Fool Me Once...

It's no longer a surprise to anyone paying the least bit of attention to the actions of the Bush administration and their rubber stamping comrades on Capitol Hill that citizens of the United States and of the world were severely misled-- about almost everything-- in the build up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In January of 2003, for example, "White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush continues to work with other countries on a peaceful solution [for Iraq].

'But if Saddam Hussein will not disarm peacefully and it becomes necessary to disarm him by force, then what we would be doing is not only disarming a real and growing threat, but liberating Iraqi people from a brutal, oppressive regime,' McClellan said."

Almost a year before-- in July of 2002-- according to the Downing Street Memos, "Bush had made up his mind to take military action [in Iraq]" and to facilitate this "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Now, in 2007, there is growing tension between the US and Iran. Yesterday, Helen Thomas asked White House spokesperson Dana Perino if President Bush would consult congress before attacking Iran.

    HELEN THOMAS: Did [President Bush] consult -- would
    he tell Congress before attacking Iran -- before he attacks Iran?

    DANA PERINO: Helen, we are pursuing a diplomatic
    solution with Iran.

    HELEN THOMAS: I'm asking you, does he feel committed
    to ask Congress for permission?

    DANA PERINO: We are pursuing a diplomatic solution in
    Iran.

Déjà vu.

Have we learned our lesson? Previous disasters have an uncanny tendency to slip the minds of Americans, but it's been a mere four years. The warmongers continue to push for military action in Iran while spewing lies about their 'diplomatic efforts'.

Congress certainly won't curb the executive's war plans. It's up to the American people to speak out in any forum and by any means available to them if we are to avoid a sequel to the Iraq debacle.

United States of Amnesia

For tragic, unjust, horrible events in history not to repeat themselves, people must remember an event which has taken place, recall that what happened was bad, and recognize developing situations that are similar. In this way, our collective consciousness will ultimately avoid repeating the atrocities of the past.

A simple analogy can explain this idea well: Gina remembers placing her hand on the hot stove, recalls that it was painful, and recognizes the probability that it will be painful if she repeats this action.

Now, I know I am oversimplifying things here. But the point in this is that we must remember past atrocities to avoid future atrocities. On this I think most people would agree with me.

So now the question becomes: Why do we seem to have trouble remembering the past?

Not only do we lose sight of history's lessons with each new generation, but we seem to have trouble remembering the past even within a generation.

I submit that this 'amnesia' is largely the fault of the media. For an historical event to be recalled by our collective consciousness, it must have been part of the collective consciousness in the first place. I contend that we don't remember many events of history because, as far as the mainstream press was concerned, they didn't happen.

And that's another problem altogether- it is a fundamental failure of the media. Remember, a 'free and diverse press' is critical for democracy to function properly and we have seen continued consolidation of this country's accessible media outlets into the hands of a few conglomerates, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

By now you may be saying to yourself, 'to what forgotten historical atrocities is he referring?' Or, 'get to the point asshole.'

Ok, here it is:

Threats to the national security of the United States are a natural and inevitable result of this country's historical record of abysmal foreign policy. Terrorist attacks against the US are not 'pre-emptive' or 'unprovoked', but instead they are the result of decades, indeed centuries, of American oppression, exploitation and aggression abroad.

American Imperialism and foreign intervention is all quite well documented (here, here, here, more recently here, and many, many other places). Much has been written on the subject and many have studied it. But you won't find much about it in the mainstream press, today or in the past. Sure, if you look hard enough you are bound to come across a story or two in the mainstream that sheds some light on the reality of US foreign policy. But these instances are so rare that the true nature and extent of the matter never enters the 'collective consciousness', and that is the crucial factor.

And so it is my belief that wars of aggression-- like the current one in Iraq (which is an illegal war anyway) and the one that is looming ominously on the horizon against Iran-- do not and fundamentally can not ever achieve the supposed goal of fighting and eliminating terrorism (or the 'red menace'- communism- as was the Imperial Mantra before the wall came down). On the contrary, such wars only stoke the fires of resentment for American Imperialism and will lead to more, not less attacks against the United States and, ultimately, the demise of the American Empire.

Again, we must turn to the lessons of history. Just as every other aggressive imperial power in history has collapsed under its own weight, so too will it be with the United States if it does not re-evaluate and re-think its foreign policy.

And They Lived Happily Ever After

From www.washingtonpost.com:

Half a century ago, Iran was very close to a real democracy. It had an elected legislature, called the majlis, and it had a repressive monarch, called the shah, and power veered uncertainly between them. In 1951, over the shah's objections, the majlis voted in a man named Mohammad Mosaddeq as prime minister. His big issue was nationalizing the oil companies.

But in 1952 the United States had an election for president, and the winner (Dwight Eisenhower) got more votes than anyone in Iran. That must explain why in 1953, in the spirit of democracy, the CIA instigated a riot and then staged a coup. Mosaddeq was arrested, the majlis was ultimately dissolved and the shah ran things his way, which involved torture and death for political opponents, caviar and champagne for an international cast of hangers-on, and no more crazy talk about nationalizing the oil companies.

Am I missing something? Maybe I don't grasp this guy's (Washington Post Op-Ed Columnist Michael Kinsley) sense of humor, but I don't think I like it. Even worse (or 'funnier') than the above statement is what Mr. Kinsley leaves us with at the end of his article, which you will find out soon...

Particularly troubling is his assertion that the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew popular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq was 'in the spirit of democracy' because US President Eisenhower 'got more votes than anyone in Iran'. This statement is true, of course, because Eisenhower received nearly 34 million votes in 1952 (source) while the population of Iran in 1951 was a mere 16 million people (source).

At least Mr. Kinsley is honest in his description of the coup as 'instigated' and 'staged' by the CIA. Not that the United States' long history of questionable foreign policy implemented by the CIA is news (questionable being a rather polite word- more appropriate may be 'criminal' or 'inhumane' or 'illegal').

But then Mr. Kinsley goes on to mention the US-backed Shah's inclination to "torture and [kill] political opponents". I guess I am just confused about Mr. Kinsley's direction. I find myself wondering where he stands on the issues he mentions and, more importantly, where he stands on similar issues that are materializing around Iran today.

As promised, here is the conclusion of Mr. Kinsley's little essay:

...we [the United States] marched in [to Afghanistan] and got rid of the Taliban. Then we marched into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now we're -- well, we haven't figured out what, but we're hopping mad and gonna do something, dammit, about Iran.

And they lived happily ever after.

And they lived happily ever after!? Who did? I am still having trouble understanding Mr. Kinsley's sense of humor. Perhaps he would like to enlighten me?