We might as well get ready; with Bush at the helm, a
full-scale decimating bombing of Iran appears as fait accompli: at any time,
from this right-now to the eve of the next president-elect�s inauguration on
January 20, 2009.
And we will have to swallow any faith-based explanation Bush
may have for us as to why this war is inevitable; just like Iraq�s was, or any
other war to follow. As in the past, Americans will be persuaded by lies
. . . lies which they are predisposed to accept, and the media only too happy
At this time, only Vladimir Putin�s unequivocal support for
Iran, and the friendly relations that exist between the Russian Federation and
China, might avert another Bush expedition.
How can this president with a popularity rating hovering
around 30 percent remain so adamant to do as he pleases with or without
consent, congressional or popular? Simply because he knows he can, and
will not have to answer to anyone for crimes . . . not even malfeasance.
He knows, or has been assured by Cheney and his other advisers, that at the end
of the day the majority of Americans are essentially war-willing if that term
is softened somewhat. After all, it�s just a matter of wording; didn�t we
change in 1947, in Orwellian doublespeak deception, the Department of War to
Department of Defense? You might say it was America�s first step towards
empire, and the start of the cold war.
Let�s be honest once and for all. We don�t elect
presidents, only commanders-in-chief. That may be acceptable for
revolutionary governments that live in constant fear of invading
predator-nations, such as Cuba does with respect to the United States; but for
a superpower like the US, how can we be afraid with a nuclear keyboard in front
of us that can destroy the world many times over? Why, when our need is
for a leader that would look after the well-being of our people, and make the
United States a model nation among nations, do we insist on world dominance?
But that is precisely why people like Dennis Kucinich, or
Ron Paul, or Mike Gravel, or others of �their ilk� are unelectable candidates
in the US presidential race; their peaceful �girlie-men� demeanor, as expressed
by their anti-war talk, is not suitable for our warring people; not for
assuming the role of commander-in-chief of this mythical �Free World� we have
self-determined to lead. Americans cannot fathom having Kucinich leading
us to battle, and even Hillary Clinton has made sure she is no �girlie-man,�
trying to show us she would make as good or even a better field marshall than
Bellicose Bully Bush!
If there is one thing that defines us as a people, as a
nation, it is our unwillingness to impeach Bush. We may have
disagreements amongst ourselves about the myriad aspects of domestic policy,
but when it comes to foreign policy, although our personal preference may not
be for empire, we seem to go along with those in our midst who advocate world
dominance. One gets the feeling at times that we might be afraid that our
feast as glutton-consumers might cease without this predatory foreign policy.
Only a grassroots level denunciation and excommunication of
the neocons, who have taken command of our government, will allow Washington to
formulate a necessary policy of d�tente before our nation can be trusted by the
world at large. And that entails a �curia populi� via the existing
impeachment route. Only such action will be deemed sufficiently trustworthy
and redeeming. A new administration without the prior cleansing of the
president�s office by way of impeachment, no matter which Democrat assumes
power, will be seen as more of the same -- an unrepentant and unashamed
continuation of empire in military and economic terms.
There is something repugnant about the mere possibility of
our devotion to war, and how we kneel at the altar of Mars, the Roman god of
war; and also how we live by the axiom: �A nation that preys together stays
together� -- which seems to have been the platform for our foreign
policy. If that�s who we are, and cannot see fit to change our ways, may
God have mercy on our nation, on all of us!
But that�s not who we are. Or, at least, let�s pray we
� 2007 Ben Tanosborn
Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer, resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA),
where he is principal of a business consulting firm. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org.