A pall hangs over this election, a shroud of darkness that oppresses the heart because its outcome guarantees no change, only the certainty of continued chaos if Bush should win and the unknown direction a Kerry victory might take, a direction that could continue the chaos America's mired in, a darkness, then, to appall. I read each day the crippling accounts of soldiers caught in a maelstrom of unseen death lurking on roof tops, in narrow alleys, behind cement walls and black windows, beneath tires littering the streets. I see pictures of burned out buses, sidewalks and curbs bathed with blood, faces twisted in pain, bits and pieces of flesh scattered about like fallen leaves, blown helter-skelter by the wind. Faces, I see suffering on so many faces, mothers weeping over their dying children, old women and men huddled in the debris left of their bulldozed home, medics carrying the lifeless body of a man whose hand rests beside his face held there by the torn shred of his sleeve, his arm gone, his body black with grime.
This is a world gone mad, a madness on all sides, the madness of greed that sees in oil the riches of Sultans and Kings, the madness of arrogant pseudo-philosophers who conjure beliefs of personal superiority that gives them license to conquer and enslave, the madness of ancient minds that dreamt of power and glory in covenants with gods, the madness of fanatics that fabricate fantasy out of indecipherable images lodged in pages of metaphors, the madness of little minds that grab onto faith as the golden ring that will bring them salvation, the madness of those born again to the child's world of impossible dreams forgoing in their new world the reality of this.
Today I read of depleted uranium, 1000 metric tons made from the deadly U238 isotope dropped on America's killing fields, that wafts on the wind like aerosol spray, a toxic death that sticks in human lungs, bringing a slow and painful death. I saw pictures of new born children bloated and bruised by scars, eyes missing, a nose of scar tissue and nostrils, no lips, the detritus of our advanced civilization scattered on hospital beds in Baghdad. I read of soldiers twisted in mind and spirit by no visible symptom except the phantom of our cursed nuclear waste that encircles them in their tank and haunts them the remainder of their lives. Our young return from this nightmare of devastation devastated themselves courtesy of our Commander in Chief.
And I read today that 24,010 Americans have been evacuated with wounds and injuries from our "war" zones, that 37,000 innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan and Iraq have died and more than 500,000 have suffered wounds. And I hear the silence, the deafening silence of indifference that our compassionate conservative leader offers to those who suffer the consequence of his acts, and feel with them the utter helplessness of their plight. And I wait for a word from Kerry that he, too, hears their pain, that he will stop the slaughter in Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine ... and I wait in vain; there is no condemnation, no plan to end the conflicts, no recognition that states terrorize, no acceptance of the right of people to fight the oppressor, no confession of wrong waged against the innocent that had not the intention or the means to threaten America.
I have heard these men, both Bush and Kerry, attest to their deep rooted religious principles, the depth of their faith in the teachings of Jesus, comforting the citizenry that they are fit for the White House because they believe. But I see nothing of Jesus in their behavior, nothing of the compassion that attended his ministry, nothing of the inclusiveness of his teachings, nothing of the love he proffered as the binding source of peace throughout the world.
I look in vain for this Christ in the Christianity practiced by the right wing, fanatical sects that preach the Book of Revelation, reveling in the glory they perceive to be their reward if they destroy the enemies they identify as the enemies of God. I wonder where in this acclaimed Christian land of TV Evangelists and literalist ministers is there a man who acts as Christ would act? I see none. I see only a God forsaken Tele-Evangelist land of vitriol and bigotry where none could say I "love the Lord my God with my whole heart and mind and soul, and my neighbor as myself." They have buried the teachings of Jesus in the quagmire of a malevolent and malicious God of the Old Testament, a God that would order one Semitic tribe to exterminate another. We have not moved beyond the racist hatred that blotted the landscape 2500 years ago.
I would have thought the founding fathers' voices would have turned us against such barbarity, for they knew that such religions were anathema to the rights of the people and to the fledgling Democracy they desired to create. They expunged such organized zealots of religion from civil discourse precisely because they knew its inherent destructive nature. But, no, we have the airwaves turned into streams of venom that flow from the mouths of the heralded self-worshipers whose mantra is hatred for their fellow man, the likes of Pat Robertson, Pastor John Hagee, Franklin Graham, Hal Lindsey, and, now, even our blessed generals who defile the houses of worship not with coins but with cursed bigotry in the person of General Boykin.
I wonder how any person can stand against the tribes that follow these accursed men? What voice can reach the soul of men, if soul they still have after their life of crime, that has been lodged deep in their bloody wallets made fat with their racist hatred for their fellows whose only sin is their belief in a God different from their own? They mount their campaigns on fear, fear lodged in a word that defies definition because it slips and slides, nay, it slithers through meaning like molten lava over rock burying it beneath layers of hot and passionate rhetoric, a word without substance or sense, a word seething with diffidence, anxiety, suspicion, even horror, the word is faith. No word evokes more fear and mistrust; no word has caused more chaos and wanton destruction, as the Crusades and the Conquistadors, rampaging through Central America, attest; no word can put people in such a state of doubt that they acquiesce to prophets of doom century after century; no word has been and continues to be more destructive in the mouths of fanatics. That is the destructive power of blind faith!
Fanatics have a way, whether they be the Imams guiding Hamas or the robed ministers of Robertson's TV Club or the ultra right Zionists in Israel, with those who abdicate responsibility to think for themselves, those who hand over their minds and conscience to them as they thunder their prophetic curses in dramatic tirades, bathing their flocks in fear and loathing. These fanatics in America, who exist through the courtesy of a democratic secular system that tolerates their presence if not their message, fetter the minds of their laity with absolute truths generated out of myths, negating thereby the very semblance of democratic thought that is premised on individual responsibility; and the lambs they lead to slaughter do not know it. These fanatics defy the laws of the secular state by determining for their congregations what political party they must support, what candidates they must vote for, and what policies they must accept. And for this defiance they pay no taxes!
But it's worse than that. These same fanatics literally compel their congregants, on fear of eternal damnation in Hell's fire, to strap themselves in the swaddling clothes of death and bring that gift to all around them, to support terrorists in the occupied territories of Palestine, to proclaim an enemy identified in the Book of Revelation, an Arab enemy who worships in the Islamic faith. And for this incitement to murder they pay no taxes and suffer no incarceration. What else do we call it but killing for Christ, killing for Allah, killing for Yahweh!
This is our dilemma. We Americans pay the bill; they act in our name. How can we, who speak with the conviction of our conscience, hope to remove the hatred a Hagee or a Robertson breeds against God's creatures? The pictures I saw today of dead and dying children in Iraq, pictures too horrific to be put in main stream newspapers or shown on TV, pictures that cry to the human soul that the pain and suffering must stop also cry out to every true Christian that Jesus' teachings never allowed for such wanton slaughter. Yet these are the innocent victims of our fanatical dependence on the preaching of these men who sit safely ensconced on their splendid chairs amidst tall vases of flowers, smiling beatifically for the cameras.
How can we witness Bush's acceptance, indeed his encouragement, of Ariel Sharon's savagery and not condemn his acts as anathema to the teachings of the Christ he proclaims as his God? How can we suffer in silence the ferociousness of Sharon as he spreads his hatred and nihilism over the bloodied landscape of the unholy lands of ancient Palestine? Our indifference, our silence blessed the rape of Rafah in May, God's month of renewal; our indifference and our silence blessed a summer of slaughter in the season of God's increase; and today, our indifference and our silence acquiesce to a season of harvest that gathers in the dead and maimed in Gaza.
Where is the voice of America that should cry against these killing fields, these American supported killing fields, these murderous rampages that defile the love Jesus begged we have for our neighbor, a love equal to that we have for ourselves?
Where are the Priests, the Rabbis, the Imams, the quiet Buddha monks, all who claim to love humankind? Why does silence reign? Whose voice are we afraid of? Where are the voices of our leaders, where is Kerry, where is Dean, where is Edwards? Why do we hear words of condemnation when we witness the wanton slaughter in Beslan of children in school yet hear not a word when the IDF slaughters the children in the kindergarten in Jabaliya or our missiles miss their intended target and destroy the lives of innocent people? Does one mother's weeping reach our ear and another goes unheard? I would that every mother's cry would reach our ears as it rents the sky that we might know what Christ meant when he said, "Love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and mind and soul, and thy neighbor as thyself."
William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His new book, Psalms for the 21st Century, was published by Mellen Press. He can be reached at: cookb@ULV.EDU
"But history will look back and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration. Because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility." -- President George W. Bush during the 2004 second debate.
The revelations keep coming, proving the Bush Administration's reasons for invading and occupying Iraq were deviations from the truth. Members of the club such as Bremer and Rumsfeld have been contradicting their leader and their own earlier statements. The facts (as opposed to the many misstatements of fact) are incriminating, not only regarding President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and their colleagues-in-conspiracy, but also regarding war-eager legislators, editors, reporters and pundits who suckered for the never-ending tale (reasons changing daily) that immediate attack was this nation's only option.
How many of the suckers have admitted error? Not very many. In the second debate, Wily Charles Gibson chose for last this question to George W. Bush: "President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision and what you did to correct it. Thank you."
Linda Grabel, who politely asked the question, did not get an answer, because, acting true to form, George W. Bush, President of the United States, could not admit to having made three mistakes, and he did not specify any corrective action he'd taken either. As leader of "the most powerful nation on earth," George W. Bush sets the standard for the rest of us, including those millions of children who are not to be left behind. The message: never admit error! How puzzling, therefore, that a majority the president's most ardent supporters would surely not, as parents, instill this example of family-values in their own children. Apparently it is now a demonstration of one's "strength" if one refuses to say (and mean it), "I was wrong."
Apart from some jocularly-unspecified "appointments," as President of the United States, George W. Bush appears to believe he has not made any mistakes worth noting. Therefore, he has no mistakes to correct. Not even three little-tiny-bitty ones. As for choosing the path of war, the confident Bush went on to defend his choice. "They're trying to say, 'Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?' And the answer is, 'Absolutely not.' It was the right decision."
The debate marked Bush's second try at giving a reasonable response, since Grabel's question mimicked a reporter's inquiry during an earlier Bush press conference, Linda Grabel deserves a standing tribute at the Kennedy Center for her question and the direct, no-nonsense way in which it was asked. She had the courage on national television to ask for Truth from Power, and Power took a powder when it came to giving a response. That more of the public, the legislators, reporters, editors and pundits have not found this particular Bush performance disgraceful is in itself a national disgrace.
The Rush to War
Because Saddam Hussein constituted no immediate threat to the security of the United States, the invasion of Iraq was rushed forward in order to terminate the ongoing work of U.N. inspectors whose final report would have been the same as those of David Kay and the Duelfer report. Having chosen the WMD fiction to frighten the nation into the need for war, President Bush and his co-conspirators could not risk having the inspectors publish a report that would take the air out of the administration's elaborately-manufactured blimp.
A Sweet Tax Named "Desire"
In light of the Duelfer report's damning evidence, the Bush Administration now justifies action against Iraq because Saddam Hussein desired a weapons of mass destruction program. Saddam was punished for what he desired. Consider how this standard would apply to tax policy. As a not-wealthy citizen and sometime lottery player, my persistent desire is to have a million (or more) dollars. Under the Bush dream-no-more approach, I should be taxed not on my actual income but on the income I desire. Enacted nationally, this policy would wipe out that big Bush deficit in no time.
Presidential Disappointment
In a national test, each voter should be asked, "What was the real reason the United States invaded Iraq?" No fair asking President Bush, of course. During the second debate he woefully declared, "I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons . . ." President Bush desired to find weapons capable of killing thousands, even millions of human beings. With his desire unfulfilled, he "wasn't happy."
No Weapons of Mass Destruction
In earlier columns, I have written at length about the apparent fact that at least some in the government knew our troops would not encounter WMD during the invasion of Iraq and the march into Baghdad. Certainly this confidence game was one of the most cynical scams ever perpetrated on the American people. The fear our military forces would be attacked by some unspecified and highly lethal weaponry made for great drama on television and in the newspapers. Fear of ruinous WMD also helped to paint the Iraqis as bad hombres. Sophisticated reporters and editors failed to consider how foolhardy it would have been for the United States to send thousands of "embedded" reporters and our finest troops into a battle against WMD. While the media and the public concentrated on administration language, they forgot to examine the actions being taken on the ground where convoys of soldiers accompanied by world-famous reporters rushed forward without being clad in protective gear. The nation was misled into an expensive and unnecessary military action, and it was misled about the nature of the opposition its military would face on the ground in Iraq.
Over There, Over Here
A standard Bushvolk defense of the "war" in Iraq is that we are fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here in the U.S.A. Iraq is a giant Electrolux that sucks in terrorists so they can be captured and/or killed as the world is cleansed of their ranks. At the same time we're bludgeoned with the fact that terrorism is a "global" business, so according to the administration's own language, not all terrorists are in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Iraq may be a country as large as California, but it is only a small part of the earth's land mass. Because terror is a global criminal enterprise (can you name any others?), terrorists not in Iraq could still do mischief over here, or so it would seem to a reasonable person. Will no one ask President Bush why battling in Iraq prevents other terrorists from striking within the United States?
Fear and Trembling
Are Americans at home truly possessed by the fear of terrorism? Most of us seem to go on with our lives as we did prior to 9/11/01. It seems doubtful many citizens hide in duct-taped safe rooms, fearing to breathe or walk abroad because a terrorist might strike. For awhile in the campaign, Safety Moms replaced Soccer Moms as a significant group to be pandered to, but most moms have always been concerned about the well-being of their children. Although polls and interviews turn up voters who say their primary concern is to be safe from terrorists, that concern has not dampened their interest in going to work, dining out, living well, loving, watching the latest episode of "Lost" or "Survivor." One wonders whether "I'm afraid" is not an easy way to avoid thinking more deeply about a significant issue of our time, just as the Bush Administration's not-so-subtle call for the nation to "be frightened but let Uncle George protect you" is a convenient substitute for a more nuanced discussion of terrorism and the real threat it may pose.
A Draft for All Seasons
There is good reason to worry about the reinstatement of a military draft because both President Bush and Senator Kerry have made campaign promises vowing that no draft will happen on their respective watches. The future is notably difficult to predict, although true-red-white-and-blue partisan Republicans and Democrats cheer on their respective candidates oblivious to the fact. Surely the most ridiculous charge that could be made against almost any politician is that of "flip-flopping."
If a draft should become necessary, it will result from the actions of George W. Bush and his administration's eagerness to depose Saddam Hussein and establish permanent U.S. influence over a major portion of the Middle East. If during the second debate any citizen submitted a question regarding our building permanent military bases in Iraq, it wasn't selected by Charles Gibson to be asked of the candidates.
This Bush military action against and occupation of Iraq is becoming increasingly unpopular, even though half the voters would seem to favor "staying the course." Because so many Americans stand ready to follow their present Commander-In-Chief wherever he leads them, instituting a new military draft should not present a problem: Let those who support the war fight the war.
It's that simple. Americans from all socio-economic groups cheer on the Bush team as Iraq spirals increasingly out of control. The most aggressive fighting force we could put together: those who most aggressively support the battle for Iraq. Why am I wrong?
Administration surrogates such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and their like have spawned a huge cadre of followers who would surely put their bodies where their mouths have been: on the front lines in the war against terrorism. If Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage and the rest want to lead their troops in the charge, so be it. Drafting those who support the "war" in Iraq would be much simpler than the lottery drafts of old because it would eliminate all those who are reluctant to suit up for a conflict that has been lied about, manipulated, misreported and misunderstood.
Under this Draft Supporter doctrine, millions of Americans from 18 to 80 will rush to enlist. The cry of "Send Me!" will be heard throughout the land. As a consequence, Iraq will be flooded with freshly-minted "troops" willing to stay the course and overrun the ancient nation to such an extent that "insurgents" will simply throw up their dirty hands and surrender.
The idea is practical in every way. Only those who want to fight will be sent to fight. Only those willing to put their lives on the line for this particular "war" will die or be wounded. Because the new military has supported President Bush through his kaleidoscope of misstatement, deception and rationalization, a grateful administration and Congress will provide all necessary body armor, weaponry and combat pay. At the same time, the war will be "insourced," not outsourced, ending a need for contracted outsiders and worries about whistle-blowing or desertion. America's favorite source of prescription drugs, Canada, will not be over-run with Yanks fleeing from an unpopular draft as happened during the Vietnam debacle.
For the sake of true fairness, no supporter of the war, whatever his or her status in life, will be exempted from the draft. Corporate big-wigs will serve alongside secretaries and janitorial personnel. Publishers, editors and pundits will fight side by side with advertisers, readers and delivery persons. With such a draft, freedom (including freedom of choice) will be truly on the march.
Whose Life Was Worth Saddam?
President Bush and his claque have repeatedly said, "Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, and the world is better off without him in power." George W. Bush defines the word "unique" as Saddam's having had WMD he could have passed on to terrorists. But Saddam had no WMD, and there is no proof he would have given away his deadly treasure if he'd had it. Was Saddam unique in that he "deceived" us by telling the truth when he said he had no weapons of mass destruction? Was he unique when he violated a number of U.N. sanctions, as other nations have done and will continue to do? Was he unique when he slaughtered thousands of his own citizens, as other dictators have done and continue to do? Was he unique when he invaded a sovereign nation, as the U.S. did when it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?
Was invasion and occupation the only way to remove Saddam from power? To that question the answer is an obvious "no." The Bushvolk invasion of Iraq was a "war" of choice, not of necessity, as was Hitler's September invasion of Poland. Therefore the horrible death and wounding, the devastation and destruction might have been, could have been, avoided. But the lives we live are so much determined by the choices that we make.
While conventional wisdom applauds the notion that "the world is better off" without Saddam in its face, the truth remains to be seen. If the invasion to depose Saddam descends further into a hellish nightmare, getting rid of Saddam may seem of little benefit to the world, to security, to stability and peace.
So I ask: Whose life was worth giving to remove Saddam Hussein?
This nation's most ardent supporters of the Bush decision to invade Iraq have, for the most part, been unwilling to put their lives on the line. The politicians who talk a good "game" aren't pulling the triggers, driving the trucks, manning the tanks or even rebuilding the booby-trapped roads and the schools. President Bush is not flying hot spirals over the skies of Baghdad. Neither the oft-deferred Richard Cheney nor the true veteran John Kerry is guiding a swift-boat up the Tigris.
Go to the list of coalition war dead, pick a name, and ask, "Was this life worth it?"
If you can find one, go to a list of innocent Iraqi men and women who have been killed in the fighting as ask, "Were their lives worth it?"
Gather up the names, ages, faces of all the children killed or left without a parent because of the sanctions before the invasion and because of the invasion of Iraq: "Were their lives worth it?"
Who died for Saddam? Would one of those who died, if he or she had lived, have found a cure for cancer, composed a symphony, wrote a novel or great poetry, fathered a family, been chosen parent of the year, served friends and neighbors throughout the long and happy life he or she hoped to have, expected?
The greatest threat to civilization is not weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, but hubristic politicial and religious zealots claiming their God is on their side, bent on having what they want, no matter what the cost.
Doug Giebel is a writer and analyst who lives in Big Sandy, Montana. He welcomes comments at dougcatz@ttc-cmc.net
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
