<<< Friday, January 21, 2005 >>>


Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom. Iraq?

I wasn’t feeling that great today so I took the afternoon off to rest a little, get my mind straight, and perhaps unfinish a novella or two. On the bus ride home, hoping to take a load off, I dug eagerly into the latest edition of Vanity Fair, only to become tremendously horrified and enormously agitated while reading “The Man in the Hood and New Accounts of Prisoner Abuse in Iraq,” in which Donovan Webster explores "the perversion of America’s mission.”

Everybody knows about Abu Ghraib, I ain’t gotta rehash it for ya’ll, but I will say that the deeper you wade into this ongoing tragedy and the more facts that are uncovered, the more clearly horrifying our true position becomes. Yet I’m afraid most Americans have already tuned out these bloody, torturous affairs like so much television ( just another reality show), even as they slowly but surely coarsen and erode the soul of this nation. By the time the other half of the country is ready to ‘fess up to our mistakes, it will be too late. In fact, I think it already may be.

As this article makes painfully clear, the Abu Ghraib scandal did not end with its public outing—such vile, inhuman behavior continues to this day, despite the hollow assurances of Bush and Rumsfeld. Americans would like to think that it was just a couple of bad apples, that justice was done by turning a handful of low-level soldiers into convenient fall guys; we want to inoculate ourselves from the guilt. Yet it seems that to delude an entire country (or half of one) is just as easy as to delude one’s self. But I guess the Nazis already proved that one.

My feelings about this war used to be quite complex. At first, I was less against the war itself than I was against its rushed timing and the inexcusable bungling of it by the administration. I’ve always believed that war, while tragic, is sometimes necessary, and I’ve held out hope that we would learn from our terrible mistakes in this one. Even as the insurgency expanded, I still hoped that we would find some way to stabilize Iraq and help to bring about the messy business of democracy. I wanted the troops out, but I was against the so-called “cut and run” option.

No more. Time has proven me wrong (see, Dubya, it ain't so hard), and my feelings now are plain and simple. We need to get the hell out of Iraq now. Our actions there have led us to a point that nothing good will ever come from our presence, no matter how long we stay or how hard we try. Colin Powell’s so-called Pottery Barn rule has flown out the window: we may have broken Iraq, but we will never be able to fix it.

One of the casualties of this war for me personally has been my own sense of optimism. While I remain an optimist in the long run, sort of (what’s the point of living, otherwise?), I’ve definitely and regrettably become a pessimist in the short-term. This Iraq war is becoming another Vietnam, only worse, this time with more dreadful repercussions, the likes of which I fear we have barely begun to experience.
“The Americans came to us promising freedom and democracy. If that is freedom and democracy…I don’t want it.”
I wasn’t planning on getting into the whole inaugural thing (except to say to my friends in DC: I’m really, really sorry…and thank goodness, for your sakes, that it’s over!), I sort of tuned it out yesterday cuz I didn’t see the point—I mean, why torture myself? But Bush’s “freedom speech” begs for a reality check. Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post weighs in:
Is he really committed to this? What is he going to do about it? Does this mean no more close relations with repressive governments? Does he mean like in Iraq?

In short, what's not at all clear is how his stirring script actually plays out in the real world -- or whether the White House has even thought that out.

And although Bush used the words ''free," "freedom" and "liberty" 49 times in the speech, he didn't once use the words "terror" or "war" or "Iraq" -- even though his first term was defined by terror and war, and even though American blood was still being shed in Iraq as he spoke.
Ronald Brownstein writes in the LA Times:
Few Americans would quarrel with the twin ambitions that anchored Bush's speech: encouraging the spread of liberty abroad and increasing ownership and economic choice at home. But the looming question is whether Bush's policies are moving the nation and the world toward achieving those aims, much less at a price most Americans consider acceptable. . . .
Somebody should explain the concept of freedom to our President, cuz I just don’t think he gets it. Perhaps we should send him a link to this post from The Long Cut, in which the formerly-known-as Accidental Blogist compiles a handy list for the President of all the nations of the world that are either not free or only partly free. 103 of ‘em. That’s a helluva lot of warfare.

How ironic that Bush was re-elected in part based on the supposed strength of the so-called "moral values" crowd, yet presides with seeming pride over what is surely one of the two or three greatest moral failures in the history of this nation.

Speaking of bitter ironies, let us remember who said this, oh so long ago:
How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?


N/P, this afternoon:

Killing Joke – s/t
The RezillosCan’t Stand the Rezillos
AC NewmanThe Slow Wonder
The MonksBlack Time
Pylon Gyrate
Bill FayFrom the Bottom of an Old Grandfather Clock
Acid Mothers TempleIn C
Fiendin' for more skullbloggery? Scour the archives: