Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
The 'War on Terror' Is Really the War on Our Republic
Also in War on Iraq
Would You "Shoot an Iraqi" in Cyberspace?
Gabriel Thompson
Why Robert Gates is a Terrible Pick
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Does the Status of Forces Agreement Spell Doom for Kurds?
Mohammed A. Salih
Iraqi Parliament Approves Status of Forces Agreement
Rumsfeld's Attempts to Rewrite Himself on the Right Side of History Are Laughable
Gary Brecher
For Baghdad's Factories, the Occupation is a Major Drag on Business
From the beginning of the "war on terror," George W. Bush has lied to the American people about the goals, motivation and even the identity of the enemy -- a propaganda exercise that continued through his 2007 State of the Union Address and that is sounding the death knell for the Republic. Since 2001, rather than focusing on the al Qaeda Sunni fundamentalist terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks, Bush has expanded the conflict exponentially -- tossing in unrelated enemies such as Iraq's secular dictator Saddam Hussein, Shiite-led Iran, Syria and Islamic militants opposed to Israel, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
In effect, Bush has transformed what began as a definable military objective -- the defeat of "terrorist groups with global reach" -- into an endless war against what he regards as evil, a conflict so vague that it is claiming as collateral damage America's "unalienable rights" and the Founders' checks and balances on the powers of the Executive. In Bush's State of the Union speech on Jan. 23, there could be heard a requiem for the Republic.
"The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is still a nation at war," Bush told Congress. But that "evil" will always be "at work in the world," so America will always be "a nation at war" and thus, under Bush's theories of unlimited Commander-in-Chief powers, the American Republic will be banished permanently.
Bluntly put, Bush and his neoconservative legal advisers don't believe in the "unalienable rights" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, /www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html">including ones as fundamental as the habeas corpus right to a fair trial and protections against warrantless searches and seizures. The Bush administration may make grudging concessions in these areas when faced with determined opposition in the courts or from the public, but they hold these liberties to be subordinate to Bush's "plenary" -- or unlimited -- powers as Commander in Chief. Beyond this disdain for fundamental American liberties, Bush has contempt for any meaningful public debate. Though he talks about compromise and consultation, his view of national unity is to have everyone shut up and get in line behind him, "the Decider."
Since the 9/11 attacks, Bush has overseen a bare-knuckled political strategy of bullying anyone who disagrees with him and marginalizing their voices. From the Dixie Chicks to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, from France to United Nations weapons inspectors, those who have dared to cross the President have faced ridicule and reprisals.
These ugly attacks have become so much a part of the American political landscape that the news media treats them as unexceptional, as if it's normal for a President to coordinate with powerful media allies to silence dissent. For instance, there was no media outcry in April 2003 when Bush gave a wink and a nod to a retaliatory boycott against the three-woman Dixie Chicks band because the lead singer, Natalie Maines, had criticized the President. "They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out," Bush said. "Freedom is a two-way street."
So, instead of encouraging a full-and-free debate about an issue as important as war and peace, Bush made clear that he saw nothing wrong with his followers punishing Americans who disagree with him.
"Democrat Party"
While Bush may have softened his belligerent style slightly since the Republican defeat in the November 2006 elections, he still couldn't muster enough politeness to refer to the "Democratic" Party in his State of the Union.
For years, tough-talking Republicans have made it a point of insult to drop the "-ic" and use "Democrat" as the adjective. This phrasing has become a mark of the swaggering Republicans who have dominated this era of U.S. politics. It's the partisan equivalent of willfully mispronouncing the foreign-sounding name of a disliked neighbor. So, even as Bush was supposedly trying to be gracious to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he couldn't stop himself from congratulating the "Democrat majority."
See more stories tagged with: war on terror, republic
Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »