Hubris of a Nation

Bush Foreign Policy largely based on Arrogance

From time to time, in listening to BushCo and their supporters, I am struck by the shear audacity of their statements. And so I am forced to make a diary entry. :-)

In their book titled, Hubris, David Corn and Michael Isikoff skillfully elucidate some of the bold-faced lies BushCo told to sell the Iraq war to the American people. And in an effort to bolster fading public support for the war, Bush continues his litany of lies, misrepresentations, and above all arrogance. These are some of the statements I've heard in recent weeks that receive little or no challenge from the MSM:

1. ...so what we're doing right now is we're defeating the enemy there so we won't have to fight them here.

What does this mean? Well, let's draw an analogy. Let's say Tony Blair decided he wanted to battle the Irish Liberation Army (IRA) rebels in say, Boston. It has a large Irish-American population and some of them may even be sympathetic to the IRA’s cause. Now if Blair were to say so what we're doing right now is we're defeating the enemy there so we won't have to fight them here, well every American would expel the British – again and without hesitation.

This is a ridiculous analogy because Blair would never do, or even think, anything so foolish. And yet, BushCo and supporters regularly utter this statement. I have yet to hear any challenge from any person in the MSM to this arrogance, this hubris. Just who do you think you are that you can make another person's country the battleground for your war. Those on the right can say what they want, but you have never heard them say that there was this type of terrorist activity in Iraq before the U.S. invasion.

2. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

This is another one of BushCo’s PR nuggets. This statement is wrong on several levels, where do I begin? First, "a source of violence and instability." Say whatever you want about Saddam, but to say that Iraq was a source of violence and instability before the U.S.-led invasion would just not be true. So the violence and instability Bush speaks of was unleashed after his "shock and awe" invasion. And continues to this day...

Secondly, 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and numerous foreign intelligence agencies have said unequivocally that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion on Iraq has fueled increased violence in the Middle East, has sparked increased radical Islamic recruitment, and has made the world less safe. "Laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren" hardly seems a fitting or true assessment. But again, I've never heard this statement challenged by MSM.

The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. –Excerpt from NIE report 4/03

3. ... Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror

Akin to #1, this takes a lot of gall to invade a country and then call it the central front. What do the Iraqis who have had family killed, who live without electricity for extended periods, who are relegated to live in unsanitary refuge camps, who have fled the country and who are afraid to even go to school – what do these people think about you making them the "central front" in your so-called War on Terror. Hubris.

4. Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region. This argument rests on a false assumption: that the Middle East was stable to begin with. The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage.

Here's where the arrogance borders on lunacy. The stability that was in Iraq before the invasion was a mirage. What is happening now, well I wonder if that's a mirage, too. Here we have the most powerful leader of the Western world gazing upon the Middle East and "Deciding" that its stability is a mirage. So, I'll think I'll invade Iraq to bust up this facade of stability. And he made this statement to the General Assembly of the United Nations in Sept. 2006, and to my knowledge, it was not challenged by the MSM.

Some may argue that the United States is unstable since we have the highest homicide rate of any country. For 2005, the total homicides in the U.S. were 14,860. This data may make someone think the U.S. is unstable. Maybe some country will think our stability is only a mirage and invade us to bust it up. You know, some Bush-type ruler.

5. Our goal is clear and unchanging: Our goal is victory.

The only problem is, no one seems to know what "victory" is. Is it bringing democracy to Iraq? Is it killing every terrorist? Is it putting an end to sectarian violence? What is victory and who will determine it? Bush again displays his arrogance and disregard for a sovereign nation when he continues to conduct a war with no end in sight until an unnamed, phantom "victory" is achieved. He also compounds this hubris with the vague "as-long-as-necessary" answer to how long he will keep troops in Iraq.

6. Bush vision for Iraq is: "...to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom."

Can someone please tell me what gives the United States of America the right to invade a sovereign nation because WE have a vision to bring democracy and freedom to them? Why would people support such an undertaking? Though it may be noble, we do not have the right to go around the globe imposing democracy on sovereign nations. The Treaty of Westphalia drawn up in the 17th century was one of the first documents that expressly established nations’ sovereignty. With that sovereignty, nations have the right to choose for themselves how they will be governed. In modern history, great wars have been fought when another nation breached a nation's sovereignty. History shows us time and time again that nations do not welcome foreign invaders no matter what the reason for the invasion!

So please, if not arrogance, than what makes Bush believe that he can have a vision for another country? I have a vision for my neighbor's Lexus, but unlike Bush, I will follow established laws and leave it be.

These are some of the more egregious statements I've heard from this administration in recent weeks. The MSM does not (or have the desire to) challenge these cockamamie assertions. Just once, I’d like to hear Wolf Blitzer ask Bush, "Mr. President, do you believe that the United States has the right to invade any sovereign nation to bring democracy to it?" Or, "Mr. President, are there any other regions in the world where you feel stability is a mirage and may warrant invasion to eliminate the mirage?"

Just once.