“In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war.” That’s what President Bush said last year, in a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.
Those were fine words, spoken by a man with less right to say them than any president in our nation’s history. For Mr. Bush took us to war not with reluctance, but with unseemly eagerness.
Now that war has turned into an epic disaster, in part because the war’s architects, who we now know were warned about the risks, didn’t want to hear about them. Yet Congress seems powerless to stop it. How did it all go so wrong?
Future historians will shake their heads over how easily America was misled into war. The warning signs, the indications that we had a rogue administration determined to use 9/11 as an excuse for war, were there, for those willing to see them, right from the beginning — even before Mr. Bush began explicitly pushing for war with Iraq.
In fact, the very first time Mr. Bush declared a war on terror that “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated,” people should have realized that he was going to use the terrorist attack to justify anything and everything.
When he used his first post-attack State of the Union to denounce an “axis of evil” consisting of three countries that had nothing to do either with 9/11 or with each other, alarm bells should have gone off.
But the nation, brought together in grief and anger over the attack, wanted to trust the man occupying the White House. And so it took a long time before Americans were willing to admit to themselves just how thoroughly their trust had been betrayed.
It’s a terrible story, yet it’s also understandable. I wasn’t really surprised by Republican election victories in 2002 and 2004: nations almost always rally around their leaders in times of war, no matter how bad the leaders and no matter how poorly conceived the war.
The question was whether the public would ever catch on. Well, to the immense relief of those who spent years trying to get the truth out, they did. Last November Americans voted overwhelmingly to bring an end to Mr. Bush’s war.
Yet the war goes on.
To keep the war going, the administration has brought the original bogyman back out of the closet. At first, Mr. Bush said he would bring Osama bin Laden in, dead or alive. Within seven months after 9/11, however, he had lost interest: “I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure,” he said in March 2002. “I truly am not that concerned about him.”
In all of 2003, Mr. Bush, who had an unrelated war to sell, made public mention of the man behind 9/11 only seven times.
But Osama is back: last week Mr. Bush invoked his name 11 times in a single speech, warning that if we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda — which wasn’t there when we went in — will be the winner. And Democrats, still fearing that they will end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave Mr. Bush another year’s war funding.
Democratic Party activists were furious, because polls show a public utterly disillusioned with Mr. Bush and anxious to see the war ended. But it’s not clear that the leadership was wrong to be cautious. The truth is that the nightmare of the Bush years won’t really be over until politicians are convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering. And that hasn’t happened yet.
Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a “movement” that “has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he should be treated as a lunatic.
When Mitt Romney says that a coalition of “Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda” wants to “bring down the West,” he should be ridiculed for his ignorance.
And when John McCain says that Osama, who isn’t in Iraq, will “follow us home” if we leave, he should be laughed at.
But they aren’t, at least not yet. And until belligerent, uninformed posturing starts being treated with the contempt it deserves, men who know nothing of the cost of war will keep sending other people’s children to graves at Arlington.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at
© 2007 The New York Times
“Future historians will shake their heads over how easily America was misled into war”
I said something similar about the present day America several years ago, only to hear in response from a witty friend (a historian): “If there will be historians.”
if future historians shake their heads, it will be because they are not true historians. they will have missed the speech Challenging the Culture of Obedience By Ross C. Anderson The Nation Thursday 31 August 2006 which is one explaination and george lakoff’s two models of parenting which is another explain for why the public was ‘misled’. future historians are tomorrow. history is happening so fast that what is going to happen has already happened before we even see the changes. history is now. it was the last blink of your eye. people in power know this and use this accelerated time to their advantage. they tell the public that it is done, so live with it. the public has been so acculturated/domesticated that this is accepted. they are obedient (anderson) to the strict father model (lakoff). life is easier this way. i started fighting back by learning. i now try to pass this on, first to my boys, then others.
But let’s face it - this one of the most absurd self-destructions in history - and I have in mind various aspects, such as insane economic polarization, mentality “My boss is my Lord,” and acceptance of everything, including the stolen elections (! where else?)
All empires ascend then ultimately collapse. So it will be with America. History is ever doomed to repeat itself until the end of time.
2 points,
Krugman says, “But the nation, brought together in grief and anger over the attack…” and fails to acknowledge that Americans wanted revenge, blood curdling rampage against the supposed evil. What Americans should have demanded was justice and every nation on the globe would have supported that end.
And 2, the reason the republican candidates can make such outrages and obviously false statements is the American love affair with racism. According to this world view, 911 wasn’t the act of some people or some group but rather the act of a race of people and this race must pay. Totally absurd!
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. george santayana
and yes, empires collapse
fpal makes two very good points. Racism is institutionalized in the United States and our history books inaccuratly tell the story of eurocentric superiority exampled by the story of Colubus who was nothing more than a slave trader. Martin Luther King day has become for most whites a “pain in the ass” holiday or a non-holiday and so on. George W. Bush will go down in history as a man of conviction, forsight and courage-at least in U.S. history books. Why? Becasue the State of Texas with it’s huge purchasing power gets to write the history books. That means that history books are written from the prospective of a white, Christain fudalmentalist. There are a few companies that will create another edition of their history books for the rest of the Country but it is expensive and most go with the “Lone Star” edition.
For a more academic look at this problem I suggest reading “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your History Textbook Got Wrong” by James W. Loewen
it’s not just racism……..i call it scarerism. build a demon based upon the characteristics so blaringly espoused on hate radio/cable, and plug in the thug - most often a liberal or a terrorist. it doesn’t have to be a race ( gays ), or a nation ( liberals ), for these people to hate. they must keep you afraid of someone or something to advance their cause.
as bush said, you’re either with us or against us and the “against us” need not be a race or nation.
now it’s convenient (again) to bring up osama, next week iran, then activist judges, then “the government” - i love that one………and finally the media. always focusing you on someone or something other than them - i used this crap as a kid and it never worked as well as these guys do it.
Basically a propaganda piece by the Democratic Party.
Its all Bush’s fault. Lets just forget that the Democrats voted to start these wars and have voted to fund it every year along the way. ‘Oh, we were lied to’, is the response. I’m tired of that lame BS. Millions of people around the world could figure it out, and they marched in the street to try to tell these fools that they were being lied to, but the Democrats are too arrogant to listen to ordinary people these days. If they were listening, they’d have us out of Iraq and Bush and Cheney up on impeachment charges.
And oh, the Democrats are so wise to be cautious. Yeah right, go tell that to the loved ones of every American killed or injured in Iraq this year and next.
The Democrats have been equal partners in this war from the beginning.
And while most Americans have slowly figured out it was a bad idea, its mostly for the wrong reasons. They think its a bad idea because we are losing and taking casualties. If it had been the slam-dunk the fools predicted, the same 70% of Americans who oppose the war would be strutting around about how big and tough the nation is.
The notion that invading another nation, overthrowing its government and stealing its resources is just flat immoral and wrong, not to mention illegal, still doesn’t have much support in America.
You think I’m wrong in that. What’s the one thing the Democratic Congress did insist on when signing off on more blood money? That the Iraqis give the big oil companies a sweetheart deal. That’s the one benchmark the Democrats and the Republicans agree on. Its all about the oil.
BTW, the Democrats use the same campaign by fear techniques.
Often, its the same pseudo-enemies as the Republicans. Other times, its attacks on the conservatives and the neo-cons as if they were the problem. You see some of it in this piece. Bush is the boogey man.
Anyone associated with a 3rd party campaign knows this all to well. The Democrats come on full bore about how the Republicans are the enemy and they must be stopped and its only the Democrats who can stop them so if you dare vote for someone honest and decent who really cares about this country then you are just as bad as those evil Republicans and its your fault because you put the evil Republicans in office by daring to vote for someone decent.
It’s rare to find a Democrat or a Republican in the U.S. who isn’t a lackey of corporate America. Yet I don’t remember Ralph or the Green Party getting many votes in ANY election. Americans must boycott news services that don’t go beyond the narrow parameters of the two party system when they’re reporting on the so called issues.
COMarc is right. Had this been a “Victory” like Kosovo or GW1, everyone would be proud and no one would care about the dead brown skinned people. That is why from day 1 of Bush’s war I cheered every American soldiers death. the bloodier our nose, the better the lesson we learn and maybe end this love affair with militarism.
The worse we lose this war the greater our victory over militarism will be. The soldiers are not dying in vane, they are dying to free us from ourselves.
As a Canadian I think we need a 20 foot wall to keep the American loonies down south, where they can cook themselves in their Greenhouse Gas Fired Oven.
I think there is something seriously wrong with your education system, or you are all taking WAY too much drugs…Creationism treated as science, and fear of a nonexistant Arab Navy envading the US mainland…dee dee-dee
COMarc May 29th, 2007 6:07 pm
…”so if you dare vote for someone honest and decent who really cares about this country then you are just as bad as those evil Republicans and its your fault because you put the evil Republicans in office by daring to vote for someone decent.”
It’s a grand game of chicken between the Democratic leadership and the progressives - a game which the Democrats win over and over again. The problem is that too many progressives want a risk-free type of challenge to the corporate-friendly, militaristic policies of the Democratic hierarchy. They believe there is a way to keep the Democrats in control and minimize the power of the Republicans yet at the same time exert some kind of influence that will steer the likes of Clinton, Pelosi and Obama towards a more progressive platform. This is very unlikely to succeed.
1. The acceptance and advocation of a continuing strategy of voting for the Democrats to keep the Republicans in check can only decrease the leverage of the progressives. If the Democrats have no reason to believe the progressives are jumping ship, they have nothing to fear as far as their prestigious political careers are concerned. Why should do they do anything but serve their corporate paymasters, or pledge allegiance to the Israeli lobby, or pursue imperialistic objectives? The rank-and-file are never going to punish them for their actions because they have fearfully thrown away the only bargaining chip they have. In essence, this is a strategy of blind hope for progressives - the hope that somehow Lucy won’t pull the football away this time around.
2. The advocation of a more short-term, stopgap approach which keeps the Democrats in power yet buys time for the development and empowerment of a third party movement is a defensible approach yet still does not avoid the effective scare-tactics of the Democratic machine. The Democrats and their PR apparatus will do everything they can to frighten the progressives away from building and supporting a third party because even if the votes stay loyally Democratic for the time being, eventually enough people have to break ranks and that could only weaken the Democratic party; that is, unless somehow the third party movement is able to secure a massive bloc of voters from outside the normal voting public to put the new party immediately in the chips and seated at the big table with the two major parties. A wonderful outcome to hope for but a very unlikely one.
Unfortunately, the progressives have no choice but to A. Convincingly threaten and B. Carry out the abandonment of the Democratic establishment if need be. Only by not swerving away from the oncoming Democratic vehicle can the progressives hope to change the makeup of the Democratic party or replace it with a better alternative. Under the current conditions, The Democrats can play and win the “lesser of the two evils” game until hell freezes over.
Drex, you make a comment similar to that offered by Hartman on another posted article here today. One difference between past history and the present IS the Internet. American students who CARE about learning will get beyond any jingoistic textbook and gain their news/insight and perspective from scholars around the world. Bush and his clan may be able to control media here, but the world has its own opinion and increasingly ours is becoming a global village (granted, with an idiot at the wheel).
The democrat Congress is no different from the republican, and are currently only interested in making moves to keep themselves in control; they are doing, and will do nothing, to get our country back on track.
Best “punishment” would be to follow lead of Dave Lindorff
(thiscantbehappening.net) and drop registration with the democrat party-then notify him at his site, and if enough momentum gets behind this movement, he will proceed further with it.
“As a Canadian I think we need a 20 foot wall to keep the American loonies down south, where they can cook themselves in their Greenhouse Gas Fired Oven.
I think there is something seriously wrong with your education system, or you are all taking WAY too much drugs…Creationism treated as science, and fear of a nonexistant Arab Navy envading the US mainland…dee dee-dee”
You forgot:
“wage slavery”
no health care
no vacations
no child care, etc.
You definitely need a wall.
Many things have contributed to the situation, including imperial arrogance.
The unprecidented sellouts and ineptitude displyed by this administration cannot be blamed solely on Bush. The thoughtless and unlerned voters who helped his machine steal both elections, and the five Supreme Cort justices who violated theit trust by sustaininjg a stolen election are to blame. It is now the democrtic congress, after yielding to the slanderous and deceptive polices of this administration, who must be take responsibility.
Why hasn’t one single person on this thread noted the real reason we’re in Iraq. Who cares about the high school cheerleader election run between the Democrats and the Repugs? We’re there to steal their oil and the real, permanent administration intends to pursue that goal no matter what faked-up party “controls” the government. Got it?
We shall overcome some day
We are not afraid
We are not afraid
We are not afraid today
Oh, deep in my heart I do believe
We shall overcome some day
“And Democrats, still fearing that they will end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave Mr. Bush another year’s war funding.”
Oh c’mon Krugman … the Dems, at least the ones who have power, are part of the war/oil machine too. Don’t let them off the hook.
After repeatedly reading articles and posts on Common Dreams, I have to beg the question: What do we do?… Will calling our corrupt representatives and senators do ANYTHING? Given what they said they would do, and show no intention of acting on it- calling appears futile.
So what do we do concerned citizens? Is any action futile?
…I choose to say no. However, I have to be honest, I am lost when it comes to starting a revolution. Any suggestions? Internet forums only go so far- they do however remind you that you are not alone. … So… what to do?