Weapons of Mass Deception
In its rush to war, the Bush administration told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and direct ties to Al Queda. This information, coupled with the still smoldering scars of 9-11 and the fear of a possibly even more deadly attack on the horizon, gave them the tacit permission to pursue their illegal war on a defenseless country (Iraq) that had been bombed into submission since 1991. Today, it is common knowledge that they flat out lied, or believed faulty intelligence; either way they presented as facts conclusions that were not true. As a result, the Bush administration has now claimed the real reason for the war was to establish a democratic government smack in the middle of the Arab world. This would create, according to Bush, a democracy domino effect in which people around the world throw off the mantle of their oppressive regimes and embrace the call of liberty and freedom. Why anyone would believe them now after their failure to tell the truth before is hard to say, however in the interest of being fair lets give them the benefit of the doubt. Certainly it is possible now, in the light of Bush’s inaugural speech of 2005, to see the it has become the official policy of this administration to export its version of democracy to the rest of the planet, whether they like it or not. Therefore, lets examine what they possibly mean by such terms, since what they say is often the exact opposite of what they actually mean.
Bush stated in his 2005 inaugural address:
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
Here we see encapsulated what can be named the Bush Doctrine. Where Monroe’s Doctrine was meant to keep the European Powers out of our Hemisphere, the Bush Doctrine is meant to place America directly into every other hemisphere on the planet. However, I am getting ahead of myself. Lets examine what certain terms the president uses might mean on their own, and what they mean to him and those in power.
First, the president presents freedom as a “force of history” one that is capable of breaking the “reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant.”
What is freedom? Perhaps John Locke, one of the men whose philosophies the American Revolution was founded on, can offer a definition:
In The Second Treatise of Government, John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. " (Locke 4) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty which has only the law of nature to restrict it, which is reason. (Locke 5) However Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as being necessary to be free.
Locke disagrees with the president when he says that freedom is a “force of history.” Freedom, for Locke, is a fundamental construct of being human. In other words, for Locke all human beings have been given the power by nature, or God, to be free, regardless of whether they live in a western style democracy or a repressive eastern tyranny. It is not a force of history, it is a human capacity. According to Locke, to be human is to be free, and no one has the power to control it except the individual in the good exercise of his or her own conscience.
Victor Frankl, who was imprisoned by the Nazis in Auschwitz, had this to say about freedom:
Even though conditions such as lack of sleep, insufficient food and various mental stresses may suggest that the inmates were bound to react in certain ways, in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone. Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him - mentally and spiritually. He may retain his human dignity even in a concentration camp.(emphasis mine) (Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning pp 86-87).
Seems that freedom is not a force at all, but a constitutive dimension of every human being.
So what is this “force of history” that president Bush is referring to? The naked force of American Imperialism. It is clear from Bush’s next sentence that is exactly what he is referring to:
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in the entire world.
Since freedom cannot be expanded (since everyone has it, and in the same amount), he is of course stating that in order for us to retain what we understand to be a western style democracy, we must “expand” into other countries (by force if necessary) and force them to do as we say. We must, then, aggressively attack other countries and make them like us, or else we will not survive and be free.
Freedom, for Bush, is domination.
At least now he is being honest. The reason they went to war with Iraq was CONQUEST. Many people are appalled and exclaim, “What are they doing in my name?” however if you understand the history of the USA, this sort of thing is simply a continuation of our fine tradition of conquest and racial genocide. They have been doing this in our name for a long, long time.And if you had not noticed, they are using the same lies to create a case for war against Iran. Will we fall for it again? Chances are likely, we already have.
Bush stated in his 2005 inaugural address:
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
Here we see encapsulated what can be named the Bush Doctrine. Where Monroe’s Doctrine was meant to keep the European Powers out of our Hemisphere, the Bush Doctrine is meant to place America directly into every other hemisphere on the planet. However, I am getting ahead of myself. Lets examine what certain terms the president uses might mean on their own, and what they mean to him and those in power.
First, the president presents freedom as a “force of history” one that is capable of breaking the “reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant.”
What is freedom? Perhaps John Locke, one of the men whose philosophies the American Revolution was founded on, can offer a definition:
In The Second Treatise of Government, John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. " (Locke 4) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty which has only the law of nature to restrict it, which is reason. (Locke 5) However Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as being necessary to be free.
Locke disagrees with the president when he says that freedom is a “force of history.” Freedom, for Locke, is a fundamental construct of being human. In other words, for Locke all human beings have been given the power by nature, or God, to be free, regardless of whether they live in a western style democracy or a repressive eastern tyranny. It is not a force of history, it is a human capacity. According to Locke, to be human is to be free, and no one has the power to control it except the individual in the good exercise of his or her own conscience.
Victor Frankl, who was imprisoned by the Nazis in Auschwitz, had this to say about freedom:
Even though conditions such as lack of sleep, insufficient food and various mental stresses may suggest that the inmates were bound to react in certain ways, in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone. Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him - mentally and spiritually. He may retain his human dignity even in a concentration camp.(emphasis mine) (Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning pp 86-87).
Seems that freedom is not a force at all, but a constitutive dimension of every human being.
So what is this “force of history” that president Bush is referring to? The naked force of American Imperialism. It is clear from Bush’s next sentence that is exactly what he is referring to:
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in the entire world.
Since freedom cannot be expanded (since everyone has it, and in the same amount), he is of course stating that in order for us to retain what we understand to be a western style democracy, we must “expand” into other countries (by force if necessary) and force them to do as we say. We must, then, aggressively attack other countries and make them like us, or else we will not survive and be free.
Freedom, for Bush, is domination.
At least now he is being honest. The reason they went to war with Iraq was CONQUEST. Many people are appalled and exclaim, “What are they doing in my name?” however if you understand the history of the USA, this sort of thing is simply a continuation of our fine tradition of conquest and racial genocide. They have been doing this in our name for a long, long time.And if you had not noticed, they are using the same lies to create a case for war against Iran. Will we fall for it again? Chances are likely, we already have.
posted by nathandave at 12:47 PM
2 Comments:
great post.
Didn't I hear Bush say "You Vill hav freedum and you vill like it, even if I have to lock you up or kill you"
Bravo NathanDave...most valuable insight. Blogging can be taxing on time, but hopefully you can sandwhich it in between the stresses of everyday life... a delicate balance. You said "thanks YB like I've got nothing better to do"
that struck me, because lately I have been coming to terms with the fact that I spend WAY too much time online...Could you tell? what was that in response to?
I'm glad you posted this, and look forward to future ventures. You have a lot to contribute. God bless
Post a Comment
<< Home