Thursday, November 17, 2005

Truthfulness and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Amongst the to and fro about the war in Iraq, I read this morning about Dick Cheney's condemnation of those who would complain that the governments of the USA and the UK were deceptive in the way they led us into war. Many excerpts from the Vice President's speech can be found here. By now, the Republican leadership is on the defensive, in a predictably offesive fashion. It's worth noting that everything I read in the transcript of the Vice President's speech is arguably true - but whenever a politician follows a statement with a phrase like "those are the facts", the people should probably be extremely sceptical.

What has happened (Dom's personal expert analysis, don't confuse this with "facts", folks) is that the past two years have seen a shambles in Iraq, more and more reports of deception and twisting of public opinion in the run up to the war, the scandal of Abu Graib, the Katrina disaster, clearer and clearer signs of China's rise (this will be about China's 6th rise - the main thing China can teach the US is the virtue of staying power), as the US spends its way into the honourable club of once-great empires, and the slow but perceptible fading of September 11th 2001 into the perspective of history.

Back in 2001 and 2002, the Republican leadership successfully whipped public opinion into war frenzy, with the traditional goads of indignation and fear - get the people angry and frightened, and war becomes the only patriotic decision. I clearly remember the run up to the Iraq war. As war became more inevitable, the question wasn't "will it happen", but "will you stand with the majority?" At the time, Maryl and I didn't. We, and thousands of other people in America, joined hundreds of protests, stating as firmly as we could that we were being misled, that we were being foolish, that in spite of September 11th 2001, going to war in Iraq was not just wrong, it was stupid. Even from close friends and family, we faced shocked questions like "Surely you're supporting the troops?" To which we always said "Yes, we are. Are you supporting them by sending them off to the wrong war for a made up reason?" Oh, how marginalized we were. Had we been Democrat Senators, our political acumen would doubtless have warned us off such foolish idealism in the face of public opinion.

Now, some of the Democrat Senators are finally coming out and saying "we were wrong to go to war, and the administration was wrong to lead us into war". Thanks for speaking out, guys. Now that Bush's approval rating is about one third of the Amrican people (and lord knows what on a worldwide scale), those brave Democrats are coming out and saying that the whole thing was wrong.

So the Republican leadership was decisive but evil and stupid. The Democrats were either wrong, or if they were right, they were too spineless to say so, and now they're trying to capitalize on the fact that public opinion was swayed. And, I've said it before and I'll say it again ... the do-gooder peacniks, the liberal academics, the soft-hearted fools who took the time to read histories of the middle east and the history of previous "wars on terror" ... well, they were right all along.

No WMD, 2000 US soldiers and uncounted Iraqi civilians dead, no sign of the Al Qaeda leaders, the moral high-ground of Western Democracy in tatters, habeus corpus suspended (so long as the administration promises not to torture people).

What are the finest aspects of Western Civilization? What are we going to do to preserve and enhance them? Who will lead us?

2 comments:

Scott said...

Who will lead us?

Another sad thing about this situation is the number of real problems that we have a chance to do something about but are not even discussing, like climate change and the way we're spending ourselves into former-great-power status.

The elections of 2006 and 2008 are an opportunity to begin turning things around. We should be talking about what sort of an agenda we want to see from our leaders...

For one thing, climate change is real, but dealing with it has been falsely presented as being in conflict with a "strong economy", on the assumption that raping our currently available resources as quickly and efficiently as possible is the road to wealth. I don't buy it. As demand for energy increases, conventional energy sources become more scarce, and the negative consequences of using them in the ways we have been become more pronounced, technologies for doing more with less energy and producing energy in less harmful ways will be ever more valuable.

We should work harder on developing these technologies, with the belief not that we are sacrificing our standard of living because we feel we have to, but that we are going to become rich, maintain an edge in competition with China, etc...

Anonymous said...

Eh! Though many things are good and even wonderfull in America some really, really ugly parts cancel the whole.
When some retarded cowboys pee in the soup it is all spoilt no matter how great it was or could have been.
See and hear what some europeans think about this:
http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html