Things We Dont Know(Reprinted from the issue of February 19, 2004)
Even supporters of the Iraq war were disappointed by President Bushs lame performance in his heralded interview with NBCs Tim Russert. It wasnt that Russert asked tough questions; he lobbed softballs and didnt follow up on Bushs inadequate replies.
In particular, Bush wasnt asked to explain his repeated warnings that Iraq posed a nuclear threat to the United States, that the smoking gun might take the form of a mushroom cloud. That kind of talk, though it may now sound absurd, was well pitched to drive an already nervous country into war hysteria.
Neither Bush nor Russert raised the issue. Instead, Bush merely repeated his theme that Saddam Hussein was a madman without explaining why this made him a threat to America or justified an unprecedented pre-emptive war.
In his own speech a day before this interview was taped, CIA director George Tenet also avoided the topic of nuclear weapons. With calculated vagueness, he tried to exculpate himself and Bush at the same time. He stressed that gathering intelligence is always an iffy business, seldom completely right or completely wrong.
This left us to wonder how Bush and his spokesmen could claim such absolute certainty about Saddams arsenal and intentions. Every indication was that Iraq was weak and in no mood for even another invasion of tiny Kuwait. But we were asked to disregard this commonsense view precisely because the president knows things that we dont.
This venerable cliché applies to every president. After all, Bill Clinton also knew things we didnt. Important information is always withheld from us on grounds of national security; official secrets from World War II are still being kept from the American public. We are left to speculate on the honor and judgment of any given president. Is he dealing honestly with us? And even if he is, can we trust his judgment?
We are now being distracted from these questions by the question whether Bush himself was the victim of faulty intelligence. And even that question is being focused on the CIA, when he may also have been misled by British and neocon intelligence or disinformation.
So totally is an automatic pro-war stance now equated with conservatism that Ive grown accustomed to e-mail accusing me of being a liberal and Democrat for opposing the Iraq war. How could any conservative be against any war? Are peace on earth and blessed are the peacemakers now considered left-wing slogans?
Bush doesnt comprehend that the statist revolution (as I say, nobody seems to have found an adequate term for it) is very far advanced, and it is driven by both leftist and rightist forces, among others, who favor the continued expansion of the state into every nook and cranny of our lives. Bush in his own way is helping advance it further; so will John Kerry, if hes elected to replace Bush.
Kerry is currently riding high, winning one Democratic primary after another simply because hes the anti-Bush. Hes tough, hes articulate, and his record as a decorated Vietnam veteran makes Bushs bravado shrivel into a silly pose, especially considering his dubious record in the National Guard. Even if Bush is telling the truth about what he did in the past, the National Guard was well known in those days as a safe alternative to going to Vietnam not exactly credentials for a future war president.
Whether they realize it or not, conservatives will face a miserable choice in a Bush-Kerry race. They may choose to pretend that Kerry is so much worse that its imperative to re-elect Bush, but superficial differences on issues even abortion or same-sex unions wont affect the deeper currents of the states momentum.
What we face, either way, is a continuation of what C.S. Lewis called the abolition of man, a process Lewis saw, even during World War II, as being promoted by mild-mannered democrats and Communists as well as by the Nazis. Today, even without Communists and Nazis, the process continues under Democratic and Republican, liberal, moderate, and conservative, auspices.
Even nominal conservatives now call for centralized state power to enforce their values. This has become a well-nigh universal reflex.
Bereft of his obsessive pre-war theme of weapons of mass destruction, Bush now keeps repeating that Saddams undoubted cruelty was sufficient reason for an allegedly defensive and pre-emptive war on a country that hadnt attacked or threatened the United States. He wont even admit that this was a radical new departure in foreign policy, or that it has cost this country dearly in the respect and admiration of people around the world, possibly making us new enemies and causing future wars. Will other governments, given the American example, now refrain from pre-emptive military action?
Conservatives who still dont see the connection between war and the growth of state power should read Paul Fussells modern classic, Wartime, which, in rich and readable detail, shows the real everyday cost of World War II. Fifteen years after I first read it, it continues to shock me, not only in its vivid depiction of combat, but in its keen observations about how Americans willingly gave up daily freedoms and deeper traditions in the belief that they were merely being patriotic.
To this day, Franklin Roosevelts war measures are cited as models admirable, not regrettable for how the state should treat not only the enemy population but even its own citizens during wartime. Bushs supporters actually praise him for emulating Roosevelt! Yet as Fussell shows, these wartime policies, not only German and Soviet totalitarianism, helped inspire George Orwells nightmare of 1984.
One of the most dreadful parts of that nightmare is the states rewriting of the past and the historical amnesia of its subjects, which makes them easy to whip into fury against the alleged enemy even if he doesnt really exist. Sound familiar? Big Brother always knows things we dont, and he likes to keep it that way.
The official conservative press has made the Iraq war such a high priority that it even welcomes the bitterly anti-Christian leftist Christopher Hitchens, best known for his obscene ridicule of Mother Teresa, to its pages simply because he favors the war. He tries to straddle the awkward ideological chasm by calling the enemy Islamofascism, whatever that means, and however it may apply to the notoriously impious Saddam Hussein.
In his mocking attack on Mel Gibsons Passion of the Christ in the March issue of Vanity Fair, Hitchens charges that the film is only pseudo-realistic because its heart-throb Jesus ... doesnt shriek or beg or defecate during his martyrdom. He also blames the Church for anti-Semitism and for torturing and murdering millions and millions of non-Christians and heretical Christians.
Hitchens doesnt explain how he knows what really happened during the crucifixion, or where he gets his other historical facts and statistics. Presumably these are just things everyone knows. At any rate, his new Judeo-Christian allies dont seem to mind his opinions on either Christianity or Judaism (which he also ridicules).
The war must be awfully important to them.
Speaking of C.S. Lewis, my monthly newsletter, SOBRANS traces the states constant attacks on Christianity itself, unnoticed by conventional journalism. If you have not seen it yet, give my office a call at 800-513-5053 and request a free sample, or better yet, subscribe for two years for just $85. New subscribers get two gifts with their subscription. More details can be found at the Subscription page of my website.
Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription for a priest, friend, or relative.
|Copyright © 2004 by The Wanderer
Reprinted with permission.
Archive Table of Contents
Return to the SOBRANS home page
Wanderer is available by subscription. Write for
SOBRANS and Joe Sobrans columns are available by subscription. Details are available on-line; or call 800-513-5053; or write Fran Griffin.
|FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. Click here for more information.|