George Bush and the Big Lie
Robert Fantina
March 07, 2007
Demonstrating once again that political expediency trumps integrity every time, spineless Congressional Democrats have opted not to cut funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. ‘Our caucus feels strongly that we should go with the president’s numbers,’ said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, when the committee decided not to cut $20 billion from President Bush’s request for $142 billion for 2008.
An apparent fear that they would be seen as not supporting the troops, an accusation that might be used against them during the now-beginning and tediously endless 2008 presidential campaign, seems to have sent the Democrats scurrying for some ‘I-support-the-troops’ cover. Somehow, signing the death warrants for thousands of American soldiers by continued funding of the war seems, in their minds, to accomplish that goal.
Mr. Bush and Co. must be commended on their successful campaign to convince Congress, if not the general public, that ‘supporting the troops’ means providing a war for them. This belief would be laughable were it not so successful a tool in the killing of so many people, the deprivation of basic civil and human rights of people around the world and the neglect of suffering Americans on the home soil.
In his 1925 autobiography, 'Mein Kampf,' Adolf Hitler, one of history’s most savage mass murderers, wrote the following: ‘…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation … more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.’ Hitler used this theory as an explanation of how Jewish leaders convinced Germans that they had lost World War 1, thus setting the stage for his horrific genocidal practices.
Mr. Bush, it appears, has successfully taken this page from Hitler’s book, and early on decided to use the ‘big lie’ to ram his oppressive and war-mongering policies down the all-to-willing throats of the American Congress. He had less success with the United Nations, and very little with America’s traditional allies. His success rate with the American citizenry has been mixed.
In September of 2002 Mr. Bush addressed the United Nations and spoke of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, all aimed at an innocent and unsuspecting America. He and his minions vaguely discussed Iraq’s role in the September 11, 2001 attacks within the United States. He looked America in its gullible eye and raised the specter of a nuclear attack on the U.S. from Iraq. All were ‘big lies.’ He challenged Congress to assist him in protecting American interests by authorizing him to invade Iraq.
With a broader perspective than America’s oil needs, the U.N. wisely took a pass, and would not sanction military action against Iraq. France, Germany and Russia, all past victims of war on their own lands were also unwilling, as were many other traditional American allies, to involve themselves in America’s scurrilous misadventure in Iraq. Congress, with its usual blinders focusing only on the next election, authorized war.
Three months after the disgraceful ‘Shock and Awe’ invasion of Iraq, which included bombing population centers in a nation where more than half the population was under the age of 15, Mr. Bush proclaimed another ‘big lie.’ Landing on an aircraft carrier, dressed in a flight uniform he had never donned as a serviceman, he proclaimed that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. Since that time over 3,000 Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have died in the war.
Vice President Dick Cheney also appears to be an adherent of the ‘big lie’ theory. In addition to continually beating the drum of Iraqi participation in the September 11, 2001 hijackings and attacks on America - despite conclusive evidence to the contrary - in June of 2005 he said that the Iraqi insurgency was in ‘its last throes.’ The lies continue.
In Iraq war is up close and personal for its citizens. People of all ages either actively fight the repressive American occupiers or are victimized by them, or both. Estimates of casualties range from tens of thousands to nearly three quarters of a million, and the number of people who have fled their homes and are now refugees in other countries exceeds one million. It is difficult to find an Iraqi citizen who has not lost a loved one to America’s imperialistic brutality.
In the United States war to many means a yellow ribbon on the back of their car, and possibly an American flag in their window. American citizens see sanitized news versions of the war (it is illegal to show coffins returning to the U.S. from Iraq) and can simply turn the channel if it seems too upsetting or, perhaps, too boring. They blithely and ignorantly look the other way and rely on the government to do what is right for the soldiers: this apparently means funding the war so it will continue; sending them into battle without the necessary protection for themselves or their vehicles; bringing the wounded back to be neglected in a filthy, vermin-infested hospital and avoiding at all costs confronting the deaths of American men and women who tried valiantly to do their best in an immoral, obscene war of Mr. Bush’s choice.
Immediately following the 2006 elections, pundits of all stripes interpreted the outcome as a clear repudiation of Mr. Bush’s war policies. Even the president himself, a man who is hard pressed to ever admit a mistake, immediately sacked his notoriously incompetent Secretary of Defense, the arrogant and dangerous Donald Rumsfeld. Democrats gleefully took power of both houses of Congress and, amid a chorus of high-sounding rhetoric, promptly initiated a ‘business as usual’ policy, as demonstrated by the Senate’s inability to pass even a non-binding resolution opposing Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, and now Congress’s unwillingness to de-fund the war.
One may well wonder when any real, sustained opposition to the war will ever materialize, or when Democrats elected to end the war will finally, if ever, recognize the emperor’s-new-clothes rhetoric of ‘supporting the troops.’ It appears to be too much to expect integrity, the statesmanlike position of stating cold, hard facts and voting what is right, rather than what will provide a convenient and patriotic-seeming sound bite in a future election. With few, albeit notable, exceptions, the declared candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination dance gingerly around an explanation of their votes authorizing the Iraq invasion, and their would-be presidential program to end the war. While they do so, the blood of America’s human cannon fodder, and Iraq’s innocent citizens, continues to spill onto the desert sands.
An apparent fear that they would be seen as not supporting the troops, an accusation that might be used against them during the now-beginning and tediously endless 2008 presidential campaign, seems to have sent the Democrats scurrying for some ‘I-support-the-troops’ cover. Somehow, signing the death warrants for thousands of American soldiers by continued funding of the war seems, in their minds, to accomplish that goal.
Mr. Bush and Co. must be commended on their successful campaign to convince Congress, if not the general public, that ‘supporting the troops’ means providing a war for them. This belief would be laughable were it not so successful a tool in the killing of so many people, the deprivation of basic civil and human rights of people around the world and the neglect of suffering Americans on the home soil.
In his 1925 autobiography, 'Mein Kampf,' Adolf Hitler, one of history’s most savage mass murderers, wrote the following: ‘…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation … more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.’ Hitler used this theory as an explanation of how Jewish leaders convinced Germans that they had lost World War 1, thus setting the stage for his horrific genocidal practices.
Mr. Bush, it appears, has successfully taken this page from Hitler’s book, and early on decided to use the ‘big lie’ to ram his oppressive and war-mongering policies down the all-to-willing throats of the American Congress. He had less success with the United Nations, and very little with America’s traditional allies. His success rate with the American citizenry has been mixed.
In September of 2002 Mr. Bush addressed the United Nations and spoke of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, all aimed at an innocent and unsuspecting America. He and his minions vaguely discussed Iraq’s role in the September 11, 2001 attacks within the United States. He looked America in its gullible eye and raised the specter of a nuclear attack on the U.S. from Iraq. All were ‘big lies.’ He challenged Congress to assist him in protecting American interests by authorizing him to invade Iraq.
With a broader perspective than America’s oil needs, the U.N. wisely took a pass, and would not sanction military action against Iraq. France, Germany and Russia, all past victims of war on their own lands were also unwilling, as were many other traditional American allies, to involve themselves in America’s scurrilous misadventure in Iraq. Congress, with its usual blinders focusing only on the next election, authorized war.
Three months after the disgraceful ‘Shock and Awe’ invasion of Iraq, which included bombing population centers in a nation where more than half the population was under the age of 15, Mr. Bush proclaimed another ‘big lie.’ Landing on an aircraft carrier, dressed in a flight uniform he had never donned as a serviceman, he proclaimed that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. Since that time over 3,000 Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have died in the war.
Vice President Dick Cheney also appears to be an adherent of the ‘big lie’ theory. In addition to continually beating the drum of Iraqi participation in the September 11, 2001 hijackings and attacks on America - despite conclusive evidence to the contrary - in June of 2005 he said that the Iraqi insurgency was in ‘its last throes.’ The lies continue.
In Iraq war is up close and personal for its citizens. People of all ages either actively fight the repressive American occupiers or are victimized by them, or both. Estimates of casualties range from tens of thousands to nearly three quarters of a million, and the number of people who have fled their homes and are now refugees in other countries exceeds one million. It is difficult to find an Iraqi citizen who has not lost a loved one to America’s imperialistic brutality.
In the United States war to many means a yellow ribbon on the back of their car, and possibly an American flag in their window. American citizens see sanitized news versions of the war (it is illegal to show coffins returning to the U.S. from Iraq) and can simply turn the channel if it seems too upsetting or, perhaps, too boring. They blithely and ignorantly look the other way and rely on the government to do what is right for the soldiers: this apparently means funding the war so it will continue; sending them into battle without the necessary protection for themselves or their vehicles; bringing the wounded back to be neglected in a filthy, vermin-infested hospital and avoiding at all costs confronting the deaths of American men and women who tried valiantly to do their best in an immoral, obscene war of Mr. Bush’s choice.
Immediately following the 2006 elections, pundits of all stripes interpreted the outcome as a clear repudiation of Mr. Bush’s war policies. Even the president himself, a man who is hard pressed to ever admit a mistake, immediately sacked his notoriously incompetent Secretary of Defense, the arrogant and dangerous Donald Rumsfeld. Democrats gleefully took power of both houses of Congress and, amid a chorus of high-sounding rhetoric, promptly initiated a ‘business as usual’ policy, as demonstrated by the Senate’s inability to pass even a non-binding resolution opposing Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, and now Congress’s unwillingness to de-fund the war.
One may well wonder when any real, sustained opposition to the war will ever materialize, or when Democrats elected to end the war will finally, if ever, recognize the emperor’s-new-clothes rhetoric of ‘supporting the troops.’ It appears to be too much to expect integrity, the statesmanlike position of stating cold, hard facts and voting what is right, rather than what will provide a convenient and patriotic-seeming sound bite in a future election. With few, albeit notable, exceptions, the declared candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination dance gingerly around an explanation of their votes authorizing the Iraq invasion, and their would-be presidential program to end the war. While they do so, the blood of America’s human cannon fodder, and Iraq’s innocent citizens, continues to spill onto the desert sands.
Print
Email
