Online Journal
Front Page 
 Special Reports
 News Media
 Elections & Voting
 Social Security
 Editors' Blog
 Reclaiming America
 The Splendid Failure of Occupation
 The Lighter Side
 The Mailbag
 Online Journal Stores
 Official Merchandise
 Progressive Press
 Barnes and Noble
 Join Mailing List

Commentary Last Updated: Oct 22nd, 2007 - 01:56:45

With Bush at the helm, another war is inevitable
By Ben Tanosborn
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Oct 22, 2007, 01:54

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

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 to broadcast.

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 are not.

� 2007 Ben Tanosborn

Ben Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer, resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA), where he is principal of a business consulting firm. Contact him at

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Top of Page

Latest Headlines
More muck on Maher
Is it a peace process or dangling of a carrot?
U.N. challenges U.S. on illegal air strikes in Iraq
Onward, Christian Soldiers!
Stop calling me a "doomer"
Does Larry Sabato really want a constitutional convention?
On propaganda and Islamophobia
With Bush at the helm, another war is inevitable
Gitmo at home: Domestic violence courts in America
'Far more insidious' than fascism: Recalling E.M. Forster's warning
War of the words: The Holocaust
I am �that big of a lunatic,� Bill Maher
Academic freedom at risk on campus
Celebrating American tears: Responding to Naomi Wolf's recent missive
US applies a double standard to Turkey
The Iraqi Genocide
The ugly face of bigotry
In the Kingdom of Fear
U.S. too often follows Israel's lead in diplomatic situations
Of missiles, antimissiles and human targets