January 22, 2008
by Robert Fantina

That obnoxious sound one hears when tuning in the news in the last several days is not static; it is President Bush's saber rattling overtime during his Mideast visit to promote peace. Oxymoron, anyone?

Among the startling statements that the world has been subjected to from the U.S. president in the last seven years, it might be difficult to find one more astonishing than one he uttered while in the United Arab Emirates. Said Mr. Bush: "Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror."

It is not unlikely that Mr. Bush believes that the rest of the world holds facts with the same utter disdain as he. However, that is not necessarily the case, and known facts belie his words. One might consider some of the conditions that would make a nation 'the world's leading state sponsor of terror.'

The following are some considerations:

• Does the offending nation violently interfere in the affairs of non-aggressive countries?
• Is the government of the non-aggressive nation disrupted or even overthrown by the offending nation?
• Is the offending nation in a position, economically and militarily, to kill large numbers of the non-aggressive nation's people?
• Are thousand of the citizens of those non-aggressive countries killed by the offending nation?
• Is the offending nation in a position to manipulate the United Nations by use of veto power?
• Has the offending nation committed these and other crimes for over a century?

Based on this, it does not appear that Iran is 'the world's leading state sponsor of terror.' It appears that perhaps a different nation holds that dubious distinction. A look at Iran's recent behavior may shed more light on the situation and that country's recent activities:

• Were two of Iran's closest neighbor-states recently invaded by a single nation, which overthrew the governments of those nations and left them in continuous, deadly chaos?
• Has that same nation threatened Iran repeatedly?
• Has that nation sought and achieved U.N. sanctions against Iran?
• Is Iran legitimately fearful that it may be the next target of the offending nation's aggression?
• Does Iran have a legitimate right to defend itself against outside aggression?
• Would not that defense possibly include assisting the citizens of a neighboring nation that is trying to repel the oppression of the aggressing nation?

Mr. Bush went on to say that "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere." Based on what is known today by anyone capable of reading a paper or listening to a news report, is it not U.S. actions that 'threaten the security of nations everywhere?'

When the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report in late 2007 indicated that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program four years earlier, most of the world was relieved. Mr. Bush, however, stated that that report only confirmed his belief in the danger presented by Iran. Was it only five years ago that UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Mr. Bush's reaction to those findings was similar: all the more reason to invade.

(Article Continues Below)

And perhaps the weapons inspectors' findings did embolden Mr. Bush to invade. How easy would it be to steal Iraq's oil if there were no major weapons to help the Iraqis prevent the theft? That he underestimated their will is another topic altogether.

Mr. Bush invoked Iraq in this bizarre speech. Referring to that country, he said:  "You have made your choice for democracy and have stood firm. The terrorists and extremists cannot prevail."

It does seem that the U.S. is having trouble prevailing in Iraq, as it works to crush the people it conquered, and whose nation it now occupies. Opposition remains strong, and Mr. Bush has said again that he will be happy to keep troops there as long as 'necessary.'

Mr. Bush spoke of his 'Freedom Agenda,' his desire to plant democracy around the world, whether the world wants it or not. People who prefer to have a religious leadership will be bombed to oblivion in the name of Mr. Bush's particular brand of 'freedom.'

An Associated Press report found some irony in Mr. Bush's choice of sites to deliver this most remarkable speech: ". he was speaking about democracy in a deeply undemocratic country, the Emirates, where an elite of royal rulers makes virtually all the decisions. Large numbers of foreign resident workers have few legal or human rights, including no right to citizenship and no right to protest working conditions.

"Some human rights groups have accused the Emirates of tolerating virtual indentured servitude, where workers from poor countries like Sri Lanka are forced to work to pay off debts to employers, and have their passports seized so they can't leave."

One can imagine a foreign leader coming to the U.S. and proclaiming how wonderful freedom of speech is; or extolling the benefits of a free press; or praising a system where the candidate who wins the most votes in a presidential election actually becomes the president. Such ironies are lost on Mr. Bush as he extols the virtues of democracy in a most undemocratic country.

But this is his 'Freedom Agenda:' export U.S.-style democracy (read: corporatism) around the world, especially to nations that have natural resources coveted by wealthy Americans. If doing so takes a little blood, well, it's a small price to pay. If doing so takes a lot of blood, damages the reputation of the U.S. throughout the world and increases the danger of terrorist activities on every side, well, it's still a small price to pay in comparison to the money that will flow into the pockets of people far isolated from any of the suffering they cause.

What Mr. Bush expected to accomplish with this trip is anybody's guess. It is said that this may be his last attempt to salvage something of his disgraceful presidency. Based on just the few remarks herein noted, he may as well just give up; his legacy is assured, and asinine statements made in the Middle East are not going to change it.

If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active:

Click Here for the Free Populist Party Newsletter

Robert Fantina [send him email] is a long-time activist for peace and social justice. He has worked with the Coalition for Peace Action in New Jersey. Following the 2004 presidential election, he moved to Canada, where he now resides. Robert is the author of Desertion and the American Solder: 1776-2006.

More Articles from Robert Fantina