Democratic Underground  

Sovereignty with Strings Attached
April 27, 2004
By Richard A. Stitt

One of the definitions of sovereignty is "freedom from external control." George W. Bush's hypocrisy is all the more blatant when he tells the American people that our military fought and are still fighting in Iraq because we want to give the Iraqi people freedom and democracy. In fact, he is now demanding that the Iraqis can only have partial democracy and basically no sovereignty over their own country until he says so. Sovereignty, he says, will be handed over to the Iraqis on June 30. This ill-fated policy will be a recipe for disaster as soon as the Iraqi citizens see how once again Bush has deceived them.

Before the war, the sole reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was poised to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. However, now that no WMD have been found, even after a full year of U.S. military occupation and the deaths of nearly 700 soldiers and upwards of 15,000 Iraqi men, women and children, we are now being given a far different and revised version: Now the reason Bush invaded Iraq, we are being told, was to bring them freedom and democracy. But with strings attached.

Add onto this policy of deception Bush's need to divert $700 million in funds away from fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and hunting down Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, in order to invade Iraq.

Now Bush's puppet leader in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is little more than the Mayor of Kabul. Afghanistan is officially named the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, meaning that it is morphing more each month into a Taliban lookalike theocracy. In the meantime, because of a U.S. military presence of only about 15,000 troops, Afghanistan is once again the world's leading producer and exporter of opium, a cash crop that is financing the renaissance of the Taliban and al-Qaeda operations.

Bush alone bears total responsibility for permitting the revival of the terrorists while he diverted money, troops and resources in order to pursue his preemptive war of choice in Iraq. He got his much-coveted war and, as Colin Powell personally told him in the White House Oval Office, once you go down that road, "you will own that country." Bush now owns that country, only now he doesn't really know what to do with it.

Add to this hypocrisy the statement that Bush is fond of making, "You're either with us or with the terrorists," while he disdains and criticizes democratic elections such as the one recently held in Spain where 90% of the Spanish population opposed Bush's war policies and the consequences in the aftermath of the Iraq War which have led to more violence and bloodshed.

But Bush has no problem embracing the repressive monarchies of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia as well as supporting Pakistan's dictator, Pervez Musharraf. So far, his Faustian deal with Pakistan has cost the American taxpayers over $2 billion with more billions on the way as long as Bush can continue to bribe Musharraf to join in the "coalition of the willing" nations.

Will Mr. Bush and his war hawks now begin their anti-government screechings against Honduras, the Dominican Republic and possibly Poland since these countries, following Spain's lead, are indicating they will pull their troops out of Iraq? According to Bush/Cheney and their acolytes, the Spanish election was won by the terrorists, not the people, in spite of the 76% voter turnout and the desire to distance themselves from the pro-war Jose Aznar and his pro-Bush government.

If the same fractured logic and reasoning that the Bush administration is now applying towards Spain is applied to these other countries, or other countries which opt out of the Iraq coalition, it follows then that the only elections or governments that will be supported by the U.S. are those that agree unequivocally and completely with the Bush war agenda.

How many more threats and lies can Bush get away with before the American people catch on?

If we are to believe most of the major polls which have appeared in the last week, the worse the attacks against our forces are in Iraq, the more Bush lies concerning revelations that his administration had ample warnings of terrorist attacks before 9/11, the more U.S. military and civilian deaths mount in Iraq, the higher Bush's approval ratings seem to go. The Karl Rove-crafted tautology still holds. "War forever, fear and crises keep Bush's poll numbers high; therefore, war, crises and fear are good."

If the attention-getting "War Forever" mantra has worked so well in the past, it now seems to be working more effectively than ever. But will it continue to work that well up until November?

That Bush is offering "partial democracy and sovereignty" for Iraq leads me to ask the question whether in fact Iraq may be a testing ground to see how well "partial democracy and partial freedom" could work in America if Bush prevails for another four years in the White House.

Judging by the acquiescence and willingness of the American people to accept the USA Patriot Act and its companion, Patriot Act II, and judging by the recent polls, the United States Constitution and guarantees of civil liberties are well on their way to becoming footnotes of history.

When Bob Woodward asked Bush in a recent interview, "Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?" Bush answered this way: "'History,' and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, 'History, we don't know. We'll all be dead.'"

Apparently, Bush never heard of the Nixon era which climaxed in the Watergate investigations and Nixon's eventual resignation. But then again, maybe Bush doesn't need to fear being accountable to the people. After all, he has five right-wing activist Republican lackeys on the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced by the gutless, compliant, rubber stamp Republican-contolled Congress to do his bidding.

Maybe it's time to change the final words of the Pledge of Allegiance to read, "With Partial Liberty and Partial Justice for some." Perhaps the mainstream media can conduct a poll on that subject - that is, if the First Amendment hasn't been rewritten before they get the opportunity.

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Democratic Underground Homepage