-Caveat Lector- War as a Con Game (Radio Transcript)
Hello and welcome to Review of the News Online. I’m William Norman Grigg, Senior Editor for The New American magazine an affiliated publication of The John Birch Society. In early October, Representative Ron Paul of Texas offered Congress an opportunity to carry out its constitutional duty regarding issues of war and peace. During a hearing in the House International Relations committee, writes Rep. Paul, "I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq." Not a single member of the committee voted in favor of the proposed resolution including Paul, who proposed it as a way of calling his colleagues’ bluff. "Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election if the war goes badly," observed Paul. "So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded `authorizations’ that they can back away from easily if necessary." The reaction to Paul’s proposed declaration of war dispelled the dense rhetorical fog generated by the Bush administration and its political allies: Apparently the purported threat from Iraq is not as grave as we are being told. Of the "use of force" resolution written with White House approval, Paul comments: "It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations dozens of times, yet does not mention the Constitution once…. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate." Some conservative Republicans are willing and eager to alienate the war-declaring power to President Bush. Among them is Utah Senator Robert Bennett, who has stated: "I will be voting for the resolution not because I have figured out all of the unknowables and imponderables relating to it, and not because I am absolutely sure that the presidential power will be used in the right possible way in every possible circumstance. I will be doing it because I trust George W. Bush’s instincts." Why should we trust George W. Bush’s "instincts" regarding the exercise of our government’s most formidable power that of making war? What insight and wisdom has he displayed that make him qualified to sort out what Bennett calls "the unknowables and imponderables" involved in this decision? Or do Bennett and others of his ilk subscribe to a doctrine that could be summarized thus: "When the President speaks, the thinking has been done"? Reciting what has become something of a Republican Party mantra, Bennett insists that President Bush intends to "use his power to expand and defend liberty throughout the world…. That should be the policy that we lay down and hold now for generations to come…. It resonates with the decision of the Founding Fathers when the country was created…. That is the kind of flag to which I can repair. That is the kind of flag I can follow." Bennett has it exactly wrong. None of the Founding Fathers subscribed to the idea that our nation should embark on grand international crusades to "expand and defend liberty throughout the world." In his Farewell Address, George Washington the wisest and noblest of the Founders urged America to preserve our "detached and distant situation [which] invites and enables us to pursue a different course" from quarreling kingdoms abroad. By preserving our enlightened neutrality and refraining from intervention in the affairs of other nations, Washington predicted, we would earn the favor of honorable people and the respectful fear of potential adversaries. Most importantly, by maintaining our neutrality we would preserve the liberty to "choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel." This precious independence is directly threatened by the Bush administration’s insistence that we make war on Iraq in order to bolster the credibility of the United Nations. While the Bush administration is trying to wrap its war plans in the Stars and Stripes, the flag we would follow into Baghdad would be the sickly pale blue banner of the United Nations. Consider the following statements from the President’s October 7th speech: "America wants the UN to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements." "America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the UN Security Council seriously." "Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep [chemical and biological] weapons, despite international sanctions, UN demands and isolation from the civilized world." "I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America’s military if it proves necessary to enforce UN Security Council demands." "The resolution [to use force against Iraq] will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something." The last statement illustrates the cynical deception being perpetrated by the Bush administration. Our nation does not, and cannot, "speak with one voice" in favor of an aggressive war, particularly one waged to enforce UN resolutions. This is why the President and his handlers insist on gilding their Iraq policy with sentimental invocations of the September 11th atrocity. This is a despicable con game, specifically a bait-and-switch. In the swindle commonly called a "con game," the key to the swindler’s success is to earn, and then betray, the confidence of his victims. Our Founding Fathers were painfully aware of the fact that every government can degenerate into an immense con game, with grave consequences for liberty and prosperity. In his 1798 Kentucky Resolution, Thomas Jefferson warned: "It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights…. [C]onfidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go.... In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." With the help of willing accomplices in Congress, George W. Bush is prying apart the few remaining links in those constitutional chains. Nothing is more dangerous than an unchained government. There is cause for optimism, however. In a September 10th San Francisco Chronicle column, David R. Henderson, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, described a recent encounter with White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez. In his remarks to the young naval officers, Gonzalez "tried to justify not just war without a congressional declaration, but also the government’s decision to imprison U.S. citizens … without charging them with a crime or allowing them a lawyer," recalled Henderson. Gonzalez also insisted that by acquiescing to the president in a series of undeclared wars Congress has effectively given up its war-declaring powers. As Henderson observes, "Congress’ failure to defend its powers, and the courts’ unwillingness to enforce Congress’ powers, don’t change the words and meaning of the Constitution. `We can get away with it’ is hardly a strong argument, whether used by an aspiring Supreme Court justice [like Gonzalez] or by his boss, who took a sacred oath to defend the Constitution." Henderson’s students agreed with this conclusion: Of thirteen questions posed to Gonzalez, "12 were hardball questions that challenged Gonzalez’s expansive claims for presidential power," Henderson reports. Following the speech, Gonzalez tried to reassure Henderson regarding the purity of the president’s motives: "Condi Rice and others and I are looking out for how the president will play in history. We don’t want him to look like some monster who destroyed our freedom. Trust us." Henderson’s reply was that of a true patriot: "The Constitution is not based on trust, but on distrust." This vital principle was understood by the capable young military officers in Henderson’s class, who are willing to risk their lives to defend the Constitution that George W. Bush and his minions neither understand nor respect. -end- ------------------- The New American Magazine America's Conservative Magazine http://www.thenewamerican.com/ "That Freedom Shall Not Perish" ------------------------ -iNFoWaRZ The U.N. Wants Your Children, Bush Pulls Another Clinton. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/10-21-2002/insider/vo18no21_unesco.htm Rejoining UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization) was proposed by the Clinton State Department in 1993. But President Clinton did not have the political capital to pull it off. Thus it was left to a "conservative" Republican to do the job. Hey Bubba. Yeah, Billy Joe Bob? Is Busha canservative? Is yor Daddi a Martian, Billy Joe Bob? Naw...what's Bush than? He's a NitedNashuns Cominist Bootlicka, Billie Joe Bob. Yeee-Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw!!!!!! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
