The Politics & Proxy of Revenge 2004

by Joel Woodman

The last three years we have watched our President respond to the events of September 11th with the utmost disregard and contempt for our democracy and the participants within it. On a daily basis we have been manipulated and convinced of a grossly fictionalized reality. This reality has been perpetuated by the continual exploitation of fear, which has created an unquenched thirst for revenge within our citizenry. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has taken advantage of our trust, and they have used our feelings as leverage to promote an agenda selected by an elite few.To understand how, we must look at the language of the Bush administration, dissect it and follow it throughout the course of their political campaign. Hopefully through that inspection we can then grasp the magnitude of why they have pursued the control of our minds, and sought to lead our democracy with the power of war.

Despite the fact that 4 out of 5 people are democrats- a Republican convention has never been held there- and a half a million protesters showed up for the affair; the 2004 Republican National Convention went off with out a hitch in downtown New York. Its goal was simple, to remind America of the events of September 11tth. It was held only weeks before the third anniversary of our country’s biggest tragedy, later than any other convention in history. No expense was spared to remind us that George Bush’s relentless pursuit against the ‘war on terror’ has made our country stronger and that “we are all safer” because of what he has done.

As the convention drew to a close, President Bush took his place in the middle of a giant seal of approval and proceeded to remind us how he had embraced the will of the people, and sought to destroy the evil that had unleashed its dark shroud upon us. “Three days after September the 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, "Whatever it takes." A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, "Do not let me down."

Having truly realized his duty, George Bush saw himself as merely the vessel in which to carry our message to the rest of the world. He defended his actions by saying,” After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the oval office, a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.”

The message was clear that evening; George Bush had proceeded with little choice over the last three years. First and foremost, he had acted with only the will of the people in mind, and the presence of one of the world’s greatest threats had left him with no recourse. In many ways, the convention in New York was the culminating moment in a long and arduous campaign. The spring of 2004 proved to be one of the toughest times for the president. Despite his declaration that “major combat operations in Iraq had ended”, the situation in the Middle East was continuing to escalate. Increasing speculation into the pre-war intelligence forced the administration on the defensive, subsequently leading to months of testimony and investigation. And most importantly, the President’s approval rating had reached a dismal 43%. Knowing that no incumbent President since Harry Truman had been re-elected with an approval rating less than 50%, the Bush campaign needed to act fast.

In July, shortly after John Kerry announced his Presidential Running mate, Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge held a press conference indicating that, “Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large scale attack in the United States.” Although he gave no indication to when, where, or how they planned to carry out the attacks, they felt that it was necessary to inform the American people of the threat. Tom Ridge would appear again, this time just 2 days after the Democratic National Convention. He claimed that his department had received information that most of the eastern seaboard had been targeted for attacks, specifically the major financial districts in New York including the New York Stock Exchange. But unfortunately for the administration, the coming days would prove that the intelligence previously reported was almost 3 years old. And if that wasn’t enough, Vice President Dick Cheney has gone as far as to say, “ It’s absolutely essential that in eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again.”

There is every indication that this administration has knowingly embellished the facts of our national security for political gain; in doing so their goal has been to create as much fear into our minds as they possibly can. That fear has settled deep into the belly of our populous, from which a tremendous appetite for revenge has grown. The administration has predicated the livelihood of their entire experience in the White House, not to mention their subsequent quest for re-election, on the notion that the more vengeful America feels, the more likely we are to support their policies. Whether it is the Homeland security measures, in particular, the color-coded terror alerts, and vague unsubstantiated reports of on going terrorist activity, or the never-ending reminders of 9-11, these acts of manipulation have fueled our unquenched thirst for revenge. Our president forces us to hate our enemies by reminding us that they have attacked us and stolen a piece of our freedom. Our hate for them is fueled by the redundant use of words like ‘terror’ to describe the desires and actions of our enemies. It has made it easier to provide facelessness to our
foes and these loose definitions make it easier to justify our actions, specifically in regards to methods that would typically be scene as inhumane or unethical. I guess it doesn't seem as bad when you are killing terrorists, as opposed to an Iraqi, Afgani, or human being.

Take for instance the images depicted in the abuse at Abu Gharib prison. The soldiers appeared showing their approval, giving thumbs up to the camera, smiling as if saying to us ‘we got em’, look at how humiliated they all are. After the initial stun from the photographs had worn off, our administration proceeded to discredit and even dismiss the acts as torture. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld preferably referred to the acts as abuse, then sighting that these were‘ unlawful combatants’, which would justify the cancellation of their fundamental human rights under the Geneva Convention; a document that the United States is largely credited for creating.

The administration has claimed that the majority of the inmates within the Iraqi prisons are “thugs and killers”, capable of the most atrocious acts of terror that we have ever scene. But a report by the Red Cross cited that 70 to 90 percent of those being held were at best common criminals, most of them caught up in large sweeps by the military to be interrogated for crimes unknown.

The highest office in the land is sending a message that torture is tolerated, and that we are not above the actions of our attackers. They have gone to great lengths to convince us that the prisoners were evildoers, up to no good. Most importantly, they want us to know that when we go to sleep at night, we should lie back and remember that America is continuing to get its REVENGE IN 2004.

The Bush administration has given every indication that they will stop at nothing
to continue the spread of fear and revenge within our citizenry. This overwhelming assault into our hearts and minds has prompted me to question what exactly the Bush administration is up to. In a television interview with Meet the Press’s Tim Russert, President Bush indicated that he “was a war president, I make decisions here in the oval office, in foreign policy matters with war on my mind.“ It is clear that this administration is willing to institute our policies predominately by force, and that war is to be viewed as imminent, and potentially sustainable. Keeping in mind our long history of diplomacy,and continual participation in the United Nations, one has to wonder why and more importantly where this un-normative behavior was forged.

In 1997, a small group of conservative constituents gathered to collectively examine the influence America possessed throughout the world, and more subjectively the power in which we exude. This group called themselves The Project For a New American Century. The founding members included the president’s brother, Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, his Deputy of Defense, Paul Wolfiwitz, and Vice President Dick Cheney. On their website, www.newamericancentury.org, a detailed outline of their goals and potential strategies can be found. On June 3rd 1997, they issued a statement of principles from which four potential consequences were described:

• We need to increase defense spending if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future.

• We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and challenge regimes hostile to
our interests and values and we need to promote the cause of political and economic
freedom abroad.

• We need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending
an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Suprisingly enough these principles are virtually the same goals of the current administration. On the Bush campaign web site, www.georgebush.com, within the National Security section, the goals are described this time as pillars, and are listed as follows:

• We will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and
outlaw regimes.

• We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world’s
great powers.

• And we will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom across
the globe.

One could argue that these ideas are perhaps benign and do not warrant an alarmist position, but found deeper in the website of the PNAC, is a document drafted in 2000, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. The report outlines a desire to strengthen the military, how to do so, and implementing a new foreign policy predicated by military occupation and most importantly preemptive war.

Found within this document is a chilling insight into the actions that have now consumed our country. It sees into the future with amazing clarity and accuracy, and proposes a course of action adopted almost verbatim by the Bush administration. In chapter 1, page 4, paragraph 5, it states that "In a larger sense, the new president will choose whether today’s “ unipolar moment”, to use columnist Charles Krauthammer’s phrase for America’s current geopolitical preeminence, will be extended along with the peace and property that it provides.” It concludes that," If American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence." Perhaps even more relevalent is their allusion that policies of this kind have little chance to be adopted by current political and societal conditions, unless events like September 11th would take place. They explain that” the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic event- like a NEW PEARL HARBOR.”

Based on this information and the actions of the Bush administration, specifically in regards to the conflict in Iraq and the continual “ war on terror”, it is my contention that this administration used the events of September 11th to implement the foreign policy of the PNAC. By way of fueling an American lust for revenge, they have sought to undermine and abolish the will of the people by instituting the egregious policies of this group. This act constitutes one of the most hideous examples of political proxy our country has ever scene.

Many have hailed the 2004 Presidential election as the most important of our time, and I couldn’t agree more. If George Bush is to be re-elected, America will show the rest of the world that we ultimately condone his behavior,and in doing so we will indicate that we are in danger of loosing our representative government, one that filters the wants and desires of its people through its policies. In closing I ask that we acknowledge the words of a true patriot and defender of democracy, for he illustrates the most important sentiment in our country's short history. “Democracy is always a movement of an energized public to make elites responsible-it is at its core and most basic foundation the taking back of one’s powers in the face of the misuse of elite power . . .It is when we confront the challenges of our anti-democratic inclinations as a country that our most profound democratic commitments are born.” Cornell West, 2004.