Or at least bomb them. And If we don't, well, I could always delete it, now couldn't I? We bloggers have ALL the power.
So. Here's the danger: in the run-up to the Iraq war, many of us - rational, intelligent, moral - just could not believe that our government would go through with invading a country that obviously posed no threat to us. Surely it just could not happen. A lot of people marched. We didn't realize we all needed to, because most of us just thought, nah. He's not that crazy.
I distinctly remember when the Administration first began banging the drums. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that at the time, Bush claimed that he didn't even need to get the approval of Congress, let alone the U.N. Something to do with the "Tonkin Gulf Resolution II: the Sequel", or whatever the Bill was called, signed after 9-11, that gave Bush the blank check, I mean *cough*authorization*cough* to pursue the terrorists with military force anywhere in the world. Technically, the same law that had given him the right to invade Afghanistan, would give him the right to invade Iraq. All he had to do, was link it to 9-11...
Luckily for us, some people sorta had a problem with that, and so we got to have even more fun and experience the dog and pony show that was the transparent attempts to get this thing legalized by UN Security Council Resolutions, Weapons Inspections (did anybody else notice that Bush et al never seemed to be relieved whenever they heard the latest report of 'no weapons'...maybe it's just me, but you'd think if war were your last resort, you'd be relieved to find you didn't have to go to war, according to the inspectors...hmmm...), and, the most fun of all, Congressional Authorization debates right on the eve of Mid-Term elections! Boy, those were the days.
And I remember... part of me, the smart, confident, politically savvy and cynical part, was absolutely sure that this was all a facade...that the decision had already been made. I just knew. Last resort, my ass. But there was this one small doubt in the back of my mind - SURELY Bush wouldn't take such a chance with such a slim chance at vindication? What would he DO when the weapons weren't found? How could he survive that? It would be like some horrible replay of "One Tin Soldier"! Nah, maybe he's just bluffing. Maybe we won't invade. Oh, I was so naive then....
It was this one idea that kept me at first doubting that he would do it, and then, as it became apparent that it was a 'go', my belief that the weapons weren't there. I mean, maybe I was wrong about the weapons, maybe they really were there. I'm nobody, what do I know? Because, I thought, over and over, how could he survive it politically? What if a couple of hundred soldiers die? We would never forgive him!
Still... those were just doubts. Of course I did know he was gonna go. And I knew the weapons wouldn't be found. And I knew we wouldn't be greeted as liberators. And I knew there would likely be an insurgency. Unfortunately, none of this made me a sage. A halfway bright middle school geography student could have figured it out. And so I remember thinking, that as horrible as all this would be, at least it would expose him to the people once and for all as the fraud that he is, and great change would result. There would at least be a political awakening. Americans would rise up upon learning they were lied to by a stupid puppet. Sigh. Oh to be young again.
So...back to the danger. You remember the danger? Mentioned at the top of this post? Good.
The danger is that the idea of invading Iran is so absolutely ludicrous, that we rational, intelligent, moral people just can't believe he'd do it. I mean surely not! Everyone's just being paranoid! Where will they find troops? Besides, what if you're wrong and then you can't go back and edit your blog so the whole world knows you were wrong?! Sound familiar?
But you know as well as I do what all these recent Iran stories are doing in the Press. How Iran seems to have become a danger to the entire world overnight. Or at least to Israel. We need a missile shield! They're building NUKES! They want to "wipe Israel off the map"! They question the Holocaust! They are (and I have to stop to catch my breath from laughing at this one) violating the sovereignty of Iraq! And the most interesting one: they are behind attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. I'll come back to that momentarily...
And on top of it all, you've got the same media mindlessly repeating "Administration-Officials-report-stories" without any critical analysis, let alone fact checking. You even have one of the most notorious reporters who helped build the case for Iraq in the NYT being allowed to DO IT AGAIN! I do not jest! This is a must-read: Greg Mitchell at Editor and Publisher has this story on NYT reporter Michael Gordon, once again spoon feeding America the Administration's case for war, verbatim. You heard me right. The same Michael Gordon of Judith Miller and Michael Gordon fame. Does our entire country suffer from ADD? I mean, I know we aren't very good at history, but this is...five years ago! It's not really even history yet.
So, we sit here...we rational, intelligent, moral people...and we think...nah, he wouldn't dare.
And you just KNOW this is all BS again because, supposedly, our government is telling us, the Iranians are attacking our troops. If it wasn't BS then why the hell aren't we bombing them?!? I don't mean that jingoistically. I mean, if another country attacks our troops we are supposed to respond. Period. So why aren't we? Because the answer of course is that this is all propaganda meant to manufacture consent for a later war, to borrow Chomsky's phrase, rather than an immediate casus belli. But this particular charge is a casus belli. They accidently created a casus belli when all they were supposed to do was create the desire for war. Like HotPotatoMash so articulately pointed out recently about creating monsters that you cannot contain, this may be a story that the Administration will come to regret. If I were a right winger, I would be demanding a response to verified attacks on our troops. What SHOULD they think? In other words, creating the Iranian boogeyman with tales of possible nukes, threats to our buddies, etc. does not necessarily a case for war make. But it does "soften them up" in anticipation of war on their new enemy. But now they have claimed that Iran has actually attacked us (let's not forget that an attack on American soldiers is an attack on US). What kind of pansy ass President does not respond to attacks on his troops?!?!?! Now he HAS to attack Iran. Oops.
So we sit here, we rational, intelligent, moral people... And we think, nah. He wouldn't. Would he?
And THAT's the danger...
Oh...and the 'One Tin Soldier' link? Complain to me all you want, but it's 'One Tin Soldier'! You didn't expect cheeziness? In fact, I think it is the single cheeziest thing I have EVER seen. Sorry!
No comments:
Post a Comment