By Kenneth J. Theisen, 8/17/06
In the wake of the recent discovery
of the alleged bomb plot in Britain,
the Bush regime has been highlighting the danger to national security in order
to line people up behind its fascist agenda. Keep in mind that all we know so
far are the accusations of this plot. Often government accusations turn
out to be fabrications. Remember the “dirty nuclear bomb plot” of
alleged terrorist, Jose Padilla, a few years ago? He was never charged with
this even though the headlines helped the Bush regime in its scare
tactics. First we had the “shoe bomb” but now we also have to
face the threat of “Islamic fascists” using toothpaste and shampoo to
destroy our way of life. We need to be clear what is really behind this most
recent smokescreen. We also need to understand what is necessary to change the
terms of debate in such a way that we challenge the Bush regime agenda in a
real way and not be led into traps that actually support the regime.
Since 9/11 the Bush administration
has used “national security” to divert people to support the U.S. grab for
global empire and the resultant imperialist terrorism it has unleashed on the
world. First our enemy was supposed to be bin Laden and the Taliban. Then it
was Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. Now it is Iran and the
“entire network of Islamic fascists.” Notice how the terrorists have now been
transformed into “Islamic fascists.” By slightly changing the terminology
referring to the alleged enemy we have now encompassed all the former enemies
and also included Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and just about any others the
Bush regime may throw in later. (Where North Korea fits into the Islamic
fascist network seems to be a bit unclear.)
It is interesting to learn the Bush
administration pressured the British to make the arrests in this latest
“bomb plot” a week earlier than the British had planned. Was
this planned to divert attention from the atrocities being committed by the U.S. and it’s ally, Israel,
in the Middle East? Did it have any connection
to the election defeat of Joe Lieberman? Maybe both?
VP Dick Cheney did not hesitate to
put forward the “either you are with us or against us” philosophy of
the Bush regime. After the primary victory of Lamont and the night before
the British made their arrests, Cheney stated, “The al-Qaeda types, they
are clearly betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will
of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and
complete the task”It is an unfortunate development, I think, from the
standpoint of the Democratic party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside
because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our
national security strategy.” He went on to claim that there is
“a significant body of opinion” among Democrats who want to return to
“the pre-9/11 mindset in terms of how we deal with the world we live
in.”
What he was making clear is that
the Bush regime has gone to great lengths to attempt to scare the American
people with the specter of “terrorism” in order to justify the
fascistic program of the regime. And once again, the regime is making it
clear that any opposition to this program is unacceptable. For Cheney and the
regime he represents, the only question in the upcoming election is who can
most aggressively wage “the war on terrorism.” All those not in
lockstep with the Bush regime are with the terrorists.
Lieberman clearly got the message
and is marching in lockstep. He reiterated the message when he stated Lamont’s
stand on the war “will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people
who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.”
For those that think Lieberman is
out of step with other leaders of the Democratic Party and that somehow the
upcoming elections will offer a choice between the fascism of the Bush regime
and a real future, think again. The Democrats are actually trying to
portray themselves as the real defenders of national security. House
Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi stated, “They are not Swift boating us on
security” (“Democrats See Security as Key Issue for Fall”, NY
Times, 8/15/06). On August 14, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee posted a xenophobic video on their website. It showed footage
of immigrants crossing the border interspersed with images of Osama bin Laden,
referred to increased terror attacks and pointed our the nuclear ambitions of
North Korea and Iran. It concludes with the words, “Feel safer? Vote for
change.” In other words we are supposed to support the Democrats
because they can better wage the U.S. terrorist war.
Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid
made the message very clear in an e-mail, “During the 2002 and 2004
elections, Republicans tried to sow fear in the American public by claiming
they were the ones who could keep America safe. This from the same
crowd that has driven Iraq
to the brink of disaster, left Osama bin Laden on the loose to attack again,
and continue to ignore our security needs at home.” The bottom line
is that the Democratic leadership is trying to be more reactionary than the
Bush regime in the so-called war on terror.
But despite the fact that there is
no real difference between the choices offered by either the Republicans or the
Democrats in this election, we do have a real choice. But we can not
allow them to limit the debate to “which party can keep us
safe.” We can not fall into the trap of keeping Americans safe as a
priority. Yes, the Bush regime and U.S. imperialism has made us less
safe by its murderous actions all over the world. There are real terrorists who
hate the U.S.
because of these actions. But are the lives of Americans somehow more valuable
than those of people in the rest of the world?
We can not allow protection of
Americans to be the justification for the crimes of the Bush regime. We must
take the clear moral stand of former UK Ambassador Craig Murray in his
testimony before the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes
Against Humanity by the Bush Administration. He was talking about
the torture used by the CIA when he stated, “”I don’t believe it works,
but even if it did work, I would personally rather die than have anyone
tortured to save my life.” Allowing the debate to be limited to who can
keep us safer will only rope people into supporting unjust wars, torture,
police state measures, racist and xenophobic policies, and much worse.
We must expose the fact that the
“war on terrorism” is a war for global empire and that the election
is a contest between the two major parties over who can wage this war
better. People who want to see the ravages of the Bush regime stopped do
not have a horse in this race. Even if the Democrats should succeed in
getting control of both houses, they will not stop the U.S. war of
terror against the people of the world because they support it. They only
have some minor differences on how to wage it.
As stated by Sunsara Taylor:
“As much as there are
Democrats who at times criticize how the war on Iraq was initiated, or even how
it is being handled today, now that the U.S. has invaded they are concerned
first and foremost with preserving the strength, unchallenged power, and
overall interests of the U.S. as an imperialist empire, including in Iraq and
the wider Middle East. If you listen, it is from this perspective of preserving
America’s
strength that Lamont criticizes aspects of how the war has been waged: “We are
a much stronger country”when it comes to the war on terror when we”re true to
what we stand for, and we”ve compromised a lot of that over the last few years”
That weakens our country.” It’s not that the Democrats haven’t noticed how many
people in “their base” hate this war, it is that the particular role the Democratic
Party plays is to pursue imperialist interests while at the same time leading
“their base” to believe that it is their will that is being
expressed.” (“Ned Lamont: False Hopes, Bad Terms, and Ticking
Clock”, Revolution, 8/20/06)
But the vast majority of people
have no interest in supporting parties which are fighting over who can defend
and expand the U.S.
empire most efficiently. To really stop the crimes of the Bush regime
will take a political struggle that changes the terms of debate and that
actually drives the regime from power. The Democratic Party is not the answer
and relying on the election on November 7 to change things will only lead to
disaster. Millions must come to see that October 5th, a day of nationwide
protests against the Bush regime program, can change the way people view the
world. If all the people, in their millions, outraged by the direction in which
the Bush regime has dragged the country take concerted action on October 5 then
the possibility of turning things around and onto a much more favorable
direction will become reality. The vague hopes of millions of isolated
individuals will become an undeniable moral force and have unprecedented
political impact. This vision can set new terms for society and send a
political shock wave throughout the world.
Kenneth J. Theisen is an organizer
with The World Can’t Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime!