[Mb-civic] Nausea in New York

[Michael Butler]

  Editor¹s Note | The article describing Bush¹s statement that the War on
Terror is unwinnable can be found here. The article describing Bush¹s
subsequent reversal and declaration that the War on Terror is indeed
winnable can be found here. The article explaining how any of this makes
sense cannot be found on this plane of existence. - TO

  Nausea in New York
  By William Rivers Pitt
  t r u t h o u t | Perspective

  Wednesday 01 September 2004

"One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we are asking
questions, is, 'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can."

- George W. Bush, April 13 2004

  You just can¹t make this stuff up.

  George W. Bush, in an interview broadcast Monday by the ŒToday¹ show, told
host Matt Lauer that he doesn¹t think his ŒWar on Terror¹ is winnable. "I
don't think you can win it," said Bush. "But I think you can create
conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in
parts of the world."

  This is a dramatic departure ­ one might dare call it a Œflip-flop¹ ­ from
the scores of comments he has made since the attacks of September 11. As
recently as July 14, Bush said, ³I have a clear vision and a strategy to win
the war on terror." On April 13th, Bush said, ³One of the interesting things
people ask me, now that we are asking questions, is, 'Can you ever win the
war on terror?' Of course you can." The list of comments like this is longer
than the Avenue of the Americas.

  Someone forgot to get Rudy Giuliani the memo about the Terror War now
being unwinnable. "We'll see an end to global terrorism,'' he said from the
convention podium on Monday night. "It may seem very difficult and a long
way off. It may even seem idealistic to say that. But it may not be as far
away and as idealistic as it seems.''

   Never mind Rudy¹s assertion that Bush ³can see through time² in the same
speech. Between Bush¹s temporal abilities and his armchair-to-armchair
relationship with the Almighty, one might have assumed that he¹d have
stumbled to this wisdom many moons ago. Of course a war against terror
cannot be won. Terrorism is a weapon. How do you wage war against a weapon?
Shall we next have a war against bazookas and slingshots?

  One defeats terrorism by undermining the conditions which breed
terrorists. Economic inequality, crushing poverty, shattered educational
infrastructures, rampant violence and a total lack of hope are the soil in
which suicide bombers germinate. Until you get rid of those, you will always
have terrorism. Period.

   Bush got part of the way to that conclusion with his statement, alluding
to a process that will make terrorism ³less acceptable in parts of the
world.² His statement was bereft of details on how exactly to go about this,
of course, and likewise begs the question: If we¹re going to make terrorism
less acceptable in ³parts² of the world, what other ³parts² will terrorism
still be acceptable in?

  It is too bad that we had to grind through three years, a catastrophic
invasion of Iraq, 976 dead American soldiers, almost 7,000 grievously
wounded American soldiers, more than 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians and God
only knows exactly how many billions of dollars before Mr. Bush arrived at
this conclusion.

  It is too bad that Bush¹s Iraq adventure has created economic inequality,
crushing poverty, shattered educational infrastructures, rampant violence
and a total lack of hope among the people of that nation. If he has suddenly
come around to a new mindset on how to deal with terrorism, he will have to
start by cleaning up the terrorist mass-production line he has activated
there.

  But, of course, he won¹t. Soon after Bush¹s comment to Lauer, his campaign
spokespeople came boiling out of the woodwork to clarify that the President
didn¹t really mean to say what he said, and that despite his new vision on
the matter of dealing with terrorism, there will be absolutely no policy
changes in the way the Terror War is being waged. In other words, folks,
ignore the Republican candidate. He¹s just flapping his lips.

  Indeed. The next day, at a Tuesday address to the American Legion, Bush
decided to reverse field yet again and declare that we will, in fact, win
the War on Terror. Presidential mouthpiece Scott McLellan said, to clarify
the previous clarification of the previous clarification, "Not only are we
winning it, but we will win it."

  It is hard, while watching these guys flop around their own words like
boated marlin, to avoid thinking about the thousands of troops deployed in
Iraq today. These men and women were told they were leaving home to fight,
and perhaps die, in the War on Terror. They left their families with Bush¹s
promise of inevitable victory ringing in their ears. Now, sitting in that
scalding desert, they are being told that they are fighting a war that
cannot be won. More than a few of them had already arrived at this obvious
conclusion some time ago, but to hear the confused gibberish coming from
their Commander-in-Chief must be like a kick below the utility belt.

  Hopefully, none of the troops over there were able to watch the coverage
of the Republican convention on Monday night. Salted through the audience
were a number of conventioneers wearing band-aids with little purple hearts
on them. This was, of course, an extension of the gutter war being waged
against Democratic candidate John Kerry¹s Vietnam record.

   Some 3,700 Purple Heart medals have been awarded to soldiers fighting in
Operation Iraqi Freedom, with more than 3,000 still wending through the
process before they can be pinned to the breasts of soldiers missing a chunk
of their body. The message emanating from Madison Square Garden is obvious:
Not only is the President blitheringly unclear on what is supposedly the
central mission of his administration, but his own supporters have nothing
but disdain for anyone wounded in combat.

  If you think Bush and his White House have nothing to do with that
disgusting display on the convention floor on Monday night, and have nothing
to do with the Swift Boat Veterans group that appears to have made insulting
combat veterans the new hip style among Republicans, think again.

   A GOP staffer told Newsweek reporter Elanor Clift this past week that the
Swift Boat strategy ³came straight from the West Wing,² specifically from
Bush hatchet-man Karl Rove. ³Nobody,² he said, ³should be confused.² The GOP
staffer called those who have done this ³political terrorists,² stating,
³They know what to do - it¹s like sleeper cells that get activated.²

  In other words, nauseating activities like the Swift Boat smears and the
Purple Heart Band-Aid-wearing cretins do not bubble up from the slime of
their own accord. This is standard-issue East Texas political assassination,
and the smell of it trails all the way from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the
doorstep of this Republican convention. This is leadership from the top
down, Bush-style.

  Why?

  When your war is a disaster, when your economy is a mess, when your people
are out of work by the millions, when the environment is under total assault
because of your policies, and when your best pals are pocketing billions of
dollars in taxpayer money on the sneak, you¹d do well to avoid discussing
the issues. Unfortunately for Bush, the manner in which he and his campaign
are attempting to change the subject is becoming an issue in and of itself.

 

  -------

   Jump to TO Features for Wednesday September 1, 2004   


 © Copyright 2004 by TruthOut.org