The Tory Party

“Why of course the people don’t want war. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
–Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

I remember going to middle school at Camp Lejeune when the Gulf War was on. You could just tell by looking at somebody whether they had a mom or dad overseas, and even the teachers gave them their space. I wonder if George W. Bush would have called those unhappy kids unpatriotic.

I don’t want to startle anybody, but nobody wants a war with Iraq except the people starting it–that`d be the Bush administration. I don’t know how to refer to this gang–Bush isn’t the ringleader, and weird people are in it like Richard Perle, who was neither elected or appointed to anything.

(Look up some stuff on Mr. Perle–he’s a think-tank guy who has some position on a vague Pentagon advisory board, yet he gives interviews and makes statements like he’s somebody we should give a crap about. You wouldn’t recognize his face; he stays off the TV because he has the telepresence of a monitor lizard. If you visit his resume, you see a guy with a big erotic feeling for the Middle East who doesn’t appear to have any actual military or international experience.)

But enough about him. What are Bush’s reasons for wanting to get busy with Iraq? Saddam’s pretty much the same old bastard he’s been for the last ten years we left him alone–oh, no, right, with economic sanctions on him. I haven’t heard any compelling new information that I believe. You can make up any reason to stomp somebody if you’ve already decided you want to stomp, and no one (press, opposition party, your own burning conscience) demands that you produce evidence with your reasons, and that’s exactly what Bush’s people look like their doing.

Catholic coalition says war with Iraq is immoral unless there were ties to Al Qaeda? Presto! Condeleeza Rice reveals Iraq ties to Al Qaeda. (They tried this card before!)

Washington Post poll reveals 54% of Americans would support war with Iraq if Saddam would otherwise get nukes? Presto! James Baker says Saddam is about to get nukes.

(For more Bush lies, click here. I couldn’t possibly document them any better.)

I submit to you that if our President really gave a darn about a terrorist-harboring and -training country amassing chemical and biological weapsons and demonstrating nuclear power, we might be really going after… oh, I don’t know… maybe… Pakistan? But there’s no symbolic dude in Pakistan that anybody’s dad has a legacy with, so I can understand if the attraction is less.

I don’t know a whole lot, but it seems like there’s a growing, voting Indian population in the U.S. that would be very kind to a party that went and kicked some Pakistan ass. Seems like maybe an anti-Pakistan position would be at least as influential to Indian voters as being pro-Israel is to Jewish voters. But who am I to say?

Bush is doing some bad, bad things. I`ll admit that when he got into office I thought the worst he could do was domestic: tax cuts; tanking the economy; imposing an irresponsible, irrational, destructive, demeaning, bizarre, racist and sexist Republican moral code; as well as abetting pollution, labor exploitation, corporate crime, and all the other political indecencies Clinton left us in an economic position to repair.

Of course, he has done and is doing all of these. But what he is doing to the U.S. on the international stage is inexplicable and indefensible. There is no U.S. imperative, prerogative or benefit to invading Iraq. The only thing it will assure for us is six months to a year of the worst combat imaginable–hand-to-hand, house-to-house, in a strange land, looking for a resourceful guy in crowds of civilians who speak a different language and of whom, after ten years of sanctions, it will be very difficult to win their hearts and minds.

And after we achieve our objective, which is as yet unclear and undefined–unlike the first Gulf War, but like Vietnam–we must occupy and rebuild the country via a city full of families of the civilians that were necessarily killed in the invasion.

Of course, none of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Fleischer, Perle, Rumsfeld, DeLay, etc. have ever been to war, so they don’t know what they’re asking our military to do. I haven’t been to war either, but I wouldn’t so much as ask the Marines to drop off my dry cleaning, much less die.

The point of all this is, yes, America’s armed forces are trained to fight and die. But they are not expected to fight and die for a stupid reason. I hope Bush is forced–himself, sans speechwriters–to compose the letter that goes home to the family of each casualty, attempting to explain what their sister, dad or kid died trying to accomplish.

I imagine it would be hard to read, since Bush is as incompetent with the English language as he is with… well… everything but running, as far as I can tell.

Some predictions:
- The U.S. invades Iraq in December or January.
- Press coverage stays cheerful and cooperative until the following September, or until 3000 lives are lost, whichever comes first.
- Saddam is not killed or captured, but instead escapes into exile. This eliminates any chance of perceived victory, as the U.S. is left with a bloodied country, puppet government installation, and years of the nation-building Bush said he was against, yet without anyone’s head to show for it.