Discussion Forum

Join News Letter

Iraq War

Peak Oil

Climate Change

US Imperialism

Palestine

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Gujarat Pogrom

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

Contact Us

Fill out your
e-mail address
to receive our newsletter!
 

Subscribe

Unsubscribe

 

Impeach Bush: But For
A Different Reason

By B.R. Gowani

27 January, 2007
Countercurrents.org


Certain people happen to not have much to do or are goal oriented and devote all their energy toward that particular aim; thus being indifferent to other things.

President George W. Bush is a single-goal focused person. First he wanted revenge for 9/11, so he bombed the already bombed-up Afghanistan, and then it was Saddam Hussein because it was alleged, though wrongly, that he tried to kill Bush's father, former president George H. W. Bush. (1)

President Bush once said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

Now that goal has been achieved, however heavy the price (though with others' blood and money), he has busied himself in the face of severe opposition for his ultimate end, the "Final Victory."

With a normal human being, thought process, or brain compartments, are partitioned and so the energy cannot concentrate totally on any one issue. But, it is divided into taking care of various problems: taking care of the bills, waiting for a plumber, picking up a child from school, dropping another child for a dance class, fixing an appointment with a dentist, motorcar's mechanical malfunctioning, thinking about work, struggling to find time to read a book or newspaper, affordability of a stage play, and so many other things. So when that person wants to concentrate on any one subject or purpose, it becomes a bit tough because then you have to lock yourself out from other problems and responsibilities for a while. This requires plenty of extra efforts.

Whereas it is different with an emotionally disturbed person; when she/he wants to do or get something, she/he would just channel all her/his energy into that one thing, oblivious to the consequences. And if that single purpose is destructive, then all hell breaks loose. Sometimes even a little ED kid would get so strong, that she/he would pick up a heavy object and throw at you, making you wonder whether that kid is possessed!

President Bush doesn't read, he doesn't write, the only thing he does, besides playing golf, is to be vindictive: first for 9/11, then for the 1993 alleged plot to kill his dad, and now to turn his defeat in Iraq into "victory." Even before he became president, he had been of a dictatorial nature and has declared his wish to be one. He has become one and he is one hell of a dictator. President Bush has nothing else to worry about and so he is possessed by the ghost of this unachievable fantasy called "victory." He would do anything for it.

And he's not alone. There are still a few people with him. Senator John McCain from Arizona is one of them. (2)

It is not war alone that could grant victory-honest negotiations could also sometimes bring victory, though in negotiations there are chances that more than one side could win. That is the glitch. For Bush, however, it is the biggest problem of his life. How could he sit with anyone else to negotiate, especially those Iranians and Syrians, when he has come to believe himself
as Master of the Universe. It is not easy to climb down from that high pedestal. More difficult would be to share victory. (3)

President George W. Bush is beyond repair.

But he is our president; his ego prevents him from asking for our help, but we should not forsake him in his hour of victory-desperation.

In this depressing moment of his, only a woman can comfort and wean him from the destructive path he is on. That woman is not Laura Bush-she could have done that long ago.

It is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat from California), the first woman in the US to occupy that position.

But she, it seems, is meaner than Laura Bush.

Last year, before the mid-term elections when she had not yet become the house speaker, she had made her position clear: "I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table." (4)

The November 2006 mid-term elections gave a slight majority to the Democratic Party. In a way, Pelosi's refusal to impeach is a magnanimous gesture. Impeachment would give you felicity, but it wouldn't change much. It's a vengeful game which creates its own life and then turns into a never ending vicious cycle.

Look at the "war on terror." President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, many media people, and neocons (neoconservatives) started it. Now, not only does it have its own life, but it seems to have become immortal. From the ruins and deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon, and Palestine, some of the victims or relatives of the dead or wounded victims, a new batch of terrorists has risen and will keep on rising till the time we and our regional bully Israel keeps on bombing those people and thus creating generational animosities.

So instead of indulging in this game of tit for tat, it would be nice to opt for real reform whose function should be to change the corrupt and violent system which, however, she has no plan to do-because she is part and parcel of the system.

But Speaker Pelosi should reconsider her impeachment decision for the benefit of the whole world.

Also she shouldn't pursue this impeachment process to the end-the goal is not to punish Bush but divert his destructive energy towards fighting the legislative process he would be pitted against. For sure, between Iraq victory and self defense, he would opt for the latter. His sole aim would change from "defending" his country to defending himself. In November 2008, another presidential election is due. So it is a matter of only 21 months, from February 2007 to October 2008, that if he can be bogged down in the impeachment process, a great deal of death and destruction could be avoided. (Once the presidential election is over the impeachment process should be called off.)

Bush just can't get it-the world is not Texas. In Texas he used to send people to gallows and make fun of them by mimicking their mercy pleas. During the early stages of US occupation, however, he displayed some bravado. In July of 2003, he challenged those Iraqis who were fighting against the US occupation: "Bring them on." (5)

It took him a while to grasp the enormity of the world stage: he cannot make fun anymore; he himself has become a joke.

But he is angry-very angry; and that's the real danger from this "danger man." (Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez fondly calls him by that name.) On top of that, Chavez is on Bush's nerves. Almost the entire world is parroting the US 101 course mantra, ME=D, whereas Chavez (along with few others) is saying S=D. The S word has been uttered with such vigor after such a long time. (M=Market, E=Economy, D=Democracy, S=Socialism.)

With more troops and more brutality, he would probably succeed in presenting to the US people a calm Iraq, or at least, a calm Baghdad, but it would be a surreal victory as that of May 1, 2003, when from the deck of aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with a huge sign, "Mission Accomplished," in the background, he declared:

"... this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world.... You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American Armed Forces.... We thank all the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country.... With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.... In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom.... Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air.... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on ... In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban ... Yet we also have dangerous work to complete.... From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al Qaeda killers.... The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.... wherever you go, you carry a message of hope -- a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, "come out," -- and to those in darkness, "be free."" (6)

His victory mission is in full swing. Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice is in the Middle East with another attempt at Israeli-Palestinian peace process (or should one say, another peace façade), (7) and thus gaining the support of Arab countries. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is in Afghanistan. (8) Dick Cheney has threatened Iran. (9)

Currently, Speaker Pelosi is soaring high as being the first woman in that position. It was simply a matter of time before a woman was bound to win that position. It would be great only if she utilizes her power to stop the President from creating more misery.

Very few people get in power at such an historical juncture where they can-if they want to-change the course of history. Pelosi is one of them; she has a golden opportunity. Nothing, it seems, is working in favor of Bush; he is cornered. The only thing this grandma, as the media is fond of reminding us, has to do is to give him a little push. Also, it would say something:
women in politics can make a difference.


Notes

(1) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ21Ak02.html

(2) McCain was a POW (prisoner of war) in Vietnam during another one of United States' illegal wars. He is in favor of sending more troops to Iraq.

(3) The word victory is hard to define, as it is not a mathematical equation, and most of the time is an ego-satisfying term for the person or group in control of the situation. Did the United States win the Vietnam War? One can say yes only when the term victory is redefined. The US failed to subdue the North Vietnamese, but succeeded in pushing that nation back into the stone-age.

(4) http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html

To understand what is impeachment and how it is initiated and conducted, please see
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

(5) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4173.htm

(6) http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html


(7) Last June, while in Tel Aviv, Dr. Rice introduced the term "New Middle East." See the map of "New Middle East." It shows Israel as losing some of its territory! The reality is that Israel will be giving back 22% of the Palestine, out of the 100% it seized in 1948, back to the Palestinians. The map also shows four non-Middle eastern countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey) losing their territories.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061116&articleId=3882

While in Egypt on January 16, 2007, she avoided lecturing Hosny Mubarak about democracy as she had done on her previous visit. In 2005, speaking at the American University she said: "We are all concerned for the future of Egypt's reforms when peaceful supporters of democracy - men and women - are not free from violence. The day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees - and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary
justice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/world/
middleeast/16egypt.html?ref=world

(8) With Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai by his side, Gates declared "that there are more attacks coming across the border, that there are al-Qaeda networks operating on the Pakistani side of the border, and this is something we clearly will have to pursue with the Pakistani government."
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/16/gates-karzai.html

Pakistan made Gates happy by offering 25 heads when army helicopter gunships bombed a site in NWFP (North West Frontier Province).
http://dawn.com/2007/01/17/top1.htm

When a Pakistani newspaper called "Dawn" asked a US State Department official to comment, the reply was: "The government of Pakistan is working to prevent terrorist safe havens for attacks in Afghanistan or Pakistan." "We commend Pakistan's continued efforts to fight terrorists in the region and on its own soil."
http://dawn.com/2007/01/17/top6.htm

So when Pakistan kills its own people (everyone, it seems, is a terrorist now), the Master feels happy.

(9) "Iran is fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq. We do not want them doing what they can to destabilise the situation inside Iraq."
http://countercurrents.org/iran-sengupta150107.htm


B.R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@gmail.com



Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights

 

Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top

 

 

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web