Iraq: what is going on?
The situation in Iraq as presented by our corporate media is nothing close to reality. What we are not told is that the reporters in Iraq are not actually in Iraq. They remain behind heavily fortified walls in places like the Green Zone and do not venture out into the countryside at all. Stories are filed by calling around to Pentagon and other official spokesman, or maybe after conversation with an Iraqi stringer, but the reporters do not leave the secure confines. It is too dangerous. The country is now almost totally in the hands of various militias, death squads and jihadists. It is safe for no one.

The only solution is immediate withdrawal of the troops. The mess we will leave behind has more of a chance for resolution without us than with us.

Government is the Problem
The consequences of having officials preaching that what is wrong with the US is government should be exposed for everyone at this point. Why should the institutions we expect to handle disasters and to provide civic and social leadership function effectively? There has been an attitude at the top that government is the problem. The fact that it is a democracy does not seem to be a 'US value' in anything other than rhetoric. Rather the need is to get as many people as possible out of the decision making process and turn it over to the corporate elite and their puppets. The wealthy get out of harm's way and the poor stay to suffer without direction. We are in the grip of a resurgence of Social Darwinian thinking--government is here to protect wealth and individual responsibility applies to everyone else. The government has been gutted. Reagan's proclamation that "government is the problem" has reached the level of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Spin is more important than truth. Keep the poor, the social inequalities under wraps so the wealthy can go shopping.

Labor Day means less and less as the workforce morphs into a low-end service economy with a small professional class at the top. Are the malls open today? Let's all go to Wal-Mart.

War Strategies
President Bush continues to grope for rationalizations for the invasion of Iraq. In his weekly radio address he stressed, "We are over there so they don't come here." This seems to be the one he is putting his chips on for now. It is hard to believe that intelligent people would buy this piece of sophistry, but ideology has a way of overcoming reality. The facts are: no Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attacks (14 out of 19 were Saudis), Saddam's secular government was not on good terms with al Qeada, there were no WMD, Bush was planning the takeover of Iraq before 9/11, this war is creating more terrorists and making the world less stable.

But forget the facts, what is the logic behind the belief that it is ok to throw someone else in front of a train wreck to save oneself? Is this a Christian value? a US value? The chaos and the huge number of civilian deaths in Iraq are worthwhile if we can sleep peacefully at night? Logic and arrogance is a lot like oil and water.

The Democrats continue to harp on the lack of a strategy to win the war. They decry Bush's failure to send in enough troops to do the job. I guess their position is he is not killing enough people fast enough. With an opposition party that thinks like that no wonder they lost the White House and Congress.

Let's face the real facts: this war is immoral; it went against all international standards of legal behavior; it will not strengthen democracy at home or worldwide; it was unnecessary. There is a better way to deal with terrorists than by invading a country and creating more of them. For years now (since Reagan), the US has been working to undermine international institutions and has been unwilling to provide the leadership necessary to build a worldwide democracy. US hegemony is the stated goal of this militaristic, messianic administration. The loyal opposition has pledged its loyalty to big finance and seems intellectually bankrupt. As usual the people must lead; it is time to quit listening to the government PR machine and deal with the facts.

Last week Rumsfeld was in Peru trying to gain support for the US's continuing attempts to overthrow the democratically elected Hugo Chavez. The mood in many Latin American countries is decidedly moving away from Washington's globalization policies and US bullying. Just think, if we bring the troops home from Iraq we will have them for invading Venezuela, or maybe Iran. And what is this movement by workers in Argentina to run their factories without the bosses? Now that is un-American.

Faith-based Government
Why does everything they touch go wrong? Did anyone believe that electing a fundamentalist to the White House would bring anything more than the zealotry and the arrogance of someone committed to paternalism and egotism? Cut out the experts, they know nothing; cut out the professionals, they know nothing; cut out the scientists, they know nothing: George Bush knows what is right--he talks to God.

The neocons and ultra-nationalists making up this government have been around since the Reagan days, many served with Bush I and now they are back in power to continue their messianic vision of world domination. With Bush II they got exactly what wanted--a believer in apocalyptic violence ready to cleanse the world through war for a utopian future--the "American century".

The definition of an ideologue is someone who does not want to be confused by the facts; after all they know what they believe. Just what is this love of guns and war that seems to go hand in hand with fundamentalist thinking? There is nothing to be gained from diplomacy, no need to work with others, no reason to consider cause-and-effect and don't even suggest such things. It is a struggle between God and Satan, good and evil (and we all know what side we are on). This is what our leaders proclaim, more stridently with Bush II than with some others, but not different is substance from Reagan, Bush I or any number of Democrats who have held the same office. We have been an expansionist empire almost from the beginning.

Should anyone have been by the desire of these knee-jerk reactionaries to go it alone in Iraq? They have been writing and lecturing about their plans of global domination throughout the 90s. They attempt to hide their lust for power behind terms like 'liberation' and 'freedom', but it must be remembered that the empires engaged in WWII all claimed they were "liberating the people" of the countries they invaded. This is true not only of Germany and Japan, but, also, of the countries they were at war with--UK, US, Russia. All had their own versions of the messianic desire to spread truth and freedom (for themselves) around the world.

Is it true that we get the government we deserve?

Downing Street, UN and Ideology
It is interesting to note how attitudes about the UN have been manipulated by ultra-nationalists in this country (US). All one had to do was pay some attention to the debacle that led to the invasion of Iraq, and the disastrous consequences for the international community, to see the bankruptcy of this position. The Bush administration was acting with such singular self-interest that it is hard to believe it went largely unnoticed here (but not elsewhere). Initially uninterested in even going to the UN, Bush later acquiesced claiming he was listening to Colin Powell's advice. Once at the UN, policy was presented as a concern for WMD and the need for inspections. A series of demands were made on Iraq, and surprisingly Saddam relented on every point (under pressure to be sure). The inspectors went in and were doing their job, but the Bush administration would have none of it. In fact they started a PR campaign to discredit the inspectors. Likewise, every time they raised the bar on Saddam, they got what they wanted so they had to pretend that somehow Saddam was playing tricks on them. Thus, they decided the only response to Saddam's perfidy was war. (A decision made in advance it is now obvious.) The French, and others, acting in good faith with the original presentation to the UN offered to expand the inspections and the pressure on Saddam to avoid immediate war. But Bush would have none of it, war was the answer, and the US would go it alone if necessary. Blaming the French for standing in the way of US desires became the convenient scapegoat. We are now immersed in a global insurgency as Bush continues to throw gasoline on the fire in the Middle East.

The attitude that the UN should do only what the US says, whether right or wrong, seems to be a truism of populist speech. The fact that there are so many at the UN who do not always vote with the US is seen as a good reason to pick up our marbles and go home. This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the original intent and reason for creating the UN. Proposed by the US after two world wars in the last century, this was to be a place where nations with differing viewpoints could resolve issues without the need for war--or at least that was the hope. Necessarily all nations must participate, no matter what their position, for such a thing to work. The fact that US desires are not immediately rubber-stamped may say more about US positions than about the other nations. If the US would listen a bit more, we may not have progressed to the place we are today. We have become the international bully. Other nations do not look to us for leadership any longer, we are not seen as willing to do other than what is beneficial for the US. The days of an international community working to solve world problems and aid in the spread of democracy are probably over. It takes too much in the way of vision, diplomacy and leadership--all things the reliance on war as the answer to all problems has negated. Our present fundamentalist ideology has firmly planted us on the path to self-destruction. Forget blaming the French or the UN--an inaccurate, cheap shot anyway.

For more on the decisions that led up to the invasion of Iraq see www.afterdowningstreet.org

Next time more on the fundamentalist ideology that is killing us.

Hersh, Klein, Greider
For those concerned with the cost, in dollars, of the War in Iraq, the Defense Department has just released estimates that it will reach $700 billion, making it the most costly since WWII--surpassing Vietnam.

A series of interesting articles appear on the www.truthout.org website--two that deserve special attention are:
Seymour Hersh's article that charges the Bush administration, even though promises were made to Congress not to, worked behind the scenes to manipulate the recent elections in Iraq. Why should it be any different there than here? Is this the picture of democracy we want to give to the rest of the world?
Naomi Klein has a good article on a story that is being shielded from US eyes--Haiti. Another indication how little democracy matters in the expansion of US interests.

Another well kept secret is how the global economy, at least the Washington Consensus, is crumbling. William Greider has a relevant op-ed in today's "New York Times" www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18greider.html?h&emc=th

There are those who say that the era of globalization is actually over; the new era will be dominated by a series of resource wars. Meanwhile the rich nations continue to push new agreements, like CAFTA, that will only continue the problems. Check out www.nlcnet.org for some good perepective.

Government in Iraq
Has anyone noticed the absence of Ayatollah al-Sistani from the news about Iraq? He is the leader of the majority Shia community, and he is the one who forced the elections, threatening to withdraw his cooperation with the occupying forces if they were not held (over Bush's objections--though Bush now claims it as one his great successes). More recently, he is once again criticizing and threatening to withdraw support over handling of the elections, questions about the legitimacy of the outcome and make-up of the new government. Not something the domestic audience needs to hear? The core of many jokes being passed around in Baghdad today refers to the absence of government officials in the country--it seems they all spend most of their time outside Iraq's borders.

China is presently trying to invest in a US oil company, something that is decried as a threat to our national security in Congress. Some complain that the Chinese government is helping to subsidize the private company making the bid. But this has never stopped us. Latin American countries have for years been complaining about the destruction of local farms by the heavily subsidized US agricultural goods. And aren't we the ones who have invented the global marketplace, insisting on the good that comes from foreign investment. Some say we went into Iraq to keep the Chinese from getting access to all that oil from Saddam (instead of us).

To keep updated on the smashing of democracy in Haiti seewww.haitiaction.net

A Response to the President
In your speech to the nation, supposedly an update from the White House concerning the invasion and occupation of Iraq, you constantly referred to a desire to bring freedom and democracy to that country (as well as the rest of the world). But this raises several questions that I do not think you adequately answered, or did not address at all.

Do you believe freedom to be a separate issue from democracy? As you pursue democracy for the people of Iraq, why have you participated in kidnapping and ousting from power the popular and democratically elected leader of Haiti? Why do you continue to plot and scheme against the popular and democratically elected leader of Venezuela? It is true that both leaders, Aristide and Chavez, have not been overwhelming supporters of your economic agenda, choosing to turn their attention to their poor rather than give 100% service to foreign economic dictates. Is this a matter of economic policy trumping freedom and democracy?

What if the people of Iraq do not want to turn their economy over to foreign corporations? Will you decide on another regime change? What if they do not want the bases you are building, or the largest embassy in the world being constructed in Baghdad? What if they think this smells of extended occupation and interference in their freedom? Can two concepts of freedom exist at the same time?

Bur the most important question of all: why did you not spend more time considering alternatives to war for the removal of Saddam? As we now know, and most experts thought at the time, the sanctions were working--even as imperfect as they were. Why did you not try to work with others to improve the international pressure being applied? Others suggested doing as much--the French, the Chinese, the Russians. Reports have surfaced that claim you went to war without knowing much if anything about the country--like the differences between the various sects. Is there more to this occupation than you are telling us?

The Comedians
We hear the talk of the need to send Bolton to the UN to "kick some butt", after all it is so corrupt, and an example used is the oil-for-food program. A good report of US complicity in the corruption--the US turned a "blind eye to extensive sanction-busting" selling of oil in prewar Iraq--larger than any allegation against UN staff or European politicians. And for whom was the US fronting? US oil companies, of course. See www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Z.shtml Extending the argument should we clean up our own house? Maybe Bolton should be set loose to "kick some butt" here.

Condoleezza Rice proclaimed to the troops in Iraq during her recent trip that "This war came to us, not the other way around." What? The Iraqis forced us to invade their country? Remember she was the one who assured the US public that the aluminum tubes could only be used in the nuclear fuel process. Experts knew they were inadequate for any such usage.

A Venezuelan citizen, Luis Posada Carriles, has been hiding in the US in order to avoid prosecution in his country for terrorism. He is alleged to have participated in blowing up a Cuban plane killing 73 people. Recently declassified documents show he used to work for the CIA. What was it Bush said about countries that harbor terrorists? Illegal governments that are ripe for preemptive action wasn't it? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4556263.stm. Why is Bolton leaving now that we need him so badly here?

Government Against the People
Around the world today we are faced with governments that do not function in the interest of the 'common good'; this is just as true in democratic countries as it is in more authoritarian nations. In the US, the self-proclaimed guardian of freedom and democracy, estrangement from government on the part of the average citizen has been increasing for years, if not decades. Record low turn-out for elections (even in close presidential contests) combined with a respect for politicians that ranks them at the bottom (somewhere between used car salesmen and telephone solicitors), reflects a realization that little will be forthcoming from appeals to government. A common complaint is that it has become a two-party system with a one-party ideology. That ideology can be summed up as a government of the international corporations, by the international corporations and for the international corporations.

This is not an entirely new situation; Rutherford B. Hayes expressed similar sentiments in the campaign of 1876, though his quote does not contain the adjective 'international'. The Gilded Age was renowned for corruption of the political process, with legislators openly accepting suitcases of cash in exchange for their votes. A succession of pro-business presidents facilitated the Robber Barons in their drive to create an empire. The result was a boom-and-bust economy that pitted the workers against the captains of industry.

After a short change in the national philosophy following the Crash of 1929, we are now in an era with an all-too-familiar set of sound bites--"the rich deserve all the benefits, they create the economy", "give tax cuts to the the top and it will trickle-down", "get government off our backs", and "the market is better at running the economy than any government". Thus, the middle and working classes are asked to shoulder the burden once again, as the divide between the top and everyone else grows wider daily and jobs and benefits evaporate. How has it been so easy to convince us that democracy is now the problem--our government is a democracy after all. And unions are written off as anti-American. So fewer and fewer people vote or get involved, and each year the rich get more and more tax cuts, while corporations get more loopholes.

A great danger lurks in public alienation and apathy. All to often, the consequences of such a deep divide between the elite who rule the country and the general population is not revolution, or the emergence of a wise leader to set things straight, rather it is totalitarianism--as events in 20th century Europe demonstrate.