stay in power -- everything from setting up a secret police unit inside the White House to "get" the president's
enemies, to breaking-and-entering to bribery to burglary to dirty election tricks to a massive cover-up to hide all
these nefarious activities from the public.
So when John W. Dean says that the Bush Administration is "worse than Watergate," you know we're dealing with real
"worstness" here, not merely a repetition of the Nixon-like felonies, which look almost quaint in comparison. With Bush, we're talking about acts that have resulted in thousands of deaths, among many other high crimes and misdemeanors.
But let Dean speak for himself on the variety of chapter topics he covers in this extraordinary book: the comparison to
the Nixon-era felonies; stonewalling and cover-ups; the obsessive secrecy of the Bush Administration; the "secret
government" that has resulted; Bush's "hidden agenda," and the various unfolding scandals. (The prisoner-torture exposure came too late to be included, but
certainly Dean would have added it to his list of impeachable offenses.)
In the few excerpts that follow, Dean gives the general flavor of his argument against the "shared presidency" of
BushCheney, all well-sourced and with footnoted factual evidence.
EXCERPTS FROM "WORSE THAN WATERGATE"
"Their secrecy is extreme -- not merely unjustified and excessive but obsessive...It has given us a presidency that
operates on hidden agendas. To protect their secrets, Bush and Cheney dissemble as a matter of policy...Cheney openly
declares that he wants to turn the clock back to the pre-Watergate years -- a time of an unaccountable and
extraconstitutional imperial presidency. To say that their secret presidency is undemocratic is an understatement."
"Cheney formed what is, in effect, a shadow NSC [National Security Council]...It is a secret government -- beyond the
reach of Congress, and everyone else as well...Cheney knew that terrorism was the perfect excuse, an ideal raison
d'etre, for his 'let's rule the world' philosophy. Politically, it would be much easier to be seen as shooting back
instead of shooting first, given the caliber of weapon Cheney sought to wield. But he and his team did far worse than
simply waiting for an attack that would kill a sufficient number of Americans...It is reasonable to believe that they
planned to exploit terrorism before 9/11 handed them the issue ready-made for exploitation -- a fact they obviously want
to keep buried."
"Not since Lyndon Johnson hoodwinked Congress into issuing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorizes sending
American troops to Vietnam, has a president so deceived Congress about a matter of such grave national importance...Bush
and Cheney took this nation to war on THEIR hunches, THEIR unreliable beliefs, and THEIR unsubstantiated intelligence --
and used deception with Congress both before and after launching the war....The evidence is overwhelming, certainly
sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over
going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense."
"Their secrecy helps corporations and industries that are major contributors. But with a DEADLY difference. Bush and
Cheney have, from the outset of their presidency, shown utter disregard for the human consequences of their actions,
both at home and abroad...What Bush and Cheney are doing to the environment to curry favor with their contributors is
far worse than anything Nixon's 'responsiveness program' ever did. The Bush-Cheney presidency is engaged in crimes
against nature, not to mention failing to faithfully execute the laws of the land."
ENDANGERING OUR DEMOCRACY
"The Bush-Cheney secrecy and style of governing carries with it potential consequences that are far worse than any
political scandal. Their secret presidency is a dangerous threat to democracy in an age of terrorism...Bush and Cheney
have picked up where Nixon left presidential power. They seek to free the presidency of all restraints. They want to
implement their policies -- a radical wisdom they believe serves the greater good -- unencumbered by those who view the
world differently."
"When the moment comes and terrorists surprise America with an even greater spirit-shattering attack than 9/11, Bush and
Cheney will simply push aside the Constitution they have sworn to uphold, inflame public passions with tough talk to
rally support...and take this country to a place it has only been once. For eleven weeks during the outset of the Civil
War, President Lincoln became what scholars have euphemistically called a constitutional dictator. But with terrorism it
will likely not be so brief. Bush once quipped, 'If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator.' George Bush, however, is no Abraham Lincoln."
*************
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government at various universities, was a writer/editor with the San Francisco
Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers ( www.crisispapers.org). He is a contributor to the just-released"Big Bush Lies," available in bookstores and from RiverWood Books ( www.riverwoodbooks.com/books/Big-Bush-Lies.html).