18 May 2006
Republicans battered
A recent article in the Washington Post reports that US public confidence in the Republican Party has crashed to similar levels of their Dear Leader, Dubya the Deceiver - sorry, the Decider.
Many Republicans will say that it's all because of the Iraqi disaster. That may be one strong reason. But of course, the same people won't admit to fervidly baying for the invasion in the first place. Their collective amnesia also prevents them from recalling that most ridiculous of intellectual and moral cop outs - "support the president no matter what, in time of war." This stupid blind loyalty also affected many Democrats.
To those who questioned the veracity of the casus belli fabricated by Bush et al, protested against the blatant illegality of the invasion, the Bushie Brown Shirts called them un-American traitors (if they were Americans) or anti-American enemies of the greatest messianic empire on earth.
What is a democracy if its citizens cannot demand honest answers to questions of great import? Surely a decision to invade another country and visiting death and destruction upon its inhabitants must be scrutinised for clarity of focus and integrity of purpose. That such attempts to discern whether the president is behaving with integrity were derided, and worse, characterised as traitorous or anti-American, should have rung alarm bells in the minds of the dullest supporters of Bush.
This brings me back to the notion of blind loyalty. Contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler actually won power through the ballot box. He was voted into office, and once there, proceeded to change the nature of pre-war Germany's constitutional processes to eventually gain and maintain dictatorial powers. Does this sound familiar to what we have seen Bush do since gaining office?
Does anyone seriously believe that in pre-war Germany, the majority of the population were opposed to Hitler? Even during the early years of WW2, Hitler enjoyed great popular support - while the going was good with the Northern and Western European conquests. Great evil was done in their name, and the German people were complicit by giving their blind loyalty to Hitler. It isn't difficult to imagine them exhorting doubters to "support the Fuhrer no matter what, in time of war," is it?
Since it has long been made abundantly clear that the Iraq invasion was based on deliberately fabricated "evidence," Bush supporters need to look in the mirror and honestly ask if they still believe in leaving their moral and intellectual compasses at the White House hat room when a war criminal for a president wants to invade another country.
I should remind them that at the Nuremberg trials, Germany's invasion of Poland was judged by the Allies (including the US, of course) to be a war crime. One of the reasons was Hitler fabricated an excuse to invade Poland; thereby sparking WW2.
In 2003, Bush emulated Hitler and fabricated an excuse to invade Iraq. While erstwhile Bush supporters contemplate their own complicity through blind loyalty, the world still waits for the 21st century's Nuremberg trials.
Many Republicans will say that it's all because of the Iraqi disaster. That may be one strong reason. But of course, the same people won't admit to fervidly baying for the invasion in the first place. Their collective amnesia also prevents them from recalling that most ridiculous of intellectual and moral cop outs - "support the president no matter what, in time of war." This stupid blind loyalty also affected many Democrats.
To those who questioned the veracity of the casus belli fabricated by Bush et al, protested against the blatant illegality of the invasion, the Bushie Brown Shirts called them un-American traitors (if they were Americans) or anti-American enemies of the greatest messianic empire on earth.
What is a democracy if its citizens cannot demand honest answers to questions of great import? Surely a decision to invade another country and visiting death and destruction upon its inhabitants must be scrutinised for clarity of focus and integrity of purpose. That such attempts to discern whether the president is behaving with integrity were derided, and worse, characterised as traitorous or anti-American, should have rung alarm bells in the minds of the dullest supporters of Bush.
This brings me back to the notion of blind loyalty. Contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler actually won power through the ballot box. He was voted into office, and once there, proceeded to change the nature of pre-war Germany's constitutional processes to eventually gain and maintain dictatorial powers. Does this sound familiar to what we have seen Bush do since gaining office?
Does anyone seriously believe that in pre-war Germany, the majority of the population were opposed to Hitler? Even during the early years of WW2, Hitler enjoyed great popular support - while the going was good with the Northern and Western European conquests. Great evil was done in their name, and the German people were complicit by giving their blind loyalty to Hitler. It isn't difficult to imagine them exhorting doubters to "support the Fuhrer no matter what, in time of war," is it?
Since it has long been made abundantly clear that the Iraq invasion was based on deliberately fabricated "evidence," Bush supporters need to look in the mirror and honestly ask if they still believe in leaving their moral and intellectual compasses at the White House hat room when a war criminal for a president wants to invade another country.
I should remind them that at the Nuremberg trials, Germany's invasion of Poland was judged by the Allies (including the US, of course) to be a war crime. One of the reasons was Hitler fabricated an excuse to invade Poland; thereby sparking WW2.
In 2003, Bush emulated Hitler and fabricated an excuse to invade Iraq. While erstwhile Bush supporters contemplate their own complicity through blind loyalty, the world still waits for the 21st century's Nuremberg trials.
