|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Review :: Iraq |
|
What a Tangled Web We Weave... |
Current rating: 0 |
by Billmon via Daily Kos via goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
14 Jan 2005
|
|
Just in case some might need to be reminded about why the Bush administration is a pack of lying phonies, and why we have made a tremendous mistake with our war in Iraq, here are some gem quotes posted on Billmon, and linked on the Daily Kos website. What a steaming load the Bush administration has fed this country but, for too many people, fat doesn't meet greasy until they get a mouthful. The war in Iraq is just that mouthful, and a crying shame. |
How the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. "The first line of defense...should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration." Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs
2/1/2000
We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002
There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
9/6/2002
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002
Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002
The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq’s procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Denver, Address To Air National Guard
12/1/2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003
I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that’s been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
MSNBC Interview
1/10/2003
What is unique about Iraq compared to, I would argue, any other country in the world, in this juncture, is the exhaustion of diplomacy thus far, and, No. 2, this intersection of weapons of mass destruction. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
NewsHour Interview
1/22/2003
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
2/5/2003
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
2/8/2003
In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. George W. Bush, President
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
2/26/2003
If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Interview with Radio France International
2/28/2003
I am not eager to send young Americans into harm’s way in Iraq, or to see innocent people killed or hurt in military operations. Given all of the facts and circumstances known to us, however, I am convinced that if we wait, a threat will continue to materialize in Iraq that could cause incalculable damage to world peace in general, and to the United States in particular. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Letter to Future of Freedom Foundation
3/1/2003
Iraq is a grave threat to this nation. It desires to acquire and use weapons of mass terror and is run by a despot with a proven record of willingness to use them. Iraq has had 12 years to comply with UN requirements for disarmament and has failed to do so. The president is right to say it’s time has run out. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Senate Speech
3/7/2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
3/7/2003
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime is our best inoculation. Destroying once and for all his weapons of disease and death is a vaccination for the world. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Washington Post op-ed
3/16/2003
Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Meet The Press
3/16/2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
The United States . . . is now at war "so we will not ever see" what terrorists could do "if supplied with weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein." Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Senate Debate
3/20/2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
3/21/2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman
Press Briefing
3/22/2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
We simply cannot live in fear of a ruthless dictator, aggressor and terrorist such as Saddam Hussein, who possesses the world’s most deadly weapons. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Speech to American Israel Political Action Committee
3/31/2003
We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq's borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Conference
4/9/2003
You bet we're concerned [concerned that those weapons might have been shipped out of the country]about it. And one of the reasons it's important is because the nexus between terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction ... and terrorist groups -- networks -- is a critical link. And the thought that ... some of those materials could leave the country and [get] in the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect. So it is important to us to see that that doesn't happen. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Conference
4/9/2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty. Robert Kagan, Neocon scholar
Washington Post op-ed
4/9/2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003
Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Meet the Press
4/13/2003
I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country. Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether contact with one of these officials who we may come in contact with will tell us, ``Oh, well, there's actually another site,'' and we'll find it there, I'm not sure. General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Fox New
4/13/2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush, President
NBC Interview
4/24/2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
4/25/2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/3/2003
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to Reporters
5/4/2003
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/6/2003
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Reuters Interview
5/12/2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
5/13/2003
We said all along that we will never get to the bottom of the Iraqi WMD program simply by going and searching specific sites, that you’d have to be able to get people who know about the programs to talk to you. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Interview with Australian Broadcasting
5/13/2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
5/21/2003
It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush, President
Speech at a weapons factory in Ohio
5/25/2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
5/26/2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
5/27/2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair interview
5/28/2003
The President is indeed satisfied with the intelligence that he received. And I think that's borne out by the fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of producing biological weapons. That's proof-perfect that the intelligence in that regard was right on target. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
5/29/2003
We have teams of people that are out looking. They've investigated a number of sites. And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Infinity Radio Interview
5/30/2003
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. George W. Bush, President
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003
You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. George W. Bush, President
Press Briefing
5/30/2003
It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
5/30/2003
Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there. Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
5/30/2003
Q: The fact that there hasn’t been substantial cache of weapons of mass destruction -- is that an embarrassment? Wolfowitz: No. Is it an embarrassment to people on the other side that we’ve discovered these biological production vans, which the defector told us about? Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
CNN Interview
5/31/2003
This wasn’t material I was making up, it came from the intelligence community Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Press Briefing
6/2/2003
We know that some of them, especially the biological weapons, were being destroyed," Hastert said, adding that it would "take a little while to find weapons of mass destruction... and we're going to continue to do it. Dennis Hastert, House Speaker R-IL
Press Briefing
6/4/2003
We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is the man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth George W. Bush, President
CAMP SAYLIYA, Qatar
6/5/2003
I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, "Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?" Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Fox News Interview
6/8/2003
No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003
What the president has said is because it's been the long-standing view of numerous people, not only in this country, not only in this administration, but around the world, including at the United Nations, who came to those conclusions...And the president is not going to engage in the rewriting of history that others may be trying to engage in. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
6/9/2003
Iraq had a weapons program...Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out they did have a weapons program. George W. Bush, President
Comment to Reporters
6/9/2003
"It doesn't appear there are any more targets at this time," said Lt. Keith Harrington whose team has been cut by more than 30 percent. "We're hanging around with no missions in the foreseeable future." Keith Harrington, Lt. Colonel
Iraq
6/9/2003
The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003
Those documents were only one piece of evidence in a larger body of evidence suggesting that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Africa ... The issue of Iraq's pursuit of uranium in Africa is supported by multiple sources of intelligence. The other sources of evidence did and do support the president's statement. Sean McCormack, National Security Council Spokesman
Statement to press
6/13/2003
A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003
My personal view is that their intelligence has been, I'm sure, imperfect, but good. In other words, I think the intelligence was correct in general, and that you always will find out precisely what it was once you get on the ground and have a chance to talk to people and explore it, and I think that will happen. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
6/18/2003
You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003
I have reason, every reason, to believe that the intelligence that we were operating off was correct and that we will, in fact, find weapons or evidence of weapons, programs, that are conclusive. But that's just a matter of time...It's now less than eight weeks since the end of major combat in Iraq and I believe that patience will prove to be a virtue Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Pentagon media briefing.
6/24/2003
I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told NBC, Today Show.
6/26/2003
MS. BLOCK: There were no toxins found in those trailers. SECRETARY POWELL: Which could mean one of several things: one, they hadn't been used yet to develop toxins; or, secondly, they had been sterilized so thoroughly that there is no residual left. It may well be that they hadn't been used yet. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
All Things Considered, Interview
6/27/2003
That was the concern we had with Saddam Hussein. Not only did he have weapons -- and we'll uncover not only his weapons but all of his weapons programs -- he never lost the intent to have these kinds of weapons. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
All Things Considered, Interview
6/27/2003
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat Joseph C. Wilson IV, Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003
The Washington Post quoted an unidentifed senior administration official as declaring that "knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." Unidentifed, Senior Administration Official
New York Times Article
7/8/2003
I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
7/9/2003
John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, said that whether Saddam's regime actually possessed weapons of mass destruction "isn't really the issue." "The issue I think has been the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programs," Bolton said John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Interview with The Associated Press
9/4/2003
Q: But do you know of any information that has produced credible information leading to weapons of mass destruction? Rumsfeld: I think I've answered your question. I'm going to allow that process to go forward. It is orderly, it's well staffed, and in my view from the briefings I've received they're doing a good job.. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Media Roundtable
9/5/2003
Q: On your meeting with Dr. Key. Did you discover anything that ... would ... lead you believe that they have found evidence? Rumsfeld: I have so many things to do in the Department of Defense and Key reports to George Tenet. It is an intelligence issue and I made a conscious decision that I did not need to stay current every fifteen minutes on what's going on in that area. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Conference
9/8/2003
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still — PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference? George W. Bush, President
Diane Sawyer Interviews President Bush.
12/16/2003
Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address - 2004
1/20/2004 |
Related stories on this site:
Ritter Right About Iraq
| 
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
Re: What a Tangled Web We Weave... |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
|
Perhaps this is an appropriate place to ask the hard question: how do the people actually STOP this war? I have been engaged in the anti-war movement since Vietnam and I can't quite get my brain around the idea that now, almost forty years down the line, here we are AGAIN. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there was a world-wide upswelling of opposition, but the invasion took place. Now, as GRG's posting shows so plainly, the lies undergirding the war have been maximally exposed, yet the war CONTINUES. Are we truly powerless? Across the country and around the world people are demonstrating, inveighing, screaming, yet the war PERSISTS. |
|
Re: What a Tangled Web We Weave... |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
I found this article which I think could help stimulate some conversation. As I said earlier, whatever it is that is being done in opposition to the war, isn't working. So I don't think there should be any preset constraints on thinking outside the box.
Published on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
“Let’s Put on a Show!”
Spectacle versus Reality in the US Peace Movement
by Pattrice Jones
Yet again tens of thousands prepare to descend on major metropolitan areas to march in circles through empty streets. We will exercise our legs and our lungs and our egos and then go home again. Nothing will change and nobody will be surprised at that. As usual, exorbitant expenditures of time and money will add up to exactly zero. Meanwhile, people and animals and ecosystems in Iraq and elsewhere will continue to pay the price for our failures of courage and imagination.
The French have a word for it: spectacle. Back in the 1960s, Guy Debord and other Situationist theorists and activists described late capitalist culture as “the society of the spectacle.” Long before the advent of reality shows and ring tones for disposable cell phones, Situationists were already chafing at the degree to which the lively variety of everyday life had been reduced to a deadening array of things to watch and buy.
Today, consumer culture extends to extremes beyond the most most jaded and surrealistic dreams of the political theorists of earlier eras. Only fictional nightmares such as Karel Capek’s War with the Newts, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, or George Orwell’s 1984 approximate the sinister absurdity of the sociopolitical atmosphere in which we now must find ways to effectively create change.
In the society of the spectacle, there’s no business like show business. Image is everything. Even those who actively participate in the events of the day do so as spectators of their own lives, with one eye always looking back at a real or imaginary camera. All actions, including and especially political acts, become performances. Creative resistance is quickly suffocated by incorporation into the show.
Sound familiar? It should. Troubled teens write in weblogs rather than private diaries while television network NBC (owned by military-industrial behemoth General Electric) literally makes a mockery of subversive ideas on comedy programs like Will & Grace and Whoopi.
We must live in a democracy if people are allowed to mock the president on tv. That’s what they — including “the president” — want us to think. Do you remember how Bush portrayed the biggest US peace marches before the invasion of Iraq? He said that such demonstrations illustrated the difference between the United States and Iraq, thus turning the protests into one more reason why the people of Iraq needed to be “liberated.”
By then it should have been manifestly evident that symbolic demonstrations of dissent no longer shake up the system to any significant degree. Instead of challenging the spectacle of democracy, our protests are incorporated into the spectacle, making it stronger and more compelling. The more spectacular our demonstrations become, the more drums and puppets we deploy, the easier it is for average citizens to see protesters as merely the cast members of an ever-more-colorful reality show.
This bears repeating: The big demonstrations that have become so popular are not only ineffective; they actually make matters worse. By channeling the time, energy, money, and creativity of so many activists into an exercise in futility, these demonstrations and their preparations deflect activist attention from the urgent task of fashioning actual (rather than symbolic) challenges to the corporate world order and the military power that sustains it. Moreover, these demonstrations leave people — activists and regular citizens alike — more rather than less comfortable with the existing order. Watching or reading news reports about the event, citizens feel good about living in “a free country.” Mollified by making the news, participants go home feeling like they have done their part. Indeed, judging from the comments they make to reporters, personal comfort appears to be the primary reason many people attend these events. “I know we can’t stop the war,” goes the usual litany, “but I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t show my disagreement.” Thus, the performance of dissent becomes an end in itself rather than the means to an end.
When we start from the premise that we can’t make a difference, is it any wonder that we don’t? When we choose tactics that are spectacular rather than substantial, should we be surprised when we are simply incorporated into the show? Is it true that the best we can hope for is superficial media coverage of the mere fact that some people disagree with the policies of the Bush regime? Might we dare to dream more extravagantly? Dare we risk disappointment by trying to actually stop the crimes that Bush is perpetrating in our name, rather than simply signal our disapproval of them? What might we do to really make a difference?
The first thing we need to do is understand the distinction between direct and indirect action. For too long, too many activists have mistaken drama for direct action. For the record, direct action includes only tactics that have an immediate impact on some element of the problem at hand. Indirect action seeks change via more circuitous routes, such as seeking to change citizens’ minds in the hope that they will, in turn, change their voting behavior and that this will, in turn, lead to changed national policies. Rent strikes, boycotts, blockades, sabotage, and demonstrations that substantially interfere with business as usual are direct action. Petition drives, letters to editors, community education, and demonstrations that are limited to symbolic expressions of opinion are indirect action.
Study of successful social change movements reveals that success is most likely when both direct and indirect tactics are coordinated. Needless to say, these must be effective tactics, which means that they must be rooted in accurate perceptions of reality and smart strategic analyses. Want to change the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens? Then you’d better have a clear sense of what they’re really thinking and feeling along with at least a rudimentary working knowledge of the factors that lead people to change their attitudes and behavior.
If peace activists feel a little daunted by that list of prerequisites, that’s good — they should. Like people in every other field of difficult endeavor, activists are forever making mistakes due to unspoken, and inaccurate, assumptions. Because marches and rallies were so effective during the civil rights and Vietnam protest movements, we assume that they will have the same effect on public opinion today. We forget that times have changed; we forget that people are no longer shocked by the sight of thousands of their fellow citizens marching in the streets; we forget that, for both observers and participants, protest marches have become little more than parades.
We also forget that direct action was an essential element of many of the most effective protests of the past. In the USA, civil rights protesters deliberately got arrested en masse in order to overwhelm the criminal justice systems of small southern towns, thereby literally preventing them from conducting business as usual. Similar tactics had been used in anti-colonial movements elsewhere in the world including, most famously, in South Asia. The leaders of the US civil rights movement learned from what activists in other countries had done, correctly adapting the tactics to suit the circumstances.
In contrast, the current US peace movement functions like a closed-circuit television system, repetitively broadcasting the same old message to its own members. Protest events are highly scripted, with the emphasis on style rather than substance. Activists signal dissent but do not actually rebel. Demonstrators and police officers often engage in highly stylized cooperative ballets wherein a handful of people are voluntarily arrested.
The point of such dramatic scenarios entirely escapes me; certainly, they do not in any way constitute direct action. Direct action is not necessarily dramatic and, in these days of the spectacle, may be most effective when it is not part of any show. Direct action against war must, by definition, in some way impede the march of the war machine. Withdrawing one’s financial support from the military-industrial complex is direct action for peace; shouting “Whose streets? Our streets!” on a sunny sunday afternoon is not.
Emergencies call for urgent action. Killing continues in Iraq and is likely to commence somewhere else soon, if the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare remains the foreign policy of the United States. That dramatic violence plays out against the backdrop of everyday environmental mayhem perpetrated by the Bush administration. Now is not the time to indulge our taste for for the spectacular or our wish for self-satisfaction. Now is the time for effective direct action. Specifically, now is the time for economic direct action.
The Industrial Workers of the World used to say that the workers of the world could stop capitalism just by crossing their arms. In today’s late capitalism, where few workers are unionized and the franchise is increasingly illusory, our greatest power may be as consumers. The consumers of the world can bring the military-industrial complex to a crashing halt just by keeping our hands in our pockets.
The two ways to withdraw one's financial support from the war machine are to stop paying war taxes and to boycott the corporate profiteers that constitute the industrial side of the military-industrial complex. Both of these strategies ensure that we are not supporting war with money at the same time as we oppose war with words. At minimum, these forms of economic direct action subtract funds from the war machine and its corporate supporters. At maximum, such direct action may impact the foreign and domestic policies of the Bush regime.
Is it possible to make such a sufficiently significant dent in corporate profits? Yes. The majority of people in the world opposed the war in Iraq and continue to resent the current foreign and environmental policies of the United States. Many organizations around the world already have joined together to call for a boycott against war. All that remains is for the mainstream US peace movement to stop marching in circles and get on the peace train. If we agree that everyone should, insofar as possible, shun the shoddy consumer goods of evil corporate behemoths in favor of substantial and sustainable local products, then we will be supporting the regrowth of healthy local ecosystems and economies at the same time that we are weakening the war machine.
If you want peace, don’t buy war. There’s nothing spectacular about that. |
|
Re: What a Tangled Web We Weave... |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
Okay, sisters and brothers against the war. Let's take up the suggestions offered by Patrice Jones -- i.e. don't buy war. Here are a few of the companies currently in the Top 100 suppliers of the U.S. Department of Defense, along with some brief annotations by moi:
Boeing -- did you fly to the WTO protest? If so, you almost surely did so on a Boeing aircraft.
General Electric -- check your kitchen appliances and all the light bulbs in your domicile.
Dell -- what's it say on the monitor in front of you?
Motorola -- gotta cell phone? Who made it?
AT&T -- reaching out and touching someone?
FedEx -- when it absolutely, positively etc.
Amocco and Exxon -- what's in your tank?
Honeywell -- fifty-fifty chance they made the thermostat that controls your furnace.
Viacom -- all right, no one watches Dan Rather anymore, anyway. But . . .
Goodrich -- how're the treads on your jalopy?
Philip Morris -- maybe you've quite smoking, but I'm guessing there's at least one Kraft (a subsidiary of PM) product in your pantry or fridge.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. All over your home, all over your workplace, probably on your body, there are products manufactured by companies getting fat off the war. Willing to do the hard work to find out? Willing to make choices that may be enormously inconvenient?
Wanna stop the war? |
|
Re: What a Tangled Web We Weave... |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2005
|
Dear More Common Sense -- I'm not sure you've got my views the way I intended them. Or perhaps the fault is in my presentation.
Either way, I am not suggesting that people are insincere, or mistaken, or foolish in the ways they choose to protest the war. Quite the opposite -- every little bit does SOME good. Moreover, even if that good is small, people are apparently acting out of profound sadness, frustration, and anger at the outrages of the US aggression against the people of Iraq. I stand with them on this.
The deeper question that I was trying to get at is how people who oppose the war can actually make a significant difference. That is, actually change the behavior of the government-corporate-neocon power structure. What truly frustrates me is that, in spite of widespread oppostion to the war -- here I refer to Mr. Baldwin's post that a MAJORITY of Americans are on the side of peace and justice -- the war goes on. The bush (I refuse to capitalize his name) administration acts with contempt and impunity of the majority opinion.
Why is this? I think back again to Vietnam and ask why that war ultimately lost public support to the extent that the troops came home. One possibility is that, with the draft, all sorts of Americans were making genuine sacrifices, genuinely suffering the loss of loved ones.
Today, with an all volunteer military, no one in a position of power is making any personal sacrifices. Not a single member of congress has a child fighting in Iraq. College students who espouse a conservative viewpoint and voice support for the war pay NOTHING for their views. A few weeks ago I was at a downtown Champaign watering hole, where the local Young Republicans were celebrating bush's (putative) victory at the polls. I went over and asked how many of them were planning on enlisting. Zero. My reaction: talk is cheap. Young Republicans are happy to send other people off to die for an unjust cause.
The central point for me, and for Patrice Jones, I believe, is that true opposition will require true sacrifice. Giving up the conveniences of flying on Boeing airplanes, nuking our Kraft dinners in GE microwaves, and writing posts to this site on our Dell computers. And that's just for starters.
The saddest thing of all is that the bushies see the current level of protest as a GOOD thing. It is ineffectual and serves as a harmless outlet for the people's anger and concern. And that contemptuous attitude will persist until opposition to the war actually starts to hurt the war effort. And to do that, we're going to have to take on some pain ourselves. |
|
Re: What a Tangled Web We Weave... |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2005
|
|
After I posted my reply to "Common Sense" I noticed that her/his comment had been deleted. Not sure why, but I presume I was suckered by some sort of scammer. Anyway, I'm still trying to get the hang of the site, and I guess I'll need to adopt a more wary approach to reading posts. All the same, my comments stand. |
|
Re: What a Tangled Web We Weave... |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jan 2005
|
Brandon -- I want to be clear: the protests that are taking place represent the sincere outrage of the people. As for "obscenities," I don't think that mouthing the words "fuck the war" are in the same category of the obscenities being inflicted upon the people of Iraq.
Nor am I particularly concerned about "alientating" people. As far as I can tell, a majority of Americans are alientated from the war machine. I don't think we should be terribly worried that those who support the war might become alientated from our perspective.
With all that, I do want to concur with your view that a sustained boycott is necessary. The war is hugely profitable to hundreds of companies, and until we put a dent in those profits there will be no incentive for them to rethink their support for aggression. |
|
