The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception – David Corn
The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception – David Corn, Crown Publishers/Random House (2003) 337pp. (S) ***
While another book on the deceptions of George W. Bush may seem like overkill, David Corn proves that the meticulous documentation of these prevarications, mendacities, and distortions, still has its place. Whether it be selling his tax cuts, himself as a candidate, Social Security “reform,” or an invasion of Iraq, duplicity has been Bush’s main standard. The common formula seems to be this: strike your opponent low, but with enough distance so as to ensure “plausible deniability,” while all the while posturing yourself as being above the partisan fray. This “Rovian ruse” has become a tried and tired strategy of the Bush White House. And sadly, to this point, such practices seem to have served team Bush all too well, even with astute writers like David Corn calling them out on their devious game.
Another method employed by the Bush regime, involves the creation of a climate of crisis to advance policy ends. Such cases in point include, again, Social Security “reform” (i.e. Social Security is about to run out so therefore we must act now), judicial nominations (i.e. an unacceptable level of vacancies), and , of course, the sale of his Iraq invasion (i.e. “mushroom clouds,” etc.). Again, these are tactics that have served Bush all so very well, so much so that their repetition should be a giant warning signal to Americans who are again and again being sold this false bill of goods.
Lastly, Corn asks, “Does Bush believe his own lies?”(p.320) While he doesn’t answer the question directly, either way, Corn believes, the lies have an equally detrimental impact. Take, for instance, the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Corn notes that one of the reasons Bush proclaimed for initiating an unprovoked war of aggression, was so that weapons of mass destruction wouldn’t make their way into the hands of terrorists. Then Corn cites the looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities in the chaotic aftermath of the U.S. invasion. Did radioactive materiel find its way into the possession of terrorists? We may never know.
On an aside note, this reviewer must express his disappointment with David Corn, who in the follow-up to the 2004 U.S. presidential election, pooh-poohed any notion that the election was stolen. I believe both he and The Nation have done this country a great disservice in dismissing the possibility of underhanded tactics by the right in that critical election. When a closer evaluation of that election was called for, the readers of The Nation instead got a frenzied dose of self-recrimination for the left, when in actuality the only mistake of the Kerry/Edwards campaign was their failure to follow-up the widespread irregularities in Ohio with legal recourse. Apart from that, the Kerry/Edwards ticket ran an honorable race, especially in contrast to the low-ball practices of the Bush/Rove campaign machine. If the left is to win any elections again, it must first stop blaming itself in post-election mortems, and start addressing the abundant fraud, deceit, and vote manipulation on the right, beginning with an in depth analysis of the paperless, touch screen voting machines. Thanks to the likes of John Conyers, Bob Fritrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Mark Crispin Miller, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Steve Freeman this story is finally being told and getting out
Corn devotes plenty of ink to the invasion of Iraq, but still, there are some things that he neglects. For instance, what did Saddam Hussein ever do to the U.S.? Sure he invaded a neighboring theocracy twenty-five years ago and ten years later, a monarchy, but aside from the effects upon U.S. oil interests, where’s the beef? (Or was it because he had decided to trade his oil in euros?) Just like a decade and a half ago during the run-up to and during the first Gulf War, Americans today hear a lot of talk about “liberation.” But how does a foreign entity go about “liberating” a monarchy and its subjects, while all the while keeping said monarchy intact? Bush talks about installing “democracy” across the Middle East, but when did a democracy ever arise at the point of a gun barrel of foreign, occupying troops, let alone in a region of the world where democracy is not familiar to its history? Given this, it would seem that what Bush & Co. really want in Iraq is another Saddam Hussein type figurehead (i.e. dictator), who in name only, is not Saddam Hussein. (However, so far the Bush administration seems to have only succeeded in inadvertently creating a Shiite quasi-theocracy.) While all the pre-invasion reasons have collapsed (Saddam’s alleged possession of WMD, Al Qaeda links to the Iraqi government) for being the frauds they are, Bush is left with “democracy,” a causus belli rarely heard in the run-up to the invasion. By the way, why shouldn’t Saddam Hussein have possessed WMD (WMD that was in part supplied to him by the U.S. – just ask Donald Rumsfeld who visited him twice – once in 1983 and again in 1984), especially in the face of a foreign, hostile aggressor such as the U.S. (a country that singularly has the largest stockpile of WMD on the planet and holds exclusive company to the fact we are the only ones to have used a nuclear device on a civilian population)? The best of all scenarios, though, would be a WMD free Middle East, that would include Israel. In the meantime, the U.N. was handling the situation competently, overseeing the disarming of Iraq, thus making the policy of "pre-emptive" invasion superfluous, unnecessary, and wholly catastrophic. Sure Saddam Hussein has a nasty history of using such weapons upon his foes and his own citizens alike, but hey, Franco bombed his own people too. (I don't mean to sound cavalier. This is not to say that bombing is not a morally reprehensible act. It is. This is only to say that bombing one's own citizens is not unprecedented. The horrible and atrocious acts of Saddam Hussein can claim many things, but one of them is not originality.) The point is, there are plenty of ruthless dictators in the world, but as long as they’re kept in their box, by that ever rational principle we know as deterrence, then reasonably there should be no trouble. (Is there any room left for reason in the post 9/11 hysteria?) For what is more important to a dictator than maintaining his own power; so why would he jeopardize that with a half-cocked, suicidal shot at the largest super-power in the world? What, then, is the real reason we find ourselves presently in Iraq? According to former CIA man, Ray McGovern, it’s OIL (Oil, Israel, and Logistics). Enough said.
While another book on the deceptions of George W. Bush may seem like overkill, David Corn proves that the meticulous documentation of these prevarications, mendacities, and distortions, still has its place. Whether it be selling his tax cuts, himself as a candidate, Social Security “reform,” or an invasion of Iraq, duplicity has been Bush’s main standard. The common formula seems to be this: strike your opponent low, but with enough distance so as to ensure “plausible deniability,” while all the while posturing yourself as being above the partisan fray. This “Rovian ruse” has become a tried and tired strategy of the Bush White House. And sadly, to this point, such practices seem to have served team Bush all too well, even with astute writers like David Corn calling them out on their devious game.
Another method employed by the Bush regime, involves the creation of a climate of crisis to advance policy ends. Such cases in point include, again, Social Security “reform” (i.e. Social Security is about to run out so therefore we must act now), judicial nominations (i.e. an unacceptable level of vacancies), and , of course, the sale of his Iraq invasion (i.e. “mushroom clouds,” etc.). Again, these are tactics that have served Bush all so very well, so much so that their repetition should be a giant warning signal to Americans who are again and again being sold this false bill of goods.
Lastly, Corn asks, “Does Bush believe his own lies?”(p.320) While he doesn’t answer the question directly, either way, Corn believes, the lies have an equally detrimental impact. Take, for instance, the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Corn notes that one of the reasons Bush proclaimed for initiating an unprovoked war of aggression, was so that weapons of mass destruction wouldn’t make their way into the hands of terrorists. Then Corn cites the looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities in the chaotic aftermath of the U.S. invasion. Did radioactive materiel find its way into the possession of terrorists? We may never know.
On an aside note, this reviewer must express his disappointment with David Corn, who in the follow-up to the 2004 U.S. presidential election, pooh-poohed any notion that the election was stolen. I believe both he and The Nation have done this country a great disservice in dismissing the possibility of underhanded tactics by the right in that critical election. When a closer evaluation of that election was called for, the readers of The Nation instead got a frenzied dose of self-recrimination for the left, when in actuality the only mistake of the Kerry/Edwards campaign was their failure to follow-up the widespread irregularities in Ohio with legal recourse. Apart from that, the Kerry/Edwards ticket ran an honorable race, especially in contrast to the low-ball practices of the Bush/Rove campaign machine. If the left is to win any elections again, it must first stop blaming itself in post-election mortems, and start addressing the abundant fraud, deceit, and vote manipulation on the right, beginning with an in depth analysis of the paperless, touch screen voting machines. Thanks to the likes of John Conyers, Bob Fritrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Mark Crispin Miller, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Steve Freeman this story is finally being told and getting out
Corn devotes plenty of ink to the invasion of Iraq, but still, there are some things that he neglects. For instance, what did Saddam Hussein ever do to the U.S.? Sure he invaded a neighboring theocracy twenty-five years ago and ten years later, a monarchy, but aside from the effects upon U.S. oil interests, where’s the beef? (Or was it because he had decided to trade his oil in euros?) Just like a decade and a half ago during the run-up to and during the first Gulf War, Americans today hear a lot of talk about “liberation.” But how does a foreign entity go about “liberating” a monarchy and its subjects, while all the while keeping said monarchy intact? Bush talks about installing “democracy” across the Middle East, but when did a democracy ever arise at the point of a gun barrel of foreign, occupying troops, let alone in a region of the world where democracy is not familiar to its history? Given this, it would seem that what Bush & Co. really want in Iraq is another Saddam Hussein type figurehead (i.e. dictator), who in name only, is not Saddam Hussein. (However, so far the Bush administration seems to have only succeeded in inadvertently creating a Shiite quasi-theocracy.) While all the pre-invasion reasons have collapsed (Saddam’s alleged possession of WMD, Al Qaeda links to the Iraqi government) for being the frauds they are, Bush is left with “democracy,” a causus belli rarely heard in the run-up to the invasion. By the way, why shouldn’t Saddam Hussein have possessed WMD (WMD that was in part supplied to him by the U.S. – just ask Donald Rumsfeld who visited him twice – once in 1983 and again in 1984), especially in the face of a foreign, hostile aggressor such as the U.S. (a country that singularly has the largest stockpile of WMD on the planet and holds exclusive company to the fact we are the only ones to have used a nuclear device on a civilian population)? The best of all scenarios, though, would be a WMD free Middle East, that would include Israel. In the meantime, the U.N. was handling the situation competently, overseeing the disarming of Iraq, thus making the policy of "pre-emptive" invasion superfluous, unnecessary, and wholly catastrophic. Sure Saddam Hussein has a nasty history of using such weapons upon his foes and his own citizens alike, but hey, Franco bombed his own people too. (I don't mean to sound cavalier. This is not to say that bombing is not a morally reprehensible act. It is. This is only to say that bombing one's own citizens is not unprecedented. The horrible and atrocious acts of Saddam Hussein can claim many things, but one of them is not originality.) The point is, there are plenty of ruthless dictators in the world, but as long as they’re kept in their box, by that ever rational principle we know as deterrence, then reasonably there should be no trouble. (Is there any room left for reason in the post 9/11 hysteria?) For what is more important to a dictator than maintaining his own power; so why would he jeopardize that with a half-cocked, suicidal shot at the largest super-power in the world? What, then, is the real reason we find ourselves presently in Iraq? According to former CIA man, Ray McGovern, it’s OIL (Oil, Israel, and Logistics). Enough said.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home