Perhaps the most important divide in the US presidential campaign is between fact and fiction. There are, of course, other sharp distinctions based on region and religiosity, guns and gays, abstinence and abortion. But were the election to be decided on domestic concerns alone, US President George W. George Bush would be near certain to join the ranks of one-term presidents -- like his father after the aura of the Gulf war evaporated.
But one year after Bush's triumphant May Day landing on the deck of the USS Lincoln and appearance behind a "Mission Accomplished" sign, his splendid little war has entered a Stalingrad-like phase of urban siege and house-to-house combat. April was the bloodiest month by far -- 122 US soldiers killed compared with 73 last April in the supposed last month of the war. The unending war has inspired among Bush's backers a rally-round-the-flag effect, a redoubling of belief.
They believe in the cause as articulated by Vice President Dick Cheney, this week in his speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, where Winston Churchill delivered his "iron curtain" oration. "You and I are living in such a time" of the "gravest of threats," Cheney said. Once again, he explained the motive for the Iraq war, implicitly conflating former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda and oblivious to the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
"His regime cultivated ties to terror," he said, "and had built, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction." And Saddam "would still be in power," he continued, coming to the point of his allegory, if presidential candidate Senator John Kerry, cast as Neville Chamberlain to Bush's Churchill, had had his way.
These misperceptions are pillars of Bush's support, according to a study by the University of Maryland: 57 percent of those surveyed "believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda," and 45 percent "believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda has been found." Moreover, 65 percent believe that "experts" have confirmed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent said they would vote for Bush and 23 percent for Kerry. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had supported al-Qaeda, 62 percent said they would vote for Bush and 36 percent for Kerry. The reason given for their views was that they had heard these claims from the administration.
These political pulp fictions are believed out of faith and fear. This is a classic case study in "the will to believe", as the American philosopher William James called it. The greater insecurity would be not to believe Bush. It would mean the president had lied on issues of national security. And how could the Iraq war be seen as a pure, moral choice once good had been shown to be false? The idea of proof has shifted from fact to fervor.
The attack lines against Kerry are that he is an opponent of national security and un-American. When Kerry committed the gaffe of uttering the truth that many world leaders secretly hope for his victory, he provided the Bush campaign with an opening. The secretary of commerce, Donald Evans, has repeatedly said that Kerry "looks French." The Republican house majority leader, Tom DeLay, begins every speech: "As John Kerry would say, bonjour."
The European mission this month of Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat on the foreign relations committee, is a telling, overlooked footnote to the campaign xenophobia. After meetings with French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, he learned first-hand of the Bush administration's almost complete lack of consultation. Chirac offered first steps toward French assistance in Iraq, and Biden wrote a letter spelling them out to Bush, who referred him to the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who in turn politely listened and never responded.
Meanwhile, the Republican chairman of the committee, Richard Lugar, who has been granted just one meeting in the past year with the president, remarked to negligible press notice: "The diplomacy is deficient. By that I simply mean not many people agree with us, or like us, or are prepared to work with us. That will really have to change."
A senate source told me: "The only hope for real internationalization is in regime change in the United States."
The brazen smears about Kerry's wounds and medals, his voting record on military programs as a senator and his loyalty have been communicated by the Bush-Cheney campaign through an estimated US$50m in TV and radio advertising in less than 60 days in 17 swing states. This storm of unremitting negativity has bolstered the faith of his supporters, tested by recent events, and has managed to maintain the contest at a draw.
The attacks against Kerry are a bodyguard of lies to protect the original ones who are the praetorian guard of Bush's presidency.
Sidney Blumenthal was a senior adviser to former US president Bill Clinton and is Washington bureau chief of Salon.com.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS