The State of Disunion Behind Chairman Bush

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

In the eyes of many Americans Bushs foreign policies are themselves a threat to world peace. This sentiment is shared by top US politicians.

The state of disunion behind Chairman Bush](The state of disunion behind Chairman Bush) Sydney Morning Herald

By Mike Carlton 01 Feb 03

**One of quite a few libels being smeared around by the ratbag right at the moment is that anyone who questions George Bush’s headlong rush to war is “anti-American”. **It is the usual mindless conservatism recycled yet again from the Vietnam War years, “all the way with LBJ” tarted up for the new century. Australian critics of US policy are ingrates who forget that General Douglas MacArthur was our saviour in 1942. We hate America and all its works. We would defy our great protector and trash the ANZUS treaty, leaving Australia defenceless against naked aggression from our north, blah blah.

This tosh conveniently ignores the fact that millions of Americans are also fearful of where Bush and his Texas oil cronies might be leading them. The artfully directed television pictures of the President’s State of the Union message showed senators and representatives leaping to their feet in thunderous applause at about every third paragraph - bizarrely, it looked like nothing so much as a plenary session of the Chinese Communist Party - but in fact there is profound dissent in Washington and throughout the United States.

Pretty much at random, I checked the websites of three prominent Democrat senators to get their take on the Bush speech.

Senator Edward Kennedy (Massachusetts): “President Bush cannot expect the international community to salute America and march with us into war when the Administration has made no convincing case for war. He did not make a persuasive case that the threat is imminent and that war is the only alternative.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (California): “On Iraq, I fear that a unilateral attack by the United States will bring about the very events that we are trying to prevent. I believe that with arms inspectors on the ground, Iraq is essentially contained, and we should work with our allies to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein - but we should not launch a unilateral, pre-emptive attack on Iraq at this time.”

Senator Robert Byrd (West Virginia, and, at 86, the senior member of the Senate): “What concerns me greatly is that this President appears to place himself above the international mandates of the United Nations. President Bush has made the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a personal crusade, and in his zeal to pursue his goal, he has failed to make the case to the American people and to our allies abroad that the United Nations is dragging its feet, that war is the only option left, and that war cannot wait.”

I think we can safely assume that none of that trio is anti-American, but as the drums of war grow louder such voices are barely heard, most especially in their homeland. The American media are avid for the missiles to start landing, slavering at the soaring newspaper circulation and TV ratings that war will bring. Much the same is happening in our country as Simon Crean makes the same argument, with the added charge that John Howard has secretly committed us to Bush’s war.

2

*I think we can safely assume that none of that trio is anti-American, but as the drums of war grow louder such voices are barely heard, most especially in their homeland. The American media are avid for the missiles to start landing, slavering at the soaring newspaper circulation and TV ratings that war will bring. *

Thats quite an apt statement, and accurately reflects how opposition to the Bush regime's war plans is being downplayed, rubbished and opponents smeared.

3

Some interesting statements made by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd:

We stand passively mute, The Guardian, 18 February 2003

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of pre-emption - the idea that the United States or any other nation can attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be in the future - is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defence. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN charter. And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our - or some other nation’s - hit list. High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilising than this type of uncertainty?

…]The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37bn so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found Bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish. This administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. Speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq’s oil fields? To whom do we hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war result in attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Has our bellicose language and our disregard of the interests of other nations increased the race to join the nuclear club?

This reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences. One can understand the anger and shock of any president after September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of destabilising foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable. Many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet on what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq - a population of which over 50% is under age 15 - this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands off to face unimagined horrors of warfare - this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the Senate. We are truly “sleepwalking through history”.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

4

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37bn so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found Bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish.

$37 billion is a HUGE figure, and have they "won" this war yet? No. Yet they are about to embark on another such war, with most of the world against them.

5

Nadia: I’m glad you resurrected this thread. The original post cited some Democratic opposition to Bush’s Iraq policy. Senator Feinstein was featured in that article. Here’s what Feinstein said AFTER she had a chance to learn the facts from Secty Powell at the UN.

“I no longer think inspections are going to work,” Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters. “Absent Saddam capitulating and leaving, I don’t know that there’s any other solution.”

Normally, I would never refer to Feinstein as “open-minded.” She prefers to oppose all that is Republican. However, even Dems who voiced opposition to Bush prior to hearing Powell, rapidly changed their tune.

6

MyVoice,
So one US official altered her mind subsequent to hearing Powell’s speech to the Security Council. i am sorry, but what is that supposed to prove - ? That does not change Robert Byrd’s statements; he doesn’t seem to have modified his position subsequent to Powell’s speech. This article of his is published in today’s edition of the Guardian.

More than anything, Robert Byrd has become MORE critical of his government’s policies, rather than less, even after hearing Powell’s ‘factual’ speech presented to the Security Council.

i am not certain whether this is related to this thread, i tried searching for a more appropriate thread but honestly could not find it. Sorry.

General’s warning over attack on Iraq, Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian, 18 February 2003

An attack on Iraq designed to topple Saddam Hussein would breach international law and the UN charter, a British former senior military officer warns today. The warning, from General Sir David Ramsbotham, former commander of one of the army’s armoured divisions, reflects widespread disquiet among serving military officers over the lack of clarity about the objectives of an invasion of Iraq.

Writing in the Guardian, he questions the military aims of an attack on Iraq which would involve a “deliberate breach of international law” - a reference to a pre-emptive strike. “Who is being threatened?” he asks. “Not the United States or the United Kingdom directly. Israel? Israel has already demonstrated that if it feels itself threatened it takes unilateral action, at once and without question, to eliminate that threat.”

The threat posed by Iraq falls a long way below that posed by al-Qaida-linked terrorism, North Korea, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the Indo-Pakistan arms race, conflict in southern Africa, international crime - including the drug trade - and conservation of the environment, he says, adding: "**Iraq is by no means the only potential supplier of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] to terrorists, and has no proven link with the most dangerous of them.

“Furthermore Iraq has been subjected to such a degree of international scrutiny since 1991 that it would be difficult for the Iraqis to take any action that was not almost instantly detected**.” Though Tony Blair has not explicitly described regime change as the objective of military action against Iraq, he came close to it at the weekend when he said the brutality of President Saddam’s dictatorship provided the moral case for war.

Sir David was adjutant general of the army, responsible for its organisation, during the 1991 Gulf war. Major-General Patrick Cordingley, who then commanded an armoured brigade in that war and is now retired, has said Mr Blair has failed to make a conclusive case for war against Iraq.

7

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**MyVoice,
So one US official altered her mind subsequent to hearing Powell's speech to the Security Council. i am sorry, but what is that supposed to prove - ? That does not change Robert Byrd's statements; he doesn't seem to have modified his position subsequent to Powell's speech. This article of his is published in today's edition of the *Guardian.

More than anything, Robert Byrd has become MORE critical of his government's policies, rather than less, even after hearing Powell's 'factual' speech presented to the Security Council.

[/QUOTE]

Nadia: Someone as well read as yourself must surely have picked up that virtually everyone in the Democratic party was effusive with praise of Powell and many made statements similar to Feinstein. I guess their opinions were only deemed worth respecting by you when they agreed with your own. Wasn’t Feinstein one of your poster children?

Maybe you posted the wrong link, but I see nothing in the Guardian article that deals with Byrd nor is it an article of his insofar as I can see.

8

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**I guess their opinions were only deemed worth respecting by you when they agreed with your own.*
[/quote]

:) Not quite.
To be honest, i receive the impression that whenever anyone posts any thread regarding an American or British official opposing the war, there is usually an attempt to rubbish the perspectives, and/or personality, of that person - based upon whatever frivolous grounds... (as occurred with the Nelson Mandela and Scott Ritter threads).

**
[quote]
Maybe you posted the wrong link, but I see nothing in the Guardian article that deals with Byrd nor is it an article of his insofar as I can see. **
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, scroll up a bit higher - it is located four posts above this one.

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

:) Not quite.
To be honest, i receive the impression that whenever anyone posts any thread regarding an American or British official opposing the war, there is usually an attempt to rubbish the perspectives, and/or personality, of that person - based upon whatever frivolous grounds... (as occurred with the Nelson Mandela and Scott Ritter threads).
[/QUOTE]

Regardless of what she feels about the war, I would be happy to "rubbish the perspective and/or personality" of Feinstein on a whole host of issues. The fact that she finally saw the light on Iraq does nothing to improve her standing in my eyes. But two short weeks ago, she was a darling of the anti-war crowd. I guess you just figure she lost her way.

Interesting that you would consider Ritter's pedophilia to be a "frivolous" ground for rubbishing his personality. I think it's a pretty good ground for that purpose. I didn't accept it and like it when done by a priest and certainly don't think people ought to give Ritter extra dispensation because of his stand on Iraq.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
*
Sorry, scroll up a bit higher - it is located four posts above this one.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I read it. And just because I disagree with him doesn't mean I'll rubbish his perspective and/or personality by pointing out that he is a former card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan. Racist bigots on the left aren't supposed to be criticized that way. :)

10

MyVoice,
Don’t you think this is getting a bit childish. All we do on this board (and i include myself as well first and foremost) is rubbish the perspectives, and/or personalities, of the individuals whose opinions we differ with.

>>But two short weeks ago, she was a darling of the anti-war crowd. I guess you just figure she lost her way.<<
Ritter was also a darling of many right-wingers, at least until he quietly did the spying work under UNSCOM for the US.

Stormin’ Norman was another darling, but i guess that slipped when he made those ‘unpatriotic’ statements recently… perhaps much of the same goes for Nelson Mandela.

Regarding the pedophilia - i think we hammered out that thread as much as it was possible to do so. No one yet convinced me that he was actually guilty of it.

Here’s another British individual opposed to the war, on military grounds; a veteran of two wars (including the last Iraq one):

The thin khaki line, David Ramsbotham
The Guardian, 18 February 2003

11

When respected people with legitimate credentials come up with reasoned arguments in opposition to things I believe, I pay attention and sometimes modify my thinking. When the best that can be offered in support of an idea is the “usual suspects” or people like Lyndon LaRouche, David Duke and Moonbeam, you can count on them and the ideas they espouse being rubbished.

I would think when people you respect (like Feinstein) change their opinions to oppose your viewpoint, that would make you sit up, take notice, and consider that people on the other side of the issue have legitimate arguments and reasons for believing as they do. And that possibly, just possibly, you do not necessarily sit exclusively on the moral high ground you claim.

When Stormin Norman made his statement a couple weeks back, I don’t recall anyone questioning his allegiance or patriotism. However, far less publicized by the Left Media was Norman’s different viewpoint supporting the Administration which he made after Bush’s State of the Union and after Powell’s UN appearance. So, like Feinstein, someone with reservations abondoned those reservations when supplied with the facts.

Of all those who speak in opposition to a war with Iraq, I most respect the former high military officers who have served the western alliance in combat. You won’t find them carrying around pictures of Saddam to support their point of view and you won’t find them pointing fingers of blame at their countries accusing them of practising genocide, being baby killers, and being responsible for every travesty bestowing our planet.

12

MyVoice, "Lyndon LaRouche, David Duke and Moonbeam" have certainly not been the only individuals whose anti-war opinions you have read in this Forum. If you think they are representative of the voices in the anti-war "movement", then one of us is seriously mistaken.

i am glad you realize that former high military officers who are opposed to this war, do not espouse their views by "carrying around pictures of Saddam to support their point of view". Neither, incidentally, do many other individuals who are opposed to this war.

13

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**MyVoice*, "Lyndon LaRouche, David Duke and Moonbeam" have certainly not been the only individuals whose anti-war opinions you have read in this Forum. If you think they are representative of the voices in the anti-war "movement", then one of us is seriously mistaken.
[/QUOTE]

If they are not representative of the voices of the anti-war movement, then why are members of the anti-war movement proudly publishing their words and lauding them as examples of distinguished people in their cause? Frankly, it looks like the anti-war movement would embrace and welcome the devil himself provided he shared the anti-US stance prevalent therein. (In fact, the Saddam posters indicate that many already have embraced the devil himself).

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
i am glad you realize that former high military officers who are opposed to this war, do not espouse their views by "carrying around pictures of Saddam to support their point of view". Neither, incidentally, do many other individuals who are opposed to this war.
[/QUOTE]

True. But most of the others fling words like "genocide" and "baby-killers" around like candy and blame the US for everything from ozone depletion to the aids epidemic in Africa, not to mention global warming, world hunger, destruction of the rain forest, etc., etc., etc. Love of country from the generals is always quite obvious. Hate of country is also too obvious in many in your camp. I'm sure that a very high percentage of the so-called anti-war movement are not anti-war at all. They are anti-US (particularly anti-Bush US) and that is what brings them together.

14

Come on yaar, we have presented the views of far more individuals who are anti-war than exclusively the three you mentioned. We have been discussing this issue for months, if not an entire year; the names of these three were only recently dropped in the Forum. There have been threads about Nelson Mandela to UN officials to Nobel Peace Prize Nominees to representatives of NGOs to members of the British and American military to CIA/MI6 officials. The thought that these three are the only ones mentioned in this Forum, who have espoused an anti-war stance, is truly not accurate at all.

I'm sure that a very high percentage of the so-called anti-war movement are not anti-war at all. They are anti-US (particularly anti-Bush US) and that is what brings them together.
i am not certain how you believe in that "very high percentage" - was there some sort of survey conducted ? At any rate, a large bulk of the anti-war movement is based in North America and the UK. As witnessed by this past Saturday's magnificent protests against the war, the ones who are the most opposed to the current US administration's foreign policies, also happen to reside in some of the largest democratic countries. If they happen to be "anti-war", "anti-US" or "anti-Bush", that is their democratic right to exercise their freedom of speech. For those who possess such a loathing of dictatorships such as Iraq, you should be happy to see these individuals exercising their freedom of speech.

15

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Come on yaar, we have presented the views of far more individuals who are anti-war than **exclusively* the three you mentioned. We have been discussing this issue for months, if not an entire year; the names of these three were only recently dropped in the Forum. There have been threads about Nelson Mandela to UN officials to Nobel Peace Prize Nominees to representatives of NGOs to members of the British and American military to CIA/MI6 officials. The thought that these three are the only ones mentioned in this Forum, who have espoused an anti-war stance, is truly not accurate at all.
[/QUOTE]

Now Nadia, I never said those were the ** only ** three people cited by anti-US er... anti-war Guppies. I correctly said they were three people who were held up as esteemed representatives of the cause. As to Mandela, he's got his own thread so I will not reittereate the reasons why this guy appears to have lost at least one can from his six pack. It also amazes me how you can tout the opinion of Nobel Peace Prize ** Nominees ** as if they mean something significant while at the same time you can denigrate Nobel Peace Prize ** Winners ** by suggesting they're war criminals; i.e. Kissinger. To me, neither getting a nomination nor being a winner of the Peace Prize means a darn thing in terms of how credible someone is. I am consistent. To you, the credibility of such a nomination or winning the prize seems to depend upon whether the opinion of the person matches a cause you support.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
i am not certain how you believe in that "very high percentage" - was there some sort of survey conducted ? At any rate, a large bulk of the anti-war movement is based in North America and the UK. As witnessed by this past Saturday's magnificent protests against the war, the ones who are the most opposed to the current US administration's foreign policies, also happen to reside in some of the largest democratic countries. If they happen to be "anti-war", "anti-US" or "anti-Bush", that is their democratic right to exercise their freedom of speech. For those who possess such a loathing of dictatorships such as Iraq, you should be happy to see these individuals exercising their freedom of speech.
[/QUOTE]

I am ecstatic that these individuals are exercising their freedom of speech. I love it. I hope Iraqis get that freedom soon. I see nothing wrong with someone being anti-US or anti-Bush. It's their right.

What I cannot stand is someone hiding from what they are or claiming to be something they are not. Skulking in the shadows. Being afraid to openly and proudly say, "I am anti-American and I will oppose virtually everything your government tries to do."