European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

What Did The American People Know...

by DeAnander
Sat Jun 25th, 2005 at 02:11:31 PM EST

I reproduce here a lengthy excerpt from Under The Same Sun to illustrate a question of conscience:

A profound sense of disappointment with the American people greeted me here in Istanbul where the final session of the World Tribunal on Iraq, investigating and documenting war crimes in Iraq, modeled on the Bertrand Russell Vietnam War Tribunal of 1967, is convening. The mood is the opposite of what I encountered here and elsewhere after the anti-war demonstrations of 2002 and 2003. Back then, enormous sympathy for victims of 9/11, and respect for a people who took to the streets to try to stop their government from committing acts of aggression before the invasion had even begun, had generated admiration and warmth toward Americans, if not their government. After all, people said, Bush stole the 2000 election. And, look, they would point out, Americans are trying to stop him. Americans are good people with a bad government -- just like everywhere else -- they would declare, and curse Bin Laden and Bush in one swift, contemptuous breath.
Now, however, I get confused looks, pained questions, and heads shaking quietly in disbelief and disappointment...

(continued)

Don’t the American people know, I am asked, again and again. Explain please, they persist, how, after the publication of pictures from Abu Ghraib, Bush got re-elected? Don’t the American people watch the news from Iraq? Where did the protests, the outrage, the uproar go?
This is not just a sad turn of events; it is a profoundly dangerous situation for the American people. Mass murder of civilians is rarely the work of lonesome nuts operating totally outside of societal norms and beliefs. On the contrary, scratch the surface of most of the horrors of the twentieth century, and you will find a cold, cruel belief that the victims brought it upon themselves. Everyone shakes their head and loudly condemns the atrocity once the bodies are cold and deep under the earth; however, a close examination of the events as they occurred often reveals that there was an implicit and explicit turning of hearts and faces away from the people who ended up slaughtered. The perception of indifference and complicity of the American people to the crimes committed by their government is obviously not a good development.
Let me try to be even more blunt: if there had been another attack on American soil around or after the February 15, 2003 protests, I believe that Islamist terrorism would take a nosedive in legitimacy in the Middle East. Let alone being able to recruit would-be militants willing to kill civilians, such groups would find it difficult to try to defend themselves from the people of the region who would want to tear them from limb to limb. But now, I fear, many people would shrug, with sadness for sure, if America were to be attacked again. Of course, most people do not wish such catastrophe upon the American people, but there seems to be a growing level of indifference and dislike towards Americans because they are perceived to have turned away from the crimes of their government. And this is a made-in-heaven environment for recruitment for terrorist groups. Just as our recruiters find it harder and harder to find volunteers for the U.S. military, their recruiters, I sense, are finding it easier and easier. It is, after all, a connected situation, a see-saw of legitimacy.
At first I tried explain my questioners about the corporate control of media and the lack of grassroots organizations, but, honestly, it all rings a bit hollow... [more, lots more at the link above]

Here is my question, and my own moral dilemma and the dilemma of every resident of America who has not drunk the neoKoolaid: to what extent are we complicit, to what extent does the jury of world opinion find us complicit; to what extent are we morally required to act, and what form could/should such action take, in order to reduce or negate our complicity?

Invoke Godwin's Law all you want, but what Zeynep describes above is similar in flavour to the shame and dirt which stuck to all Germans in the eyes of other nations, after the full horrors of a certain mid-20th-century fascistic regime were exposed. The label "good Germans," with its overtones of savage contempt and irony, its assignment of blame, was invented for just the kind of complicity (ranging from passive acceptance to impotent opposition to active cheerleading) that Americans are now demonstrating with their illegitimate government and its crimes. Where are the mass protests, where is the outrage? Admittedly those crimes are being committed abroad, in "the Colonies," but we might recall that some of the worst crimes of that other regime took place in Poland, an annexed territory or colony.

I am not a US citizen but have lived and worked in this country for so long that my national identity is dubious -- I am at least as much American-by-osmosis as British-by-birth, a Transatlantic creature. I too am complicit in the crimes of the Bush Regime. I paid my taxes this year. They took my money and used it for all the things we read about daily -- for the prosecution of an illegal war, to line the pockets of a coterie of bandits and embezzlers, to hire professional torturers, to fly innocent men to countries where they could be tortured by third parties, out of sight and out of mind, to falsify evidence and plant psy-ops stories in foreign and domestic news... that was my money paying for those things. I also am complicit, despite my furious, futile personal opposition to the regime.

To what extent have Americans (and longterm residents of America) already been judged and found complicit? During the aggression against Viet Nam, were Americans generally judged complicit in their government's policies? Did the widespread, raucous, visible US protest movement mitigate this perception? Does the present-day US corporate media blackout on anti-war protests and activities (what is left of them) reduce their visibility so much that the rest of the world doesn't know any resistance continues at all? How on earth is everyone else on earth seeing us? O would some power the giftie gi'e us...

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Poll

Votes: 18
Results	\|	Other Polls

What Did The American People Know... | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Collateral Damage (4.00 / 4)

For a short while after November 2, I simply could not believe that result, that close enough to half of the Americans (and even if there was any fraud, it was close to half) supported, encouraged or tolerated the War in Iraq, Abu Ghraib and the rest, and the shameless lying.

But from the start, I knew that the only chance to reverse what Bush did would be to have Kerry fully supported by Congress to have a chance to do anything. Otherwise, he would simply have been blamed for all the expected consequences of what was started during the first 4 years of Bush.

Now Bush is there to take full responsibility, and one can only hope that he will be appropriately blamed for all the mayhem he has wrought. As we all know, the consequences must be borne by the Americans. 100,000 thousand dead Iraqis have limited political impact within the US, as we've seen, so the consequences must come home, which they have not really, so far.

Only a massively humiliating retreat from Iraq - without a jingoistic backlash in the US - is likely to be sufficient to bring Americans bacvk to their senses.

I cannot be wishing for war or destruction for anyone, and I certainly do not wish for any additional deaths on either side in Iraq. The hope I am clinging to is that the economic meltdown that I see as inevitable happens early enough that it can be totally, fully, without the slightest bit of doubt, blamed on the parties that deserve it, Bush/Cheney and Greenspan, and that it makes the Iraqi War simply too expensive, too draining and too demoralising at a time of domestic crisis to be continued.

It is also required that enough other US politicians have the courage to come to the front line to blame the Bush administration for that economic crisis, and then push from there to actually blame them for the senseless war in Iraq, leading to impeachment.

Nothing less will be statisfactory to the rest of the world to show that this criminal administration has been utterly rejected by the American people. (The alternative involves so much death and destruction that it is better not to even contemplate it)

So yes, the American people as a whole is guilty. But there is also the conscience that a lot of people are fighting against this inside the US, and are not individually guilty. But THEY MUST WIN, otherwise it will be pointless. Remembered, but discounted as regards the opinion of "Americans". So don't give up. Push your representatives. Give them the requisite spine. Give them the cover they need.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sat Jun 25th, 2005 at 02:50:07 PM EST

Re: What Did The American People Know... (none / 1)

Well...

I think even dumping Bush & gang won't be enough.

I think Kerry was a pretty bad candidate who essentially promised the same but in chocolate wrapping. Worse: had he been elected, the Republicans would have blamed all the catastrophes they left behind and he failed to solve on him, with Iraq likely topping the list - hence, had Kerry won, the Repubs would in all likelihood return in 2008 with a landslide - and, to boot, probably not with an idiot figurehead but an able madman as President (say Jeb Bush).

That is, I think the left side of America will win redemption for Americans only if they can force their elected representatives to implement sweeping policy changes, even if those policy changes hurt (global warming). This will only work with a lot more and a lot tougher action. It won't go with Senators Durbin who 'apologise' for telling the truth. It won't go with Senators Biden who backstab their party leader for telling the truth, rather than attacking the Repubs for using a few hard-working Americans, black and Jewish Americans as a potemkin facade. It won't go with Senators Clinton who think campaigning for Jewish-American votes by promising unconditioned support for whatever any Israeli government decides is a good idea. It won't go with Dailykos readers declaring the end of the Bushites whenever there is a downtick in some poll numbers, while ignoring other numbers like the less than 30% who think there's anything wrong with Gitmo. And it won't go until a lot of people living in the ignorance of consumerist paradise are actively drawn into thinking hard about politics.

I emphasize I'm speaking for what I believe would be needed to please majority opinion world-wide. My own opinion, while just as critical is a bit more humble: I am observing similar failings of Western democratic majorities elsewhere, too - just that we are failing to stop our own elites with mad projects of domestic or less obviously global effect. The Brits can't dump Bliar even as he is disliked, the French elected Chirac (and then his governing majority) under rather silly circumstances, the Germans are set to elect a bunch of pseudo-neocons out of despair while I still can't get why the majority of them couldn't see Schröder seven years ago (and can't see his currently most popular minister, Clement) for the con-man he is. Here in the ex-Soviet countries, nationalist-populist right-wingers and elitist ex-reformed-communists get elected despite breaking each and every election promise.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Jun 25th, 2005 at 05:07:13 PM EST

Re: What Did The American People Know... (none / 0)

I hate this... ex-Soviet countries should have been ex-Soviet-block countries. I'm posting from Hungary, and mean fellow new or soon-to-be EU members.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Jun 25th, 2005 at 05:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Did The American People Know... (4.00 / 2)

Nothing has changed.

This dark side has always existed in the American electorate. Bush's poll numbers are down because too many American soldiers are getting blown-up. Otherwise, the American people as a whole don't really care about Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or Iraqis. I'm not sure how this myth of American benevolence ever got started.

Remember Albright's famous words, "Are sanctions worth the death of half a million Iraqi children?"

Her answer: an emphatic "Yes." How can one begin to address that answer?

There is and was a huge difference between John Kerry and the Bushies. Kerry alone would have made a major difference in Iraq. How? Simply by not being Bush. That means he wouldn't be working for Halliburton, and he'd cut the pie enough for the EU and the UN to share the burden. Remember, this was a Senator who conducted some of the most serious criminal inveestigations in the history of the American Senate.

We are much worse off in the US because Kerry didn't win for a good number of reasons.

The obvious is dawning on progressive Americans. Our democracy is a rather vulnerable thing, and though we like to think we "export" it to the rest of the world, we really have no mechanism for reigning in a power-hungry executive branch, especially when the majority of our elected members of congress are happily shredding our civil liberties and the constitution. In other words, people apparently missed the fact that not only is it very possible for the US democracy to be dominated by powerful interests who do NOT represent the majority of the country (under our unbalanced system of representation, the so-called majority party represent fewer constituents than the minority opposition), but they can also commit crimes, and as long as their cronies are in power, no one will investigate them. They can lie, they can take bribes, they can torture, they can start illegal wars, they can steal money: they have done all these. Not a one of them is in danger of going to jail.

Quite simply: it's a breakdown in our democracy.

Under any other circumstance, if even another branch of the American gov't had any poewr, George W. Bush would have already been impeached: yesterday.

by Upstate NY on Sat Jun 25th, 2005 at 06:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Did The American People Know... (none / 0)

That means he wouldn't be working for Halliburton, and he'd cut the pie enough for the EU and the UN to share the burden.

No, that doesn't cut it. This may have worked in the summer of 2003, and even then only if Kerry had been willing to give up control completely - that means military control, too.

But Fallujah I, Najaf I and II preceded the elections, and Fallujah II fell into the interregnum. By 2004, the wide majority of Iraqis wanted us (us the West) out, even according to CPA polls. And even had they not, just to ensure security, up to a million troops would have been needed - the EU doesn't have that many, nor the money to keep them there. Nor the population's willingness to send some - so while it would have been more difficult for the French and German governments to reject demands for Kerry, they would have done so anyway.

Kerry was either not bold enough to declare that pullout is the only option, or he was naive. Either way, the Repubs would have blamed failure on him after his victory[], I'm certain with success.

To return to the original theme of the thread, the Democrats' failure to go with Dean and later the anti-war movement's failure to force Kerry to get really aboard are instances where much of the world would say to US liberals, "not enough".

[] BTW, I am growing ever more certain that it was victory.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 12:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Did The American People Know... (none / 1)

We simply disagree.

The US public was not going to vote for an anti-war candidate in a post 9/11 atmosphere. I firmly believe that.

I'm not even sure that leaving Iraq is a good thing right now. What happens if...if ultraconservative Shiites take over, control the oil, a civil war starts and untold hundreds of thousands are slaughtered? Iraq can get worse.

I'm not saying it will, but it can.

As for Kerry and the last election, I thought he straddled the line well. You had to say, I;m willing to start a war to defend the US after 9/11. If you weren't willing to say that, you were marked out of the game. 40% of the electorate believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11. That's how deluded we were. And that's why an appeal to that 40% would have been extraordinarily difficult if you were anti-war.

I think the case is more viable in 2008, but unfortunately our most prominent candidates so far voted for IWR.

by Upstate NY on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 05:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

anti-war candidates (none / 0)

The anti-war sentiment has been pretty much discredited in the United States, since Vietnam. Post-Vietnam spin successfully painted the anti-war movement as largely responsible for the 'sapping of will' that led to the US defeat.

This is what I mean when I say that America did not learn the lessons of Vietnam, and now has to re-learn them in Iraq. When it does, being anti-war--and pro-diplomacy--will become respectable in the US. But I fear this is a long ways away. It's part of a long-term process of cultural maturation.

Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

by d52boy on Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 12:11:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Iraq can get worse" (none / 0)

This is the great fear that paralyzes the antiwar left in the US. The Vietnam analogy stands up in many respects, but not all, and certainly there is more at stake strategically in the Middle East than there was in Southeast Asia.

It's going to take some serious diplomatic talent, and some substantive gimme's to Europeans and others to help us out.

Great comment, Upstate.

Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

by d52boy on Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 12:16:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Iraq can get worse" (none / 1)

Look at the way the Euros are dealing with Iran. Look at how they maintained relations with Saddam after the Gulf War. I firmly believe you can actually cut some deals that will quell some of the violence in Iraq. Emphasis on the "some."

The fighters from outside Iraq are there for another reason. But the insurgency of former Baathists and Iraqi Army can be quelled once their leaders are cut in. The Iranians would cut a deal as well, so the Shiites would play ball.

Right now, American policy is hostage to Halliburton.

Once you cut the Iraqis in, however, the idea that Iraq will become a democracy modeled on NeoCon deluded fantasies is completely dead, if anyone actually believed it in the first place.

I think 2008 may be just long enough for the American public to realize how insane our foreign policy is. At least I'm hoping this is true.

by Upstate NY on Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 08:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Did The American People Know... (4.00 / 3)

Hi DoDo. So, here's another million-dollar question. Why is it that the 'advanced industrial nations' are seeing such a breakdown in their democratic process?

I can think of several glib theories each of which would have its adherents.

Moral/Intellectual Decay is always a favourite; if you are a rightwinger then the nation's moral fibre is being weakened by drugs, sex, permissive childrearing, gay and feminist activism, and probably sinister foreign influences; if you are more of a lefty social critic then the nation's intellectual capacity and critical thinking skills are being dumbed down by braindead television, advertising, mindless video games, a decline in the quality of education and literacy, etc. You then have either a morally or intellectually impaired public, which is not adequate to the task of participating in a functioning democracy.

Another theory would be that institutions naturally decay, that they have a life cycle just as monadic organisms have, and that the institutions of democracy are moribund in our time, have reached a kind of senescence and are about to perish of natural causes. This theory has a hard time when it comes up against the Catholic Church :-) but I do see a certain sense in it; organisations (businesses, NGOs, think tanks, community groups) do tend to "lose the plot," lose their sense of mission or get infested with opportunists, over time, and require reform or refreshing or just plain starting over. The Democratic Party might be a poster child for this theory.

Another theory: capitalism is doing what it naturally does, which is concentrating more and more wealth and power into the hands of corporations and the individuals who own or control corporations. This in turn naturally increases corruption, bribery, undue influence, media control and disinformation, etc., and this leads to the breakdown of democracy. So it is not surprising that as the advanced capitalist nations' Gini numbers begin more and more to resemble mafiya-run Russia or some tinpot African dictatorship, the politics does likewise.

Another theory: the great splurge of vulgarised privilege and luxury which the "advanced" nations wallowed in after WWII (the Great Fossil Fuel Party) offered such a glut of consumer goods, conveniences, entertainments and luxuries to "the people," and such a relentless marketing blitz to convince them to buy more and more of the stuff, that it changed the emotional tenor of life in the wealthy nations. People became focussed exclusively on their individual existence and their collection of material goods, and ceased to think of public life and public probity as "goods" to be defended, watched, fascinated by, engaged with. This is a variation on the Moral Decay theme with "sybaritic decadence of Rome" overtones: imperial luxury destroyed the probity and backbone of Roman society and hence (with a rather long lag time) the Fall.

Yet another theory: deliberate de-engineering of democracy by the elites, using economic instability and fearmongering (as discussed over on SusanG's diary about a Culture of Honour), i.e. democracy isn't just decaying, it's being actively demolished with shaped charges by people who know what they're doing.

All I know is, the voter turnouts in nations where voting is not mandatory are pathetic -- in countries that call themselves "democracies". The I-Don't-Care Vote is nearly a majority in some countries. This in itself is a symptom of crisis. The lack of outrage at embezzlement, bribery and other malfeasance is another symptom (where are the mobs with tar and feathers?). And imho the trend (esp in the US but also in Russia and other places) to "leader cult figures" and what we might call Hollywood Politics (political figures gaining power based on charisma, personality, good looks, the generation of a romantic mythology) is another bad sign.

Any other theories about the origins of the rot? For I do think I smell rot, and as DoDo pointed out, in more than one country simultaneously.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Sat Jun 25th, 2005 at 07:51:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Did The American People Know... (none / 0)

Which of the theories is most to blame, or which sign of rot is the most pervasive?

I think you did a wonderful job of speculating. I'd put the largest share of the blame on the degradation of our psychic lives by consumerist culture. Any culture that insists at its core on the metaphysics of shopping is a dying culture.

What will replace it?

You can preserve democracy.

by Upstate NY on Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 08:59:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Things are starting to turn around. (none / 0)

Bush's numbers have plummeted like crazy since the election, and Rove is desperate. He has been slinging mud like crazy at the Democrats in the hopes that it will stick.

I think a lot of people are afraid to protest for fear of being accused of spitting on the troops like they were in the 1970's or fear of being thought bad of.

Iraq War news and comment.

by Eternal Hope on Sat Jun 25th, 2005 at 09:10:32 PM EST

Large protests (none / 1)

I don't think people opposed to the war in Iraq are afraid of being accused of "spitting on the troops."

There are several differences, in my eyes, between the public reaction of Vietnam then and Iraq now.

The biggest difference is that we still have an all volunteer military. The draft really brought home to young men and their families that they could be fighting and dying in the jungles of Vietnam, whether they agreed with the war or not.

It was also the '60's, which I think is a unique time in our history. It was a revolutionary time and not just about sex. It was a time of questioning the establishment and the staid morals of the '50's. It was about standing up for yourself, whether you were young or female or black, etc. The whole era was about breaking out of the subdivisions our society had assigned to people in general. We also didn't have as many distractions then. We didn't have 500 channels on tv. We didn't have the internet, which has become a place to protest and rally people to work against the war in other ways. In the '60's people actually had to meet face to face in someone's home to organize. Today, you can put a notice on a blog and have people work from home sending out info via email.

There was also the difference in reporting between then and now. We had nightly reports from the war arena on our tvs. The reporters were showing grizzly scenes from in theater. Sitting in your living room watching it, the violence was palpable and scary. We also saw the flag draped coffins coming home and funerals that were held. We don't see that kind of reporting these days.

Also, the Vietnam war raged on for over 10 years. Here's a good history of the progression of protesting the war in Vietnam.

I do believe that, if a draft were reinstated, there would be a huge outcry and lots of people marching. I also believe that, if this war continues on for another 2 years the protest movement will grow.

by Maggie Mae on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 02:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Large protests (none / 0)

We could see a repeat of that. The Washington Post is considering whether or not to put stories of troops killed in Iraq on the front page. Ombusman Michael Gertler argues in favor, saying that readers deserve to know how the consequences of the war hit close to home.

Iraq War news and comment.

by Eternal Hope on Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 03:29:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll believe it (none / 0)

when I see it. Although the press has been getting much more aggressive in the daily gaggle, with Scotty and at times with Shrub (when he deigns to talk with them), I'm not sure many WaPo journalists would be getting called on regularly, if the paper decided to do that. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them start putting the numbers on the front page on a daily basis (the dead and injured of both the troops and the innocent Iraqis), right above their header. I'm just not sure they have the guts to do it.

by Maggie Mae on Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 05:38:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Did The American People Know... (none / 1)

Most Americans are completely indifferent to the rest of the world, except as projections of their own rather immature emotions. They donate money for disaster relief out of the same sentimentality that makes them weep while watching television melodrama.

Are Americans complicit in what Bush is doing? Of course. They are also complicit in Ronald Reagan's training and financing of the paramilitary thugs who 'disappeared' thousands and thousands of Latin Americans all through the '80s. Most of them, like 'good Germans', know nothing of these matters.

When pressed, however, they will defend such actions as necessary to combat Communism, which has now been replaced by Terrorism as the boogeyman we all must fear. A leader like Bush who plays to their fears finds it quite easy to convince them that Evil People are threatening them, and Strong Measures are needed to deal with these threats. Now is not the time for weakness.

When the Iraq boondoggle falls apart, it will be the weak-kneed liberals who are blamed, just as they are still blamed for the defeat in Vietnam. (I just wrote a diary about this, here.)

This not just GW Bush; it's a problem that is much deeper, and broader.

Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

by d52boy on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 09:15:34 AM EST

I feel complicit (none / 0)

even though I opposed the war. Don't know whether it's the old Catholic guilt or the impotence of the initial protests and demonstrations. Mainly it's the reality that hundreds of thousands have suffered and/or died because of my country's criminal decisions regarding Iraq.

I think, as I've talked about some on Deano's thread concerning evil, that Anatol Lieven has absolutely nailed what's going on in the U.S. in his book America Right or Wrong, ably summarized by Linda Colley of Prospect magazine here.

As obnoxious as it may seem to the rest of the world, however, it may be better for all of us that massive anti-war protests have not erupted from the left wing. Beginning with Reagan, the right wing has successfully reconstructed reality, projecting our loss in Vietnam as the result of a left wing, anti-war, home-front stab-in-the-back to U.S. military power and defense ability. If they could add further fuel to that fire through present day antiwar activities, it would likely feed further growth of U.S. nationalism, much as the German army stabbed-in-the-back theory fed the rise of the Nazis.

Losing disgracefully would probably, as Jerome pointed out, help to bring Americans back to their senses. The realization that we are losing is sinking in now, Bush's ratings are plummeting, and of course, that's why Rove has geared up his blame-the-liberals routine.

But the country needs more than that. A huge majority thinks there's nothing wrong with Guantanamo. We are talking serious evil here when people, not just their power-mad government, think that it's ok to do wrong to others because it's just maybe possible that some of them have done wrong to you or helped others who did. I do not see in either party the kind of mature, morally credible leadership it would take, IMO, to get that majority to deal with this godawful truth about themselves.

by msdove on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 10:34:36 AM EST

Another thought I want to add to this (none / 0)

is that politics is probably not where we're going to find moral leadership, at least not now if ever. But for a country that prides itself so much on its religiosity, it speaks volumes that, unlike the Vietnam era, there has been no significant leadership from the churches and synagogues regarding the war, torture, and abuse. Of course, the fundamentalists support the war, and the primarily right wing American Catholic bishops are totally occupied with the plight of the blastocyte. But where are the Episcopalians, Methodists, Unitarians, and others who were so outspoken during Vietnam?

by msdove on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 11:06:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another thought I want to add to this (none / 1)

I am an atheist, so I am not partial here, when I must defend those churches, plus part of the Catholics. I did hear and read of several anti-war conferences and declarations, but exclusively on the web, the news media held total silence about it.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Did The American People Know... (none / 0)

Good point. The American corporate news media's complicity in supporting and underreporting the war and abuses while ignoring the opposition to it is unquestionable.

by msdove on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 01:13:22 PM EST

You need to know... (none / 0)

...something about corporate sabotage of the American electoral process and the role that so-called advanced technologies have played in this. Look at Congressman John Conyers report of what happened in Ohio.

Capitalist democracy is an oxymoron.

The idea that there are enlightened profit mongers in America who are anxious to accumulate wealth for the sole purpose of distributing it to those most in need is preposterous.

But this flaw is not peculiar to the American personality. Greed is rampant.

by mythmother on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 02:22:14 PM EST

What Did The American People Know... (none / 1)

The American people knew what the media told them. The media told them what they were told to say. To report accurately and thoroughly on the war in Iraq, it's buildup and its pre-war bombing campaigns would have been unpatriotic and would not have expressed support for the war.

Another argument could be made that to report accurately and thoroughly on the war in Iraq would have been in violation of the Patriot Act.

The above two reasons, plus that section of Branzburg v. Hayes that applies to the legal protections of journalists when their information reveals crime at the top levels of government, is, I think, a pretty comprehensive argument for why the American people did not know the truth about Iraq. And not once did I have to use the term "media whores" (oops! I just did)

Nor do the American people know yet.

Just look at UK reporting over the last 3 years and contrast it with US reporting and you will see that the only way for Americans to get news about Iraq is to go to UK sources or the Internet.

Until the American people know the truth, they cannot appeal to their representatives in government to take appropriate action to stop this illegal war.

So my answer was definitely number 2. The people didn't know, and the election was stolen.

by GraceReid on Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 07:02:01 PM EST

Re: What Did The American People Know... (4.00 / 2)

Very little, Ignorance is bliss and rarely has such an ignorant country been so powerful in history.

Considering the amount of damage the US has done to the world in the past 50 years (Mossadeq 1953, Arbenz 1954, Indonesia 1965, Alende 1970, the Contras in the eighties, the Death Squads in El Salvador, Panama 1989, Gulf War I 1991) and the fact that most Americans refusal to take any responsibility for these events, no one should be surprised by Gulf War II.

Had that war gone the way the Neo-Cons had predicted the US Army would now be rolling towards Teheran.

The country is now in the process of completing it's journey into full fledged fascism, the private media is owned by Republican/Conservative supporters, the public media (PBS/NPR) is being defanged as fast as possible, not that it ever had much teeth, Wealth is being concentrated in a few hands and Unions are being destroyed as fast as possible.

Suppose you were a heartless bastard, and suppose you were a Republican, but, .....I repeat myself. Mark Twain

by Don Quijote (alonzo.quijano@gmail.com) on Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 04:43:57 AM EST

Re: What Did The American People Know... (none / 1)

Just another data point: American students harassed in Australia

In Oz! not in Lebanon or Iran or Indonesia or Nigeria or Saudi. In Oz, land of surf, beer, whiteboy rule and No Fear Mate.

"I have had a few incidents in bars. I had a guy and he heard my accent and he said: 'I hate your president. I hate your country.' "
Another Griffith student has already returned to the US after enduring six months of abuse at the university's residential college in Brisbane.
All the students received counselling before arriving and were warned of the backlash against the US.
They said they were advised not to carry any items that would identify their nationality.
...
Australian-American Association state president Marylou Badeaux said anti-American sentiment had reached a climax over the war in Iraq.
She said attacks from the general public were mostly sedate - but had grown into open hostility at several Queensland universities. In some cases, US students and academics were being "persecuted" for merely having an American accent.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 04:26:38 PM EST

What Did The American People Know... | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]