Hubris: The Real Reason for the Invasion of Iraq

By

 

Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

 

On Friday 22 February 2013 Rachel Maddow narrated on her MSNBC show a program titled “Hubris: Selling The Iraq War,” based on a book by David Corn and Michael Isakoff of similar title. The one hour long program demonstrated how the G.W Bush administration scammed us to wage a war on Iraq. But the question remained: why our government wanted to eliminate Saddam. It is not the petroleum (oil)!                               

Iran had been a constitutional monarchy, modeled after the United Kingdom, since 1906. In 1951 its Prime Minister with near unanimous consent of its parliament nationalized the oil industry which was nearly totally owned by British and US companies. Orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of these two countries a coup d’état in 1953 toppled the democratic government of Iran which was headed by Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister. This action has been the origin of the ill feelings of the Iranians toward the Western including the United States governments. In 1979, after 26 years of poppet monarchy, the Iranians rose in a revolution which removed the shah and established the current Islamic regime.

Iraq had been part of what had been going on in Iran. Both countries had a long standing border dispute. During the period from 1953 to 1979 the intensity of resentment of the Iranians against their shah was increasing. Saddam supported the unrest of the Iranian and those who fled their country to avoid persecution found home in Iraq.  Among them was Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of the revolution.  The shah understandably wanted to suppress the revolution by all means. He made a move to stop the help which Saddam was giving the Iranian uprising. He negotiated a solution to their age old border dispute. The agreement included stopping aide to the Iranians and eliminating any safe harbor in Iraq for the revolutionary leaders. Saddam expelled Ayatollah Khomeini from Iraq. They became enemies. The Supreme Leader of the Iranians became an exile in France.

In 1979 the Iranian revolution became the government of Iran. Many Arabs stood with the Iranian revolution and with the Iranian government, but not the Arab rulers. In particular the ruler of Iraq: Saddam Hussein who was annoyed by the popularity and actions of the Iranian revolution among Arabs including Iraqis. Also there were calls for invading Iraq and other countries. Saddam waged a preemptive war against Iran. The United States and other Western and Arab governments resented the Iranian revolution and so an opportunity for revenge. So they clandestinely supported Saddam by all means necessary to win. The war lasted eight years. It ended in 1988 when the United States mistakenly shot down a civilian Iranian airplane over the Gulf. When the Iranian Supreme Leader ordered the hostilities stop, Saddam declared victory.

During the war the West supplied Saddam with all kinds of traditional and advanced weapons. As a result of this transfer his arsenal of weapons made him ready for another conflict if he chose to have one. He also, as widely believed, had a million well trained and highly experienced soldiers. Riding on this wave, Saddam seemed to assume leadership of the Arab world. So what did he do?

He invited the Arab leaders to a conference in Baghdad. They answered the call including Hosni Mubarak, the then president of Egypt, but the Syrian president, Hafez Al Assad, who with Saddam belong to the same Baath political party. In the conference Saddam, in my opinion, insulted some Arab leaders. One of them was King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, whom I personally respect. He also called for the establishment of a fund to support the Palestinians and the Jordanians.

So, who should had been worried about the schemes of Saddam? It was not Saudi Arabia and it was not Syria.

After the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States almost all the Arab governments including the Iraqi government condemned the attack and offered to help the United States in any way they could. But in one of the press conferences, in an answer to a question about what he thought about the 9/11 attack, Saddam said: “He who plants the seeds of hatred harvests hatred.”This was played on American Televisions a number of times. What Saddam said is a general advice given by a father to his son. But President Bush was no son to Saddam.

I believe you can now figure out who wanted Saddam demised! Let me help you: Forget the weapons of mass destruction.

Military Drones are not the Solution

By

Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

In my opinion, Al Mutanabbi is one of the great poets of all times. He wrote epic poems more than thousand years ago. He was born in current day Iraq and as a professional poet he had traveled to many cities including Baghdad, Aleppo, and Cairo. Poetry had been his passion and his key to achieve his political ambitions.

Although Baghdad had been the capital of the Abbasside Caliphate, the Caliphate included prominent city states which had been governed by emirs (governors). Aleppo, currently the largest city in Syria, was one of those city states. It is located in the north west of current day Syria bordering the Byzantine Empire in Asia Minor (Current day Turkey). Despite the difference in size and power of the two political entities they had frequent border skirmishes.

Saif id dawlah (the sword of the state) had been the governor of Aleppo. He had in his divan historians, poets, and other artists and professionals. The poets composed epic poems praising the governor for his generosity at home and his valor at war.

Al Mutanabbi was invited to join the staff of the governor. He accepted the invitation and started creating lengthy poems filled with vivid imagery of the governor and his deeds. Shortly afterwards he became the head poet of the divan, to the chagrin of the older poets.

In a poem describing one of the border skirmishes, he wrote about the bravery of the infantry and the cavalry of the governor. They used skillfully their swords and shields. But the forces of the enemy used shielded horses in addition to the traditional swords and shields. The shielded horse was a new war technology: It was the “military drone” of that time.

The translation of the verse which includes the shielded horse metaphor follows.

“They came to you, pushing their iron, looking like
They advanced toward you on horses without legs”

And to appreciate the musicality of the verse, the English transliteration of the same verse follows.

“Atooka yajorroon al hadeeda ka anna ma
Sa oo be jeyadin ma lahonna kawa immoo”

Drones give military advantage, to those who use them, now as much as shielded horses gave military advantage, to those who had used them.The drones, known as the unmanned aerial vehicles (UNV), have been available in many sizes, capabilities, and missions. They could be used and some have been used in many civilian and military applications. They could be used in crowd management such as in controlling riots and demonstrations; they could be used in border surveillance and security; in protecting critical infrastructure such as oil refineries, power plants, and dams; in protecting major sports and political events; and in numerous military operations. Some of the civilian use may undermine the civil liberties of a democracy.

However, like many technologies which have been developed to expand the borders of human knowledge and advance the contents of his civilization, they have dark sides. For example in the Stone Age man developed a hard stone into a knife to procure and prepare his food, but later he used the new tool to kill his fellow human; also understanding the structure of the atom helped advance the human knowledge, but it also set scientists on the road to develop the atomic bomb to kill people and destroy properties efficiently. The dark side of the drone is its recent use to assassinate people. Our government is leader in this field. It has been using drones to assassinate people in Pakistan among other sovereign countries. They destabilized these countries. In particular Pakistan which had been our major ally in South East Asia during the Cold War is now living in chaos. Unfortunately we might have started a perpetual drone war in that poor country.

Moreover, when a drone fires a missile to kill a suspect, it kills the suspect and whoever is with him or around him. That action creates more enemies than it kills. The drone is not the solution; it is the creator of more lethal problems. We must check the results of using drones to assassinate people. Imitating those who believe ruthless killing of civilians as a strategy is not acceptable. We must reclaim our status as the beacon on top of a hill for the rest of the world to emulate. Our government must think of the consequences of using these machines. We cannot live behind ever increasing walls with ever increasing heights. As the leading democracy in the world we must incessantly demonstrate our values. Our actions must not bring us hate and isolation; it must bring us respect and appreciation.

After all, the shielded horse did not protect the Byzantine Empire against the invasion of the Ottomans.

A letter to Dr. Kaukab Siddique

(An abridged vesion, prepared by the editor, was published in The Philadelphia Inquirer on Monday, November 1, 2010, under the title "Denying truth about Palestinians and Israelis")

Dr. Siddique,
Assalamu Alaikum,

Yesterday, Friday October 22, 2010, I read the Inquirer article “Lincoln professor stands by anti-Israel talk.” I was not surprised by the reaction to your exercise of free speech which is guaranteed to us citizens by the Constitution. But it seems to me that the extreme right of our fellow citizens is adamant in denying the truth about the abuse of the Palestinians and the Palestinian lands by the Israelis. Not only that but they also wish to deny us as Muslim Americans and as Arab Americans our rights as citizens of this great country of ours. You see them daily in different forms on television and you read them in the newspapers vehemently attacking our faith.

Look no further, the above quoted title, let alone the content, of the above quoted article shows the bias, against Muslims and Palestinians, of Mr. Roebuck, the Inquirer staff writer, and his editor. If he or his editor wanted to be fair he could have chosen any of the following titles: “Lincoln professor [explains the Palestinian / Israeli relationship].” “ … [exposes the Israeli abuse of the Palestinians and their land].” “ … [talks about the Palestinian suffering by the Israeli military occupation.” “The extreme right winger chides a Lincoln professor for telling the truth about the Israeli policy and practice against the Palestinians.” And so on and so forth.

We must continue to yield our voices to the truth, because it is the right thing to do. That what attracted us to America and that what will keep us as proud Muslims and proud Americans.

The least I could do is to let you know that I admire your courage, and I pray for your safety and your sanity.

Respectfully,
Mahmoud S Audi
draudiphd@yahoo.com

Obama’s vision raises hopes in Mideast talks

(This post is a revised and reduced version of the next post. The title is the making of the editor of the Delco Daily Times. This version is published in the said newspaper on Wednesday 22, 2010)

By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians had been orchestrated by the internal politics of the United States and Israel, and by denying leverage for the Palestinians. But the current round of talks may be different because of President Obama’s vision, and because the issues for a settlement have already been discussed and the different views have already been tabulated. Now is the time to start to compromise.

However, the fate of the current negotiations might have already been written, and failure has already been stacked on top of previous failures. Nevertheless, there is hope that some agreement will have been produced by the time the talks are concluded. The genuine resolve of President Obama would have been the prime mover to get results.

Because it’s believed that the security of the United States will be vastly improved by settling the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, he started to work on the issue immediately after he became president. If he were a typical president, he would have left tackling the thorny problems of the Middle East to the last few months of his administration, but because of his deep convection of the seriousness of the problem, he pushed the parties to start the negotiations as soon as he could, and continued, although we are in the shadow of the campaigns for the mid-term elections. The momentum is on his side, because he has already tackled successfully a number of thorny issues; and adding one more does not look to be far to achieve.

Obama knows how frustrated and skeptical the Arab and Muslim worlds are, and how deep their conviction that the United State does in the Middle East what Israel wants it to do, disregarding the genuine security needs of the United States and the safety of its people. To start repairing that image he travelled and lectured in Ankara, Turkey, and in Egypt, at the Al Azhar University, a thousand years old university, in Cairo, and promised the Arab and the Muslim worlds that he would help solve the vexing problems of the Middle East by pushing the two parties to work and never to give up.

One of the basic and most difficult issues on the table is the issue of the Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora. Their main concentration, though, is in Gaza and the West Bank, in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon, where most of them have lived in refugee camps, which have become shanty towns, sustained by the United Nations rations and other needs. There are many Palestinians in Europe, Canada, and the United States. They are citizens of these Western countries and they have enjoyed their rights as equal citizens with the citizenry of these countries.
The Palestinians want to go to their homes, businesses, orchards, and farms. But Israel has vehemently refused to let them back, because of the fear that they potentially would become athe majority in Israel.

Here is where an ingenious solution must be found. Many of the Palestinian leadership in Gaza and in the West Bank, including Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, are from these refugees who want to go home; so they understand the plight of their countrymen.

Jordan had given the Palestinians who crossed the river Jordan in 1948 coded citizenship, but the refugees who crossed the river in 1967 do not have that privilege. In Lebanon, the Palestinian Christians were given Lebanese citizenships, some Muslim Palestinian refugees in Lebanon bought citizenships, some were asked to change their religion or the sect of religion they had belonged to, to get citizenship.

In Syria the Palestinians have been given all civil right including working in the government, but no political rights.

In Iraq, the Palestinians had been given some help to stand up on their feet and to start working, but they did not have any political rights.

Many Palestinians would like to go to their homes at any material cost, others who are educated in the manners of Western Civilization and have become enchanted with the concepts and applications of freedom and democracy would refuse to accept anything less than full participation in a democratic state.

Still, I believe a large number of Palestinians would accept generous reparations and stay permanently where they are now. So the right of return and other options could also be included in a fair-enough formula.

So in practice not all Palestinians will return permanently, and the return of the reduced number of Palestinians would not risk the Jewish Israel if that is what the Israelis want.

The other issues include the Jewish settlement in the Palestinian land, the mutual security and the borders of the two states, and the fate of Jerusalem. These issues are not as difficult as the issue of the right of return of the Palestinians, and on the negotiation table, there are lists of would be fair solutions.
Finally, Hamas should be part of the peace process. This organization had won the American and European monitored 2006 election in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah lost, and unlike Al Gore in 2000 who ceded the results of the presidential election to George W. Bush, it wanted to annul the victory of Hamas.

There is not much difference between Fatah and Hamas in their objectives. And calling Hamas a terrorist organization is merely a political label to justify punishment.

Hamas must be in the mix for the peace process to have a chance to succeed. And for the Palestinian State to fulfill its obligations toward the desired peace treaty, it must be democratic in a Western content.

The Palestinian / Israeli negotiations of September 2010: The Obama Factor

By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the past had been orchestrated by the internal politics of the United States and Israel, and by the lack of leverage to support the Palestinians. But the current round of talks, between the two parties may be different because of, what I call, the Obama Factor, and because the issues to be discussed have already been discussed and the different views are already known and tabulated. Therefore the time now is ripe to get into a serious compromising stage.
However, the fate of the current negotiations might have already been written, and failure has already been stacked on top of the other failures. But I could discern that there is a sliver of hope that some issues will have been agreed upon by the time this round of talks is concluded. This will have been accomplished mainly because of the genuine determination of President Obama.
Any success of the current round of talks would be attributed to the President of the United States. It is believed that the security of the United States will be vastly improved by settling the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. If Obama were a typical President of the United States, he would have left tackling the thorny problems of the Middle East to the last few months of his administration. But he is different, and without his deep convection of the seriousness of the problem, we would not have the negotiations starting now, in the shadow of the campaigns for the mid-term elections.
Besides the security issue of the United States, Obama had promised and he would try hard to deliver what he promised. It is a matter of being truthful, which is a rare commodity with politicians. He promised while campaigning that he would tackle tough issues if he were elected. He is the President, and he has already tackled successfully a number of thorny issues facing our country.
Obama knows how frustrated and skeptical the Arab and Muslim worlds are, and how deep their conviction that the United State does in the Middle East what Israel wants it to do, regardless of the genuine security needs of the United States. So when Obama lectured in Ankara, Turkey, and when he lectured in Egypt, at the Azhar University, a thousand years old university, in Cairo, he gave a word of honor to the Arab and the Muslim worlds and he promised that as President of the United States, he would help solve the vexing problems of the Middle East.
So if the parties to the negotiations agreed about something substantial, Obama would have pushed the parties to act and pushed them again not to give up, because he has given the world around them and beyond them a promise that he would do, what he will have done, to put a strong footing to a well founded edifice of ever lasting peace in the Middle East.
One of the basic and most difficult issues on the table for compromise is the issue of the refugees: the problem of the Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora. These Palestinians are everywhere in the world. But their main concentration is in Gaza and the West Bank, and in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon, where most of them lived in refugee camps, which have become shanty towns, sustained by the United Nations rations and other needs. There are many Palestinians in Europe, Canada, and the United States. They are citizens of these Western countries and they enjoy their rights as equal citizens with the citizenry of these countries.
The Palestinians want to go to their homes, businesses, orchards, and farms. Israel says no way, because they would potentially become a majority in Israel. What would the negotiators do? Many of the Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank, including Mahmoud Abbas, are from that crop of refugees, so they understand the plight of their countrymen. Jordan gave coded citizenship to the Palestinians who crossed the river Jordan in 1948 and shortly afterwards, but the refugees who crossed the river in 1967 do not have the citizenship privileges.
In Lebanon, the Palestinian Christians were given Lebanese citizenships, some Muslim Palestinian refugees in Lebanon bought citizenships, some were asked to change their religion or the sect of religion they had belonged to. In Syria the Palestinians were given all civil right including working in the government, but no political rights were given to them. In Iraq, the Palestinians had been given some help to stand up on their feet and start working, but they did not have any political rights. Many Palestinians would like to go to their places at any material cost, others who are educated in the manners of Western Civilization and have become enchanted with the concepts and applications of freedom and democracy would refuse to accept anything less than full participation in a democratic state.
Still, I believe that a large number of Palestinians would accept generous reparations and stay permanently where they are now. So the right of return and other options could also be included in an agreed upon formula. Israel has to agree to the human rights concept of the issue. But in practice the return of the reduced number of Palestinians would not risk the Jewish State if that is what the Israelis want.
The problem of Jewish settlers in the Palestinian land which has been occupied since 1967 should be the least prickly of the thorny problems. Minor swaps of equal quality lands to accommodate some of the settlers who would provide additional security to Israel must be acceptable to both sides. But usurping Palestinian land by extremist Jewish squatters or modern day Jewish cowboys, should not be tolerated. Historic Palestine has never been and should never become the Wild, Wild West of America.
In my opinion, peace should be the best tool for the security of every party to the conflict, specially the minority party and the weakest of the parties. But if those among the Israelis who believe that force provides peace and security, they must be convinced that perpetual wars have not and will bring neither security nor peace. Peace should be based on solid foundations, which would make the two parties work together for their mutual security.
Peace based on fair claims is the best way for the security of Israel, unfair and unjust peace will take us back and not forward. Israel must invest a lot to earn the love of the Palestinians, and Palestinians should learn to stop hating the Israelis. Instead, they should learn and practice to love their neighbors.
Security through loving and wishing your neighbors well might be too slow in coming. So during the initial implementation of the terms of a peace treaty, International forces including Americans might be used as long as they are needed to observe the implementation and progress of the process.
Also, the fate of Jerusalem should be easy to settle. East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank that was occupied in 1967 along with other parts of the city, so it is a Palestinian city and the Palestinians Should have the right to make it the capital of their State. However, if the Israelis insist on keeping Jerusalem united, then both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be allowed to claim it as the capital of their States, and they should work out the details of the operations of two governments of one city, albeit a holy city to the three great monolithic world religions.
Finally, Hamas should be part of the peace process. Hamas won the American and European monitored 2006 election in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah lost, but not like us here (I am thinking of Al Gore in 2000), Fatah wanted to annul the surprise victory of Hamas. My hunch is that Hamas would still win an election if we conduct a monitored election now in the West Bank and in Gaza.
There is not much difference between Fatah and Hamas in their objectives. And calling Hamas a terrorist organization although the militants of Hamas have never attacked us is merely political.
Hamas must be in the mix for the peace process to have a chance to succeed. Our President or his Secretary of State must make an announcement inviting Hamas to be part of the peace process in any agreed upon manner. The Palestinians to implement a meaningful peace treaty must vow to be fully democratic. Who governs depends on the ballot boxes not on inheritance of one sort or another.

Capitalism, Socialism, Health Care, and Patriotism

By

Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

Contrary to what some may write or say, there is no conflict between capitalism and socialism. But some television and radio talk show hosts, and some newspapers columnists, continue to frighten descent but ill informed Americans, by the ghoul of socialism. The examples are abundant; socialism and capitalism have worked together in America, in Europe, and throughout the world, for many decades. Grant you, the terminology need elucidation.
Socialism is an economic system where the production and distribution of wealth is owned by the community—in a democratic system of government the elected representatives constitute the community. In this context, community, democratic government, and elected government are interchangeable.
Next, the economic system where the dictatorial government owns the production and distribution of wealth is communism. In a communist country a powerful dictator or political party imposes its will on the people it governs.
In the context of the health care industry, the word “wealth” in the previous paragraphs could be replaced by the word “health.” In the United States, most of the healthcare management entities are owned by corporations. Medicare and Medicate, although they are run by the government, the corporations manage the delivery of the services, for a monthly premium. Corporations may remain reasonable, and continue to operate profitably; they may fail to deliver the services, and the people get hurt; or they may become greedy and corrupted with fraud, and fail miserably. A democratic government comes to the aid of the people when a corporation fails. It regulates the operations of the failed corporations, and it subsidizes services if they are essential to the health of the people and the health of the country. This might become a social program.
But the socialism that still frightens people goes back to the Marxist theory (socialism leads to communism) of the nineteenth century; armed with this theory, Linen and his Bolshevik cohorts forcefully toppled the government and usurped power in Russia, in 1917; and the almost immediate spread of communism in countries around Russia, in Asia and in what had become Eastern Europe frightened people all over the world. That fear is still lingering in the minds of some.
The countries aligned themselves in one of two camps: the communist camp led by the Soviet Union and the capitalist camp led by the United States. Those alliances did not calm the people. Instead, the fear was exacerbated during the thirties, the forties, and the fifties of the last century. There were serious discussions, besides fear mongering in Western Europe and in the United States.
The discussions in the United States turned into condemnations. They generated a lot noise and fury and many individuals and groups were labeled un-American and persecuted. In the United States the fear came mostly from the inside rather than from the Red menace in the outside. And McCarthyism (after Sen. Joseph McCarthy) is to blame. The constitution which guaranteed our freedoms and liberties and fair trials was effectively shelved.
Now we live in a different world: the experiment of communism had failed. And the Marxist theory was proven wrong, when the communist Soviet Union fell crumbling. Capitalism survived, and the corporations won: the production and distribution of wealth are in their hands. And in the health care industry, the health care of the people is in their hands.
Unfortunately, corporations (driven by profit motives) of the health care industry have failed. The community (the elected government) must intervene to protect the interests of the people. The health care reform proposal advanced by President Obama, developed for that purpose, would regulate the health care industry and provide assistance to those who may need it. It is not another social program; because health care corporations would remain in charge of managing the system. They would still sell health care insurance to the public. The Obama proposal is not an invention: Democratic governments (communities) of the West have always subsidized necessary programs (including health care) for the well being of their people.
Congress and the president have worked for more than a year to get a fix for system. They produced two bills. It is important to note that the Republicans in the two Houses did not vote for either of the bills, not a single soul did. The casual observer would notice that they have been obstructionists. Their leadership does not want to support every Obama initiative. They want him to fail—an un-patriotic motive—and they think they can do it by defeating his initiatives, and by saying “No” to his agenda.
When the president urged them to participate, they made unreasonable demands, such as scraping the year-long work of Congress, and start all over again—a delaying tactic. To me and to other casual observers, they seem that they cannot accept the fact that they are the minority in both houses of Congress.
They have been working hard to defeat the Obama health care proposal. The health insurance corporations have recently intensified their efforts, and millions of dollars have been spent on advertising. The battle is raging, and the winner is not yet known. An amazing thing to observe is the Republicans are united in their attempts to defeat the proposal. But the Democrats are not united for passing it.
After a number of attempts, the president realized that the Republicans are not serious about working with him. So he recently started campaigning and organizing to pass the bill. They have supporters too, and they have intensified their campaign, too. They have supporters with deep pockets like the Republicans. They are advertising heavily in targeted districts. As I see it, both the Republicans and the Democrats are working not necessarily for the health care proposal or against it, but for what would happen in the 2010 and 2012 elections, and how either party can influence the outcome by what they do now. Unfortunately, this is American politics.
The health care reform bill may not help me. It is more likely that my health insurance premiums would increase. But my advocacy for a health care bill has not been for my personal benefit. It is for helping poor Americans find health care when they need one. It is patriotic to help others who need help to remain healthy. A healthy nation is a prerequisite for a strong and secure nation. It is patriotic to carry arms and fight for the country, it is also patriotic to carry a big heart and help the nation remain healthy.

Dick Cheney: Preemptive Warrior

Also published as an Opinion, on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, in the Delaware County Daily Times (www.delcotimes.com) under the title ‘Peace is just a word in the dictionary’

By

Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is a master in the use and the defense of pre-emptive wars, in making new enemies out of potential friends, and in increasing the current enemies. He seems to believe that our superiority and our economic dominance would best be served by perpetual wars.
Peace is just a word in the dictionary; it must be used sparingly, because it is the refuge of the weak, so people like him think. He seems to use the preemptive war doctrine, not only in the defense of our country, but also in defending himself in the political and personal arenas. Such application of the later aspect of the doctrine is evident in his ongoing attacks against President Barack Obama and his administration.
There is no doubt in my mind that he despises the President partly because his way of leading this great country is different from his. But his continued attack, which includes diminution of the president, is a preemptive war against Obama and the Democrats.
The attacks are vicious and frequent; his wife and his daughter are part of his offensive. Also his abrasive pronouncements are the feed which the imbecile hosts of a number of radio and television talk shows consume. They get the cue and run with it. They parrot what he says and, using their imagination, they stretch and spin it in many different permutations.
The former Vice President is doing what has not been done before: a former vice president attacks a sitting president. It is important to state he is not doing it because he is bitter that his political party lost two major elections—the 2006 midterm election and the 2008 Presidential election.
He is not doing it because Obama and his administration are ending the war on Iraq or because they will be closing the war in Afghanistan soon or because they are closing the infamous torture prison at Guantanamo Bay or because they are processing the trials of the Guantanamo prisoners in civilian courts upholding our values, which are the pride of our uniqueness, and denying the enemy one of its propaganda tools.
If we say that the former vice president has been attacking the president out of bitterness for the loss of his party, then we can infer that politicians are loyal to their political parties, but we know from many examples they are not loyal to their parties. If a politician had belonged to a party that did not give him what he wanted, he would switch to another party, or he would create his own party. Exhibit 1: Sen. Lieberman of Connecticut. Exhibit 2: Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Exhibit 3: Sen. Strom Thurman of South Carolina. Exhibit 4: Former President Ronald Reagan of California. Exhibit 5: a large group of southern Senators switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party when the wind of change had come to the South.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, when the elections were done, some media personalities and politicians were adamant about investigating the alleged illegal war on Iraq, the uncompetitive awarding of contracts, the torture of detainees at the Guantanamo Prison.
No one doubts, if we are attacked we will respond in kind regardless how big or how small the attack, we will win without the suspension of International Law and the disabling of our moral values and legal procedures.
The noise demanding the appointment of commissions to investigate the allegations was getting louder and louder. Cheney knew where the winds were blowing, so he started his preemptive war against Obama and his administration.
The media loved it. They covered the attacks and got busy reporting, analyzing, and the progressive politicians denounced his pronouncements and his press releases. They did not have the extra time or space to handle the pursuance of investigating the allegations and his role in the Presidency of George W. Bush.
The media normally give priority to new happenings. Thus, in these days you do not hear the voices calling for the investigation of the abuses of power by Cheney during the Bush administration.
So far the former vice president has won the preemptive war against President Obama and his administration. The problems facing the president and his party are overwhelming. The Democratic congress and the Republicans have not been helpful.
Practically, it is wise to let the forgone forgo and focus on the issues of today and tomorrow. History will treat the Cheney matter better.