catapult magazine

GOERRING “Of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.
Naturally, the common people don’t want war — neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America; nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a Fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship.”

GILBERT: "There’s one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives. And in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

GOERRING: “Oh, that is all well and good. But voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

—From an interview during the Nuremburg trials (Goerring with psychologist Dr. Gustave Gilbert)

Also, I’m not arguing that the administration was evil in its intent. I believe they honestly thought that it was in the nation’s best interest to defy the United Nations and to invade Iraq. But since the reasons for invasion were not compelling, the US and British governments had to present their public with all the worst case scenarios.

There was not (and still is not) much evidence that Saddam was the head of any global terrorist network, but scimpy details were provided about terrorist training camps in Iraq. Of course it was well known that Saddam paid families of suicide bombers in Israel $10,000. Not mentioned were the known existance of terrorist training camps in most surrounding countries and that most of the money for worldwide terror comes from Saudi Arabia.

Saddam was a conventional despot who wanted a conventional empire. Random acts of terror doesn’t help a leader like him and he knew that. The reason why he gave Palestinians money for blowing themselves up is not that he liked to see people blow themselves up but because it gave him clout in the region. He had ambitions of being head of a Middle Eastern empire, a new Babylon (Maybe a comparison with Mussolini is more apt in this case). To suggest that he and Bin Laden (who wants to be a different sort of emperor) are in cahoots is just slightly short of rediculous, but it seems that many want to believe it. Maybe we find it hard to imagine that such evil men could NOT be friends! From my readings, however, they seemed to hate each other’s guts.

Continuing their Goerring-esque escalation of public fear, the adminstration raised the spectre of weapons of Iraqi mass destruction hitting American cities. The message was, if we wait, we’ll probably be nuked. But I’ll take your advice vanlee and wait for more evidence from those tunnels.

To repeat, the motives of most of the administration were probably ok (though I suspect the economic ones). But the methods used were machiavellian. Sometimes history exhonerates machiavellianism. Sometimes it backfires.

“We?ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.” —U.S. President George W. Bush took the unusual step this week of denying categorically two year of hints, allegations and suggestions from his administration. (from The Globe and Mail)

Don’t have time (this AM) to digest (yet) all the interesting new posts to my slot, but will do so later.

Hope this one note isn’t too irritating, Dan, but another dead Nazi has reared his head on this issue (specifically Iraq & Pres. Bush).

In the Sun Times this past Friday, a column by Andrew Greely…starts out with discussion of Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister, and links him to the Bush Administration.
Greeley makes lots of other assertions, (including that PRes. Bush is clueless…) but does not back t hem up there.

Making assertions is fine, tho Greeley does not inject any facts…just makes that emotional link between the Bush Admin & Nazis even stronger…& again the “stupid” assertion re PRes. Bush.

Why do I mention this? Discussion of the war (with assertions, citing facts, quotes) is valuable,
,,,in democracies (tho Goering was clueless on this) the administrations from Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, to now…all know the votors don’t have a great war appetite.

but not when it relies on the old Nazi equals PRes. Bush illogic. Or the old phrase (repeated without evidence) Oh, he’;s just stupid.

When I posted that quote, I wasn’t trying to make any connection between Nazi’s and the current administration beyond what sounds a lot like a recipe for galvanizing a nation for war.

It does seem that the most common opinions of Bush are either:
1) he’s incompetent and has no clue what he’s doing, or
2) he’s evil

I’d be interested to hear thoughts on the perspective presented in this article:
The Post-Modern President; Deception, Denial, and Relativism: what the Bush administration learned from the French.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.marshall.html

I have the abovementioned article by laryn printed out to read.

I will also seek out similar subjects in art icles by authors & experts who differ from this author in order to hear what both (or more) sides have to say on the many issues.

But I wish to note… on the repeated trend in today’s culture to “nazify” Bush & other republicans/conservatives. I cited the Andrew Greeley article in the Chicago Sun Times Friday Sep. 19 where Dr. Joeseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda guy) was “resurrected”; earlier we heard from the other top nazi, Herman Goering, and elsewhere, I mentioned an article from a recent (this fall) USA today article (a month or so ago—-don’t have the date "
called “Diversify colleges’ political tilt” by Laura Vanderkam). In that article, the American Psychological Assoc. clumped together Hitler, Mussolini & formere pres. Ronald Reagan.

Please read up on history of the Nazis, you guys.

THis does not mean there is not legitimate, logic based criticism to be made of this or any other PResident.

But then, if media professionals and educational professionals are defying the rules of sound logic and ignoring the actual history of who the Nazis were,

it makes it harder to sell logic, and actual historical knowledge as important criteria.

Quote from laryn:

“When I posted that quote, [Herman Goering on how governments incite persons to war…see first message] I wasn’t trying to make any connection between Nazi’s and the current administration beyond what sounds a lot like a recipe for galvanizing a nation for war.”

The thesis that Pres. B’s push for fighting Iraq is similar to how the Nazis pushed for war can be proved/disproved by studying the actual Nazi history. I persoanlly wonder how many war protesters roamed Nazi Germany freely???

Second quote from laryn:
“It does seem that the most common opinions of Bush are either: 1) he’s incompetent and has no clue what he’s doing, or
2) he’s evil”

---

Whether or not these are the most common opinions does not mean they are logically the only two possibilities. If all persons polled became convinced the moon was made of green cheese, that idea would not become true. It has to be factually true.

Going back to the Nazis (sorry if I nauseate anyone). At one time, in the early thirties, public opinion in Britain was against that “warmonger” Churchill, who started harping on the potential danger of the Nazis (who were breaking their treaty & rearming).

Time proved public opinion, in that particular case, to be wrong.

Opinion polls are limited in proving truth. They may prove what people think & how they may vote.

But whether or not Pres. Bush took the right course is determined by what the facts are in the case.

Is Iraq part of a world terrorist organization—-working forthe destruction of the US/parts of Europe——or not???

(And some of the facts are -at least for the general public-still unknown or in dispute.) That’s my frustration.

vanlee, the difference to me seems to be this:

You trust President Bush.

If you didn’t trust him, can you imagine how people might think he were dangerous?

The biography containing information about the connection between Saddam and Sept 11 and terrorism I mentioned in a previous post was Con Coughlin’s Saddam, King of Terror. He is the executive editor for London’s “Sunday Telegraph.” The jacket boasts that Coughlin is the one of the world’s leading authorities on the Middle East. Also, since he’s British, perhaps some will find him more trustworthy. I suggest the prologue of this book to anyone desiring a quick synopsis of the evidence.

I quickly re-read this prologue. I wish I could remember more of the specific details. Here are some of Coughlin’s observations I can remember off the top of my head:

1. Two weeks before September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein placed his troops on their highest military alert since the Gulf War. Saddam and his wives went into hiding.

2. It’s true that in the 1980s Saddam fought militant fundamentalists and opposed Osama bin Laden. In the 1990s evidence shows that Iraq was actually funding al-Qaeda, working with it, and even undertaking assinations to protect al-Qaeda’s interests. In addition members of al-Qaeda (not necessarily those who attacked the US) trained in a camp in Iraq provided by Saddam. Though it may not be significant, this camp included a Boeing converted into simulator to offer training.

3. One of the leaders of the Sept 11 (Ani) attacks met with an Iraqi official working in an embassy who was soon after dismissed for espionage (Atti).

Other evidence demonstrates that Saddam not only didn’t mind connecting himself with bin Laden, but celebrated it:

1. Adding insult to injury, Iraq named Osama bin Laden Iraq’s “Man of the Year 2001” for his terrorist actions against the US.

2. A Iraqi-government owned newscast played the infamous poem celebrating September 11’s massacre and asserting that “the will of Saddam brought it about.”

According to the jacket, "Coughlin (again, “an expert on the Middle East”) knew immediately that after American and British declarations of war against terrorism…would sooner rather than later encompass Suddam Hussein as well as Osama bin Laden. Coughlin shows that any operation against terrorism will be incomplete as long as Saddam remains in power…"

In the prologue Couglin argues that President Bush at first was cautious with respect to Iraq. Most of his “hawkish” aides wanted to address Iraq from the beginning; only Collin Powell supported caution. This means Iraq was a part of the dialogue in the war on terrorism from the beginning, not a late addition after seeing the economic advantage of extending the war to include Iraq.

Though I admit this is only cursory observation of Coughlin’s book, I am remain unconvinced by explanations that the US has primarily economic interests in Iraq. Such interests may be a factor but I would hesitate to reduce America’s motivation to economic interests.

For book information and a preview, check out:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060505419/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/102-7901479-7608957?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link

vanlee, i am not arguing about the fact that the two most commonly presented opinions on bush are not the only two possibilities. i guess i wasn’t clear enough—i was interested in responses to the article because it presented an alternate opinion. and, are you saying the moon is not made of cheese?

also, am i to understand that you take the position that the government has secret information that it’s not revealing (RE: ‘…at least for the general public…’)?

anton—the iraq/al qaeda connection is nebulous at best.

the fact that iraq came to mind immediately doesn’t really comfort me. it brings to mind the report put out by the Project for a New American Century in 2000 which describes the need for American military dominance (and increase in military spending) and control of global markets. (“The United States is the world’s only superpower, combining preeminent military power, global technological leadership, and the world’s largest economy…America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.” (p.8) Another line of interest: “…while it is likely that the Middle East and Persian Gulf will remain an area of turmoil and instability, the increased presence of American ground forces and land-based air forces in the region mark a notable shift from the 1980’s…[F]uture American policy should seek to augment the forces already in the region or nearby.” (p.56) The report says the process is likely to be “a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” (p.63) By the way, a list of people influential in this report reads like a who’s who of the current administration (cheney, powell, rumsfeld, wolfowitz…)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf