Month: September 2006

Chuck Peña will be discussing his latest book, Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism, Friday afternoon in Washington, D.C. The Independent Institute-sponsored event will also feature Roger W. Cressey and Joseph Cirincione. Details here.

From Time magazine [Sept. 25] via Joshua Micah Marshall:

“The first message was routine enough: A ‘Prepare to Deploy’ order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn’t actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn’t like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.

“What’s going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world’s oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO’s request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed—but until now largely theoretical—prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.”

Check out this WWII-era Office of War information propaganda film on the “relocation” of Japanese-Americans from the West Coast to concentration camps in the interior. Concentration camps, to be sure, well-stocked with plenty of “nourishing food” and pregnant with “opportunity.”

This is Constitution Day.  The National Archives is holding a celebration in which children can stop by and sign a “faux Constitution.”  George Bush issuing a statement earlier this week proclaiming:

America is grateful to those who have worked to defend the Constitution and promote its ideals. During this observance, we also recognize the profound impact our Constitution has on the everyday lives of our citizens, and we call upon all Americans to help uphold its values of a free and just society.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 17, 2006, as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, and September 17 through September 23, 2006, as Constitution Week. I encourage Federal, State, and local officials, as well as leaders of civic, social, and educational organizations, to conduct ceremonies and programs that celebrate our Constitution and reaffirm our rights and responsibilities as citizens of our great Nation.

Bush is right.  The Constitution is vital.  It is also vital for Americans to find important contemporary ways to celebrate its anniversary.

In this Age of Bush, here are a few ideas for properly commemorating the event:

1) Wiretap your neighbor.  If he discovers it and complains, ask him whose side he is on and what does he have to hide.   Send the tapes of all conversations to the local FBI.

2) Capture and torture an illegal immigrant.  If he confesses, turn him in.  If he doesn’t confess, try new methods to extract the truth.

3) Notify your mortgage company that you appended a secret “signing statement” when you signed the mortgage.  Thus, you are relieved of any duty to continue monthly payments.

What are other appropriate Bush-style ways to celebrate the anniversary of the Constitution this week? Comments/Criticisms welcome at http://jimbovard.com/blog/2006/09/17/celebrate-constitution-day-bush-style/

As we say here at Antiwar.com, the best way to spread the best parts of the American way – the rights of the individual, free markets, self-government and so forth – is by example. That when we export our way with force, we lose our own liberty and, by killing people overseas and setting a bad example for those who would like to emulate us, we make matters worse for the average foreigner.

As John Quincy Adams put it in 1821:

“[America] has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

“She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

“She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

“The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….”

Here is an anecdote from an Antiwar.com reader in the comment section at my blog Stress. It seemed honest enough to pass on to the rest of ya’ll and a good way to illustrate the larger point:

“Did you know that the Malaysian government used America’s pre-emptive strike policy and Guantanamo Bay as an excuse/example when they decided to detain people indefinitely wihout trial? Their reason: ‘If America, the leader of the free world could do it, why not us?'”

Nice, huh?

(Note: I realize that “spreading freedom” as the driving force for the American empire has always been a bunch of propagada for children and the weak-minded, but still, the point is worth bringing up – if only to knock it down.)

Comments welcome at Stress.

And I thought his speeches were pathetic…

Here are a couple of parts of Bush’s Friday press conference that warrant some review (There are more, but I no longer have the patience.):

“QUESTION: Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don’t you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you’re following a flawed strategy?

BUSH: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic.

It’s just – I simply can’t accept that.”

Thing is, Colin Powell, lying war criminal that he is, didn’t compare Bush to the terrorists. He simply said that when the President of the United States goes to Capital Hill demanding authority to torture people and use their coerced “confessions” in military “courts,” the basic bankrupt assumption of the American government’s power overseas – that they are killing people for their own good – is undermined. And that if foreigners quit believing in “our” benevolent motives (did anyone, ever?), it will make it more difficult to maintain our world empire over them.

Far too little, and way too late for you, Colin.

But Bush’s guilty conscience seems to have gotten in the way of his ability to address the question (What argument could he have made?), and he managed to instead only indict himself as the terrorist he was trying to deny he was to the question that was not asked:

“It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

So The Evil Terroristsâ„¢ kill women and children to achieve an objective, huh? That’s what makes them different from him? So does that mean that Bush kills just because he’s a psychopath with no ends in mind? And that’s what makes it okay?

And what is this about the Terroristsâ„¢ having objectives? What about they are pure evil, ideologically-motivated madmen who hate us for our freedom and all of that?

Also, in the “equivalency of our leaders and those of our enemies” category; “Commander in Chief doesn’t give a rat’s ass about his soldiers” section, see here. When asked, “But, sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, as they see fit, you’re saying that you’d be OK with that?” Bush responded:

“I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt.”

Wow. There you have it folks. If American POWs have to be tortured so that Bush can torture, then that’s just fine with him. But he couldn’t have meant that. Right?

“QUESTION: This will not endanger U.S. troops in your…

BUSH: Next man?

QUESTION: This will not endanger…

BUSH: David, next man please. Thank you.”

—————-

In other news, the History Channel now says that Jefferson’s war against the Barbary Pirates was America’s “first War on Terrorism,” so I guess we’re all on board now.

(Comments welcome over at Stress.)