|
March
9 , 2003
Well, it turns out to have been a bad
week for the Bush Administration. By all likelihood, the invasion
of Iraq will commence, as planned for years, just after St. Patrick's
Day. How appropriate that the unjustified invasion of a sovereign
nation and possible slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians
would occur under the eyes of God, His saints, and the condemnations
of every religious group not affiliated with the Republican Party.
I say
"possible," of course, because I still hold out hope that
so many innocent people will not die; but the evidence, from the
UN as well as the Pentagon's military planners, points otherwise.
When you drop 3000 missiles on a country the size of California
in 48 hours, and 800 rockets on a city the size of Paris, there
will be heavy casualties. But, hey, Pentagon planners who dream
of a modern-day Hiroshima isn't really news.
Still,
while the "President" will ignore all reasonable dissent
and start bombing anyway, he will have done so at a terrible cost.
The damage to internationalism, the triumph of empire, the cost
to American legitimacy; all a result of Bush's "bite me"
diplomacy (to quote Michael Moore). He has lost the moral case faster
than the class nerd loses dates to the prom.
Observe
the events of this past week. First, on Sunday, the British newspaper
The Observer revealed a diplomatic bombshell: the United States
is actively engaging in wiretapping and spying on members of the
Security Council. News of Nixon-esque "dirty tricks" against
the crucial "swing votes" - Mexico, Chile, Cameroon, Angola,
Guinea, and Pakistan -- spread like wildfire across newspapers around
the world. This news has angered not only our allies, but the very
nations the Bush Administration is trying to sway on its war resolution.
The Chile delegation, for instance, isn't too happy; I guess they're
still sore about the CIA assassinating Chile's democratically-elected
leader and installing Agusto Pinoche as dictator in 1973.
That's
perfectly fine if you are among the hawks in the White House. If
everyone doesn't fall in line, just threaten a little payback. This
week, Secretary of uh, "Defense" Rumsfeld threatened to
move American troops out of Germany and into eastern European countries
like Bulgaria. Threats have even been leveled at close allies like
Mexico; Vicente Fox was once a close friend to George W. Bush. Now,
with over 70% of the Mexican public opposed to war, it looks like
Mr. Bush has lost another crucial vote in the UN.
On Friday,
Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, and Mohammed ElBaradei, head of IAEA,
issued their latest report on the progress of Iraqi disarmament,
showing clear evidence that their efforts are yielding results.
But they reserved some of their harshest words for the Bush Administration,
and its "evidence" of Iraq's weapons programs. Remember
Colin Powell's presentation to the UN? Well, it turns out that the
"evidence" provided by British intelligence was Googled
off the Internet, including a report stolen from a graduate student's
paper; even the student's mistakes were left in.
The US'
claims of Iraq's nuclear weapons program have also been harshly
rebuked. ElBaradei has even accused the US of forging documents
to prove their case; Niger never sold uranium to Iraq, and those
12 aluminum tubes can't be used as a nuclear weapon. Time after
time, the UN weapons inspectors have been given one bad lead after
another, to the point where the inspectors don't even want American
intelligence anymore. Garbage after garbage after garbage, indeed.
On a
related front, the Pentagon this week asked Congress to lift the
ban on developing small nuclear warheads; part of a nuclear arsenal
used for offensive, first-strike warfare. Can you believe this?
These people actually want to use nuclear weapons; $50 billion in
bribes have been offered to sway Security Council votes (Ari Fleisher
was literally laughed out of the room for denying quid pro quos);
and how much money did Bush leave in his budget for rebuilding Afghanistan?
Zero.
Also,
the UN discovered this week that tank-sized holes were cut in the
fences surrounding the demilitarized zone between Kuwait and Iraq.
UN peacekeepers complained to the Security Council about the breach
caused by several groups of US Marines. Why the fuss? Well, it's
no big deal; it's only a violation of international law, and a possible
violation of the Security Council resolution creating the DMV after
the Gulf War.
And what
of North Korea during all of this? North Korean planes buzzed an
American spy plane over international waters, issued more threats
of impending doom, and continued to churn out material for its nuclear
program. The White House solution? Threaten a military strike if
diplomacy fails. One problem: there hasn't been any diplomacy, as
the Administration continues to refuse talks with Lil' Kim. Rumsfeld,
however, has proposed pulling American troops out of South Korea.
According to Reuters on Thursday (March 6), the Secretary suggested
moving troops away from the DMZ; he believes South Korea has "all
the capability in the world of providing the kind of up-front deterrent
that's needed."
Finally,
my favorite moment of the past week, George W. Bush's press conference.
It was a lifeless, almost groggy performance where Mr. Bush repeated
the same three slogans over and over: remember 9/11, Saddam has
not disarmed, everyone in the region will embrace freedom. He referred
to the International Atomic Energy Agency as the "IEAE."
And he made a couple jokes about a pre-approved list of reporters
and their questions; he even made a funny about one woman who seemed
to jump the script (she lobbed a softball about his faith).
It certainly
seemed a little strange, the way Bush would keep looking down on
his podium before pointing to someone. As it turns out, my cynicism
was well earned. Ari Fleisher, the next day, admitted that his boss
was given a list of the reporters who would ask questions. The whole
event was scripted theatre. And what about the questions, you ask?
Were they pre-approved, too? Sigh. Do you really have to ask?
"This
White House uses news conferences more sparingly than other types
of presidential events, because if you have a message you're trying
to deliver, a news conference can go in a different direction. In
this case, we know what the questions are going to be, and those
are the ones we want to answer."
-- Dean
Bartlett, White House communications director, Washington Post,
March 7
|
