LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
February 21, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Acts of Love

Fearful GOP May Hope for a Brokered Convention

Santorum Staffer Links Obama, Islam Via 'Slip'

Ideological Hypocrites

Bill Moyers: Attack Ads Inside and Out

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Acts of Love
Ideological Hypocrites
The Lowdown on Fracking

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Déjà Pooh

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
PAPERS ON WAR

PAPERS ON WAR

By Daniel Ellsberg

The Sense of Music

The Sense of Music

By Stephen Brown

more items

 
Reports

Bush Favors Bankers Over Soldiers

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Sep 29, 2008

By Robert Fisk

Editor’s note: This column was originally published in The Independent on Saturday.

It was a weird week to be in the United States. On Tuesday, secretary of the treasury Henry Paulson told us that “this is all about the American taxpayer – that’s all we care about.” But when I flipped the page on my morning paper, I came across the latest gloomy statistic which Americans should care more about. “As of Wednesday evening, 4,162 U.S. service members and 11 Defence Department civilians had been identified as having died in the Iraq war.” By grotesque mischance, $700bn – the cost of George Bush’s Wall Street rescue cash – is about the same figure as the same President has squandered on his preposterous war in Iraq, the war we have now apparently “won” thanks to the “surge” – for which, read “escalation” – in Baghdad. The fact that the fall in casualties coincides with the near-completion of the Shia ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muslims is not part of the story.

Indeed, a strange narrative is now being built into the daily history of America. First we won the war in Afghanistan by overthrowing the evil, terrorist-protecting misogynist Islamist crazies called the Taliban, setting up a democratic government under the exotically dressed Hamid Karzai. Then we rushed off to Iraq and overthrew the evil, terrorist-protecting, nuclear-weaponised, secular Baathist crazies under Saddam, setting up a democratic government under the pro-Iranian Shia Nouri al-Maliki. Mission accomplished. Then, after 250,000 Iraqi deaths – or half a million or a million, who cares? – we rushed back to Kabul and Kandahar to win the war all over again in Afghanistan. The conflict now embraces our old chums in Pakistan, the Saudi-financed, American-financed Interservices Intelligence Agency whose Taliban friends – now attacked by our brave troops inside Pakistani sovereign territory – again control half of Afghanistan.

We are, in fact, now fighting a war in what I call Irakistan. It’s hopeless; it’s a mess; it’s shameful; it’s unethical and it’s unwinnable and no wonder the Wall Street meltdown was greeted with such relief by Messrs Obama and McCain. They couldn’t suspend their campaigns to discuss the greatest military crisis in America’s history since Vietnam – but for Wall Street, no problem. The American taxpayer – “that’s all we care about”. Mercifully for the presidential candidates, they don’t have to debate the hell-disaster of Iraq any more, nor US-Israeli relations, nor Exxon or Chevron or BP-Mobil or Shell. George Bush’s titanic if mythical battle between good and evil has transmogrified into the conflict between good taxpayers and evil bankers. Phew! No entanglement in the lives and deaths of the people of the Middle East. Until the elections – barring another 9/11 – they are yesterday’s men and women.

But truth lurks in the strangest of airports. I’m chewing my way though a plate of spiced but heavy-boned chicken wings – final proof of why chickens can’t fly – at John Wayne airport in Orange County (take a trip down the escalator and you can actually see a larger-than-life statue of the “Duke”), and up on the screen behind the bar pops Obama himself. The word “Change” flashes on the logo and the guy on my left shakes his head. “I got a brother who’s just come back from Afghanistan,” he says. “He’s been fighting there but says there’s no infrastructure so there can be no victory. There’s nothing to build on. We’re not wanted.” At California’s San Jose University, a guy comes up and asks me to sign my new book for him. “Write ‘To Sergeant ‘D’,” he says with a sigh. “That’s what they call me. Two tours in Iraq, just heading out to Afghanistan.” And he rolls his eyes and I wish him safe home afterwards.

Advertisement

Of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict no longer gets a look into the debate. McCain’s visit to the Middle East and Obama’s visit to the Middle East – in which they outdid each other in fawning to the Israeli lobby (Obama’s own contribution surely earning him membership of the Knesset if not entry to the White House) – are safely in the past. Without any discussion, Israeli and U.S. officials held a three-day security-technology forum in Washington this month which coincided with an equally undebated decision by the dying Bush administration to give a further $330m in three separate arms deals for Israel, including 28,000 M72A7 66mm light anti-armour weapons and 1,000 GBU-9 small diameter bombs from Boeing. Twenty-five Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets are likely to be approved before the election. The Israeli-American talks were described as “the most senior bilateral high-technology dialogue ever between the two allies”. Nothing to write home about, of course.

Almost equally unreported in major U.S. papers – save by the good old Washington Report – was a potential scandal in good old Los Angeles to which Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recently returned after a $225,000 junket to Israel with three council members and other city officials (along with families, kids, etc). The purpose? To launch new agreements for security at Los Angeles international airport. Council members waffled away on cellphones and walked out of the chamber when protesters claimed that the council was negotiating with a foreign power before seeking bids from American security services. One of the protesters asked if the idea of handing LAX’s security to the Israelis was such a good idea when Israeli firms were operating security at Boston Logan and Newark on 9/11 when a rather sinister bunch of Arabs passed through en route to their international crimes against humanity.

But who cares? 9/11? Come again? What’s that got to do with the American taxpayer?


Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By omop, October 1, 2008 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Hopefully for educational purposes and additional attempts in learning from one’s mistakes sometime within the next three to five years a series of papers and conclusions of more import than “winning the war in Iraq” or elsewhere for that matter will be one titled ‘WHO LOST AMERICA?”.

Somewhat similar to the past"s queries about “who lost china?” and other geographic locales.

One would have to venture that atop the list of “who” would be GWB; assorted neocon-chickenhawks; promoters of the plan titled, “A Clea Break. A New strategy for Securing the Realm’ [or how to please and protect Israel by attempting to democratize the entire Middle East through cakewalks] the bankers on Wall Street and Sir Alan Greenspan the ex Federal Reserve Chairman and last but by no means least the servile US Congress

Report this

By mill, October 1, 2008 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

i believe that the “surge” has only delayed the civil war that will still happen when we leave.

anybody who thinks the surge worked should go to Iraq, rent a car - you can do that there, right? - drive around, and see how things are going.  are schools open?  hospitals functioning?  water and electricity available?  does the government function to provide services for citizens?  are refugees returning home?  what’s the unemployment rate?  can police work in neighborhoods of religious/ethnic faith other than their own?  oil revenue sharing all sorted out? 

is it possible to tell a difference between an average Iraqi’s life and an average Somali’s (where there is no functioning government)?

Report this

By ocjim, October 1, 2008 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

If it isn’t enough that Bush threw—by the time we are done paying—well over a trillion in Iraq for friends, war, and oil. Now he wants almost that much to reward his friends almost criminal behavior.

Report this

By jake3988, October 1, 2008 at 8:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

700 billion for a war that has nothing to do with 9/11.  The REAL war, Afganistan, is getting a lot worse.  Taliban is back in power in most places and the soldier death rates have risen or exceeded rates in 2002 when we were actually fighting there will full-force.

We’ve launched numerous raids on villiages in Pakistan which has killed scores of civilians and all the gov’t can say is ‘oops!’.

It’s sickening, immoral, and expensive and needs to end.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, October 1, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment

purplewolf, when the House put it to a vote, the majority seemed to agree with you.  What has not received as much media attention is that Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio has put together a team that will bring an alternative proposal (called the “No BAILOUTS Act”) to the floor for vote.  This is a proposal that pays less attention to rescuing those “thieves of Wall Street” and more attention to restoring fiscal security to American citizens.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/366595

That’s the good news.  The bad news is that, almost oblivious to the House, the Senate has decided to vote on the original proposal.  If we are to believe Pelosi, much of the defeat in the House can be attributed to the amount of mail that poured on to the desks of every Representative that had to cast a vote.  Since only one-third of the Senate seats are up for grabs, we need an alternative strategy.  My suggestion for recruiting Obama into this strategy is at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/10/applying-pressure.html

Report this

By purplewolf, October 1, 2008 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

Instead of giving all this money to the thieves of Wall Street if this bill goes through, it should be divided up among all those who of us who have kept this sinking ship known as America afloat, who owe on mortgages and credit cards. Then make it that this booty can only go toward mortgages and credit card debt already in existence. Perhaps in the form of some type of voucher. That way those of us who will have to pay for the mistakes of the few wealthy owners would not be saddled with not only this temporary and no doubt 1st of many bailouts to come for the rich, but they would also be able to at least eliminate some or all of their debt, for which now as it stands will be paying for it maybe 2 times over, but more likely again and again.

Report this

By mackTN, September 30, 2008 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m almost out of comments.  This election season has been so bizarre, I’ve lost sight of reality.

But I will say this.  I absolutely believe there is a direct correlation between Bush’s spending for Iraq and the state of the economy today. How can anyone spend more than they have without bringing down the house? 

I wonder if congress would have given Bush his no-strings dollars for Iraq if this crisis had happened a year ago?  I wonder if all this has been suppressed to the 11th hour so that Bush could spend on that war? 

If Obama wins, I hope there’ll be investigations into how this country was so mishandled.  Bush & his entire administration should be arrested and marched down the street to jail.

Report this

By hippy pam, September 30, 2008 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

It is getting near the end of “bullsh*ts” reign….and he is still trying to “leave his mark/legacy”...by running over here and trying this…..and running over there and trying that…..and going over there and doing something else…..HEY-“BULLSH*T-YOU ARE AS INEFFECTUAL NOW AS YOU HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG-SHUT UP AND GO LAY DOWN…...

Report this

By bilejones, September 30, 2008 at 9:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is obviously preferable to finance those who are merely robbers over those who are murderers.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, September 30, 2008 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

We all saw the reports that there was, for all intents and purposes, no logic behind Paulson arriving at his $700 billion figure.  The bottom line, apparently, was that 700,000,000,000 is what Washington means by “a lot.”  By that reasoning, someone decided to total up how much had been spent on our military adventures (which everyone knew was “a lot”);  and (as they say) VOILA!

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, September 30, 2008 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

I say that abandoning the “global war on terror”, ending the Iraq and Afghan wars, withdrawing everyone and everything (planes, ships, tanks, etc.) from overseas, and changing this country’s military policy from offensive to defensive would go a long way towards solving the financial crisis. Blood and treasure both would be saved, and the only ones who would suffer would be the political class in Washington—because they would not be able to play games with American lives and monies any longer. (And don’t kid yourself—the Demos are just as warlike as the Repubs. A plague on both their houses!)

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, September 30, 2008 at 5:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So Wall Street wants a loan (like a mortgage) from the American taxpayer (the buck stops here). So qualify each company first then give them a loan with interest and late penalties due if and only if they qualify. And if they default on their monthly payment, confiscate then sell their assets. Just like all those losing their homes now. Ain’t that how it’s done? C’mon Congress. Step up, buck up or shut the f*ck up! And by the way, the CRISIS still lives in the White House. And we all know it.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






                        Number of characters remaining: 4000

Are you a human? Retype the word you see here.

     

Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.