The Flogging (Flood's Blog) - War as State-Sponsored Terrorism
New Page 1

The Flogging

Flood's Blog: Expostulations by Anthony Flood

How They Get Away With It

"It" being a lie-based war. Scott McConnell explains.

July 4, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

How They Get Away With It
Three reasons Washington’s empire-builders don’t have to worry about ’60s-style dissent—not including the volunteer Army
by Scott McConnell

It was surprising how many people seemed to take genuine pleasure in British MP George Galloway’s contentious appearance before the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations. He was, after all, only a former left-Labor Party backbencher, a bit pink in his associations. And notwithstanding the vigor of his denials, the nature of his financial relationship to Saddam’s Oil for Food program was not entirely cleared up.

But it wasn’t Galloway’s protestations of innocence or his political character that made his turn noteworthy. What was striking was the sight of a man inside the Senate chamber using the full force of the English language to denounce the pack of lies behind President Bush’s Iraq policy. Galloway didn’t submit to the Democratic Party script and pretend that the war was due to a “massive intelligence failure,” that President Bush was somehow misinformed about Saddam’s weapons (or lack of them). He went instead for the jugular of the whole enterprise, reiterating what he had said well before the war—that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no connection to 9/11, no ties to al-Qaeda—and on these crucial points he was right and Sen. Norm Coleman and the other Republicans hoping to milk his testimony for electoral gain were dead wrong. The fruit of their error, Galloway continued, was 100,000 dead, including 1,600 Americans, and another 15,000 U.S. soldiers wounded, many of them permanently maimed—not to mention that the United States now has the worst international image in its history or that the volunteer army can no longer meet its recruiting goals and may have its back broken by the burdens of an extended Iraq occupation.

One never hears words like this spoken in the Senate. A search for successors to William Fulbright or Wayne Morse or Eugene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy yields only empty chairs. Big-name Democrats scramble for microphone time to denounce as “extremist” judges who are pro-life, but about the fomenters of a foreign policy that is manifestly extremist, they fall into timid silence. Howard Dean, the reputed mad dog of last year’s primaries, has turned toy poodle as head of Democratic National Committee, full of fighting barbs about Tom DeLay’s ethics but silent about a war that is hardly despised by his party’s big donors. It took a Brit to remind Americans turning on the evening news what it might be like to have an opposition party.

For the rest of this brilliant analysis, go here.
Lead by Example, Shrub! What Sacrifice Have YOU Made?

A reasonable person cuts his losses. A stupid, prideful oaf, however, having forgotten his original purpose, redoubles his effort, especially when the "sacrifice" falls so heavily on others. Whether his behavior is bad for his own health, or for that of millions of others, "he ain't no quitter."

Tragically, many of those others are apparently just as stupid and prideful. Maybe they need to look at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and explain to themselves how it is that the 55,000 remembered there died "defending freedom" given what we now know about the before, during, and after of that criminal enterprise. They should then ask in what morally relevant respect this current racket differs from that one.

The Americans being blown to bits in Mesopotamia, whose birthyears lie in the late '70s and early '80s, those "captains of the football team who married their childhood sweethearts, etc.," those young mothers who will never see their babies or have that wonderful career that awaited their return, lost their minds long before they lost their promise-filled lives.


Bush's 9/11 Reichstag Fire: The Gift That Just Keeps On Giving

The virtual blank check that ugly Americans have given Bush is now underwriting the war in Iran. No, that was not a typo. Just as the war in Iraq was being prosecuted in earnest by summer 2002, so Iran is already being splayed and dissected in the war rooms in advance of the first boots on the ground. The U.S. now flies over Iran with impunity. Expect this to be spun as "payback" for the hostage crisis of 1979, and for Joe and Joan Sixpack to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Here's is Scott Ritter recent analysis:

The US war with Iran has already begun

by Scott Ritter
Sunday 19 June 2005 12:06 PM GMT

Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.