During his recent televised press conference,
President Bush was asked if he would call for a for a vote
in the U.N. Security Council regarding
Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. Absolutely, he vowed.
Permitting himself a faint smirk in what
was otherwise so subdued a performance cynics suggested
he'd been sedated, the president employed
a poker metaphor. The time had come, Cowboy Dubya
allowed, for everybody at the U.N. to show
their cards.
Well, it's not going to happen. As the world
knows, Junior only favors counting the votes when he wins.
What was it Justice Antonin Scalia wrote
in granting the Bush campaign's motion to stop the Florida
recount during the 2000 election? That
to permit it could "threaten irreparable harm to [Bush], and to
the country, by casting a cloud upon what
he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."
God forbid we should let a bunch of foreigners
cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the Little King's
dynastic war with Iraq.
Eighteen months ago, on Sept. 12, 2001,
the French newspaper Le Monde--the New York Times
of Paris--led with a headline announcing
"Nous Sommes Tous Americains" (We Are All Americans).
Columnist Molly Ivins, who happened to
be in France on 9/11, wrote that complete strangers were
embracing her in the street. She got patted
so much, Ivins reported, she felt like a Labrador retriever.
Four months ago, the Security Council unanimously
called upon Saddam Hussein to disarm or face
"serious consequences." This despite bellicose
speeches beforehand by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
and Vice-president Cheney mocking arms
inspections--the process which in the 1990s had destroyed
more of Saddam's forbidden weapons (which
the U.S. sold him in 1980s) than the Gulf War.
No sooner had U.N. inspectors set up shop
in Baghdad, than Junior sent a mighty army to Kuwait
and began periodic announcements that time
was running out and he was losing patience.
Hawkish TV pundits argued that hostilities
needed to commence before the weather, the WEATHER,
mind you, made war uncomfortable. Next
they rationalized that no matter how misguided a scheme
conquering Iraq had been to begin with--this
is roughly Gen. Wesley Clark's position--American forces
could not withdraw without a terrible loss
of credibility. In schoolyard terms, Junior couldn't risk being
laughed at. More recently, experts have
taken to discounting a pre-emptive strike by Iraq because
Saddam has no offensive capacity. Do they
even listen to themselves?
Thus presented with a FAIT ACCOMPLI (pardon
my French), and evidently not wishing to be
mistaken for the Texas legislature or the
Democratic Party, the Security Council declined to play its
assigned role in the charade. So last week
we saw the ludicrous spectacle of the President of the
United States flying to the Azores to meet
join British, Spanish and Portuguese leaders for a
photo op dramatizing their resolve.
And why the Azores, remote islands 900 miles
off Portugal? Because no European leader wishes to
appear on TV entering the servants door
at the White House, while Bush's presence in London or
Madrid would have sparked massive anti-war
demonstrations on a scale never witnessed.
Meanwhile, fools busy pouring Bordeaux wine
into gutters and re-naming French fries--will
"Freedom ticklers" be next?--had best start
boycotting Canadian bacon and picketing Taco Bells,
because Bush couldn't persuade even our
closest neighbors. Polls show that majorities in Ireland,
for godsake, consider Junior a greater
threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein.
They are not anti-American. They are anti-Bush.
Sublime in his arrogance, Monday night Bush
repeated the Big Lie that's seemingly persuaded
45 percent of Americans that Saddam Hussein
was "personally involved" in the 9/11 terror attacks.
Even so, scant majorities support "preventive
war" against a nation that has never attacked the United
States--a "Pearl Harbor" strategy for which,
as Michael Lind of the New America Foundation
provocatively points out, "Japanese war
criminals were hanged by the U.S. after World War II."
And so it begins, the great utopian game
of "Risk" propounded by "neo-conser-vative" zealots who
envision nothing short of global domination.
The outcome of the war against Iraq is not in doubt.
In the short term, Americans can be counted
upon to rally behind the troops.
Few have grasped that the blueprint calls
for subduing Iran next, then Syria. Already, many democratic
Allies have refused their imagined roles,
as have the truly dangerous North Koreans. The wisdom of
alienating Russia and China escapes non-utopian
conservatives, as does licensing "preventive war."
Already, strategists argue that occupying
Iraq will require a massive military buildup.
In the longer term, the utopianists may
have misjudged the American people as well. Mostly, Americans
wish to be left alone; they have no heart
for endless wars of empire. But will they awaken in time?
And will the votes be counted?