It Wasn't Saddam, And It Ain't Bush!

by Philip Greenspan

March 1, 2004   


Last year the name that appeared most often in the news was probably that of Saddam Hussein. That tyrant was the primary reason why a war was launched against Iraq and the fallout will be dominating headlines for years. Was he really a threat to the peace of the world?

This year the number one individual in the news will probably be George W. Bush. His reelection campaign, without a named opponent as yet, has garnered loads of space in the press and time on the air. Can an election change the established policies of the most powerful country?

It Wasn't Saddam.

Ever since the Nazis appeared on the scene, the U.S. has been able to cloak some individual with the 'Hitler' epithet, obtain enthusiastic endorsement from the media and a military campaign was sure to follow.

The latest adventure featured a former ally, pet and CIA protégé, Saddam Hussein.

Saddam was deemed a formidable threat to the peace of the world, although his closest neighbors were not alarmed. The monster build up might have tickled his ego but in reality he was actually a straw man. But this scarecrow was not missing a brain. A brain, however, was missing. No, not really missing, it was just not being used by a gullible American public that bought all the crap that the media fed them.

In almost all the 'Hitler' situations, eliminating the star of the show is a deliberate distraction from the real motive. Like the magician who draws your attention to his right hand, he can seem to do the impossible because his undetected left hand performs the required manipulations for the trick.

To determine the U.S.'s clandestine motive it is necessary to ignore the rhetoric (the right hand) and analyze the actions (the left hand). Supposedly this war was conducted to get rid of Hitler-Hussein. He is now effectively confined and devoid of any power or influence. The adventure into Iraq should be chalked up as a grand success and the troops should be homeward bound. But no! The real prize of the operation has not yet been nailed down. It was not Saddam that was the problem - nor was regime change all that was necessary. A new government set up by the Iraqis themselves would effect regime change, but that will not do.

The problem? The Iraqi government provided the people with extensive economic benefits and social services. In simpler terms, globalization, the IMF, GAT, World Bank, free-trade, capitalism, etc., were unwelcome.

For the U.S. that is heresy. Note that all of the members of the axis-of-evil are similar culprits (as was Milosevic and is Castro or Mugabe, to cite a few).

Appointed proconsul Bremer has been very actively undoing Iraq's horrid political system to the benefit of the favored US beneficiaries, which are anticipating years of bounty as they exploit and pilfer the Iraqi riches. But unless his tireless efforts are properly clinched by an Iraqi government that will ratify Bremer's actions, all will probably be lost. Had old boy Saddam understood what all the fuss was about he could have changed the political system while still in power and rather than emerge as Hitler he would have materialized as the George Washington of the new revitalized Iraq!

And It Ain't Bush!

Currently the U.S. is engaged in a periodic and idiotic charade to elect a new government. A hell of a lot of personalities for various offices -- president, senators, representatives, governors, etc. -- will be showcased to the same gullible public that bought the Saddam scenario.

They will strut and fret, swear and promise, and piss away a fortune to reach an elective office that will pay a fraction of what it cost to gain. Their noble promises will be forgotten as they reimburse their coffers that will be overflowing at the end of the government rainbow!

Just as Saddam, the supposed star of the Iraqi adventure, was a sideshow, so is the upcoming election. Whether it's Bush, Dean, Kerry, or even Kucinich, the ultimate result will not vary too much. All are the puppets of the system created by the founding fathers; a system designed to keep the elite in the driver's seat and they, the elite, are the ventriloquists that script the show.

Throughout US history elected officials have made promises to secure electoral victory -- some quite sincerely -- but once in office the indomitable power of their political masters have brought them back into line.

Bush/Kerry/Edwards, same combat!

· · · · · ·


America the 'beautiful' on Swans


Philip Greenspan on Swans (with bio).

Do you wish to share your opinion? We invite your comments. E-mail the Editor. Please include your full name, address and phone number. If we publish your opinion we will only include your name, city, state, and country.

Please, feel free to insert a link to this article on your Web site or to disseminate its URL on your favorite lists, quoting the first paragraph or providing a summary. However, please DO NOT steal, scavenge or repost this work on the Web without the expressed written authorization of Swans. This material is copyrighted, © Philip Greenspan 2004. All rights reserved.
· · · · · ·

This Week's Internal Links

Ralph Nader: If Not Now, When? - Editorial by Gilles d'Aymery & Jan Baughman

There Never Were Any "Good Old Days" In The Democratic Party - by Howie Hawkins

Wayward Breasts And The Ever-Vigilant Reign Of Empress Barbie - by Phil Rockstroh

Pakistan: Buddy Or Pariah? - by Milo Clark

Shamanism And The Evolution Of Humanity, Part II- by Scott Orlovsky

Michael Yates's Naming the System - Review by Louis Proyect

Future History: The Work of Robert A. Heinlein - by Milo Clark (revised essay)

Killing Socrates - Poem by Gerard Donnelly Smith

Letters to the Editor


Published March 1, 2004
[Copyright]-[Archives]-[Resources]-[Main Page]