AH SO!
(That's Japanese for "I understand.") What I understand is how so many of our people supported our attack on Iraq: they believed the administration's oft-repeated claims linking Saddam with al-Qaeda. I can understand that now. Of course people are going to believe their government leaders in a time of crisis. Why wouldn't they? Our system runs on informed consent. If the public is misinformed, their consent is meaningless. Tom Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." We weren't well informed. We rely on the fourth estate for that, and they let us down, big-time.
The public can't be faulted for trusting their government, but the press can be, and should be. They are paid and trusted to be skeptical, and to scrutinize evidence. They weren't and didn't. Heavyweights like The New York Times and The Washington Post fell down on the job. And a lot of people are now dead because of it.
The reason I never believed the government case was because I knew (as did the CIA, and they told the administration) that Saddam and Osama were bitter enemies. Saddam was regarded by Osama as an enemy and an apostate Muslim who brutally killed and tortured fellow Muslims, an unforgiveable violation of the Koran. Saddam was one of the secular, worldly, military dictators abusing his people like the ones we support in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. (O. K., Saddam was much worse!) Osama held him in contempt, and would never trust him to know about or do God's work. Saddam, in turn, correctly saw al-Qaeda as a threat, and tried to capture al-Zarqawi when he was in northern (Kurdish) Iraq. That the CIA knew all this up front is well documented in Ron Suskin's sensational new book: The One Percent Doctrine. A must read, if you are interested in the whole story on Iraq, from the beginning.
Osama is not a crazy nut case. If still alive (which I doubt, but the Bushies need him to be), he is smart, dedicated, devout, and deadly. (He's the kind of fundamentalist that in this country, kills
abortion doctors.) He's also extremely gifted, capable, and charismatic. A great book for understanding him and his motivation is Machael Scheuer's Through Our Enemies Eyes (published under "Anonymous" instead of the author's name, as he was still at the CIA.) Scheuer was in charge of the Osama desk for nine years, and spent his time studying and tracking him. (That desk has now been eliminated, by the way.)
Osama has often explained his attacks on the West. They have nothing to do with who are what we are. It's all about things we are doing, and have done! He has said, "You'll have security and safety in your country when we have security and safety in ours." I started writing this on the grim anniversary of 9/11. Rudy Giuliani was explaining to Chris Mathews "why they hate us," and why we can expect more attacks: they hate us for our freedoms, our wealth, our way of life, our liberated women. Chris accepted that explanation without question. It is, of course complete and total hogwash! As Osama himself has pointed out, they don't attack Sweden. The Swedes have a democracy that is freeer than ours, its women are more liberated. They have a high per capita income, explicit early sex education, and clothing is optional on their beaches.
Their is nothing mysterious in the slightest about why we are widely (but not universally) hated in the Muslim world, though they actually (the majority) admire our political freedoms and want them for themselves (according to Gallop World Poll). The same poll shows that from 91 to 95 percent of Muslims worldwide do not consider the U. S. to be trustworthy and friendly. Nearly 80 percent believe that we do not care about human rights. Guatanamo, plus the president's
determined fight to keep the ability to go on torturing, prove they are right. Reading their press and blogs on the internet, we can readily discover what else about us is is bugging them. It's a long record of backing, and in the case of Iran, installing tyrants in Muslim lands. Iran had a democratically elected government in 1952, which we and the Brits overthrew to put the Shah in power. The Shah was a brutal tyrant, and used torture and the secret police to stay in power.
He was overthrown by an Islamic revolt that resulted in the current regime.
And then, as I have previously written, there is the long criminal history of Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing in Palestine (in continuing defiance of repeated U. N. resolutions.) Of course that kind of oppression will bring about suicide bombings born of desperation. American Indians terrorized settlers, using suicide missions for the same reason. Terrorism is, of course, inexcusable, as are the crimes that cause it. What is our excuse?
Any ideas? Let me know at: jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
(That's Japanese for "I understand.") What I understand is how so many of our people supported our attack on Iraq: they believed the administration's oft-repeated claims linking Saddam with al-Qaeda. I can understand that now. Of course people are going to believe their government leaders in a time of crisis. Why wouldn't they? Our system runs on informed consent. If the public is misinformed, their consent is meaningless. Tom Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." We weren't well informed. We rely on the fourth estate for that, and they let us down, big-time.
The public can't be faulted for trusting their government, but the press can be, and should be. They are paid and trusted to be skeptical, and to scrutinize evidence. They weren't and didn't. Heavyweights like The New York Times and The Washington Post fell down on the job. And a lot of people are now dead because of it.
The reason I never believed the government case was because I knew (as did the CIA, and they told the administration) that Saddam and Osama were bitter enemies. Saddam was regarded by Osama as an enemy and an apostate Muslim who brutally killed and tortured fellow Muslims, an unforgiveable violation of the Koran. Saddam was one of the secular, worldly, military dictators abusing his people like the ones we support in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. (O. K., Saddam was much worse!) Osama held him in contempt, and would never trust him to know about or do God's work. Saddam, in turn, correctly saw al-Qaeda as a threat, and tried to capture al-Zarqawi when he was in northern (Kurdish) Iraq. That the CIA knew all this up front is well documented in Ron Suskin's sensational new book: The One Percent Doctrine. A must read, if you are interested in the whole story on Iraq, from the beginning.
Osama is not a crazy nut case. If still alive (which I doubt, but the Bushies need him to be), he is smart, dedicated, devout, and deadly. (He's the kind of fundamentalist that in this country, kills
abortion doctors.) He's also extremely gifted, capable, and charismatic. A great book for understanding him and his motivation is Machael Scheuer's Through Our Enemies Eyes (published under "Anonymous" instead of the author's name, as he was still at the CIA.) Scheuer was in charge of the Osama desk for nine years, and spent his time studying and tracking him. (That desk has now been eliminated, by the way.)
Osama has often explained his attacks on the West. They have nothing to do with who are what we are. It's all about things we are doing, and have done! He has said, "You'll have security and safety in your country when we have security and safety in ours." I started writing this on the grim anniversary of 9/11. Rudy Giuliani was explaining to Chris Mathews "why they hate us," and why we can expect more attacks: they hate us for our freedoms, our wealth, our way of life, our liberated women. Chris accepted that explanation without question. It is, of course complete and total hogwash! As Osama himself has pointed out, they don't attack Sweden. The Swedes have a democracy that is freeer than ours, its women are more liberated. They have a high per capita income, explicit early sex education, and clothing is optional on their beaches.
Their is nothing mysterious in the slightest about why we are widely (but not universally) hated in the Muslim world, though they actually (the majority) admire our political freedoms and want them for themselves (according to Gallop World Poll). The same poll shows that from 91 to 95 percent of Muslims worldwide do not consider the U. S. to be trustworthy and friendly. Nearly 80 percent believe that we do not care about human rights. Guatanamo, plus the president's
determined fight to keep the ability to go on torturing, prove they are right. Reading their press and blogs on the internet, we can readily discover what else about us is is bugging them. It's a long record of backing, and in the case of Iran, installing tyrants in Muslim lands. Iran had a democratically elected government in 1952, which we and the Brits overthrew to put the Shah in power. The Shah was a brutal tyrant, and used torture and the secret police to stay in power.
He was overthrown by an Islamic revolt that resulted in the current regime.
And then, as I have previously written, there is the long criminal history of Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing in Palestine (in continuing defiance of repeated U. N. resolutions.) Of course that kind of oppression will bring about suicide bombings born of desperation. American Indians terrorized settlers, using suicide missions for the same reason. Terrorism is, of course, inexcusable, as are the crimes that cause it. What is our excuse?
Any ideas? Let me know at: jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
posted by John Goodwin at
11:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home