[Peace-discuss] Another right-winger...

[C. G. Estabrook]

[...talking sense about the war and the presidential election.  The author
is "John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and
Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate
editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the
U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions."
--CGE]

	October 11, 2004
	Kerry Caught in the Big Lie
	by Paul Craig Roberts

The presidential debates are going nowhere. Why? Because both President
George Bush and Senator John Kerry are encapsulated in a big lie.

The lie is too big to be acknowledged. Both candidates repeat the mantra
that Saddam Hussein was dangerous to America and had to be removed. Both
reaffirm that Saddam's removal remains a good thing despite a plethora of
official reports concluding that false reasons were given for his removal.

Kerry gets nowhere because he says he would do the same thing Bush did,
only differently.

Bush reminds Kerry over and over that "you saw the same intelligence that
I did" and voted for the war. Kerry's criticism after the event, Bush
says, just shows what a flip-flopper Kerry is.

For many Americans Bush's answer is easier to follow than Kerry's nuanced
argument. For the second time in his life, Kerry is in the position of
turning against a war after he had joined up.

Kerry has missed opportunity after opportunity to be candid with the
American people. By speaking frankly, Kerry can deliver a knockout blow
that would tear the debate wide open.

When Bush chides Kerry that "you saw the same intelligence that I did,"
why doesn't Kerry reply:

"Yes, Mr. President, the same people who misled you, misled me, the House
and the Senate and sent Colin Powell to New York to mislead the UN. So,
Mr. President, why haven't you fired them? Is there no accountability in
your administration? How can you lead when you don't hold people
responsible for grievous errors that have led to the death and maiming of
thousands of our troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis, shattered our
alliances, and recruited thousands to the banners of terrorism?"

Bush would have no answer.

Saddam Hussein was no danger to the U.S. However, he was a potential
check, with Syria, on Israel's right-wing Likud Party's desire to expel
the Palestinians to Jordan and to seize Lebanon. The expulsion and the
Lebanon grab may yet come to fruition, because it is supported by the
neoconservatives who control the Bush administration.

Installing a puppet regime in Iraq and constructing a dozen or more
permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, as the U.S. is doing, opens a field
of conquest to Israel.

The neoconservative goal of conquest is no secret. Neoconservative
godfather Norman Podhoretz, and others of his persuasion, have called in
print on more than one occasion for the U.S. to launch World War IV
against the Muslim Middle East.

The cause of Muslim terrorism is not opposition to U.S. democracy. The
cause is opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East, especially U.S.
support for Israel's ghettoization of Palestine. Lacking military forces
with which to oppose American might, Muslims resort to terror attacks. How
can Americans be so naive as to think that Muslims will just sit there and
take it?

The U.S. cannot put down terrorism with force alone – unless it intends
genocide for Muslims. Saddam Hussein was not a popular ruler, but
occupying Iraq has tied down 80% of our troops and is not succeeding.

Expanding this war, as neocons intend, requires resources that the U.S.
does not have and would likely result in countries uniting against us.

It is a self-defeating policy that Bush is pursuing in the Middle East.
Bush is not building democracy, but he is creating legions of insurgents
and terrorists.

The U.S. can defeat insurgents in battles, but cannot successfully occupy
the conquered territory. In his essays on Fourth Generation Warfare,
William Lind has clarified the advantages insurgents have over
conventional forces.

At this point, "staying the course" in Iraq is not an option. America's
only choices are to escalate or to withdraw.

According to the October 9 International Herald Tribune, the U.S. has
plans to escalate by attacking 20 to 30 Iraqi towns and cities in hopes of
regaining control:

"Pentagon planners and military commanders have identified roughly 20 to
30 towns and cities in Iraq that must be brought under control before
elections can be held there in January."

Think about that. Twenty to thirty more Najafs and Fallujahs?! The U.S.
doesn't even control Baghdad 400 yards beyond the heavily fortified "Green
Zone" where the "Iraqi government" and its U.S. overlords are forced to
take refuge.

Imagine the numbers of women and children who will be blown to bits by
U.S. "precision attacks" on 20 to 30 Iraqi towns and cities.

It is a war crime to attack civilians. The already low ratio of killed
insurgents to killed Iraqi civilians means that it is the insurgents, not
the civilians, who are the "collateral damage."

If Bush goes through with this madness, the U.S. military will become
known as the reincarnation of the SS.

No American politician can talk sense when ensnared by the big lie that
the war with Iraq was necessary. It was not necessary. It was a strategic
blunder. It has started something that may already be out of anyone's
control.

In military matters, pretense and delusion lead to disaster. A deluded
superpower is most dangerous to itself.

Please candidate Kerry, in the final debate, do come to the point, speak
the truth, and show the leadership required if America is to recover from
the strategic blunder of invading Iraq.
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=3760