The Daily Grasshopper

OK, I've read the transcript of President Bush's State of the Union speech (no mention of the word "oil," as predicted). There's been plenty of official reaction, starting with the country's "paper of record," the New York Times. In their lead editorial, "The Nation, the President, the War," on Wednesday, they conclude:

"Mr. Bush's personal popularity hinges on his obvious sincerity and determination to show leadership in fearsome times."

Actually, as I've been arguing here for the last month, "Mr. Bush's personal popularity" seems to me to hinge on the mainstream media's near-total willingness to overlook many of his administration's outright lies. For the past four weeks, I've demonstrated that the "deeply-felt skepticism about the direction in which our elected officials are taking us," as I wrote in my very first message to this list, is amply justified (all essays are now available online: http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/index.html). Bush's speech to the nation, and the media's response to it, are further proof that now, more than ever, American citizens need to be very careful about where they choose to get their information. Knowledge informs action, and we can scarcely be expected to act accordingly if we don't have all the facts.

I had hoped to do a thorough deconstruction of Bush's speech, but someone beat me to it, and did a far better job than I would have done (though, in my defense, my earlier essays have touched on many of the topics: U.S. complicity in the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government in 1953, U.S. military aid to repressive military regimes like Colombia and Turkey, access to oil being the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy, the fact that Bush & Co. almost all skipped military service, etc.). Here's the article, which was published at the Common Dreams site, which I referred you to in my original message:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0129-09.htm

Here's a sample (but you ought to read the whole article - to do otherwise is to opt for willful ignorance at a time when we all need to be as well-informed as possible):

Bush: "Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you."

Professor Zunes: No doubt the thousands of armed forces personnel currently assembling in that region do believe in America. Hopefully, America will believe in them enough to not abandon them as they did the veterans of the previous war against Iraq who suffer the debilitating effects of Gulf War Syndrome without the support and recognition of the government that sent them into combat. It is also ironic to hear such high praise of the men and women readying for combat from a man who - despite his support for the Vietnam War - refused to fight in it, instead using family connections to get into a National Guard unit from which he was AWOL for much of his time of service. In addition, it is Orwellian to claim that an army poised to bomb and invade a sovereign nation are there to "keep the peace." The best way American servicemen and servicewomen can keep the peace would be to refuse to obey any illegal orders of their commander-in-chief that command them to fight in an illegitimate war.

Now, the question is, why is this well-researched article, which refutes or casts serious doubt on most of Bush's claims about the nature and intent of U.S. foreign policy, not printed side-by-side with the transcript of his speech in papers like the New York Times? The entire text of the speech is there, as is reaction from the Democrats, the Europeans, members of a V.F.W. in Coolidge, AZ, and "Corporate Leaders" ("Corporate Leaders Take Heart but Say Recovery Requires Clear Resolution in the Middle East"). But nowhere does a member of the Times' staff take the time to go through and actually assess the truthfulness of what the president is saying to the people. Instead, we get the editors' assurances that Bush's "personal popularity hinges on his obvious sincerity." Read the article I link to above, with its devastating line-by-line undoing of Bush's half-truths and outright fabrications, and decide for yourself how "obvious" Bush's sincerity really is.

This matters. We are about to completely destroy the (albeit fragile) framework of international law. By going forward with this attack on Iraq, the U.S. will be in direct violation of the most basic premises of the U.N. charter. Just for starters, there's Chapter 1, Article 2:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered; and, All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner consistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

According to the president, we're "called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind." President Bush - with the dissolution of the U.N., the conflagration of the Middle East, and the escalation of terror here in the U.S. all virtually guaranteed to result from your decision to bomb the people of Iraq beyond their present state of misery (thanks to sanctions we've imposed), you should be very careful about ever invoking the "hopes of mankind." My guess is that a lot of men and women, myself included, hope you will realize the enormity of what you're planning and pull back. Your speech, and the failure of the corporate media, once again, to perform any significant role beyond stenography, leave us feeling more hopeless than hopeful.